Sky-Watcher Mak

[tims]

Hi all

Anyone had any experience with this Sky-Watcher 180 MakCas http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/s...1=1&class2=108. I can't find any reviews or mention here in IIS or elsewhere. Are there any clones of this around?

Thanks

Tim

[casstony]

Same as the gold/white pro model, gets generally good reviews, all spherical manufacturing so quality should be more consistent than SCT's, cooling could be a problem in falling temperatures, a C9.25 would probably outperform it.

http://www.myastroshop.com.au/guides/promak180.asp

[dcalleja]

I have the 150 but I think the reviews for the 180 are similar. This was my first light post

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=47774

[Wavytone]

Hi tims, I have a Skywatcher 180 f/15 Mak for lunar & planetary... It's a bundle of compromises IMHO. When I biought mine I was after a compact lunary & planetary scope, and steered clear of buying an f/10 SCT because (having had one before) the secondary is large enough to degrade the image. At f/15 the secondary is a fair bit smaller.

1. Good points - magnification - and lots of it, and I can use a comfortable set of 2" eyepieces. You might find a 4" f/7 refractor a useful adjunct (I have one side-by-side).

2. The finder - it's a decent 9x50, works fine and actually manages to stay reasonably well aligned from setup to setup.

3. The backend - it's a 2" back - bigger than the backs used on Meade/Celestron 8" SCT's - and it won't take the usual accessories designed for the Meade/Celestron backs as the screw thread is a fair bit larger, so be careful if you buy an optical window to seal the tube.

Not a bad thing though, as it will fill a fair field of view at low power. It can fill several big 2" eyepieces - such as my TMB30mm, Masayuma 45, Vixen LV50.

4. The OTA lacks ventilation so there is a fair cool-down time - about an hour; during this stick to low power views of DSO's, before attempting 200X on the planets.

5. The optical quality is a gamble with these cheap chinese scopes. Mine is second-rate -I'd give it 5 out of 10 - at high power in good seeing it won't form a clean Airy disk and I have seen better images from 8" SCT's.

Compared to my 4" refractor the image is brighter, but it won't give any more detail on the planets than the 4" does. This is pretty disappointing as a 7" Mak should be noticeably better.

6. The finder bracket is a very weak alloy casting barely better that papier mache, the thread for the screw that holds the finder stripped itself the third time it was used and I had to replace it with a bracket machines from solid bar.

If you really want a 7" Mak, if you can afford it I would strongly suggest buying an Intes Micro instead (as I have done) or a secondhand Meade Mak (they come up on Astromart often enough).

[M_Lewis (Mark)]

I bought a 7.1" Mak Black Edition SW Mak about 3 months ago and love it.

Not to discredit your experiences Wavy, but unlike the 7 points above, I have had the opposite experience, as I have an instrument with superb optical quality, and my cooldowns take maybe 30 mins tops.

I have had no problems with the finderscope or noticed any flimsy construction or screws being stripped, and have never had to do anything up behind finger tight.

I wonder Wavy, if you got one that managed to slip through the cracks on QC, because my ED 80mm refractor nowhere near compares to the Mak for planetry views.

This scope is an excellent galaxy and planetry scope, because you can pump up the magnification and get those narrow FOV's for those far off galaxy's if that is what you want.

I have about 5 reviews of the Pro edition (the gold version 1.25" attach barrels) bookmarked, I'll find them and pm them too you. From memory, none got a bad report and they range over a number of year.

Cheers

Mark

I often use a Antares 6.6 focal reducer with mine, and I can fit the entirety of the M42 in the FOV.

[casstony]

From a review on Astromart:
"Compared to a good 8-inch Schmidt-Cass, the 180 delivers an image of slightly better contrast, but at the expense of image brightness".

http://www.astromart.com/articles/ar...article_id=643

[Maverick]

hi just pulled out old pdf file if any help for you
Cya

[tims]

Thanks for all your replies, much appreciated The Mak I was looking at has been sold so the hunt goes on.
I haven't really made up my mind on what design I want but I really want to try out astro-photography so that's going to influence my decision on what to buy 'used' - the more I read about the subject the consensus seems to be a short focal length refractor. Too many choices!

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by tims

the consensus seems to be a short focal length refractor

Depends what you want to do with it. I get the feeling most of the refractors around f/7 are optimised for photography - and are not necessarily ideal for visual use at high power; if that's your game an f/10 SCT would be better value.