Celestron AstroMaster 130EQ Vs. Skywatcher SW135

maverick82 (Divij) · #1 14-04-2010, 01:32 PM

Need some advise here...I am all set to buy my first Telescope...
Having researched on the net, i realize that the 8" Dobs are the best amateur telescopes i could go for.
However i see constraints of portability with these dobs. As i live in an apartment in the city, my only chances of viewing the sky are by taking my telescope out in the open and hence i need a scope i can easily carry out.

I am currently exploring the options of buying a Celestron AstroMaster 130EQ or a Skywatcher SW135

Can someone please tell me if there is a striking difference between the 2. And which one can i go for?

dannat (Daniel) · #2 14-04-2010, 06:02 PM

if my memory is corect the celestron is a catadiotrophic telescope..meaning it has a built in barlow lens ..harder to collimate & i would go with the skywatcher which has a true f/l of f7 or something.

JethroB76 (Jeff) · #3 14-04-2010, 08:23 PM

Many of the celestron eq mounted reflectors are the dodgy Jones-Bird designs with built in barlows however I'm not sure this one is. The Astromaster 130EQ is may actually be a genuine F5.
I think the Skywatcher135 may be a dodgy short tube one though..

more info required, links?

mental4astro (Alexander) · #4 14-04-2010, 10:17 PM

Maverick, before you lay your money down, I suggest you get yourself to a local star party and/or astro club meeting, and see a collection of scopes in action. The variety of sizes, applications and capabilities will impress. You will also see dob and eq mounts in action. The dob is much, much easier to use. The eq mount looks 'high-tech', but you may end up not using it anywhere as much as a dobbie mounted scope.

These 130mm scopes unfortunately are not the best. They are made cheaply. Those that have a barlow shoved down the focuser use spherical mirrors, instead of parabolic. These are cheaper to make, and do not focus light as a paroboloid mirror. A good scope will not have a barlow in the optical path. It is a tell-tale sign of an inferior scope.

The footprint of an 8" dob is not much bigger than the box of the 130 anyway. If you keep the 130 on its tripod, then the 8" dob's footprint is tiny.

Scorpius51 (John) · #5 15-04-2010, 12:50 PM

OK guys, a few facts are needed here!

I have had a AstroMaster 130EQ MD for some time now. It is a true f/5 Newtonian with no Barlow fitted. The optics and EQ3 mount are very good, and it is well made for a lower-range combination. I have upgraded to an 200mm Newtonian since. For compactness, the 130EQ is not a bad choice for a beginner (... before the fever takes over!)

I should add that I have offered this scope by PM for sale to Maverick, if he chooses to go that way. However, my advice to him was to go for the 8" Dob, for reasons that you would all appreciate.

However, I totally agree with Alex's advice:

Quote:

Maverick, before you lay your money down, I suggest you get yourself to a local star party and/or astro club meeting, and see a collection of scopes in action. The variety of sizes, applications and capabilities will impress. You will also see dob and eq mounts in action. The dob is much, much easier to use. The eq mount looks 'high-tech', but you may end up not using it anywhere as much as a dobbie mounted scope.

Try before you buy!

Cheers
John

dannat (Daniel) · #6 15-04-2010, 12:51 PM

yes thanks JOhn had the copes round the wrong way..celestron true f5,,the skywatcher is the catadiotropic newtonian (best avoided)

mental4astro (Alexander) · #7 15-04-2010, 02:07 PM

Johnno,

.

Screwdriverone (Chris) · #8 15-04-2010, 03:49 PM

Hi Maverick,

I have an SW135 and don't recommend you buy one, as they are a BUGGER to collimate properly and the catadioptric lens and spherical mirror combination are the issue which you can never get rid of. They do make a 130 x 900P, P stands for PARABOLIC version which has a longer 1000mm tube and by all accounts this one is quite a deal better. If you are stuck on getting an EQ mounted small scope, the SW500 (150mm or 6 inch) newtonian has a parabolic mirror and an Eq3 mount which are better than the SW135's EQ2 and you do have the option later on of fitting the goto upgrade kit to the EQ3 which the EQ2 cant do.

For a 5-6 inch scope they do OK, but for the same amount of money you should be able to get a 8 inch dob which is a much better choice.

The EQ2 tripod my SW135 is on does have an RA clock drive but its not that flash for astrophotography, visually its good, but then again, if its visual you are after, an 8 inch dob is the way to go.

Cheers

Chris

maverick82 (Divij) · #9 16-04-2010, 05:26 PM

Thanks for all your responses guys. These will really help me to decide.
Also is there any astro club meeting you are aware of that i can attend? I would really like to take a peak in now before i buy one.

that_guy (Tony) · #10 17-04-2010, 07:13 PM

where ever you may be youll be certain to find something here
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/clublistings.html

M54 (Molly) · #11 18-04-2010, 02:46 PM

Hi Maverick,

I have an Orion 130mm on an equatorial mount and have just made my own Dob mount for the tube.

IMHO the equatorial is LESS portable than the dobsonian. With the dob there are only two main pieces to move, the base and the tube, and if its a 6 or 8" this is easy to do.
My experience of the Equatorial mount is that it is hard to pick up holus bolus and walk with it, which meant that I had to dismantle it to move it about easily. Also a manual equatorial is VERY HARD to get used to, especially in the dark. I think they are only worth it with a goto.

My money would be on the 8" Dob, absolutely!
Just my 2 cents worth.

P.S. I love my new Dob mount.

(Thanks alexander (mental4astro), pics will come as soon as I get hold of a camera (mines broken).

chrisc (Chris) · #12 21-04-2010, 10:18 PM

Hi,

Just my five cents' worth as someone whose first scope was (indeed still is) an Astromaster 130EQ MD (single axis motor drive).

- It's not catadioptric; there's no Barlow in the optical path (unless you choose to put one there).
- The build quality of the simple rack and pinion focuser sucks. Badly. Lots of image shift when you alter focus, asymmetric response to the knobs, and trying to hang anything off the focuser (particularly a camera!) is just bad news all round. Unfortunately, due to the non-standard nature of the focuser/eyepiece assembly mount on the tube with this telescope, you can't replace the focuser with a better Crayford, even if you wanted to.
- Having said that, after playing with some bigger, sexier, much more expensive telescopes, for observational viewing, the 130EQ can show you some very nice views for such a low-end scope.

I'm upgrading to something else in the very near future, mostly due to the need to connect a camera in a robust manner and be able to track accurately for photos. But as a cheap introduction to astronomy, the Astromaster 130EQ has been a very handy tool, both for observing celestial objects, and for learning about how to find one's way about the sky, polar alignment, collimation, and determining what to look for and/or avoid in future instruments.

Cheers,
Chris