Small telescope for double Star.

[tico]

Hello, I know that any telescope is valid for observing doubles, visually speaking, but in your opinions could you advise me on a model that is especially adapted to this type of observations? I'm not looking for the latest in lenses or mirrors... no, but rather some manageable telescope but in which these marvelous objects can be seen well. Thank you Tico

[DirkSteele]

Any guidance you can provide on budget would be helpful.

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

You need to specify a budget. Any telescope with good quality optics will do,  other than a short focal ratio achromat.  Some designs may be slightly better than others, at the same aperture.  And the bigger the aperture, the better.

[mikeDnight]

A 127mm Maksutov or a 102mm or 120mm ED refractor would give you a lifetime of enjoyment when it comes to viewing double stars. Smaller apertures in these designs work well too of course, so it depends on what your idea of small is. There's also something beautiful about a refractor star image that other scope designs just can't match. The Maksutov is arguably the closest to a refractor but isn't quite as good. The larger the aperture, the more vivid the colour contrast. 

[The60mmKid]

Takahashi FOA-60Q. It's the only option, really.

[mikeDnight]

I'd love to observe with my Carton 60mm alongside a 60mm Tak. I love Takahashi and I have no doubt that the Carton won't outperform the Tak, but I'd be pretty confident it wouldn't be too far behind. 

[paulastro]

In terms of aperture, I've always found that, assuming good optical quality, that the colours in stars (and other objects) are more saturated and better seen in larger apertures, irrespective of the type of telescope. 

I currently use scopes of 80mm, 130mm, 125mm and 250mm aperture,   and I dont see anything to contradict this. For sharpness, the reverse is often true,  unless the seeing is exceptionally good.

[Richard N]

My 90mm Mak is my best double star scope. 

[lunator]

Hi Tico

Any telescope can work on doubles.  If your budget is limited then try and get the best you can find for the money. 

I have used refractors, Newtonians, and Maks. All can give excellent views.

Cheers

Ian

[Mr Spock]

@tico If you could advise us of your budget, we can help. There are so many scopes to choose from it is difficult to make a recommendation without knowing more.

[tico]

400 or 500 euro.

[Mr Spock]

I'd take a look at one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html Compared to the Skymax 127 it's a true f15 Mak rather than f12. 

Very compact and doesn't need a large mount. The resolving power of 0.91" brings thousands of doubles within reach.

[tico]

Then, this Maksutov best  than one refractor? 

[bosun21]

23 minutes ago, tico said:

Then, this Maksutov best  than one refractor? 

You won’t be able to buy a quality refractor at that aperture within your budget. To get a 125mm ED doublet you would need to more than triple it. You could look at the SVbony 102 but that also exceeds it. The 127 MC would give you close to refractor performance.

Edited September 15, 2023 by bosun21

[Mandy D]

2 hours ago, tico said:

Then, this Maksutov best  than one refractor? 

If you insist on a refractor of this aperture that is within your budget, this one might just do it, but I cannot vouch for the quality of views you will get. It is 127 mm aperture, 1200 mm focal length.

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-messier-ar-127l1200-hexafoc-optical-tube-assembly.html

[Mr Spock]

127 mm isn't too bad, but 1200mm focal length is big and not what you'd call manageable.

[Mandy D]

1 minute ago, Mr Spock said:

127 mm isn't too bad, but 1200mm focal length is big and not what you'd call manageable.

But 1900 mm is manageable? OK, so it's a shorter tube, but any slight wobble and you see it when looking through the scope?

So, try this instead:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-messier-ar-127s635-optical-tube-assembly.html

OK, so it's over budget, but could be obtained second-hand nearer to the OP's budget. Or, go down a size, I mean after all, the frac fraternity say we can when comparing to an obstructed telescope:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-messier-ar-102s600-hexafoc-optical-tube-assembly.html

[Mr Spock]

5 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

But 1900 mm is manageable? OK, so it's a shorter tube, but any slight wobble and you see it when looking through the scope?

A 127 Mak will go on a small mount, a 127mm / 1200mm refractor will need an EQ5 minimum and would be happier on an HEQ5. The OP is looking for a 'manageable' scope 

[Mandy D]

6 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

A 127 Mak will go on a small mount, a 127mm / 1200mm refractor will need an EQ5 minimum and would be happier on an HEQ5. The OP is looking for a 'manageable' scope 

Oh, sorry, I must have missed where the OP said what mount this was going on. If you'd care to note, my original response offering the large(ish) long(ish) focal length refractor was prefaced by me saying "if you insist on a refractor ..." and was an attempt to show a comparison. Obviously, you think I was wrong to do this.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, Mandy D said:

Oh, sorry, I must have missed where the OP said what mount this was going on. If you'd care to note, my original response offering the large(ish) long(ish) focal length refractor was prefaced by me saying "if you insist on a refractor ..." and was an attempt to show a comparison. Obviously, you think I was wrong to do this.

Not to worry, nothing wrong with showing the comparison as it does illustrate how big refractors get. The thread title is ‘Small telescope for double stars’ though so we should try to stick with that.

What is not clear to me though is whether @tico already has a mount or if this needs to be included in the budget. Can you confirm?

Personally I prefer the stellar views through a refractor than a Mak, and although  a larger aperture Mak should split tighter doubles than a smaller frac, it’s not always the case due to seeing conditions and cooling etc. Specifically for doubles I would likely prefer either an ED apo or long focal length achro. For grab and go probably 80 to 100mm aperture.

[Mandy D]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not to worry, nothing wrong with showing the comparison as it does illustrate how big refractors get. The thread title is ‘Small telescope for double stars’ though so we should try to stick with that.

What is not clear to me though is whether @tico already has a mount or if this needs to be included in the budget. Can you confirm?

Personally I prefer the stellar views through a refractor than a Mak, and although  a larger aperture Mak should split tighter doubles than a smaller frac, it’s not always the case due to seeing conditions and cooling etc. Specifically for doubles I would likely prefer either an ED apo or long focal length achro. For grab and go probably 80 to 100mm aperture.

Yes, for splitting doubles, I agree aperture is king. I'm not as up on refractors as you are, but I have to agree that my Vixen A105M achro is very nice for stars, as is my small Evoguide 50ED, although I do love some nice diffraction spikes! If Tico's budget has to cover a mount and tripod as well, I agree the Mak is the obvious winner, otherwise the door is open for my choice of refractors as well and your smaller ones, too. My modus operandus, so far, seems to have been "go big, or go home!" I might have to change that now I'm playing with the 50ED.

Good to have an amicable argument with you.

[tico]

Well.. 

Thank you all advices!! 

I've one photo-tripod and panhead 501 Manfrotto, also one Nexstar SE Goto mount, and Yes, I'm looking small telescope. 

[Mr Spock]

27 minutes ago, tico said:

Nexstar SE Goto

Ideal for a 127 Mak 

[bosun21]

23 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

A 127 Mak will go on a small mount, a 127mm / 1200mm refractor will need an EQ5 minimum and would be happier on an HEQ5. The OP is looking for a 'manageable' scope 

It's almost unmanageable on an EQ5 and really needs an HEQ5.  I used to own one and had to fit an extension to the mount (EQ5). The extension made the vibrations worse but without it it's forever hitting the tripod legs.

[Mr Spock]

My 120 / 1000 works ok on the EQ5. Anything longer wouldn't.