What's the biggest scope you can put on an EQ5?

[Ags]

I am thinking of getting an EQ5, non-goto version. I haven't used goto for years and just thinking about goto triggers me. The objective is to do planetary imaging with the biggest scope that won't fall off, and deep sky imaging. For deep sky imaging I use exposures around 6-10 seconds and focal lengths up to 500mm. I have no interest in guiding as I expect it will be even more annoying than goto, and who needs guiding for 6 second subs? I would consider other mounts but they all have some flavor of goto adding hundreds to the price.

From a planetary imaging perspective, what is the biggest aperture I can load onto an EQ5? These things are sold with 8" Newts so I expect I might get away with a C9.25? Didn't Celestron even sell their C11s mounted on CG5s (which if I am not mistaken were EQ5s with a better tripod)? How about a lightweight OOUK 10" Newt?

The big scope would be used for visual too, but not on the EQ mount - I would use a Skytee instead.

[Franklin]

I personally wouldn't put anything larger than a 4" refractor, 6" newt or a 5"CAT on an EQ5. They are rated at 9kg but that's a bit ambitious imo, after all the EQ5 is a clone of the GP which is rated at 7kg. You note they put 8" newts on them and they also put 6" fracs on them. A recipe for a wobblefest!

edit. There are many people who do put 8" newts and other larger scopes on their EQ5 mounts and claim to have success and that may be so but in my experience, which is just from a "visual use" perspective, I'd stick to scopes weighing no more than 5 to 6 kg.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Franklin

[Saganite]

Some years ago I stuck an 8" Newt on an EQ5.......but not for long, I got motion sickness..

[Ags]

Question answered. Thanks!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have the Vixen Great Polaris mount, and the EQ5 is a clone, and it holds an 8" SCT quite happily. The 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newton works fine too. I wouldn't put a 6" F/8 Newtonian on it, as the extra length means it will wobble a lot more.

[Mr Spock]

I would imagine an 8" SCT would be OK. Not a C9.25 though - mine was on an EQ6!

4" refractors are a perfect match. My EQ5 takes a 120mm f8.3 but it can wobble with a slight breeze.

[Carbon Brush]

Orion Optics UK used to supply their 8" & 10" reflectors with a Synta EQ5.
I have owned both (a long time back). F4 - 8" and F4.8 - 10".
I don't recall them being unstable for visual. I managed a bit of DSLR on the 8".

However, if putting a package together today I would reduce the scope, or increase the mount.
 

[Earl]

The answer really dedpends on the strenght of the user a 10" OTA can be a big thing to deal with even if the mount can take it.

[wookie1965]

A 200p and a Meade 127 refractor. That weighed 9kgs

[bosun21]

I own two EQ5 mounts. One go to and the other with dual motors. It's ideal for my Starfield 102 and copes well with my 6" Maksutov for planetary imaging. I wouldn't put anything heavier than that on them. It holds the Mak steady and perfectly centred in a 480x480 ROI.

[Moonshed]

My Bresser EQ5 had no problems with my 8” Celestron with flip mirror, Barlow, Zwo, Telrad and JMI motor focuser, and was rock steady and good for 3 minute subs.

[Mr Spock]

A couple of snaps with a 100mm,120mm and 200mm f4 fitted. You can see the 100 is a perfect match and the 120 just a bit long. The 200 f4 is really pushing it.

 

[John]

I used to put a 150mm F/8 achromat on a Celestron CG5, which I think is the same mount as the EQ5. The CG5 did have 2 inch steel tubed tripod legs though - the same as the EQ6 tripods use. With both axis driven the mount seemed to handle the big refractor OK for visual observing. This was quite a long time ago though. I may well not think this combination as suitable today 🤔

I once bought another 150mm F/8 achromat that came on an EQ5 with an aluminium tripod !!!! (yes, once upon a time they were supplied like that as stock) This combination was practically unusable even at low magnifications. I wonder how many folks were put off these big refractors because they were supplied on inadequate mounts 🙄

[Moonshed]

20 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

...and the 120 is just a bit long. The 200 f4 is really pushing it.

Hi Micheal,

I am curious as to why you have exposed gears on your mount. I’m sure you will have a very good reason for it.

Cheers

Keith

[Mr Spock]

24 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

I am curious as to why you have exposed gears on your mount. I’m sure you will have a very good reason for it.

Only the RA comes with a cover 

[Nik271]

I use my 180 Skymax Pro on the Skywatcher EQ5 with the 1.75cm steel tripod. The scope with 1.25' diagonal, small EP and finder weighs about 8kgs. It is marginal for the mount, I need to balance it carefully and then it is steady for visual. The compact form of the tube helps. What I found often is that if the balance in RA is not just right the worm gear starts to stick in certain places and the tracking gets harder. I would not put anything heavier than that on an EQ5.

[Moonshed]

22 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Only the RA comes with a cover 

That’s disappointing, I was thinking you had a weird obsession about watching gears mesh. Hmm, that sly wink.......admit it, you broke the cover. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Moonshed

[MartianHill]

On 21/11/2023 at 12:00, Ags said:

I am thinking of getting an EQ5, non-goto version. I haven't used goto for years and just thinking about goto triggers me. The objective is to do planetary imaging with the biggest scope that won't fall off, and deep sky imaging. For deep sky imaging I use exposures around 6-10 seconds and focal lengths up to 500mm. I have no interest in guiding as I expect it will be even more annoying than goto, and who needs guiding for 6 second subs? I would consider other mounts but they all have some flavor of goto adding hundreds to the price.

From a planetary imaging perspective, what is the biggest aperture I can load onto an EQ5? These things are sold with 8" Newts so I expect I might get away with a C9.25? Didn't Celestron even sell their C11s mounted on CG5s (which if I am not mistaken were EQ5s with a better tripod)? How about a lightweight OOUK 10" Newt?

The big scope would be used for visual too, but not on the EQ mount - I would use a Skytee instead.

Why not try your existing scopes on the new EQ5 ?

Have you considered a used Vixen GP - better quality ?

But to answer your question, I suspect a C8 would be the limit for an EQ5 - I had a C9.25 and it needed an EQ6 and that was for visual, I think imaging is more demanding on the mount.

Edited November 23, 2023 by MartianHill

[Franklin]

52 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Only the RA comes with a cover 

There use to be a guy on Ebay that 3D printed a DEC cover for the EQ5 and polarscope cover.

[John]

29 minutes ago, Franklin said:

There use to be a guy on Ebay that 3D printed a DEC cover for the EQ5 and polarscope cover.

I fitted one of those DEC motor covers to a Vixen GP that I had a while back. Quite a neat addition.

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by John

[orly_andico]

EDIT: I just noticed the OP already has a C6. That would be my vote for ideal planetary scope on an EQ5.  Add (expensive) Hyperstar and you've also got a good deep sky OTA.

I had a Vixen GP and a C9.25 at one time. Not a good combo.

I think a C8 is the maximum you'd want to put. Or maybe a 127mm Mak. Neither of these options is great for DSO, however - although there are pretty aggressive reducers for the C8 from the likes of Starizona. Of course with the C8 there also is the option of Hyperstar. The C6 is another option, and that can also take Hyperstar AFAIK.

I also had experience with an 8" f/4 Newtonian. I wouldn't put that on anything less than an EQ6.

Edited November 23, 2023 by orly_andico

[Franklin]

I think if you want a big newt or cat or frac for that matter you need to get a big mount to carry it. Having nice, big optics is great but without the proper mount they're all useless. An EQ5 is a small German equatorial mount for small telescopes. I don't know why the likes of Skywatcher et al make EQ1, EQ2, EQ3mounts, the EQ5 should be called EQ1, the HEQ5 should be called EQ2, the EQ6 should be called EQ3 and the EQ8 should be called EQ4 and all those smaller mounts should be discontinued as they are invariably bought by newbies and for young beginners and I don't think their performance will give anyone the correct impression of how a telescope should be used. 

 

[orly_andico]

There's actually another aspect to this. Even if you have the big mount, it comes with correspondingly onerous setup times. Unless you can leave it set up all the time.

[Ags]

Yes, larger is not always better. I had an inkling an EQ5 would be ok for a C8, which isn't bad as they come up second-hand at reasonable prices. But if I get an EQ5 it would firstly be for my current scopes- both the 90mm refractor and the C6 would go well on it. I'm not tempted by hyperstar, but if I can get hold of Starizona Night Owl that's close enough at f4.

The other scope I do think about in the 8 (ish) inch classical cassegrain. It seems to be a bit better for visual use on the Moon and planets than a C8, but probably a bit worse photographically as it has slightly less resolution. But it is a bit heavier than a C8 - too much for an EQ5?

[orly_andico]

The 8" Cassegrain as in this one?  https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/stellalyra-8-f12-m-lrs-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

 

That does seem too much for an EQ-5.  It is almost the same weight as the Mewlon-210 (8.1 kg) and slightly longer focal ratio.   I can say from personal experience that the Mewlon-210 is under-mounted on the Takahashi 90S, which is larger than an EQ-5 (or Takahashi equivalent, EM-10 / EM-11) but smaller than the EM-200 (EQ-6 equivalent).