Which scope for a newbie?

[milkyjoe]

Hi to all.

I've been doing a lot of research of late into telescopes for a beginner in the field of astronomy. I have come to the conclusion of either starting off with a Celestron Nexstar 4SE or a Skymax 127 goto, they are about the same price, too.

I was all set to purchase the Celestron after reading lots of reviews about it, and everything looked good; it was even reviewed on Channel 5's The Gadget Show, and it received a thumbs up from them due to good built quality, quiet motor drive, and very good quality optics.

I was reading a couple of reviews on this site about the 4se, when I came across the skymax 127... now, I have a dilemma, should I buy the celestron or the skymax?? lol

Can anyone suggest which scope is best for a beginner like me; the good thing about the 4SE is that you can use it for astro photography, and it is a good grab-and-go scope and is also good for transporting abroad, can the same be said for the Skymax?

So... which is best?

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

[Steve C]

Whilst having never owned a 4se & therefore cannot speak for or against it, I do have a Skymax 102, the smaller brother to the 127.

I travel abroad often for business, the scope always comes with me (never know when those elusive observing opportunities arise).

In addition I've used it for imaging (lunar mostly), using my toucam.

All in all I find it a very capable scope.

[davy999]

I am in the same (but opposite) boat as Steve C

I have the nexstar 6SE and for ease of setup and visual astronomy I cannot fault it, as they say it did exactly what it says on the tin.

With regards AstroPics I did take some with the Nexstar and they are available to view on this forum. The problem with these two scopes are that they are ok for good astropics they wont allow you to take some of the large and better images seen on here due to the mount. Over time the image rotates in the tube so long exposures will start to show this, other mounts stop this happening and allow longer exposures.

Saying this please do not let this put you off, others have taken some cracking images with the SE and as a starter and visual scope I think it is excellent and it is also a good starter for astrophotography.

As with any hobby the further you go the more you spend but these 2 scopes are both great to get you going.

[Astro_Baby]

Take a look at this thread http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/108590-celestron-nexstar-4se-skywatcher-127-skymax.html

[milkyjoe]

Thank you for all your replies, and thank you 'astro_baby' for the link. After reading that review, I am in favour of the skymax 127 goto because of the obvious benefit of bigger apperture... but, I still like the look of the celestron - doh!

I have also been looing at the celestron 102 slt computerised scope as well. Is this as good as the nexstar 4se; I saw this image taken using the 102 slt and I must say, I was very impressed indeed... JUPITER / CelestronImages.com - astrophotography with optics from Celestron Telescopes., can I expect similar results using the nexstar 4se?

Also, which has the better optics... the nexstar 4se, skymax 127 goto or the 102 slt; I don't want to buy a scope that is too big to transport around and possibly overseas to portugal?

Thanks.

[Polar Bear]

As with most things of this nature its the one that will get used most rather than looking good in the consevatory when friends come round.

Joking apart , I had this dilemma a month ago when moving up from binoculars. I decided my needs on what I wanted to observe and the fact I wanted to 'learn' the sky rather than use a goto scope.

I have already upgraded in under 4 weeks (good old ebay) and the setup I have can be assembled and ready for viewing in about 2 minutes. Also in this time I have decided to do some imaging so need an EQ4 to compliment my AZ4 !!!

The best decision is to just make one, stick with it and enjoy the skies with whatever you decide on.

Paul

[milkyjoe]

Thanks 'Polar Bear'.

I'm not just buying the scope because it 'looks nice' (lol). I wanted to know what differences there are between the 3 scopes (apart from the obvious with the skymax); I've just had a look at the celestron website and compaired the 4se to the 102 slt and they are practically identical, the 4se has the 'StarBright XLT' coatings compaired to just 'Multi-coatings' on the slt..., but the refractor is an f/6 so does that mean it's useful for planets and dos'?

Also, I am assuming you can hook the slt up to you laptop and remotely control it, yes?

Is a refractor better than a mak?

Thanks.

[Polar Bear]

Thanks 'Polar Bear'.

I'm not just buying the scope because it 'looks nice' (lol). I wanted to know what differences there are between the 3 scopes (apart from the obvious with the skymax); I've just had a look at the celestron website and compaired the 4se to the 102 slt and they are practically identical, the 4se has the 'StarBright XLT' coatings compaired to just 'Multi-coatings' on the slt..., but the refractor is an f/6 so does that mean it's useful for planets and dos'?

Also, I am assuming you can hook the slt up to you laptop and remotely control it, yes?

Is a refractor better than a mak?

Thanks.

There is an excellent review of the 4SE here: http://stargazerslounge.com/equipment-reviews/69788-celestron-nexstar-4se-review-first-light.html

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the different coatings it really is a case of 'you get what you pay for'

From what I have read and learned through photography larger F numbers give shaper images with more contrast.

Planetary viewing seems to suit F8 scopes upwards for the best results. That isn't to say you won't get good results from faster scopes.

Maks have to be the best bet for travel but then a quality 80mm / 90mm refractor is much more transportable than say a 150mm F8 reflector or dob.

I originally went for a Celestron 130 astromaster F5 but then saw an old Orion Europa 150mm F6 on ebay locally. In a side by side test the Orion is much better even though it is probably at least 10 years old and cost much less.

Another thing to consider is that you need to check what the supplied 'kit' eyepieces are. The ones with the Astromaster were shall we say 'not very good'

Good eyepieces will transforn a scope.

Have you considered building up your kit from secondhand items ?

And don't forget you will need a collimator so allow £40.00 , also a quality Barlow,

And also try a red dot finder before buying a scope with one, I cannot use one as I wear glasses. With my glasses on I can see the sky but the dot is out of focus, with them off vice=versa and I think traditional finder-scopes are much better.

Paul

[milkyjoe]

Well, that's thrown a spanner in the works, I'm even more confused now! lol

I have already read that review of the 4se, it was very interesting.

I take it you wouldn't recommend a refractor then? The thing I like about the 102 slt is that it has a wider field of view compaired to the 4se (1.7° - 1° respectively) and that it was an f/5 scope; I thought that a faster focal length gave better results, is that not the case?! I want the best of both worlds, to view planets and dso's, I can't afford a huge scope nor do I need one and have the room for it to be honest.

You get 9mm and a 25mm eyepieces with the 102 slt.

I would prefer to purchase a scope rather than build one.

Why would I need a collimator, thought that was only for dobs, not refractors and maks??

Which scope is better, the 4se or the 102 slt?

Thanks.

[The_Kirbys]

eckkkkk...... sorry but what does "dob" mean .....

[milkyjoe]

Dob=dobsonian (or newtonian reflector telescope)

[Polar Bear]

I would prefer to purchase a scope rather than build one.

Why would I need a collimator, thought that was only for dobs, not refractors and maks??

Which scope is better, the 4se or the 102 slt?

Thanks.

Hi again, I referred to the collimator in case you changed your mind for a reflector.

As regards those 2 models there seems very little in the specs to choose between them and I can't assist having not used either of the scopes.

Best of luck....

[tarqs101]

Hi,

If I just through another spanner in the works??!!

I have a 102 SLT and LOVE it!! It is so easy to get up and running, I've got it down to about 10 minutes from setting up, power, balance, and 3 star alligning.

If aligned accurately the tracking is amazing. I've said before that it kept Jupiter in the FoV for well over an hour and that's using a barlow and 4mm EP!!

When used with a 32mm Plossl EP I get lovely widefield views of star fields and it's great for scanning the milky way.

I have just started using it for astrophotography too. I've used a webcam to image the moon and Jupiter and a DSLR to capture M13 and M57, although I am no expert in AP yet!!

Hope this helps.

Gavin

[milkyjoe]

Hi 'tarqs101',

So you would recommend the 102slt over the nexstar 4se then? lol :-\

I am very tempted to get the slt, but can I ask, does your scope suffer from chromatic abberation at all? (purple fringing around the egedes of images).

Also, because the scope is computerised, what happens if you want to look at an object that is not in the scopes database??

Thanks.

[Astro_Baby]

Hmm - well that was my review of the Nexstar 4SE (its for sale by the way )

The Nexstar is a nice small scope but I find its not getting used much anymore. And whay am I not using it ? Well I simply fell in love with another telescope and one that may be worthy of consideration for you in your search for a telescope. It wont come as much of a surpise to anyone on here but the scope whose charms have turned my head is my TAL 100RS.

2nd hand these wonderful scopes go for under £200. I paid £195 for this off a fellow SGL member complete with its Russian tripod and mount.

While the scope is not without its foibles its still a lovely scope. It can easily hold its own on planetary targets againts most small Maks and is a real pleasure to use.

OK the mount could be better but its certainly no worse than many mounts supplied with small/medium scopes. Ok it doesnt excel on deep sky compared to say an 8" reflector but it would give the Nexstar 4 a good run for its money.

Mounted on a larger mount (my HEQ5 for instance) its a pure joy to use so it has upgradee capability by upping the mount specification. Its longish F ratio means it works well with almost any eyepiece.

Some people claim (and I wouldnt doubt it) that the TAL 100RS is probably the best achromatic refractor in its class and for its price (at least 2nd hand) its unbeatable.

One more scope for you to consider - the review of it is here if you want to have a read TAL 100RS Review

ps if your anywehere near Worthing or Dorking you'd be welcome to come have a look at either scope.

[tarqs101]

Hi 'tarqs101',

So you would recommend the 102slt over the nexstar 4se then? lol :-\

I am very tempted to get the slt, but can I ask, does your scope suffer from chromatic abberation at all? (purple fringing around the egedes of images).

Also, because the scope is computerised, what happens if you want to look at an object that is not in the scopes database??

Thanks.

I certainly wouldn't recommend the 102 over the 4se as I've never used the 4se, so I couldn't recommend it. All I was saying is that I'm very pleased with mine.

As for CA, it is present but not overly. I've included a photo taken with the 300D at prime focus so you can see, it's not too bad at all and I believe you can get filters to compensate this even further.

As for the database. It is overflowing with objects. My only gripe is that it has objects in there that cannot be viewed with 4" off aperture!!

To be honest I have found myself recently using stellarium and the RDF to locate objects myself!! I find it so much fun!!

Hope this helps!!

Gavin

[Capricorn]

You mentuon computerised as if one is and two aren't/

They all are and I suspect they all have much the same database of objects. They are all made by the same company. Skywatcher and Celestron are both owned by Synta.

Many of the objects you simply will not be able to see owing to the aperture, so there will be more in it then you can point at and see. Think you can also enter ones also.

The 4SE is a nice scope and easy to transport, the 127 is bigger (heavier), the 102 has the same collection as the 4SE, it is a refractor and an achromatic so somewhere it will show chromatic abberation.

Will say that I guess the 102 will be a little easier to use owing to it's field of view. But will not have the magnification at the higher values.

Finally and off topic, just curious: A-B aren't you at SSP?

[Astro_Baby]

Yes I am at SSP - not yet though. I'll be there Thursday

[milkyjoe]

You mentuon computerised as if one is and two aren't/

They all are and I suspect they all have much the same database of objects. They are all made by the same company. Skywatcher and Celestron are both owned by Synta.

Many of the objects you simply will not be able to see owing to the aperture, so there will be more in it then you can point at and see. Think you can also enter ones also.

The 4SE is a nice scope and easy to transport, the 127 is bigger (heavier), the 102 has the same collection as the 4SE, it is a refractor and an achromatic so somewhere it will show chromatic abberation.

Will say that I guess the 102 will be a little easier to use owing to it's field of view. But will not have the magnification at the higher values.

Finally and off topic, just curious: A-B aren't you at SSP?

I know all three scopes are computerised, but i am (now) mainly interested in the nexstar 4se and the 102 slt.

What do you mean when you say the 102 'will not have the magnification at the higher vales?'

'A-B aren't you at SSP??' :-\

[milkyjoe]

I certainly wouldn't recommend the 102 over the 4se as I've never used the 4se, so I couldn't recommend it. All I was saying is that I'm very pleased with mine.

As for CA, it is present but not overly. I've included a photo taken with the 300D at prime focus so you can see, it's not too bad at all and I believe you can get filters to compensate this even further.

[ATTACH]40271[/ATTACH]

As for the database. It is overflowing with objects. My only gripe is that it has objects in there that cannot be viewed with 4" off aperture!!

To be honest I have found myself recently using stellarium and the RDF to locate objects myself!! I find it so much fun!!

Hope this helps!!

Gavin

Sorry, you 'wouldn't recommend the 102 slt??'

I've been using stellarium myself, is it good for remotely controlling thes cope?

Thanks.

[Astro_Baby]

I think what they mean is the 102 SLT only has a focal length of 660mm versus the Skymax 127s 1500mm

Magnification with a telescope is a function of its focal length. With all other factors being equal the scope with the longer focal length will maginify more.

For instance if you put a 13mm eyepiece into the 102 SLT it will magnify (660/13 = 50) so x50 mag).

The same eyepiece in the SKymax 127 would yield 1500/13= 115 so a magnifaction of x115.

There are however limits - most scopes wont run past x2 the size of their primaty lens in magnification so the 102 would be limited to a max magnification of x204 whereas the 127 would run as high as 254. USually sky conditions in the UK limit magnification to around x250 as a max.

Where does this get you ? Well magnification is good for planets generally, less useful for deep sky objects where light grasp is more useful (ie big aperture and fast optics). I dont know how the 102 would perform never having used one but I;d suspect if I had to choose between the 127, the Nexstar 4 and the 102 I might well choose the 127 DEPENDING on how wobbly the mount is. They look quite frail.

I'd also seriously consider thge Nextsar 4SE just because in the flesh it looks more solid - and oh - its orange like a real Celestron

[milkyjoe]

Thanks for the info Astro_Baby.

Decisions... decisions. My original choice was going to be the nexstar 4se but I am torn between this and the 102 SLT.

My thinking was that if the SLT has a faster focal length and a wider field of view, it would be good at viewing the planets and well as a few dso's, but now I don't know which one to get because they both seem to have their respective advantages and disadvantages!?

Should I stick with my original choice or go for the SLT?!

Thanks for everyone's input. I never thought choosing a scope could be so stressful! lol

[tarqs101]

No, I didn't mean I wouldn't recommend the 102, just I can't compare the two as I've never used the 4se.

As I said, I'm very pleased with mine...

[ollypenrice]

Back to photography and f ratio/focal length; for deep sky imaging a fast f ratio (low number) is overwhelmingly superior because you have so little light to play with that getting it in fast is everything. A short focal length (arising from a fast f ratio) gives a wide field of view.

However, for imaging the planets (probably with a webcam?) you need a very long focal length and have enough light to manage with a very slow f ratio - achieved by using a 'slow' scope like an SCT or Mak plus Barlow lens.

The two requirements are entirely contradictory, which is a shame. An SCT can do both by means of focal reducers for deep sky and Barlows for webcamming planets but as deep sky imaging tools they are hard work and need very precise mounts with accurate autoguiding. (The longer your focal length the more accurate your tracking needs to be for deep sky.) Accurate tracking is not needed for webcamming planets.

Olly