Skymax 127 vs Startravel 102

[Kef9]

Hi

I'm brand new to the forums and I am looking at getting my first telescope. I was wondering what you guys thought about these 2 telescopes? I have done a bit of research and found that the SkyWatcher Startravel AZ GOTO 102mm Refractor Telescope seems to be a good choice and the other I was considering was the SkyWatcher Skymax 127 AZ GOTO Maksutov Cassegrain Telescope.

Which would you guys recommend?

I would like to observe both wide field views and close ups of planets so i am edging towards the refractor due to the short focal length.

I live in the city so I get a fair amount of light pollution. Which would operate best in light polluted areas? I am new to all this and am very confused. If you choose to respond may I thank you for your help.

[pvaz]

You can get a wide field on the mak as long as you use a long FL eyepiece on it, though you can always get a wider field with the 102.

Personally I'd go for the 127 cause for the extra aperture and to avoid color aberration.

[ollypenrice]

The Startravel series, in my view, try to do the impossible and fail. They are achromatic lenses - a simple inexpensive kind - in which not all colours of light are brought to the same focus. You get fringes of false colour - chromatic aberration - around bright objects. To reduce this, achromatic lenses should be made with long focal length to reduce the problem. The Startravels (to keep them short for travel) are the opposite. They have the kind of short focal length that is only possible to create successfully at very great expense in apochromatic lenses. They all show severe false colour and I would not personally want one to look through. (I have one as a photpgraphic guidescope but that's dfferent.)

So the Mak will give you a far better view of the moon and planets and be generally nicer on most objects, though some faint extended things would be brighter in the Startravel.

Olly

[Kef9]

I was originally thinking of going with the MAk but then the following came into my thinking.

I am worried that the focal length on the Mak 127 is too high and the field of view too narrow. You can always use a Barlow for more magnification power if required.

The difference in aperture is partially negated by the fact that the refractor is an efficient design whereas the skymax has a central restriction (maybe upto 25%?) which reduces the light capture to a much more similar level as the refractor.

The refractor will have higher contrast which I would imagine to be an advantage in light polluted areas.

The refractor is nearly 100 quid cheaper and I wouldn’t have any further expense buying converters to accept 2” eyepieces or focal reducers.

The refractor will cool down to the ambient temperature quicker than the Mak.

I’m only just getting into this so please forgive me if I am a bit naive. I really appreciate your help. I looked into getting a dob but the lack of portability and the collamination stuff put me off as a beginner. I really just want a telescope I can lug around, will work straight out of the box and it will point to the objects I want to see without messing around. Power can wait till later if you know what I mean. Let me know what you think?

[AztecastroMcJ]

sounds like u want refractor

i'm biased having got mak127mm myself as beginner last year

but agree with what others have said above extra aperture and power being main advantage

and mak gives best views of moon and planets, dso are ok as well

mak's prob heavier at about 3.5kg though az mount ok up to 5kg

using 25mm 1.25"ep that comes with scope the full moon is easily all seen in ep f.o.v

so f.o.v ok and u can always add 32mm 1.25" ep for wider f.o.v

powertank or mains power adaptor is needed as eats to many AA batterys

hope this helps James

[pvaz]

All the points you made about the refractor are valid. The problem is quality refractors cost much more then the 102 and there's a risk you'll be disappointed with it. An 80mm quality refractor (APO) costs over 400£.

As to the obstruction, it won't block 25%. It's more around 10% and the non obstructed area is greater then the refractor area. Another point to consider is that the mak is a slower scope, allowing cheap EPs to perform very well.

If money is a concern then the most economic way to get aperture is to get a reflector. Reflectors are always APO as they don't cause different colors to focus on different points.

[Rui]

Eventually you'll end up with 2 telescopes in the long term.

So the question here is: wich one to buy first?

Normally I recomend a pair of binoculars. I assume you already have it, so the refractor gives a nice grab and go telescope. In the future, if your interest grows stronger, you will definitely buy a light bucket. Then a 8" SCT or a 8" dobsonian will be in your mind.

[GazOC]

It might be worth mentioning that Skymax is capable of giving close on a 1 degree FOV using a 32mm Plossl which is enough to show most DSOs.

[Kef9]

Hi Guys

Thanks for all the advice. It seems that the majority of you are thinking that the skymax 127 mak is the way to go which is against what I was originally thinking.

How bad is colour abberation. I have never looked through a telescope so is this really a major issue or just a bit annoying? Does anybody think that the refractor is the better choice?

Like Rui said though if I really enjoy myself I can get big light gathering later but I want something to start off with that is small and portable that I will be able to use for a lifetime.

This is very confusing!

[pvaz]

CA can be a bit distracting on bright objects (moon and planets). But you should also expect some EP imperfections to be noticed, as f/4.9 is very demanding on EPs (unless your buy some quality plossls that may well cost over 75£ each).

You should go with the scope you think suits you best, any choice will always have pros and cons.

Personally, my main target is DSOs so if it was me I'd always go for a reflector for the extra aperture at the same price range. That's why there are so many choices, depends on what you like.

[BazMark]

The only DSOs I've looked at so far through my 127 Mak that have not fitted in the FOV with a 40mm EP are the Beehive cluster (M44) and the The Pleiades (M45). They still look excellent but they do look better framed in some dark sky.

I had a small reflector (1145P) prior to the 127 mak. The Mak leaves it standing when it comes to the planets.

Mark

[ollypenrice]

You make good points about refractors and central obstruction but to make a good refractor is expensive. To make a good fast refractor is VERY EXPENSIVE!! Because I do astronomy for a living I am, sort of, able to justify the most barmy outlay from time to time. So we have an 85mm fast refractor that cost about three grand without a mount. Now the Startravels are trying to do that at less than a tenth of the price. It can't be done. If your budget is limted you have to find the optical system that delivers the best image possible at the price. In a nutshell, you need to look at the area of the total optical surface to be prepared. In a four element refractor you have the area of the aperture multiplied by eight. That is a lot of surface. In a Newtonian reflector you have the primary mirror and not much else - just the secondary flat. On a limited budget you can make a better job of it. There are no classical Newtonians on your list. Maybe there should be?

The non 'travel' versions of the Skywatcher achromats are pretty good. I still have a 150 and once had a 120. But they did not try to offer focal ratios which are quite impossibe to achieve properly on a budget.

Olly

[Whippy]

I was originally thinking of going with the MAk but then the following came into my thinking.

I am worried that the focal length on the Mak 127 is too high and the field of view too narrow. You can always use a Barlow for more magnification power if required.

The difference in aperture is partially negated by the fact that the refractor is an efficient design whereas the skymax has a central restriction (maybe upto 25%?) which reduces the light capture to a much more similar level as the refractor.

The refractor will have higher contrast which I would imagine to be an advantage in light polluted areas.

The refractor is nearly 100 quid cheaper and I wouldn’t have any further expense buying converters to accept 2” eyepieces or focal reducers.

The refractor will cool down to the ambient temperature quicker than the Mak.

I’m only just getting into this so please forgive me if I am a bit naive. I really appreciate your help. I looked into getting a dob but the lack of portability and the collamination stuff put me off as a beginner. I really just want a telescope I can lug around, will work straight out of the box and it will point to the objects I want to see without messing around. Power can wait till later if you know what I mean. Let me know what you think?

Let's take this one step at a time shall we?

Firstly the 127's focal length is 1500mm, not overly long but not long enough that it'll restrict your field of view. As Gaz has previously mentioned, it'll show you most DSO's with a wide field plossl.

A scope's central obstruction (CO) takes away a tiny percent of the total aperture so it doesn't make a scrap of difference in relation to light gathering power. But, you do get less of that light at the eyepiece with a Maksutov because the light has to pass through the meniscus (the glass correcting lens at the front) and bounced off two mirrors before it gets to the eyepiece, as opposed to a refractor where it just passes through two or three lenses. This results in a dimmer image compared to a refractor, but the larger scope will always resolve more detail.

The refractor will have greater contrast but maksutovs are known for their high contrast optics, light pollution isn't an issue here.

If you're looking at 2" eyepieces, I wouldn't be looking at a short 4" achromat to use them in. Cooldown isn't really an issue either, to be honest I've found that it's a bit of a myth that smaller maksutovs (6" and smaller) suffer from it. I've had three (still own one) and never had that problem.

If you want a scope that you can lug around that can point to the objects straight out of the box then something with GOTO is what you're looking for but as you don't want electrics involved then that's not going to happen. Collimation isn't an issue, it looks daunting initially but once you've done it a couple of times and understood it then you'll wonder what the fuss is about. You'll most likely not have to do it that often either. But out of the two scopes you have indentified, then I'd have the Maksutov. FWIW I think you might want to reconsider what you want from a scope. If you're looking for an all rounder then a reflector is hard to beat.

HTH

Tony..

[TheThing]

There is a lot of fuss made about cheap refractors and CA, colour fringing, etc, etc. I've owned a Startravel 102mm and the CA really wasn't bad on it at all. In fact, if you've never looked thru a scope before, you wont even notice it! Yes it is a thenth of the price of more expensive quotes, but then if you could afford 10x more, you wouldn't be asking about this scope.

There are pluses and minuses for both scopes. Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers!

Don't be put off the ST. Have a butchers thru one if you get a chance. You'll not be disappointed.

[GazOC]

I find the CA isn't too bad for DSOs, its there but doesn't overwhelm the view but for planets I find it too much.

Theres also the issue of getting a 500mm focal length scope up to decent planetary magnifications.

[AWR]

I'm another 127 Mak user and find it a cracking little scope. With my 24mm hyperion, I can can get a FOV of almost 1.1 degrees. Okay, You can get more in a refractor, but at what cost?

If you WANT a refractor, maybe think about ditching the GOTO and going for something with a longer focal length. A TAL 100RS or a skywatcher Evostar.

If you want GOTO, you could also consider a SW 130 reflector which seems a popular scope on here.

GOTO is not essential, even in light polluted areas (I live just down the road from Heathrow), but invest in a good finder scope! On the topic of light pollution Zhgutas posted this link to an interesting article.

Andrew

[Kef9]

Hi Guys

Thanks for all the responses. I don't want a reflector due to portability issues and the lack of goto. There is a 130mm GOTO relector but I dont see the point in getting this when you can get a 127mm mak for a bit more.

Alot of you guys are leaning towards the mak. I suppose the only thing that puts me off is the fact that to get the wide field of view I want I might have to purchase an adaptor and a 2" diagonal with a 38mm ep. But then again you get that zoom power that the refractor lacks.

I think I'm going to have to do a bit more thinking!

[BazMark]

In time I'd like to get hold of the SW 130P OTA to use on my existing mount so that I can compare it's performance to my 127 Mak. At the moment though, according to FLO, SW don't supply it on it's own and I don't want to purchase another mount as well.

[GuillermoBarrancos]

How is the imaging on the Skymax 127 Synscan GOTO?

The mount seems to be able to track, so you can make long exposure shots for DSO's.

But will the mount be able to sustain my Canon EOS400D camera attached to it?

I am also in the doubt between a Skymax 127 and a refractor.

But Im in no hurry atm, as the season is almost over (here in Oslo at least), so I can save up more and look at an ED refractor.

I also see I could get a good deal on a Helios Evostar 150mm Achro / EQ5. But how will it perform on DSO's when it comes to field of view? And imaging. With the CA issue and all.

Plus this scope will be very heavy and so not really portable.

So I am very leaning towards an Evostar/Equinox 100ED or the Skymax127.

Jer

[Macavity]

As an owner of both (ST102 & MAK127), I don't thing you'd LOSE anything by buying either. I happened to err on the side of caution, and bought (the "more familiar") ST102 first. But I found it an invaluable scope, learning tool, and moreover, a "keeper".

It's indeed true that the ST102 doesn't give text-book diffraction patterns and there is a fair bit of violet haze. But it does have sufficient grunt for the brighter DSOs and I learned to largely "ignore" the colour on lunar observation. You can always experiment with filters... It's not really [iMO] a "planetary" scope though.

The MAK127 is indeed a fine (and optically better) scope. As you say it's field is more limited. It can be retrofitted with 2" accessories, but [iMO] this *just* tips it over the canonical (easy!) weight limit of the Synscan GoTo mount. It will though reveal quite a few more DSOs than the ST102 (and is sometimes rumoured?) <G> The planets are sharp, but not so spectacular that I revisit them often. I use the scope more for double stars and clusters...

Whereas I understand the merits of the Newtonian, I'm with you on this slightly... "rebellious" path! [teasing]. But I think I have learned that there is no ideal scope. You may have to "plump" for one and accept it's limitations? You then either (ahem) experiment or maintain it pristine, and sell it on to fund an upgrade... Or may end up loath to part with it (them)! :)

[hemihaggis]

the 127 mak has better optics , has more apeture , and is just about the most popular telescope on the planet ...

the only objects that dont fit in the fov at 25mm are beehive and double cluster ..

plus mak`s are very sturdy scopes ,and hardly ever need colaminating

hands down ..THE MAK

[Kef9]

As an owner of both (ST102 & MAK127), I don't thing you'd LOSE anything by buying either. I happened to err on the side of caution, and bought (the "more familiar") ST102 first. But I found it an invaluable scope, learning tool, and moreover, a "keeper".

It's indeed true that the ST102 doesn't give text-book diffraction patterns and there is a fair bit of violet haze. But it does have sufficient grunt for the brighter DSOs and I learned to largely "ignore" the colour on lunar observation. You can always experiment with filters... It's not really [iMO] a "planetary" scope though.

The MAK127 is indeed a fine (and optically better) scope. As you say it's field is more limited. It can be retrofitted with 2" accessories, but [iMO] this *just* tips it over the canonical (easy!) weight limit of the Synscan GoTo mount. It will though reveal quite a few more DSOs than the ST102 (and is sometimes rumoured?) <G> The planets are sharp, but not so spectacular that I revisit them often. I use the scope more for double stars and clusters...

Whereas I understand the merits of the Newtonian, I'm with you on this slightly... "rebellious" path! [teasing]. But I think I have learned that there is no ideal scope. You may have to "plump" for one and accept it's limitations? You then either (ahem) experiment or maintain it pristine, and sell it on to fund an upgrade... Or may end up loath to part with it (them)! :)

Hi

As someone who owns both scopes your opinion is very important as you can provide a direct comparison. If you were placed back in time knowing what you know now which scope would you say was better for the beginner.

Also can I also ask that if you had to give up one scope tomorrow which would it be?

[Macavity]

Hi

As someone who owns both scopes your opinion is very important as you can provide a direct comparison. If you were placed back in time knowing what you know now which scope would you say was better for the beginner.

Also can I also ask that if you had to give up one scope tomorrow which would it be?

I'm not sure I have much more to say. I think both scopes have positive and negative aspects. Moreover, these are significantly convoluted with issues such as mount chosen / supplied etc. For me too, personal circumstance.

In that total sense, I was happy with my decision to purchase the refractor as a first scope. I suspect I would get rid of it last. As to the prospect of losing either, such might be a bit of an (untested) Sophie's Choice - Albeit, thankfully, not of such moral magnitude.

Aside: I sense I may have inadvertantly ruffled a feather or two on this one? As the forum is reminded, re. my remarks above (albeit on another thread!), all/my opinions are subjective...

[TheThing]

plus mak`s are very sturdy scopes ,and hardly ever need colaminating

...but then neither do refractors!

I can see this one running and running. TBH, IMHO, if you buy either you wont regret your choice! I've had an ST and I've got a Celestron MAK (slightly smaller than the 127) and they are both great scopes.

I'm just glad I'm not making the choice!

[RichieP]

I think you are comparing two radically different scopes here with rather different capabilities, but good scopes nontheless. No one scope does it all, that why so many of us have more than one scope.

Why not get the Skymax 127 on the mount, then look out for a second hand ST102 OTA as well. (Or the other way around of course!)

The you will have the best of both worlds, - high powered, colour free views from the Skymax and low powered, wide field views from the ST102. Just mount whichever scope is best for whatever you are observing.

Regards

Richard