A good lunar telescope.

[tico]

Hello, Since the Moon is almost the only thing I can observe from my backyard, I am looking for information on a good lunar telescope, not too big or heavy (I have back pain) but with enough resolution to see lunar details... Thank you very much in advance. Tico

[bosun21]

A Maksutov. The size would depend on what you class as heavy.

[dweller25]

Hello @tico

What mount do you have and what is your budget ?

BUT…. your ED80 is a good lunar scope 👍

Edited May 18 by dweller25

[Earl]

A Mak or SCT  will be ideal, they are very compact.

[Tiny Clanger]

As Bosun21 said, a mak. The advantages are that they are physically short, while having a long focal length, which makes them both lighter and easier to securely mount.

I have a skywatcher skymax127, not wildly expensive and it weighs just a shade over 3kg.  I can use up to a 6mm eyepiece with it giving somewhere around 250x magnification before eye floaters are too intrusive. What mount and tripod you choose to put it on will be the greater part of the overall weight, mine works well on an AZ5 (comes in at under 3kg) and a sturdy photo tripod , making the whole setup under 8kg.

[Chandra]

As dwellwe25 has commented, it would be interesting to know the budget... I think we should assume that any optical design is going to offer you excellent views of the Moon, it is by far the most grateful celestial object, due to its proximity and endless amount of details. 

That said, I agree with our fellows who point out the Mak as a priority option. A 127mm is light enough to be mounted on an AZ-GTi or an AZ GoTo (or its successor, a Star Discovery), all of which are motorized mounts that are very portable and easy to set up. More aperture would require heavier (and more expensive) supports. 

I do not rule out refractors, with so many lovers of the most classic optical design, I am surprised that no one has mentioned them. Achromatic doublets between 80 and 102mm are light enough to be mounted without problems on any of the aforementioned mounts. We would be talking about focal lengths of between 800mm and 1000mm to reach reasonable cromatic aberration ratios, so they are not tubes as "compact" as the Mak, but acclimatization is faster and will avoid condensation problems on the meniscus lens. 

We can reduce torque and increase stability if we shorten the FL, but then if we don't want more CA we have to go to ED doublets, which, honestly, offer incredible high-contrast views on the Moon (on my opinion, the best views). The aforementioned mounts can support these tubes without any problem up to F/7... but, yes, the budget already skyrockets... The same happens if we look for more aperture with a Schmidt-Cassegrain, it is a very versatile but expensive design. 

The Newton 114mm or 130mm (with parabolic primary) would not be a bad option either and would be light enough to be supported by the motorized mounts that I have mentioned. But they also require a little more acclimatization than refractors and, of course, decent collimation to obtain the best figure. I have always talked about a motorized mount to facilitate objects tracking, thinking especially on planetary observation, but all the OTAs could also work perfectly with manual azimuth mounts such like AZ5 or Twilight I.

[tico]

Thank you for all your opinions.. I currently have a Nexstar SE mount, the 6"/8" model, my budget around €500/600. I had an ED80/600 that gave good lunar views, but the resolution was 80mm, and I want higher resolution on the one hand, and on the other hand it didn't work with my mount, it touched the base of the mount too soon,...yes, I'm really looking for a shorter telescope that can withstand my mount...few vibrations..., but with good resolution, that can achieve high magnifications, tell you that I have a small backyard where I could leave the telescope without problems..., Is there a big difference between a 5" and a 6"...? Thanks again Tico

[bosun21]

4 hours ago, tico said:

Is there a big difference between a 5" and a 6"...? Thanks again Tico

Having owned both the 127 and 150 Maks and now the owner of a 180 I would say that the difference between the 127 and 150 is difficult to notice visually. The weight difference between the 127 and 150 is substantial however and they wouldn't work well on lightweight mounts like the GTi etc. The 150 would require an EQ5 at a minimum or something like a Skytee II if you want alt/az. Both are great lunar telescopes.

[dweller25]

On 19/05/2024 at 12:09, tico said:

Thank you for all your opinions.. I currently have a Nexstar SE mount, the 6"/8" model, my budget around €500/600. I had an ED80/600 that gave good lunar views, but the resolution was 80mm, and I want higher resolution on the one hand, and on the other hand it didn't work with my mount, it touched the base of the mount too soon,...yes, I'm really looking for a shorter telescope that can withstand my mount...few vibrations..., but with good resolution, that can achieve high magnifications, tell you that I have a small backyard where I could leave the telescope without problems..., Is there a big difference between a 5" and a 6"...? Thanks again Tico

I would suggest

Skywatcher 127 Mak

Celestron C5 SCT *this would be my choice

Celestron C6 SCT

Edited May 20 by dweller25

[VNA]

Hello, nothing replace aperture, so wanting to see details but what size?
A 6" SCT  may be a compromise, after all it is always a question of compromise from so many factors including budget.
Good luck

[davidc135]

It may not be suitable for you but there is an ad on Astronomy Buy & Sell site for a 6'' f8 Newt going free in Hastings. Ad # is 214283 placed on 1st May. It has high quality optics by David Hinds. Interesting amateur tube and mount construction that could be replaced. I don't know if it's still available.

Maybe a bit long and more awkward than some designs but a contender for the title of best planetary scope for the aperture.

David

Edited May 20 by davidc135

[LondonNeil]

That scope was advertised here by mrzuiko. I've said I want it for a local scout pack. Although I've yet to manage to fetch it so if I'm beaten too it it's my own fault. 

Hoping to be able to fetch it next week but life keeps getting in the way!

[Chandra]

With the budget of 500/600 euros I think that 6" Mak or SC are ruled out, unless you get a used one or a great offer from a seller.

If you are looking for aperture, with that budget you can get a compact 150mm Classic Cassegrain (CC), a mount prepared for an 8" Nexstar SE should hold it well... Now, I have no experience with that optical design, but I have found conflicting opinions about it. For a while I was tempted by one, but a review by Ed Thing, in which I did not appreciate excessive enthusiasm, finally made me opt for the "safe" option of a 6" Newton. https://youtu.be/Stlw04tsrc8?si=z5VaIg3cGUdxAmH5

So, what is left among the unused compact tubes within your budget? As some members have commented, the Mak 127mm, an OTA that is perfectly tested and that will undoubtedly offer you extraordinary views of the Moon.

Edited May 22 by Chandra

[Carbon Brush]

I am in the 'get a MAK' camp given your description.
Have you considered a Bresser 127 MAK?
I have not used this particaular scope. But have been impressed by the quality of their refractors when placed against similar Skywatcher product.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html

[Tiny Clanger]

10 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

I am in the 'get a MAK' camp given your description.
Have you considered a Bresser 127 MAK?
I have not used this particaular scope. But have been impressed by the quality of their refractors when placed against similar Skywatcher product.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html

Yep, if I was buying my first mak now (instead of during lockdown when the things were rare as rocking horse manure) I'd prefer the Bresser 127. The only reservation I have with the Bresser refractors is the non-standard finder shoe (and comically bad supplied optical finder) but it looks as if their mak comes with an RDF, which is all you need to point at the Moon anyway.

[F15Rules]

For sheer value for money, an older 80-100mm achromat is great value, has virtually no CA, and although long, is very light. Images from a good one such as Vixen are superb. I paid just £150 plus shipping for this one.. (1980s 80mm F15)..

However, you have said you prefer a shorter scope so I'd say go for a used Russian 150mm Maksutov, usually between F10 and F15.

I've owned 3, all 150mm ( and the Russian Maks are full aperture, not stopped down like some of the chinese ones), and all optically superb.

A good, well cooled 150mm Mak can deliver wonderful lunar, planetary and double star images, very similar to a good 5" apo refractor..

This one was made by Lomo, marketed under the "Ylena" brand name, and cost me £450 complete with EQ4 class mount, steel tripod and various accessories about 13 years ago. The other two, made by Intes Micro, were the MK66 and MK67..a bit more common than the Lomo, and both very good optically..

I don't know where you are based, but a wanted advertisement could be worth a try..these fine scopes are no longer made, but are worth trying to track down..and can be bought used for at or close to your stated budget.

If I recall correctly, the MK66 and 67 have the same optics, but the 66 has a rack and pinion focuser and the 67 has a helical focuser ( or maybe its the other way around!)..

Dave

[Oscar23]

I'll echo the small Mak recommendation, though I'll also go against the grain and say a mount that can better accommodate your 80ED might be a smarter choice. The moon is huge and bright so you don't need aperture to get good views, just good glass (and/or mirrors). If the views through your 80ED don't satisfy, then you'd probably be looking at a diagonal and/or eyepiece upgrade as the fix - assuming there isn't something wrong with the telescope itself, of course!

If you do decide to get a Mak, I want to stress that you really don't need much for good lunar viewing. The planetary cap my Dob came with stops it all the way down to 2", and I use it just about every time, especially if it's full or close to full - it's eye-searingly bright to me otherwise. So I'd say even a 4" or 90mm would be perfectly fine, and further satisfy the short and light requirement, though I think most in that class only have a 1.25" focuser. Speaking of which, don't get one with an integrated diagonal; seems cool at first, but being restricted to whatever's in the scope puts a limit on how good it can be.

[woldsman]

+1 for a Skymax 127. Lots around preowned. There are two downsides though. The first is dew so you need a dew shield.

The second is lack of versatility -  Maks are  great for the Moon & planets. For other types of target, not so easy to use.

 

[Oscar23]

Just did a check and FLO has the Skymax 90 for for a very good price at £159... in my opinion, that'd be about the perfect scope for the job, in the sense that it would be great specifically for Lunar (and by extension Solar) viewing, with some planetary and (bright) star-splitting on the side, at the expense of not being able to do much else. The bigger aperture on the 127 is great to have on paper, but, if you don't see yourself ever getting value out of it anyways...

Still partial to a mount change, though, unless your plan is more to recoup your investment in the 80ED, than to necessarily get a better scope; both Skymaxes are obviously a lot cheaper. I suppose you could feed some of that back into getting a better tripod/mount for the new scope, if you don't have a really rock-solid one yet.

[davidc135]

Assuming the same optical quality I don't see the Skymax 90 showing greater lunar detail than an ED 80 refractor and so I'd say the bigger the better, within the limits of budget, mount capability and seeing.

David

[Knighty2112]

If you plan to use your Celestron 6/8 SE mount remember that this mount was built for Celestron 6/8 SE OTA originally with the dovetail on the left hand side of the scope when attaching. This can be a problem on some OTA’s as where the dovetail is fixed on certain other brand of scopes that any finderscopes on the OTA can be in a awkward/weird position when fitted to this mount, along with any focuser etc. If the scope is lite enough you can get round this in some cases with using an L shaped bracket to get any other scopes fixed better so that finderscope/focuser are in a better position, so good for smaller Maks etc.

I use the original C8 SCT on my 8 SE goto mount, but have it fitted with some wooden tube rings so I can position the scope a little further forward when fixing in the mount. I also use my AA Starwave Ascent 80ED on the mount too for Lunar viewing, but need to swivel this OTA around in its tube rings to get the finder and focuser the right way around on the mount when using on the SE mount.

 

Edited May 23 by Knighty2112

[Carbon Brush]

Echoing @F15Rules comments on Russian MAKs.

I have been very impressed by the views through all the Intes scopes I have used. Mechanical build quality is in a different league to the Chinese stuff.
The only 'problem' with them is that they are heavy compared to the Chinese stuff, so more demanding of the mount.
I suppose it comes down to....Do you want views or be able to use a cheap mount?

My (20Kg) MN78 Mak newt is permanently installed.
My (lightweight) 12Kg TAL200K is not well used.

[jjohnson3803]

I had a SW 90mm Mak, but sold it since I wanted wider FOVs for open clusters and such from time to time.  Now (early this morning actually) I mainly use a 72ED refractor.  It's not very heavy, a bit over 2kg, and short with the dew shield retracted for travel since it's an f6.  

But maybe I'll try a Mak again one of these days.

Edited Wednesday at 17:47 by jjohnson3803