views/reviews

[nicnac]

looking at Skywatcher startravel 120 as first scope, what do you guys think?

[Jamie]

Depending on what you actually want to do with the scope, tis a good first scope though.....

[nicnac]

to be used as a bit of an "all rounder" if you will. not overly fussed about terrestrial viewing though, primarily lunar, planetary and night sky viewing.

[Jamie]

The 120 should do the trick for you then, and not break the bank in the process..

[TheThing]

I've got the smaller 102 version (amongst others!) and it is an excellent scope. I have seen many great things with it, it is versatile and fairly rugged. Great scope.

The 120 would be just that little bit better!

[John]

I think the Startravel 120 is nice as well but for a 1st scope I would probably pick the longer focal length Evostar 120, or even the Celestron Omni XLT 120 which is the same scope but a bit cheaper:

Clearance / Pre-Owned - Celestron Omni XLT 120

The longer focal length produces less false colour and is less demanding on eyepieces. The scope is bulkier than the Startravel though so not as easy to "grab and go".

John

[GazOC]

I agree with John, the f8.3 version is a better all round scope esp. if you want to view planets/ the moon.

[nicnac]

need to keep the gear light and as little bulk as poss as have a good spot up a long flight of stairs so easy to shift gear required

[nicnac]

maybe i should increase my budget on a pair of bins but i want as good an image as poss on a budget of £300.

Bins would sort the "grab and go" style i like but it means i sacrifice better quality images.

got SPEC print outs of Skywatcher Evostar 120 (EQ3-2), Skywatcher Startravel 120 (AZ3) and Helios Quantum 4 bins.

i want quality images of night sky objects but i need to be able to shift on foot as and when without breaking my back.

You know, all these print outs, i feel like a kid in a sweet shop!

[RichieP]

I've had the Star Travel 102 (f5) side by side with the Evostar 102. (f10)

The Star Travel gives great widefield, low power views and is very portable but can't really be pushed much past 100x before the chromatic abberation becomes too much and the view turns to mush. The ST120 is also F5 and I can't see it being too much different.

On planets and the moon ,which demand nigher magnifications, the longer focal length Evostar was a much better performer.

If portability is really an issue, have you considered the Skymax 127? A great performer on planets and the moon, decent enough aperture and very portable.

regards

Richard

[nicnac]

thanks Richard, just had a gander at the specs for the Skymax and it looks fair, whats is it like with nebs and clusters?

[RichieP]

The Maksutov design is often thought unsuitable for DSOs due to its narrow field of view.

I find with the Mak127, that with my lowest power, widest angle 1¼" eyepiece (a 26mm Meade 5000 with a apparent fov of 60°) I get about 1° true fov - about the width of two full moons.

This is enough for viewing most DSOs. It's a bit restrictive for finding them in the first place though, so a good optical finderscope, and the confidence to use it, is a must I reckon.

Regards

Richard

[nicnac]

thanks again Richard

[Wobbly Bob]

I think the Startravel 120 is nice as well but for a 1st scope I would probably pick the longer focal length Evostar 120, or even the Celestron Omni XLT 120 which is the same scope but a bit cheaper:

Clearance / Pre-Owned - Celestron Omni XLT 120

The longer focal length produces less false colour and is less demanding on eyepieces. The scope is bulkier than the Startravel though so not as easy to "grab and go".

John

I am in agreement with John here, plus the mount is far more sturdy which IMHO goes a long way to better observing (nothing worse than a wobbly tripod )