Time for my first telescope, portable and around 300 £

[jaqob]

Hi,

Time for my first post here!

First of all, excuse my english, it's not my native language.

I know you are probably bored to death by those kind of threads, but still...

Time to buy my first telescope. I have been reading for a couple of

months, and if any, I am more confused now than before.

I'm living in an apartment in a bigger city (Big for Sweden that

is...), so portability is important.

It doesn't have to be that small, but fit in a car, be easy to carry

and easy and quick to set up.

I won't do any photographing. My main interest (now atleast) is the

moon and the planets, but there are more DSOs than planets, so quite allround is must.

My budget is around 300£, maby a little more.

My best candidats so far is

Sky-Watcher Evostar-120

+Shorter cool down time

+Less dew (?)

Sky-Watcher Skymax 127

+Compact

+Higher focallength and aparture.

Any other I should look into?

Thanks in advance!

Regards

Jacob

[Adrian]

Have a look at the skywatcher newtonians - 150p or 200p. I'm sure the dobsonians will also be mentioned.

Reflectors give you more aperture for your money, and generally, more aperture = more DSOs and better resolution.

[Nick P]

I would second the 200P on an undriven EQ5 mount (upgradable later with motor drive when funds/interest allow) excellent all rounder!

However if ultra portability is needed a small refracter on an alt/az mount like a Startravel 120 on EZ3 mount (or even a Startravel 102).

[andrew63]

You could also consider a 80 0r 100mm refractor, quick to set up and little maintenance required.

regards, andrew

[jaqob]

Have a look at the skywatcher newtonians - 150p or 200p. I'm sure the dobsonians will also be mentioned.

Reflectors give you more aperture for your money, and generally, more aperture = more DSOs and better resolution.

A dob is to big and to heavy. To many stairs and to small car...

But the day I buy my own house...

I would second the 200P on an undriven EQ5 mount (upgradable later with motor drive when funds/interest allow) excellent all rounder!

However if ultra portability is needed a small refracter on an alt/az mount like a Startravel 120 on EZ3 mount (or even a Startravel 102).

You could also consider a 80 0r 100mm refractor, quick to set up and little maintenance required.

regards, andrew

Im afraid the same goes for the 200p...

The startravel, what advantages does that have over the Evostar?

And 80 or 100mm refractor, any pros over evostar 120, besides some size? (Or alot of size?)

[Nick P]

The startravel's have shorter focal lengths so have shorter tubes making them very portable (102 = 510mm 120 = 600mm v Evostar 102 = 1,000mm 120 = 960mm)

The most portable set up I had was a WO Megrez 90 on a camera tripod, great for whipping out for a quick session and very easy to move around, but aperture limitations were evident when trying for DSO's even under very dark skies.

[jaqob]

The startravel's have shorter focal lengths so have shorter tubes making them very portable (102 = 510mm 120 = 600mm v Evostar 102 = 1,000mm 120 = 960mm)

The most portable set up I had was a WO Megrez 90 on a camera tripod, great for whipping out for a quick session and very easy to move around, but aperture limitations were evident when trying for DSO's even under very dark skies.

Evostar 102 is longer than evostar 120..?

But am I right in my assumptions regarding evostar vs skymax?

Skymax is a bit better in all ways, when the conditions are right, but evostar is faster to get started with?

[ollypenrice]

Have another think about a Dob. They store very conveniently because they stand on the floor in a corner, upright. Just don't stand umbrellas in them!!

I suspect it might take up less space than something on an equatorial mount.

Your car would have to be a Smart for a 6 or 8 inch Dob to present a problem.

Olly

[xboxdevil]

I had lovely views of Jupiter & M31 through a skywatcher heritage 130p last night. It's probably the easiest scope I've ever used.

[cotterless45]

Good scope, but you need somewhere to sit it on. I ended up driving 3 scaffold poles into the grass at the right height and spacing to put the stand legs in. I then spent the next 3 weeks banging into the poles in the dark at just the right height.

I'd go for a refractor to begin with. just set it up and go.

If there's fiddling , aligning and collimation to be done, then it won't get used.

[jaqob]

Have another think about a Dob. They store very conveniently because they stand on the floor in a corner, upright. Just don't stand umbrellas in them!!

I suspect it might take up less space than something on an equatorial mount.

Your car would have to be a Smart for a 6 or 8 inch Dob to present a problem.

Olly

Even if I can get it in to my car, carrying 20 kg or more up and down 3 stairs (no elevator) seams like a good way not to use it... But no doubt, a dob seems to be alot of telescope for your money.

[pvaz]

If I was on the same position I would got for a SCT or a Maktsov scope. They are compact, excel on planetary/moon and still offer a bit more aperture then a refractor for the same price range, so you will still be able to get a fare share of DSOs under a dark sky. The fork mount they usually come in is easier/faster to setup then an EQ mount and it offers tracking which is nice to have for planetary observation.

[Nick P]

Evostar 102 is longer than evostar 120..?

But am I right in my assumptions regarding evostar vs skymax?

Skymax is a bit better in all ways, when the conditions are right, but evostar is faster to get started with?

The Evostar 102 is an f9.8 scope with fl of 102 x 9.8 = 999.6 the 120 is an f8 scope with fl of 120x8 = 960mm.

From what I have read on Skymax, they are considered good scopes with narrow fields of view, a small(ish) refractor on an alt/az mount will be lightning fast to set up, light and portable, and easy to pop into the car - all of this assuming the newtonian is out of the question!

[ollypenrice]

Even if I can get it in to my car, carrying 20 kg or more up and down 3 stairs (no elevator) seams like a good way not to use it... But no doubt, a dob seems to be alot of telescope for your money.

Does a six inch Dob weigh 20 kilos?

Olly

[jaqob]

The Evostar 102 is an f9.8 scope with fl of 102 x 9.8 = 999.6 the 120 is an f8 scope with fl of 120x8 = 960mm.

From what I have read on Skymax, they are considered good scopes with narrow fields of view, a small(ish) refractor on an alt/az mount will be lightning fast to set up, light and portable, and easy to pop into the car - all of this assuming the newtonian is out of the question!

Thanks for the explanation!

Everyone seems to suggest that a dob or newton is the way to go, so wouldn't say it out of the question...

Does a six inch Dob weigh 20 kilos?

Olly

The six inch weight 16 kilos. Much, but perhaps not to much...

But still... I think its to big, and to heavy.

[dweller25]

The Skywatcher 200P Dobsonian cannot be beaten in terms of performance/value for money but a good alternative would be this ....

Evostar - Skywatcher Evostar 102 (EQ3-2)

Reasons :-

1. Very light and portable.

2. Very quick cool down.

3. No collimation required.

4. Within budget.

5. Maximum contrast for it's aperture over other designs - essential for the planets.

6. Good optical performance with minimal chromatic aberration.

Hope that helps.

[ollypenrice]

The Skywatcher 200P Dobsonian cannot be beaten in terms of performance/value for money but a good alternative would be this ....

Evostar - Skywatcher Evostar 102 (EQ3-2)

Reasons :-

1. Very light and portable.

2. Very quick cool down.

3. No collimation required.

4. Within budget.

5. Maximum contrast for it's aperture over other designs - essential for the planets.

6. Good optical performance with minimal chromatic aberration.

Hope that helps.

Yup, fair enough. Good for terrestrial use as well.

Olly

[jaqob]

The Skywatcher 200P Dobsonian cannot be beaten in terms of performance/value for money but a good alternative would be this ....

Evostar - Skywatcher Evostar 102 (EQ3-2)

Reasons :-

1. Very light and portable.

2. Very quick cool down.

3. No collimation required.

4. Within budget.

5. Maximum contrast for it's aperture over other designs - essential for the planets.

6. Good optical performance with minimal chromatic aberration.

Hope that helps.

Yup, fair enough. Good for terrestrial use as well.

Olly

I should start with saying thanks for your help! Skywatcher 200P Dobsonian would be great... But as said before, the day I buy a house

Evostar 102 is mentioned over and over. Is there any reason this is better than evostar 120, except the price? Seems to be about the same size, but a little more aparture.

[dweller25]

The 120mm will be a little heavier and will have more chromatic aberration than the 102mm version and really needs a bigger mount.

[step_hen]

I agree! Both the Evostar 102 and 120 are the same length (Focal length of both is 1000mm) but i found the 120 was much much heavier than the 102, and was really on the limit of a EQ3-2 mount. The 102 will be better regarding CA and makes agreat all round scope

Stephen

[Astro_Baby]

I know where your coming from - I am 3 storesi up in a flat - thats 8 flights of stairs plus a long(ish) drive to get anywhere in a small car (Aygo).

I have a 200 on a n HEQ5 and to be honest its too much - the scope gets very little use. ITs not just the scope its tha fact it needs power, an accessories case, leads etc - it all makes for a lot of trips up and down stairs.

I ended up buying a Nexstr 4SE as a grab and go scope which was lighter and more compact but ultimately I bought a TAL-100RS on an old style mount with no power and of all the scopes I currently have its the one that gets the most use because its so easy to transport it. I can take the whole rig downstairs in one go if I have to.

Its relatively heavy and long but nowehere near as bad as the 200.

If youc onsider a 200 on an EQ it turns into a lot of weight.

Components are 200 scope tube at 13kg (mines modified quite a bit)

HEQ5 Mount head - weighs about 13kg at a guess

3x 5kg counterweights

1 tripod for the mount - must weight about 13kg at a guess.

1x Power Pack

1x Eyepiece Cae

1x Accessory case

Thats three trips up and down to load and another three up and down to unload. Its quite a chore.

Even a Dob would end up being two trips for me at least. I put up with the 200 for the odd few times a year when it gets used and for the once yearly star party but you;d have to be very enthusiastic to want to use it very often.

With a £300 budget you could look at someting like a 2nd hand Nexstar 4SE - I just sold one for £275 or matbe something like an Evostar on an EQ3-2 plus a tracking motor.

A small Maksutov would also be a good bet as they are quite hardy for transport and compact.

Another alternative might be something like the Skywatcher 130 on an EQ2 mount - its quite light and could be handled one up in a single trip if your not using power and would give a pretty good view - you;d also get it cheap(ish) leaving money for eyepieces and extras left over.

[jaqob]

I know where your coming from - I am 3 storesi up in a flat - thats 8 flights of stairs plus a long(ish) drive to get anywhere in a small car (Aygo).

I have a 200 on a n HEQ5 and to be honest its too much - the scope gets very little use. ITs not just the scope its tha fact it needs power, an accessories case, leads etc - it all makes for a lot of trips up and down stairs.

I ended up buying a Nexstr 4SE as a grab and go scope which was lighter and more compact but ultimately I bought a TAL-100RS on an old style mount with no power and of all the scopes I currently have its the one that gets the most use because its so easy to transport it. I can take the whole rig downstairs in one go if I have to.

Its relatively heavy and long but nowehere near as bad as the 200.

If youc onsider a 200 on an EQ it turns into a lot of weight.

Components are 200 scope tube at 13kg (mines modified quite a bit)

HEQ5 Mount head - weighs about 13kg at a guess

3x 5kg counterweights

1 tripod for the mount - must weight about 13kg at a guess.

1x Power Pack

1x Eyepiece Cae

1x Accessory case

Thats three trips up and down to load and another three up and down to unload. Its quite a chore.

Even a Dob would end up being two trips for me at least. I put up with the 200 for the odd few times a year when it gets used and for the once yearly star party but you;d have to be very enthusiastic to want to use it very often.

With a £300 budget you could look at someting like a 2nd hand Nexstar 4SE - I just sold one for £275 or matbe something like an Evostar on an EQ3-2 plus a tracking motor.

A small Maksutov would also be a good bet as they are quite hardy for transport and compact.

Another alternative might be something like the Skywatcher 130 on an EQ2 mount - its quite light and could be handled one up in a single trip if your not using power and would give a pretty good view - you;d also get it cheap(ish) leaving money for eyepieces and extras left over.

What a great answer! Thanks for taking your time!

So at the moment, the choice are between Evostar 102 and Skymax 127. Most often its (for me) better to go with the better (more expensive) of two chooses, but the faster cooldown time and the simpler design with an refactor is tempting.

At the moment, I think I'll go for the evostar 102... But that can change. In some way, it's the hunt, not the kill...

[E621Keith]

I have a Bresser Pulsar 120mm which I think is a rebadged Evostar 120. It's a f8.3 (1000mm) rather than f8. It's a decent scope for planets and star but not good for DSO in city. The only DSO I can see with in were the 'naked eye' ones, such as M31 and M42.

I once tried to used it to find the Owl nebula in London and failed. I star hopped it to the same location where the nebula was showing in an LX10 (8" SCT). I saw the stars around it but no sign of the nebula at all.

For planets, it's reasonably sharp, and most of the time the sky condition would be more limiting than the scope. If you don't want to image, the EQ5 will do fine. My version had aluminium tripod and vibration damped out in around 2 seconds.

As for portability, I have packed the OTA, the mount, tripod, eyepieces, batteries, counter weights and sleeping bags into a 75L rucksack. I went on the tube, the trains and walked 2 miles to the observing site, so I'd say it's reasonably portable, but I'm in my twenties.

The Skymax 127 would be smaller and lighter, and don't have chromatic aberation like the Evostar, so it may be a better choice in the long run.

[moonraker1234]

Hi,

I started only recently, but experienced the same queries as you are having. For portability, I would suggest the short tube Meade ETX or the less expensive DS series. Both are readily available new or secondhand. and are light and easy to transport and set up, as against the heavier Celestron SE series.

[jaqob]

Cool down time, how big issue is this? Is it like amplifiers, where you say it sounds better when warm, but could probably not tell the difference in a blind test? Or is it a big real problem? For example skymax 127, if you take it from indoors to outdoors and minus Celsius, (Sweden... ) how long does it take before you can start using it?