The dreaded Short tube 80!

[part timer]

The Short Tube 80 (Skywatcher Version)

It’s not usual for me to review something that I haven’t owned for very long as I don’t think it is as accurate or informative as a review which takes place over a very long period (say a year or two). Notwithstanding this, I’m going to review it anyway because I’m bored, stuck indoors, and I don’t feel like watching telly or aimlessly Googling!

I purchased this scope about a week and a half ago and although it was delayed in transit by the courier I have used it quite a lot due a bizarre streak of good weather. This has included good seeing, poor seeing and even middle of the row seeing with passing clouds!

The scope was purchased in order to fill several needs of mine, namely a telescope capable of showing detail on all objects and yet small enough to be mobile around the garden to reach parts of the sky inaccessible to my larger telescope. It would have to be light enough to go on a simple camera tripod and also be able to stick out of an upper floor window in order to catch objects such as Mercury at a reasonable opposition. It must be rugged enough to serve as travel scope for camping etc as I have a large family and not much space in the car for things like telescopes. As if all this was not enough it had to be cheap!

After a brief but intense period of research it really came down to two telescopes either the Short Tube 80, or the Skymax 90 Maksutov. I have previously owned the Skymax and loved it, but to be honest I’d always wondered about the ST 80 and felt the need for a change so that’s what I chose.

The telescope arrived well packed and in perfect condition. I had chosen the terrestrial observation version as I have a spare star diagonal and more than one mount for this scope. Also I may use it for some very low key wildlife observation and so on, so I wanted the 45 degree erect image prism.

Also supplied were a good standard 6x 0 astronomical finder and stalk. These are a bizarre choice for a terrestrial telescope with 400mm focal length. At 10x the scope is its own finder and has a 4.3 degree field of view with my 40mm Plossl. I did put my red dot finder on for the sake of completeness, and this is a far more sensible option for this scope. It is weird that Skywatcher insists on providing this red dot finder on their Maksutov’s which desperately need a 6x30 finder! A 2x Barlow was provided which seemed quite nicely made and coated but was not up to the standard of my Meade one and was sold.

The scope is surprisingly well made with a just a few bits rough around the edges. It is all metal, including the focuser which pleasantly surprised me. The inside of the focuser has a bit of a patchy paint job but this is the only fault I can find with the construction.

Performance has been very impressive indeed! I was expecting the CA to be really bad but it’s not. Venus was very badly affected but everything else including the Moon and Saturn has been very well shown at all the magnifications I’ve tried. The objective lens is very well made and gives very sharp images. I have heard about excessive comma and so on with these scopes but I have not experienced this at all. The limiting factor for this telescope is chromatic aberration as expected from the design. I am not sure if the quality of earlier examples is the same or not, or indeed if I have a particularly good example. I can say however that, provided you can live with lunar craters having a sort of blue grey shade rather than black in the dark areas then this scope gives good images at 150x (with a TAL 3x Barlow and 8mm TS Planetary) . If I replace the 8mm with 9mm example of the same eyepiece (giving 133x) then the image is a touch sharper and CA is very much reduced. At a magnification of 114x (same Barlow and 10.5mm Televue Plossl) CA is reduced to a level where you really have to look for it on the Moon. I consider this very good for such a telescope.

Planets are smaller and tighter than the Moon and so CA is more noticeable but not to the point that it disrupts viewing. Saturn shows all the detail it should in an 80mm but takes on a di is a slightly greenish shade to my eyes. Mars is a bit small to show much detail in 80mm at the moment but I did pick out a polar cap without difficulty.

Venus was the most badly affected object by CA but with the aid of a polarising filter I saw the phase quite well. I suspect poor seeing didn’t help the view on this occasion and so I will review this on a more favourable occasion.

Deep sky has been very nicely shown at low and medium powers. It was nice to see Mars and the whole of the Beehive in the same field of a 25mm Plossl! Other objects I have viewed have included The Hyades, M81/82, M34, the double cluster and the three Auriga clusters. All of the clusters have been visible and have an interesting aspect with a smaller aperture which can still achieve higher magnifications than binoculars. The two galaxies were visible as smudges which is no mean feat given the combination of my heavy light pollution and the waxing Moon which was present throughout the time I’ve used the scope.

And so, to the ‘conclusion’. Do I recommend this telescope?

Yes I do but with some provisos.

This is a nice telescope for the beginner as it has good optics, you may not notice the Chromatic aberration as much, it is quite versatile, it’s mobile and light and you don’t need to sell it when you upgrade. It can always be used for guiding or as a grab and go/ second telescope.

It is a good choice for the casual astronomer who really doesn’t want to go equipment crazy but wants’ a reliable telescope to last for some years.

An imager may find it useful for guiding but it’s not an imaging scope itself.

As a comparison, the Skymax 90 is a better telescope optically and can reach magnifications well over 200x on a still night. The ST80 is best kept to maybe 120x before the secondary spectrum begins to intrude on the clarity of the view. The Skymax takes a good hour to cool whereas the ST 80 is pretty well ready to go as soon as it’s outside.

I like it and it suits my needs better than the Skymax at the current time so I’m happy.

If you do get this telescope be aware that the optics are unforgiving of the cheap eyepieces and Barlow provided. You will need to purchase good quality eyepieces (of say 10, 17, and 32mm) and a good 3x Barlow to get the best performance from this very fast achromat. The good news is that they do not need to be anything more than Plossls as the scope itself provides the wide fields! Also you need a star diagonal. If you think you’ll manage with the 45 degree diagonal you are mistaken!

[Demonperformer]

Detailed review, which I read with interest having recently purchased the same scope. One of my favourite views has been of M44+Mars through my Pentax 14XL. Simply stunning.

You seem to come down in favour of the scope, albeit 'with some provisos'. So, why 'dreaded'?

[part timer]

Yes I really do like the scope.

I used the word dreaded as these telescopes have had a mixed reputation over the internet.

I think it is amazing how good this telescope is for £90 delivered!

It has limitations but I think that as long as you buy it with these in mind you will be shocked at the quality of the telescope.

To put this in context you can buy a telescope of equal appeture and only slightly better build quality which has the limitation of CA removed for about £450. Even then I have never seen an APO refractor at the lower end of the price range without some false colour. I think that when you spend £500 small faults bother you more than they would otherwise!

For £90 I can't think of a better or more versatile telescope.

[russ]

Nice review PT

There's nothing wrong with the ST80 as long as you realise it's intended purpose. A lot of the bad reviews on the web are from people who were expecting this little scope to perform wonders and defy the laws of physics. Expecting the poor little thing to be a planet killer and then can't understand why it has given up the ghost around 100-120x (depending on how lucky you are).

They are a great low-medium power richfield scope that will show awesome widefield vistas with modest sized eyepieces. Celestron don't even market it as an astro scope but as a spotting scope.

I've owned three of them (Skywatcher, Helios and Celestron) and always tempted to buy another. Especially for £80 including all those extras.

[ollypenrice]

Good review. I reckon yours must be way better than mine!! Mind you, mine came to me as the finder on a 20 inch Dob and has since been appropriated for guiding. Lord knows what abuse it had experienced. Mine has massive coma and pretty startling chromatism as well. I daresay they have improved them no end, judging from your findings.

That said, when I was using it on the Dob I can't remember a single Messier that didn't show in it and that says something. (Obviously we have a very dark site at 3000 feet but even so, not bad, eh?)

Olly

[part timer]

That is good Olly, I certainly won't catch that many from my garden!

You may be right about yours being 'played' with in the past. There seems to be quite a lot on the internet about 'improvements' to these scopes and I'm sure that in the majority of cases splitting the lens elements is not going to be a good thing!

[Darren B]

I've owned two of these in the past and I consider my old Helios ST80 as my first serious telescope. Both performed as you describe yours. My personal opinion that they make the perfect starter scope.

[Mr Spock]

I have a Helios 80mm as a finder on my 250mm. Originally I bought it specifically for observing variable stars. It gives me a wide field with decent light grasp, and for that purpose it is perfect.

[A McEwan]

I consider my Konus Vista (same optical arrangement) my first real telescope. I've owned a few different versions since then and done a few up too, and with some minor tweaking and re-equipping they are great scopes, worth hanging onto.

Great review!

Ant