Skywatcher Startravel 150

[steve_bham]

Has anyone got or used the Skywatcher Startravel 150? if so how do you find it performs.

Im considering buying one as a nice widefield scope to complement my longer focal length scope.

Any comments welcome

[Kef9]

I haven't got one but I would like to look through one.

Its a nice big frac but the short focal ratio and lack of any ED glass means that colour abberation is likely to be bad. I would imagine that was determining factor so it depends on how much you see this as a problem.

The scope is tempting though because of the aperture/price ratio. I considered buying the Celestron Omni refractor which is virtually the same.

[steve_bham]

I had a look through a refractor and to be honest the colour abberation does not bother me, i must be one of the lucky ones that just tune it out.

I surpose if it does bother you at high magnifications then you could use minus violet filter?

[Kef9]

To be honest it didn't bother me either when I had a look through Moonshanes 120mm Omni frac. This has a longer focal length than the startravel and the aberation was there when looking at the moon but to be honest I was very impressed. I was expecting it to be ghastly but I didn't think anything of it.

The good thing about the startravel is that its short focal length means its more portable. I dont think it would make a good planetary scope but if you want wide views and DSO's then it probably quite good.

[steve_bham]

To be honest it didn't bother me either when I had a look through Moonshanes 120mm Omni frac. This has a longer focal length than the startravel and the aberation was there when looking at the moon but to be honest I was very impressed. I was expecting it to be ghastly but I didn't think anything of it.

The good thing about the startravel is that its short focal length means its more portable. I dont think it would make a good planetary scope but if you want wide views and DSO's then it probably quite good.

Yeah thats what i thought, ive got the ETX125 for the planetary scope at F15 and amazing optics its def a keeper!!

[ringz]

Steve, as long as you don't expect too much with bright objects you will be happy with it.

I have the startravel 102 on a Celestron SLT mount with a Moonfish 30mm 80° AFOV and I love it. The 150 will have more CA but if you can live with it it will be a great complement to the ETX.

Martyn.

[steve_bham]

Steve, as long as you don't expect too much with bright objects you will be happy with it.

I have the startravel 102 on a Celestron SLT mount with a Moonfish 30mm 80° AFOV and I love it. The 150 will have more CA but if you can live with it it will be a great complement to the ETX.

Martyn.

Would the startravel 120 be an option. How did you find the 102 on DSO?

Steve

[John]

The amount of CA you get a a given focal ratio increases with aperture so a 150mm F/5 will show more than a 102mm F/5. My 150mm F/8 (which I just sold) did show CA around the moon, Jupiter, not so much on Saturn and on brighter stars. It was not objectionable to me and was absent on DSO's of course but I can see that an F/5 150mm might produce a bit too much CA for some people. For low-medium power deep sky viewing it won't be an issue though.

[steve_bham]

The amount of CA you get a a given focal ratio increases with aperture so a 150mm F/5 will show more than a 102mm F/5. My 150mm F/8 (which I just sold) did show CA around the moon, Jupiter, not so much on Saturn and on brighter stars. It was not objectionable to me and was absent on DSO's of course but I can see that an F/5 150mm might produce a bit too much CA for some people. For low-medium power deep sky viewing it won't be an issue though.

Hmmm, so would it be better to drop down to the 102 or 120, or would a minus V filter take care of the extra CA?

[John]

I've not used either the 150mm F/5 or the 120mm F/5 so I've not experienced their color correction (or otherwise) 1st. I believe that minus violet filters (or similar) do reduce CA but with some that's at the expense of the introduction of a colour cast.

I guess it's a personal thing as to how much the CA bothers you and also what you use the scope for. The F/5 achro's were designed for low-medium power wide field observing and, at that, they are very useful.

[ringz]

I haven't used the 102f5 for much other than asterisms and open clusters and the like. I'm near the centre of Coventry and the LP isn't conducive to much deep sky work so I haven't an opinion on that I'm afraid Steve.

Martyn

[steve_bham]

I haven't used the 102f5 for much other than asterisms and open clusters and the like. I'm near the centre of Coventry and the LP isn't conducive to much deep sky work so I haven't an opinion on that I'm afraid Steve.

Martyn

No problem Martyn, i travel about 30mins out in country and surprised that you could see the milky way still in the midlands! have a look at the wolves black country group if you fancy popping along one time.

[RobH]

I've got the ST120, and for low power widefield views it's great.

Higher power brings CA issues, but it's not designed for that.

Cheers

Rob

[Naz]

I have the ST120 and the CA is only a pain on the edges of Moon and brighter planets, Venus and Jupiter. The minus v filter works ok, not a total answer, but for wide field views, hard to beat for the price. Tried a 2X barlow and a 6mm Vixen onJupiter, 200X mag, still showed some CA, but for visual fine. A little trick, is to keep your eye in line with the center of the field of view, the CA appears to "disappear".

[Kef9]

God, this is making me want one!

Just a thought though if it is for travel, what sort of portable mount would mate up with it. I would imagine an Alt Az mount would be best.

Any thoughts?

[steve_bham]

Thanks for info guys. hmmmmm torn now between the 120 or 150! it will only be used for low power stuff and medium power at a push as ive got the other scope for high power observing.

Well the 150 is a whooping 10KG so would need a mount that could handle that weight with ease.

[steve_bham]

Just been looking on FLO, do you think this scope would make a nice none complicated wide field set up?

Startravel - Skywatcher Startravel 120 (AZ3)

[John]

I've been using my Vixen 102mm (F/6.5) on an AZ-3 mount on and off for ages. The Vixen is about the same weight and length as the 120 ST is. The issue that the setup has is with balance - as you look higher than about 45 degrees with a 2" diagonal and 2" eyepiece in the scope - because most of the weight is above the mounts centre of gravity, the scope has a tendancy to tip backwards. You can tighten the alt bolt but then it's a bit stiff in other positions. I've seen a counterbalance solution (DIY) added to the AZ-3 to cope with this but I'm not to good at DIY !.

Recently, having got a little frustrated with the issue as I've got a number of quite heavy eyepieces now, I've bought a used AZ-4 mount:

Skywatcher - Skywatcher AZ4 Alt-Az mount

The AZ-4, IMHO, despite lacking slow motion controls, is a big improvement over the AZ-3 and it's progressive tension controls on alt and azimuth plus better positioned centre of gravity mean that it handles the heavier eyepieces much better, in all positions. I'm very pleased with it

With the Vixen on board the total weight is around 13-14kg I reckon - not a flyweight but still "grab and go" I feel.

[steve_bham]

Thanks John

[Ogri]

Well I'm bonkers about my ST120 on the AZ3, as might be a bit obvious round here, hehe.

I mounted it as far foward as it will go, and the only issue I have had has been with the weight of Baader Hyperions (eta: I also use a 2" diagonal - and the issues are similar to John with his 2" EP's - that AZ4 looks nice! - must admit the AZ3 is livable with though, more so than I expected). I've had to tighten up the AZ3 and I've not had problems since (may pay to put loctite on the threads at some point?). 'Normal' 1.25" EP's such as a 20mm erfle 66 deg type, I have no problem at all, and I get very nice views for 30 x mag.

With nights of good viewing, I have Barlow'd an 8mm Hyperion for 150 x mag with ease, and it will obviously go a bit higher.

Nights of iffy viewing give iffy views, and I don't think there's any 'scopes that are unaffected.

I certainly haven't felt the need to use any fringe killer or APO type filters with the ST120 at all.

I must admit though, I wouldn't mind having a look through an ST150 sometime.

Something else with the ST120, it really is a first class terrestrial 'scope for daytime use, so in 'bang for the buck' terms it really takes some beating.

For me anyway, the ST120 is most definitely a 'keeper' (to the point I am now reluctant to use it for the main purpose I got it, which was to take it with me on the motorbike when touring - such is life, eh? ).

PS. For portability, I left the tray off the AZ3 so it folds up fast and easy. It's literally a one handed grab and under the arm then out the door with it job. That might be useful.

Speaking of which, the high altitude haze looks better than it has for weeks, so I'm off to grab it and do exactly that.

PPS, this darned haze is driving me nuts, got everything set up to leave for a while to cool, looked up, and everything has now vanished behind this blasted haze )

[Kef9]

Well I've just bought one

To good a price to miss. I'll let you know what its like.

I promised myself I would keep to 1 frac and a future dob. That has now gone clearly out of the window! Ooooops!!!!!

[steve_bham]

Well I've just bought one

To good a price to miss. I'll let you know what its like.

I promised myself I would keep to 1 frac and a future dob. That has now gone clearly out of the window! Ooooops!!!!!

Look forward to your review

[ollypenrice]

The longer focal length version is really very good indeed, though it is - long! With a focal length of 1200mm it is still able to give quite a wide field but is also very good on the planets. They go for nothing, which is why I still have mine...

Olly

[John]

The longer focal length version is really very good indeed, though it is - long! With a focal length of 1200mm it is still able to give quite a wide field but is also very good on the planets. They go for nothing, which is why I still have mine...

Olly

I enjoyed my 150mm F/8 immensly - but I did have a Chromacor to use with it . Without the Chromacor the CA was not too intrusive and only present on brighter objects of course.

Using the Chromacor (which reduced CA by around 80% I reckon) did demonstrate that you do loose some resolution and contrast definition on the moon and planets due to CA - with the Chromacor in place 350x was a useful magnification, without it the scope "maxed out" at around 250x.

[Kef9]

The longer focal length version is really very good indeed, though it is - long! With a focal length of 1200mm it is still able to give quite a wide field but is also very good on the planets. They go for nothing, which is why I still have mine...

Olly

I enjoyed my 150mm F/8 immensly - but I did have a Chromacor to use with it . Without the Chromacor the CA was not too intrusive and only present on brighter objects of course.

Using the Chromacor (which reduced CA by around 80% I reckon) did demonstrate that you do loose some resolution and contrast definition on the moon and planets due to CA - with the Chromacor in place 350x was a useful magnification, without it the scope "maxed out" at around 250x.

Yep this is f5 so it will be interesting to see how much the chromatic abboration bothers me. However I looked through moonshanes achro and that showed a bit of colour fringing but it didn't bother me the slightest. I knmow this scope will give me a lot more but I'm prepared for that.

1200mm would be too long for me. This has a focal length of 750mm so its going to be my throw in the back of the car / holiday job. A transportable 150mm frac at a bargain price was too good a chance to miss.