skywatcher mak 127

[I_Mor (Ian)]

Hi IIS,
does anyone have this scope,i'm buggered if I can decide between this and a 102 achro scope...mainly for a quick visual setup/basic photo stuff (moon and terrestrial)..budgets about 500 for ota..

[omegacrux (David)]

Hi Ian
I had the SW 127 mak
I found it was a very good scope on the moon , Saturn and Jupiter
Some of the best views I've had , but they are 1500mm so the f ratio is very slow
Ok on brighter things , struggle on dim stuff
I have never used a 102 acro can't comment on that , but you might get c/a
Although it will be visually brighter

Hope this helps

David

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Hi Ian.

I concur with David.

I 3x barlowed a 17.3 Delos with one of these on the Moon (high up) and got

unbelievable clarity and resolution with one of these, ( cooled 1 hour) 127 Maks. Saturn also great.

But only the brightest clusters and planetaries are not too dim.

Though I've easily spotted galaxy M77 with one.

If you intend to purchase, ensure any object observed is well above the horizon. Viz.35 deg.
Ps: A cheap 6"-8" dob is a better purchase imho.

Hope this helps!

Cheers bigjoe

[Wavytone]

It's a tradeoff - you pay a premium for the compact size of a Mak or SCT (the optics are are harder to make) vs a larger aperture dob, which has much simpler optics but the downside is its size.

I use two maks these days, mainly because my opportunities to get out user a dark sky are quite limited to the extent it isn't worth my while plunging a lot into this hobby.

If I had more time for observing sure, I'd assemble a 14" dob, and a a decent AP setup.

[dannat (Daniel)]

The achro might not be so good for quick photos, and is not so capable for planets,(hard to get high magnif & when you do you'll likely get purple fringing) the mak is a good scope for planets/lunar, has a limited fov for terrestrial viewing though

Prob get the mak

[Eric48]

I have the 150 sw black diamond mak and it's good for nice sharp moon images with no colour fringing with my Canon 40D BUT with the 40's 1.6x cropped sensor and the mak's narrow fov, the whole Moon won't fit into image. It's a joy to use for just eye-balling the Moon and Jupiter and Saturn.

[I_Mor (Ian)]

Thanks all for the helpful advice,i think the Mak wins out,just wondering how much impact a focal reducer has for visual if any?
cheers.

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Originally Posted by I_Mor

Thanks all for the helpful advice,i think the Mak wins out,just wondering how much impact a focal reducer has for visual if any?
cheers.

This might help. http://agenaastro.com/antares-1-25-0...l-reducer.html

It all depends where you put the reducer.

You may find focus is further out, and some vignetting may occur.

Images should be nice for most of the field though.

Cheers Bigjoe

[Wavytone]

If you want a faster scope buy a small ED refractor, not a Mak. It's a mistake to buy an f/12 scope then use a compressor to reduce it to f/8 or less. Much better to use no compressor, and choose longer eyepieces that are an appropriate match.

I also know you probably don't understand why, and will do it anyway. However, among the Mak users here, virtually none use compressors. There really is a reason.

[ManUtdFans (Alan)]

Originally Posted by omegacrux

Hi Ian
I had the SW 127 mak
I found it was a very good scope on the moon , Saturn and Jupiter
Some of the best views I've had , but they are 1500mm so the f ratio is very slow
Ok on brighter things , struggle on dim stuff

Sorry, isn't it better to have longer focal length so that can see the object in bigger size? I might misunderstand telescope technology as I am brand new to this field.

[omegacrux (David)]

Hi Alan
I get what your saying
An f10 might zoom in well , but the same size scope. in f5 will let in a lot more light to view nebula ,
Bit of a trade off

David

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

The f-ratio doesn't have anything to do with letting in light, only aperture can do that