MAKs

[nicnac]

im thinking of MAKs again, choice of three, 127, 150 PRO or 180 PRO.

Whats best value in your opinions?

pro and cons? (each)

[SteveP]

Nicnac

I have the older style (gold coloured) Pro 180. It's a high magnification (>2000mm FL), relatively 'slow' scope (f12). It has reasonable resolution but I have to admit it's beaten by my smaller refractor. Consequently, it's not a very good all-rounder. I tend to use it for planetary and lunar observation and imaging and looking for the brighter DSO's. On the plus side, it's not too heavy, focuses easily and doesn't require much TLC.

If you're considering a Mak, I'd ask yourself what you'd be using it for? For some things it's very good, for others less so.

Steve

[dweller25]

Aperture is king so the 180mm would be the best choice, cool down takes a long time if you keep it indoors, outside storage is best. The 180 is an F/15 - 2700mm focal length so ideally suited to high magnification Lunar and planetary observation/imaging. It has a fairly small central obstruction so contrast is a little better than an SCT. Collimation in my 180 Pro is spot on and has remained that way for two months - very impressive - I had to collimate my SCT every time I used it. A 180 will easily sit on a CG5 type mount.

HTH

[TheThing]

I've got two small Maks - an 80mm SW and a 102mm Celestron. I find them absolutly superb! Lunar and planetary views thru them are the best I've had with any scope (Newts and refractors) before. For DS stuff, they do tend to get knocked by people, but they are still pretty good on these subjects too.

You're never going to get a single scope that is good at everything, but the Mak's pluses outweigh the minuses, IMHO.

[Heavens Above]

Depends on what mount you have. I recently saw the 180 for just £500 for the OTA. This is a bit of a bargain. Great for planets and down to about 80x mag, but no good for widefield.

[A McEwan]

Given the choice of the three listed, the 180 is going to give the brightest images but will take the longest to cool down. The 127 will take less time to cool and give the least bright images, but is lightweight and very portable. The 150 is somewhere in between I guess! Personally, I'd get the 180 - but that's only because I already have the 127 and love it!

The size gap between the 127 and 150 is quite small, but between the 180 and the 150 is quite large, so will give a bigger 'performance boost' over the others, comparatively speaking.

Any of them will reward with great views (once cooled)

[Jarvo]

I've got a Mak! A Skywatcher 150mm Pro and I love it!

Pro's:

• Great for Planets, Lunar, Brighter Globular / Open Clusters and Brighter Planetary Nebulae;
  
• Don't need to worry so much about really expensive eyepieces due to their "slow" nature. (High end Plossls are perfect - unless you wear glasses);
  
• Good for Planetary imaging;
  
• Some good offers on at the moment as these models have been out for a while;
  
• The 150 mm is reasonably portable;
  
• Aesthetically pleasing (lesser priority but if its in the house on show your scope shouldn't be an eyesore);
  
• Large 8 x 50 Finderscope (Really useful for star hopping);
  

Con's:

• Forget really faint objects
  
• Limited for imaging Deep Sky Objects
  
• Can take up to an hour to cool down (Though 30 mins is usually enough)
  

I like Planets and Clusters which is why I plumped for the Mak.

First Light Optics have got £100 off the 150mm model at the moment:

Pro Series

Hope this helps and good luck in your search.

Jarvo

[great_bear]

Love my 180 - but wouldn't want it to be my only scope.

[TheThing]

This from Kay Optical looks like a bit of a bargin if you're in the market.

Not associated with them, just a satisfied customer.

[great_bear]

Actually at deal-time that was about the going rate for a new 180+HEQ5Pro (and slightly more than FLO). Nonetheless, since deal-time is over I agree it's still a bargain - even if not brand-new.