First telescope - Meade ETX 125 v Skywatcher Skymax 127

[Dug]

Hi there,

I'm new to astronomy and I'm looking for some advice on my first scope.

I live in London and want something that I can use for moon, planets and some DSO. I know light pollution is going to be bad, so portability is also a consideration.

I was lucky enough to try out a Meade ETX 90 yesterday and was very impressed with the results, and my budget would stretch to a ETX 125 which I guess is going have even better results. But I don't know if I'll get similar performance from a Skymax 127 if the apeture is so similar? If so, I can safe a few pennies on the Skywatcher over the Meade.

Any experience / assistance greatfully received!

Dug

[Helen]

Go for the Skymax or the celestron equivalent. The Meade ETX125, from my experience, has good optics, but unreliable mechanics and electrics. I had hours of frustration!

Whichever you get, get a powerpack to run it as these mounts are notoriously fussy about power input and so running on batteries is not realistic.

Helen

[skybond]

I would agree with Helen. I bought a ETX 125 but something gave on the very first align and resulting in a unhealthy rattling and no more slewing. I paid the extra and went for a Celestron CPC and am very happy with this choice. The CPC appears to be much more professional than the ETX with everything feeling better manufactured.

Trevor

[Starflyer]

Completely agree with the comments about Meade mechanicals.

The Celestron 6SE is a cracking 'scope and certainly one to consider.

[alfingido]

Bit of a trend here! I had an ETX 125. Brilliant optics and the mount worked perfectly too, but, after upgrading the handset software, it woulndt point where I wanted. The supplier couldnt fix it ( I assume something else was faulty then as a software fix didnt help), so i swapped it.

Skywatcher seem to have everything under control, I would go for the Skymax 127

Allan

[Macavity]

Go for the MAK127. But, with a minor caveat... If you want to "upgrade" the system, the "GoTo" mount is [iMO] quite near the limits re. weight. Idem too, re. the narrow field of the 127? As grab and go, I sense the "Cinderella", MAK 102, might also be considered! Later, get a BIG Dob. <G> I do wonder if the Celestron mounts might be a bit more robust too...

[Dug]

Thanks guys, this is great advice.

I've had a bit more of a look around and like the look of the Celestron SE range too, but they seem to be a little more expensive than the Skywatcher range, for equivalent aperture.

Is there a performance difference between the two brands, or it is down to manufacturing?

Cheers, Dug

[John]

The Celestron SE mounts are a bit more sophisticated, better made and slightly more heavy duty than the Skywatcher equivilents in my opinion. The Skywatcher scopes are maksutov-cassegrain design wheras the Celestron ones (other than the 4" one) are schmidt-cassegrain. The latter is a more versatile design I feel.

John