Which one?

[Ptolemy]

Hello all..............a typical enthusiastic but inexperienced beginner question about scope choice/difference.

My objective is to buy a good quality all round scope that will be good for planets and some DSO. After a few months reading and looking the choice has been narrowed down to either a Skymax 127 Synscan AZgoto (5 inch Mak, 1500mm, f/11.8) or a Celestron Nexstar 5SE (5 inch Schmidt, 1250mm, f/10).

Any advice would be appreciated, specifically on the following please ..........

1. Given that both scopes have similar specs, does anyone know of any material performance difference?

2. Is the Celestron worth the extra £200? Is it just a "better" scope, and if so why? Are Schmidts inherently better than Maks? ............or is it something else?

3. The Celestron has XLT optical coatings - does this make a material difference or is it just a bit of marketing?

4. I do understand that the longer focal lengths and focal ratios at 10 & 11 will be better for planetary viewing than DSO but given no one scope does everything I'm led to believe that either the SkyW or the Cel is a good all rounder and will do some deep space ........or should that be medium space?! Am I fooling myself?

5. I'm also led to believe that the careful selection of eyepieces and a focal reducer will go some way to improving the DSO performance. Am I correct in this belief or just being naive?! I hope at some point to supplement this purchase with a little APO refractor but that's way down the line, for now is one of these scopes OK for some, albeit limited, DSO viewing?

Many thanks in advance for your help and advice, look forward to hearing from you

[Brunty12345]

Just type in google both names of the scopes with review on the end of it if no1 can tell you on here, but someone might do soon

[Ptolemy]

Thanks Brunty - have done lots of reading of reveiws etc to get down to this final choice, the questions I'm left with are the gaps in my research so far - what I'm after now is any first hand advice from experienced astronomers that will help me make my choice

[Brunty12345]

Ohh ok that's kool I would give advice if I could but I'm a newb haha someone should let you know very soon

[pvaz]

You seam to have done a good research and you questions would require someone with a lot of experience in maks.

In my very modest experience with maks and refractors, I think none is as good "all rounder" as a refletor. A reflector gives you the most aperture for your money, thus surpassing the other 2 designs when it comes to DSOs. Of course you can get a mak with the same aperture for 3/4 times the money and have it perform well on DSOs, better on planets and have more compact OTA to move around.

On question 2: I haven't used any of this. But both brands are owned by the same company and Skywatcher seams to give the best value for your money.

On question 5: I think the refractor would be a poor complement for DSOs. Unless you want to image DSOs instead of observing them or spend a small fortune on a refractor with a decent aperture. Good widefield EPs always improve the experience, no matter what scope you use. On fast scopes f/6 and lower the EP quality is more noticeable.

You need to realize half of you cash will go for the electronics. You need to be sure you want goto, or else it will be a waste of money. I have nothing against goto, just mean to say "they cost money" and you should only buy one if you really want one.

Maybe some one will come with more knowledge to help you decide.

EDIT: If I really wanted a mak and was choosing between the 2, based on what I have read about these brands, I would buy the skywatcher and use the difference to help me get a decent set of EPs such as the skywatcher nirvanas.

[John]

Optically these are slightly different designs which result in a similar sized package. I've owned both and, IMHO, the Celestron C5 would is slightly more versatile than the Skywatcher 127 Maksutov.

A great accessory for the Celestron is the F/6.3 focal reducer which, when fitted, reduces the effective focal length of the scope from 1250mm to 787mm and therefore your low power, wide field eyepieces will give lower power and a wider field of view - very useful for DSO's. I don't believe such a device exisits for the Maksutov.

If you buy a scope of either of these designs do budget extra for a dew sheild as they are more or less essential in our climate.

John

[Helen]

I'd add that the software that comes with the celestron is more user-friendly than the skywatcher, and so the scope is easier to set up and use.

Helen

[Ptolemy]

Thanks all for your replies - really useful to hear your views and experience.

I do appreciate the goto stuff increases the cost but have decided it's useful to get me going - otherwise I could spend all evening following aircraft lights

This is my first scope and I'm trying to get something that will be a good all rounder (as far as that's possible!) - have been scared off refractors & reflectors by the chromatic abberation and collimation stuff

Thanks v much for the info on focal reducer - really useful, and also the reminder about the dew shield.

[Whippy]

This is my first scope and I'm trying to get something that will be a good all rounder (as far as that's possible!) - have been scared off refractors & reflectors by the chromatic abberation and collimation stuff

SCT's and certain Maks still need collimation but it's nothing to be scared of, honestly! And you only get chromatic abberation with achromat refractors on bright objects. Even then, it's only the fast achromats (the Skywatcher startravel range for example) that suffer from it to be really noticeable. There is no 'perfect' telescope, they're all compromises in one way or another.

If you've got your heart set on one of these scopes, then I'd for go for the Skymax. I don't honestly think that the SCT is worth the extra £200. You could get a reducer for the SCT but time you add on the cost of it, plus spacers and whatnot you're looking at an extra £100 or so secondhand.

Tony..

[class27]

Hi, we have the SW 127 on a Celestron goto mount and find it to be very good. Our best viewing night was a few weeks ago when we had a brilliantly clear sky ( we're in Cornwall with very little light pollution) and just couldn't believe the number of objects we spotted. The one that stuck with me was the Ring Nebula! Through a 16mm plossl it was brilliant! We saw most of the usual things, some being clearer and brighter than others, but all in all we can't fault the 127.

Hope this helps.

Ron

[Ptolemy]

Ron, thanks for the thumbs up for the 127, sounds like you had a great night, am really looking forward to getting out there. Light pollution here (Peak District) not too bad so should be OK to see some wonderful things.

Tony, thanks for the reassurance on the collimation stuff, just looks a bit scary to a newcomer Also didn't realise that the chromatic ab problems were limited, so that's reassuring too.

"If you've got your heart set on one of these scopes...." sounds like you might have an alternative in mind?

PS. How do you do that Quote box thing:icon_scratch:

[Wurzil]

Hi Ptolemy

Im also very new to this and can sympathise with the "WHICH TELESCOPE" period which youre obviously going through. It took me about 2 months of sleepless nights to decide (and the skymax was on my shortlist too). There are some good threads on here to help you decide in the beginners section - also speak to the guy at first light optics he is very very helpful.

just a comment on the chromatic abberation on refractors - I notice a purple ring around jupiter and the moon with my OMNI XLT 120 (120mm refractor) that I plumped for - but when I stick the outer lens cap on it disappears, so its not a huge problem.

From my experience after getting my first scope, you will very quickly start to wonder what those galaxies etc will look like with a big reflector (dob) - so whatever your first telescope you will probably "compliment it" with a bigger one for those DSOs within a year or so (if you catch the bug and save the pennies - which i am doing now ).

Dont be afraid to forgo the GOTO - half the fun is finding things. I have found lots of pretty objects in the three outings with my "manual" telescope and feel like im learning the sky as well as getting to see stuff.

I hope you love your new scope, whatever it is - I know you will

Warren

[Whippy]

"If you've got your heart set on one of these scopes...." sounds like you might have an alternative in mind?

PS. How do you do that Quote box thing:icon_scratch:

IMO, the real strong point of Maks and SCT's are the compactness of them. A 5" SCT/Mak in comparison to a 5" newtonian or refractor are much shorter which makes them ideal as 'grab & go' scopes or a scope you could take on holiday with you.

The downside is that you may initially find the views a little disappointing especially on deep sky objects. If you want the best 'bang for the buck', then newtonians will give you that. The downside here is that they are much bulkier, moreso when they're mounted on equatorial mounts.

PS. If you look at the bottom of each post, you'll find a Blue 'QUOTE' button, if you want to quote that post (or part of it) click it and off you go .

Tony..

[Ptolemy]

Hello and thanks all for your helpful replies.

Have a couple of busy weeks coming up but plan to visit a specialist shop or two - got a couple within about 50 miles or so - and get some hands on feel for the scopes. Will then decide and buy.

I'll post what I go for and let you know how I get on - hopefully that will help others too.

Thanks again for your time.