New Telescope LX200-ACF 8" or LX90-ACF 10"

[Boton]

I'm really confused...

These are the 2 options in the price range I can afford LX200-ACF 8" or LX90-ACF 10"

I own a ETX 105 PE for 4 years and now I believe it is a "good moment" for an upgrade and I want your input on it, doesn't matter what any real experience with these 2 scopes will be handy.

Decision Points.
* My wife and I use to carry the scope around to places, trips etc. so we want something we both can carry and assemble without having to go to the gym or taking anti-inflamatories after a trip out...
* We live in Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory now so we want a powerful enough scope to see nebulas and other hard to see stuff, we can't on the old etx.
* It would be "nice" to take some pictures but astro-photography is not the main goal, while observing for the fun of it is!
* We are sort of nomads, :D, too many continents we have lived in, so the scope has to be able to be on the move with us.

what is your idea?

Help us spent wisely this money!

Cheers
Beto Boton:thanx:

[DavidTrap]

I have an 8 inch LX-90 and a friend has a 10 inch LX-90. The ten inch is significantly larger and heavier - if carrying difficulty is a prime consideration, I'd go for the 8 inch scope. The LX-200 8 inch is significantly heavier than the LX-90 8 inch as well.

If you're not committed to astrophotography, I'd also suggest you save your pennies on buying the 8 inch LX-90, rather than the LX-200, and put your money towards eyepieces. I describe astrophotography to people as "standing under a cold shower tearing up $100 bills!"

DT

[renormalised]

I agree with what David wrote....the 8" LX90 (which I also have) is the better buy of the lot, if you're not going to get into the bottomless pit called astrophotography, or only want to dabble in it. Once you start to get into the 10" of either LX90 or 200, you're looking at a rather heavy bit of kit and if you have arthritis, like me, you'll know your limitations when it comes to lifting heavy weights. Even the 8" can be hard to move around at times, when you're not feeling all that great. But it's much easier to move around than the 10".

[casstony]

The 10" ota/fork is about 50 pounds and bulky.
The 8" is about 30 pounds and still a bit bulky if you want to travel with it.

A Nexstar 8SE is much more portable than the 8"LX90 but noticeably less stable. Ability to separate the ota from the mount is a big plus for travel though.

[mozzie]

iv'e owned both models your discussing and if it's for visual work only then the lx90 is the go,aperture rules all the time for visual so if you can lift and transport the 10"then that's what i'd go for..... i remember the days of taking my 12"lx90 to wirruna,astrofest,lostock dragged the scope from pillar to post and setup all around my yard...oh how the dome is easier.......

[g__day]

Query (agreeing with what Peter said above) - if you mainly want to do visual - would a large goto or push to dob not give you more satisfaction if your targets are nebulae? Aperature rules - that points to the dob especially for faint nebulae. A long focal length SCT on a fork mount that is mobile presents challenges for astrophotography. You'd need a decent amount of skill, equipment and patience getting it all to work in the field - do able - but certainly not easy. You'd need an OAG (at that focal length) plus 2 cameras, cables, wind shelter, de-rotators, wedge, PC, power etc. Then you'd have to tune it to remove all differential flexure. As I say do able - but not simple.

If you can draw a line between visual versus must be able to morph to do astrophotography - you can spend your $ with far more effect.

My opinion - Matt

[Boton]

Thank you for the input on this difficult choice .

A few honesty points were very much appreciated, specially when it comes to the reality that "as our age progresses every Kg becomes heavier..."

It seems to me the LX90 8" is a good compromise for our use here in the outback. Well we already have a privileged sky view without the scope anyway.
:thanx:

[barx1963]

Sorry to be a disagreeer with the other opinions, but if you have $3500 to apend (current price of an LX90 10" at Bintel) why not go for aperture and get a 14" go dob and a decent EP or 2? More aperture, collaspible so portable, still got go to and same $$$! Or even a 16" lightbridge and tack on Argo Navis?

Just my 2c worth.

Malcolm

[jenchris]

You can take some quite reasonable pics with the lx90 if you get a good polar alignment and my ACF 8" is easy to set up for visual - great for a weekend away etc.
You can do short exposures and get a good stack - you don't need to go the whole nine yards with the OAG and GuideCamera

[binofied]

I totally agree with Malcolm (bartx1963) To think your going to see flowing bright nebulas, galaxies dripping from the eyepiece in a 8" is a dream. Why have something that needs battery power (other than perhaps for an ArgoNavis) to view the stars visually. Globular clusters only really start to shine at about 12" and nebula start to look the part as well. Get a small 10" or 12" Dob with an Argonavis so you can find things easily. I have never understood why anyone would buy something like the lx90 or lx200 for visual use, or any other use actually.

[higginsdj]

The 8" LX200GPS choice is ONLY if you intend doing astrophotography. I myself am looking for a second scope for visual/occultation work and it won't be an LX200. I'm tossing up between the Meade LS8 (for outreach and ease of carrying) or a 12" GOTO Dob (but not sure I want to lug a 12" mirror around).

(I have a 14" LX200GPS dedicated to astrophotography - ie no visual work)

Cheers

[renormalised]

It could also be said why would anyone want to buy a scope that was basically just a piece of glass in a tube that you had to do everything by yourself. Most people who buy a scope these days don't have the time to be faffing around trying to star hop from star to another to look for some obscure object. Learning constellations and such is easy, looking down an eyepiece for a particular pattern of stars that points to, or frames an object is not and it takes time and patience. Most would just want to pick and object and goto it, with no fuss. People like the LX90's and 200's because they offer that convenience, apart from other benefits. If you have a particular prejudice against them for whatever reason, that's your problem...stick to a dob. But don't begrudge anyone else from wanting to use one or own one. As they say, each to their own.

As for your aperture prejudice, a 12" will only show you marginally better views than the 8", only at a slightly higher resolution. You're still only going to see grey-green smudges for most nebulae and galaxies. If you want to see the real thing, so to speak, get yourself a 24" dob or EQ scope, or larger. Why bother with such a small scope.

[Gem]

Portability. Fleixibility.

I have a 10" f 5.6 dob, but it wouldn't fit in my Mazda 626.
Yes, you can now get collapsible scopes - but you then usually need to collimate it each time you raise and lower it.
You could also get a f/4 10", but I find it much easier to carry my C9.25 OTA outside than the solid tube 10" dob OTA. 10" solid tube dob was great at 21 years old. In my later 30s with a bad back - I'd take the SCT any day.
There is also the flexibility of having the option to do photography later down the track.
At the end of the day ALL telescopes have their positives and negatives. No one scope does it all. :)

And to answer the original question: LX200 if you want to do photography down the track, otherwise LX90.

[Gem]

I should add that Celestron OTA are generally lighter than Meade OTA for SCT...
Maybe you should consider a Celestron 9.25? It is in the middle of your options! :)

[higginsdj]

There is a lot more visual work than just looking at faint fuzzies where goto and pointing accuracy is highly desirable.....

Cheers

[Boton]

Happy I decided to buy the LX90 8", I already ordered it.
As soon as I receive it and play w/it I'll try to give an honest evaluation on the satisfaction level :D

Some Key points on my decision that MAY help others:

1- Weight. For my next 4 to 5 years it is heavy enough, considering my age
2- Benefits with increasing the size of the telescope. As said before what you going to see on the 10" it is marginally better than the 8".
3- Have used Meade #497 for the last years, it is intuitive to me, and I don't need to concentrate on "what should I do now?"; so I'm happy with 30000 objects
4- I have a lot of 1.25" eyepieces, some good quality ones. I can keep using them
5- I don't have a SLR camera, and if I want a good picture of a sky object I can get a good one from Hubble site.
6- Well, price-wise the LX90 8" fits perfectly on my personal budget.
7- Finally, I live in Tennant Creek, NT and we have Clear and I mean, dark and very clear skies where an 8" will do more than a 10" in Melbourne or Sydney.;)

Looking forward to receiving the new addition to the family...

THANK YOU ALL, every piece of info here was valuable.

Cheers
Beto Boton