Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

Recommended Posts

The longer one has a longer focal length, which makes it better for planets.

The shorter one has a shorter focal length, which makes it better for deep sky objects.

In practice there doesn't seem to be much between them. Lots of people on here with both types and everyone looks at both planets and DSOs.

A definite advantage of the longer version is that cheaper eye pieces will perform better in it. Whereas the shorter/faster scope will need more expensive eye pieces to get similar views. Others will probably point out other differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Harry Hill voice~

I like the Skywatcher explorer 150P EQ3-2....

but then I like the Skywatcher explorer 150PL EQ3-2 as well...

Which one is best?

There's only one way to find out....FIGHT!!!

~ End of Harry Hill voice ~

Sorry, couldn't resist.:headbang:

Edited by legion48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I backup everything Julian said. That kind of sums it up.

I just want to add, the 1st one may be a bit better if you want to venture into astro photography later on, but any of them won't give you very good results cause the mount ain't really very good for it.

The 2nd one will let you get good views with cheaper EPs cause it's an f/8 and thats a bonus since one high quality EP costs as much, often more, then this scopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you are not rushing in too quickly as you want to get the right scope. 130mm is fine for a 1st scope and will get you by but as I said to you 150mm is the size you should go for to see detail in planets/moon.

Getting a motor drive on the RA is much better as you can webcam image very cheaply for moon and planets and at high magnification the moon/planets and double stars will not drift out of view as they will move quickly at 200x and the mount will follow them.

The 2 scope you mentioned are very similar the differences are technical rather than noticable at the eyepiece.

F5 will give wider fields at low magnification but with more distortion at field edge which many don't notice. You will need smaller eyepieces to get high magnification. This scope is more portable as it takes less space.

F8 which is slower than F5 will have way less distortion at low magn but magn will be higher and field smaller so planetary/moon will suit best. This scope is for closer in viewing.

If you want close in detail then the F8. If you want wider field for star clusters then F5. In saying this both scopes will do most things with such little difference but F5 is more compact but both scopes are portable and don't weight much anyway.

If in a year or 2 you get bored with astronomy or you don't have the time or you want a bigger scope you should keep the boxes so you can sell your kit 2nd hand and get half your money back.

JohnH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks john :headbang: i will get a motor later on like i was going to do with the 130P, and i think it will probably be a while before i get a second scope means though im fresh im new to it i have looked through a scope once but that was years ago so yanoe it was probably a crappy £30 one lol i will probably get better eyepieces and etc for the scope im getting so it gets even better to use then i wont get bored with it :D i think ill probably go for the long 1 though because i mmore interested in planets but i would still like to see star clusters and all the DSO's out there but we have time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F8 looks like the one then, if you want a wider field then it will give you can buy widefield eyepiece with a longer fl. These are more expensive but will give you a nice cluster sized field - so there is flexibility but see what you like looking at from your scope first you may just prefer planets while your bins will give you a very wide field.

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know you could get a widefirld eyepiece lol and my bins seem to have good quality I just thought I could of saw further then I can with them lol I think it's because the make isn't ote good lol :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others have covered the technical bits so I won't add anything on that, but just to say that I have a 150PL on an EQ£ - 2 mount and have been delighted with it so hopefully this will give you confidence with your impending purchase. Really excellent for a qualty into into this fascinating hobby. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you :headbang: that's 1 of the main things I needed to hear, posotive words about the scope from someone who owns 1 :D my minds made up 150PL it is. Now the only thing is... The waiting game I have to wait till like next week :) lol and john what filter would you recommend for me? :D I was thinking about the neutral density 1 but I dnt really know much about filters lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement that the 150P is "better for DSO" is misleading. The 150PL is not compromised for DSO use. The field width is plenty good enough.

The only reason to purchase a 150P in preference to a 150PL is portability.

The differences can be very noticeable at the eyepiece. Very few implementations of simple and classic eyepiece designs handle F5 well. Even Sky-Watcher's Super 10 and Super 25 don't work well at F5 and they're supplied with the scope!

Even when using highly-corrected designs, you'll still get sharper, more contrasty images with the longer focal-length telescope.

There's information on the design ratio of different eyepiece types here.

Edited by great_bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, that sounds a bit bad on the scope haha, the equipment supplied with it doesnt seem to get along with the scope haha, iv made my final choice. i must of been asking about which telescope should i get about 50 times haha im very fussy. but the 150PL is the 1 thats gonna be in my house :headbang: its a shame i dont have it now there isnt many clouds out tonight :D lol

-Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to disagree, but Skywatcher 10 and 25mm EPs do work well with a F5 scope. I have used them with good results.

True, they're not as good as other EPs, but (especially if you're just starting out and have nothing to compare them against) they are perfectly adequate with fast scopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont really know much but im just gaining information and seeing which is better out of the 2 lol what do you say is better out of the 2?? 150P or 150PL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to disagree, but Skywatcher 10 and 25mm EPs do work well with a F5 scope.

It's not up for debate. It's not about opinion. It's about optical design.

Kellners are just not designed to operate at F5. That's why people selling them usually add disclaimers. The fact you can't see it, changes nothing. Some people don't mind certain defects, and some people's eyes can accommodate aberrations like (e.g.) field curvature without them even knowing it - but it doesn't make them less measurable on a test bench.

For me, I find the (expected) edge-of-field distortion on both the Super 10 and Super 25 totally unbearable in an F5 130P SupaTrak. Put those same eyepieces in my F15 Mak 180 Pro and (scatter and glare aside) they're perfectly usable. Putting a Barlow in the 130P has much the same effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a 150PL and its given me good views of DSOs. I have a neutral denisty filter (for moon) and a UHC filter, used both to good effect. More than happy with 150PL :headbang:

Edited by robneath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much rob for good review about the scope :headbang: makes me want it more though haha and I have to play the waiting game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so to top it off the 150PL is good at viewing planets/moons etc. but not as good as the 150P for viewing DSOs, and the 150P is good at viewing DSOs but not as good as the 150PL for viewing planets/moons etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a 35ish mm EP for the 150PL and problem solved. You'll be able to fit most DSOs on your FOV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to "test" a few 32mm eyepieces (maybe by buying second-hand?) before committing yourself, since some 32mm Plossls have over-the-top eye-relief.

I like the 32mm Revelation Projection Plossl (the one from the Revelation Photo-Visual Eyepiece kit - although you can buy it separately from SnS) because it's got a sliding barrel which you can use to eat up excess eye-relief. It's one of my favourite eyepieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.