Can a SW120ED show anything an 8" newt can't?

[Flame Nebula]

Hi

Again, title says it all. 

I'm interested in experiences where anyone has compared the same object at same time in a 8" (preferably F5) and a skywatcher 120ED

I'm planning to get the 200pds (for visual and AP) and have been considering a used 120ed, to fill in the gap between a 127mm mak and 80ed, both of which it should beat by a wide margin, from what I've read. 

But, I'm not going to do this, if my 200pds shows everything, and more. 

Additional info: the contest here, is not on dso, which I can't see the 120 beat 200mm, but on specifically on planets and double stars. But feel free to add others. 🙂

Thanks 

Mark 

 

[vlaiv]

It can show some CA for discerning observer -  which 200mm newtonian can't

 

[Mr Spock]

The 200mm will show a lot more planetary detail. The 120mm will have nice star shapes. 0.97" v 0.58" on doubles is no contest.

[Owmuchonomy]

Planets and double stars, how about a 150mm MAK or an SCT.  You need more focal length.  Of my scopes, the planet choice is my 9.25" SCT.   For doubles, I'm fortunate enough to have an ED150.

[Elp]

Other than maybe perhaps being a bit sharper what will you gain with the 120ed over the 127 mak?

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, Elp said:

Other than maybe perhaps being a bit sharper what will you gain with the 120ed over the 127 mak?

Field of view and ability to use 2" eyepieces to the field stop?

(not really doubles and planets territory - but hey, who does not like to take a look at MW in the summer from time to time? ).

[Elp]

If they want FOV it's already covered by the 80mm. If they want FL and aperture it's covered by the mak 127.

The 200pds will already cover the 120, so why the need for the 120 also?

[Flame Nebula]

50 minutes ago, Owmuchonomy said:

Planets and double stars, how about a 150mm MAK or an SCT.  You need more focal length.  Of my scopes, the planet choice is my 9.25" SCT.   For doubles, I'm fortunate enough to have an ED150.

Hi, I think I can get more focal length with a 2x Barlow, giving 1900 mm (if a 0.95x CC present) or even 3x giving 2850mm. As long as quality of image does not degrade much with the extra glass. I've been put off getting an sct for visual use. Too many stories of mushy views in this country. I might consider a used C9.25 or C11 in the future for improving my planetary AP. 

[Flame Nebula]

30 minutes ago, Elp said:

Other than maybe perhaps being a bit sharper what will you gain with the 120ed over the 127 mak?

Hi Elp, 

Based on the odd comment here and there, the 127mm mak is no match for the 120ED. If anyone has done a side by side on these I'd be interested. 

[Elp]

Refractor usually wins all the time for sharpness, a newt/dob would also perform well due to mirrors only and no glass.

[Flame Nebula]

2 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Elp, 

Based on the odd comment here and there, the 127mm mak is no match for the 120ED. If anyone has done a side by side on these I'd be interested. 

I can add, that I feel like my 80ed is on a par or close to my 127mm mak. Both of them start to lose sharpness around 140x, which shows how good the 80 ed performs on an inch for inch basis. Maybe I need to check the collimation on the mak. But assuming OK, if my 80ed can hold its own against it, the 120ed would clearly beat it.