Would I be disappointed with a 127mm Mak?

[Orange Smartie]

This is a bit of a complicated one, but I might be given up to about £400 to spend on a telescope. I can probably supplement that slightly, but I think my absolute top budget would be around £550. I've been thinking about a compact go-to system to complement my existing equipment (10" and 6" dobs) and I was thinking about possibly getting a Skywatcher 102 or 127 Mak with go-to function for doubles, planets and lunar.

So:

102 vs 127?

Az-Go2 vs AZ Gti (I understand the latter has Freedom Find, but the former doesn't - is this a problem?)?

Would I be massively disappointed by the Mak after using a 10" dob? Before anyone suggests the second hand route, that is not an option - the equipment must be purchased new from a proper dealer!

Edited January 25 by Orange Smartie

[ollypenrice]

Given the ease with which the moon and planets can be found, I can't see much benefit from the GoTo. On the doubles, yes, it might be a help. I'm sure you'd be disappointed on DSOs, however.

Olly

Edited January 25 by ollypenrice
typo

[M40]

How about looking at it this way, the skymax127, although giving you a similar field of view to the dobs, you now have goto.

The st102, also gives you goto but opens the door, if you add at a later date something like the zwo 462mm, the option of eeva.

So I suppose it's what do you see yourself doing in the future.

[bosun21]

You will benefit from having go to with the 127 otherwise the planets will quickly move out of the FOV. I found that the 127 is a good scope for the planets and lunar observing as well as planetary nebulae. I used one for an entire year and never ran out of targets to view.

[Zermelo]

I got my 127 Skymax after my 150mm Newt, and have used it on two different goto mounts.

I thought I would use the Mak less frequently, having double the focal length and corresponding smaller TFOV. In practice, it's been the other way around. The Skymax is around F/11.8, so it's not quite as specialist as others that are F15ish. The number of targets that it can't fit in are greatly outnumbered by those that it can. And, of course, it's particularly strong on planets and doubles. I've split several 0.9" pairs and seen the Cassini division and GRS.

You may be aware that the Skymax, unlike some other 127s, loses a bit of light by not having an oversized mirror, so it's effectively around 119mm in terms of grasp. Though I've not yet seen anything in my Newt that I've failed to see in the Mak.

It may be relevant to note that I'm in a Bortle4 area. As to what difference you'll notice compared with the 10" Dob - well, I've done the opposite and just got my 10", but no clear skies to use it yet, so I can't comment. Obviously I'm hoping to see more of the conditions are right. In UK skies, I'm expecting there will be clear nights where conditions are the limiting factor in any case.

On Freedom Find, I've found it useful to have, in particular when I'm observing in the early hours when nights are shorter. I have some neighbours close by who sleep with windows open, so I push the scope close (guided by SkySafari) and use goto for the last bit - it's much quieter.  At other times I just use goto, because it's a bit more accurate like that.

[Orange Smartie]

Thanks all for taking the time to reply.

Re DSOs - I appreciate that the Mak will suffer greatly in terms of light grasp. I guess I'm seeing it as something to complement my current setups. 

Re goto - I think I was thinking as much of tracking ability as of finding stuff. I'm fairly good at the navigation, although of course, with a smaller FOV it will be trickier.

I hadn't appreciated that the aperture is not a true 127mm....does this mean that the difference between 102 and 127 is not particularly marked? 102 is more comfortably close to my budget, if I'm honest.

 

[Louis D]

My biggest gripe with my 127 Mak is cool down (warm up) time relative to a Newtonian mirror of the same thermal mass.  To me at least, it seems like that front corrector impacts image quality much more than a cooling (warming) mirror does.  As such, if I just pop out for a quick look at a planet, the Mak will show all sorts of color fringing around it absent in the 6" Newt.  Thus, the Mak is not a good choice for quick grab and go observing.  I've found a similar problem with my 90mm triplet APO.  For the first 30 minutes of cool down (warm up), it appears to have pinched optics.  This does not happen in my 72ED.

If you give the Mak time to acclimate, it will provide excellent high power images.  The Synta version (Celestron, Orion USA, etc.) also holds collimation exceptionally well.  Being compact and holding collimation well, it also makes for a good travel scope to take on vacation or camping.

BTW, I mention warm up because during the summer, my equipment has to warm up from my A/C cooled house temp to the often quite hot outdoor temp.

[Paz]

I think a 5" mak would be disappointing compared to those dobs, in terms of the increase in the workload of owning and having to manage more scopes oitstripping the increase in observing opportunities.

I wonder if an equatorial platform for the dobs would be an option. That would mean tracking ability without compromising on aperture, retaining the simplicity of alt/az for manually finding things, and retaining a smaller and easier to manage slection of scopes.

I realise advising anyone to have less scopes rather than more is a bit seditious - sorry everybody!

...but if have money to spend on a scope and nothing to lose, I would say a 102mm refractor would be more complimentary to the dobs in that it would give you a broader span of observing options to choose from  overall.

[Orange Smartie]

It really will be "use it or lose it", so as long as I can stay reasonably close to the budget, I'd be a bit daft not to take advantage of it.

If I went down the 102 refractor route, would that be a slower f ratio to give the best views (I'd have to go achromat, as anything else would be prohibitively expensive)? And what sort of mount is advised? 

[globular]

It's pushing the budget a bit, but I'd strongly consider the Sky-Watcher Evostar 80ED DS-Pro Outfit for £539 from FLO.

And then separately, so not constrained to go brand new, get a used AZ5 or similar to mount it.

I'm not a refractor expert, so those that are please chime in if I'm wrong, but I suspect the views though this will be much better than the non-ED glass 102, even with it smaller aperture.

I nice quality refractor will give you something quite different to your dobs. And there are many threads on here of those who love their small aperture refractors in our generally poor UK skies.  Good conditions - get the dob(s) out.  Not so good - pull out the grab and go refractor.

Edited January 25 by globular

[Orange Smartie]

I'm sure you're right about the 80ED, but that will require upwards of about £300 from Smartie household funds and as such, will not get past the accountant.

[Zermelo]

3 hours ago, Orange Smartie said:

102 vs 127?

There's some discussion on page 2 of this recent thread.

And more discussion here, and further links.

[Davidv]

Whether you are disappointed with a 5" mak if you are used to 6" and 10" Newtonians may depend on what you are observing. i.e. for me, the moon has always looked best in my 8.75" Dobsonian rather than smaller SCTs or achromatic refractors. (Never looked through an apo). I don't know what sort of diagonal a 5" mak comes with but if it's the common type which flips the image from left to right that will certainly disorientate you when viewing the moon if you are used to Newtonians. Also bear in mind that if you get a 102mm achro refractor you will need a big heavy mount, especially if it's f11. As bad as lugging round a 10" Dob.

Good luck in choosing something.

[Gonariu]

A 127 mm Maksutov could be the complement to a 10" Dobsonian as it is much more easily transportable. If the one on the Skywatcher is in fact a 119 mm one could see if the Maksutov on the Bresser 127/1900 has the same problem which however for the longer focal length (1900 mm compared to 1500 mm) it should be less good for deep-sky.
Regarding achromatic refractors, I have an old Vixen 102/1000 (the 102-M) which holds up very well to an EQ5. As a grab and go telescope I use an old 80/400 achromatic (the Konus Vista-80) on a photographic tripod which can actually be put out and used immediately, I think other optics require at least half an hour to acclimatise.

[Jules Tohpipi]

On 25/01/2024 at 18:15, Orange Smartie said:

This is a bit of a complicated one, but I might be given up to about £400 to spend on a telescope. I can probably supplement that slightly, but I think my absolute top budget would be around £550. I've been thinking about a compact go-to system to complement my existing equipment (10" and 6" dobs) and I was thinking about possibly getting a Skywatcher 102 or 127 Mak with go-to function for doubles, planets and lunar.

So:

102 vs 127?

Az-Go2 vs AZ Gti (I understand the latter has Freedom Find, but the former doesn't - is this a problem?)?

Would I be massively disappointed by the Mak after using a 10" dob? Before anyone suggests the second hand route, that is not an option - the equipment must be purchased new from a proper dealer!

 

There's potential a few points to consider here, in terms of weighing it all up

What will you see?
The SkyWatcher 127 Mak has, as near as dammit, the same field of view and magnification (for any given eyepiece) as your 10" Dob. So, the planets will look the same size in both scopes. Obviously, the Mak will have less resolution due to its smaller mirror size. Overall, planets and lunar will be a near identical type of experience to the 10" but not quite the same resolution - but seeing conditions might constrain that sometimes anyway.

What would be the benefits?
The kit would be much lighter to carry than the 10" and stow to a much smaller size (especially if going the AZ-GTi route). You would gain Goto and Tracking. The tracking being more relevant for planets and lunar observing where you avoid nudging and instead have the target in centre-view constantly and avoid negative edge-of-field effects - both of which helps eek out more detail.  If none of these sound like major plus points vs your current 10" Dob experience then the money might be better spent on an alternative plan.

Other negative points
Set up time will be longer than manual Dobs. Not a huge hassle but for the AZ-GTi you'll need to: level the tripod, add the extension pillar, add the mount and scope then do an alignment for the Goto to work. For the AZ-GTi (not sure about the other mount you mentioned) if you're observing something you can find yourself, then the Goto alignment process is no longer required and you can just hit the 'Point and Track' button once you have the object manually centred in view - which really helps speed things up for simple object tracking.

Due to my bad back the 10" Dob rarely comes out now and the SkyWatcher Mak on AZ-GTi has been a saviour - and no I'm not disappointed when looking at Jupiter, Saturn or the Moon. If I were a younger and stronger man then, overall, I probably would not have bought the Mak/AZ-GTi just for the portability and  planet tracking benefit vs a manual Dob.

Edited January 27 by Jules Tohpipi

[Mr Spock]

The advantage of a 127 Mak v a refractor is size and weight. I have a 120mm f8.33 achro and compared to my 100mm it's a big unit. The disadvantage as always with these types of scopes is cooldown time.

If you are considering a 127 Mak, what about the Bresser? That one is f15 rather than f12, so a more traditional Mak focal length and smaller central obstruction.