The SKY 90 reportedly had optical issues .. maybe that is reflected in the low score.
Ok .. this list has convinced me to buy the Takahashi μ-300. I had a μ-250 and it was a great scope ... but like a moron I sold it. The collimation procedure scared me off.
Sky90 is way over - criticised, but at its short focal length, a planetary scope it isn’t.
Best planet killer I’ve yet used is a Tak FOA60Q. Absolutely razor sharp (highest strehl of any Tak ever made at over 0.99 and near perfect colour correction) - the detail it showed on Jupiter I've never even seen in a Mewlon 300 or a Mak. Maybe not as large an image scale but the fidelity and crispness of detail even with a plossl is astonishing. From my white zone, banding and festoons easily discernible using a Vixen 26 plossl.
Its there with the FS-128 on 72points... not bad company! If there was a flexibility component to the rating it would surely improve its standing
Edit, I just saw that both of these beat a pair of FS-102s as binocs in this review... that surprises me.
Looks like the M210 and M180 appear higher up the list than the CN212?
Don't worry Marc, your CN212 is belting out some wonderful images and that's what matters.
Cheers
Dennis
Yeah I saw that too. I wonder if the Dall Kirkham design has a tighter spot diagram on axis compared to a classical cassegrain because everything else is the same.
An expert once told me that a large oil spaced refractor
gave the best views of planets.
That is due to less dispersion of the light and of course
a non obstructed refractor gives the greatest contrast.
I thought it was taking ok images. Bit of a let down. 
) WO TMB 80mm FD didn't even get a mention ..... that can't be right 
