I do rough finding with a red dot finder. Then I switch to a 9x50 illuminated centering finder. That put's my 127mm Mat-Cass in the field of view. Orion sells a Dual Finder Scope Mounting Bracket so you can have both mounted on your scope. I also use a 20mm illuminated centering eyepiece. It really helps me locate objects quickly.
I like the high tech animation! You were spot on about aperture fever: I just sold my HEQ5, and minutes later bought one of these to replace my 127. Should have watched your video first.
😂 I wonder if I didn’t give my 150 enough time or whether it wasn’t a good example. I’d be happy to hear that your 150 is a great scope. Please let me know.
@@JenhamsAstroDid you check the collimation on it Graham? I recently purchased a 150 for myself and it's tack sharp on the planets and lunar. It's also no slouch on some of the small bright DSO's. Great on globular clusters also.
awesome review! wonderful telescope, I am thinking of getting this scope as a Christmas present to myself. it's main use will be visual use of the planets. thanks again
Hi Graham, Addressing your concern about the lack of a handle on the scope: I bought from a yacht chandlers adhesive grip tape about 4" wide that would be commonly stuck to walkways on boats. Wrapped around my C90, which has a diameter which stretches my hand width, it provides a secure grip just with fingers. Cheers Martin
That's a good idea. For a bigger scope the only handles I have seen retailed are from Altair, and they were for attaching to tube rings, so no good for the SkyMax. A gap in the market!
thanks mate. i think i will go with the 127 and change the focuser and star diagonal for grab and go. i love my 8inch newt really good as a good all round just heavy and not very grab and go. i will do some research on what eyepieces to use to get the most out the 127. i was looking at the c90 mak but i think the 127 will have the edge over. keep going with the 150 i think you will get some impressive views when jupiter is higher. all the best☺
Lovely and tremendously helpful review! So this OTA has no chance to reside safely on an EQ3 mount for astrophotography work? Can the Celestron C6 work with an EQ3?
Thanks! I think the 150 is too heavy for an EQ3. The C6 would be slightly better but not really suitable either. Really you need to look at an EQ5 class of mount as a minimum for AP with these OTAs, even if a lighter mount would be OK for visual observing. An HEQ5 class of mount would be even better if your budget can stretch. Clear skies! Graham
Did you ever try it with 2" eyepieces? They really open up the dso possibilities. A 56mm plossl for brightest image and widest true field. Some 38-42mm superwides also give the widest true field or very close to that (45.7mm field stop for 38mm Q7 and swa/swan types) and the WO 40mm swan is probably in the maximum 46-47mm field stop. Chinese 30mm UW80s are a bit narrower true field, but the 84deg 30mm widescan III, if you can find one, goes all the way to the edge. I miss mine, I had to replace it with a widescan II, which does not go all the way to the edge, but closer than the chinese clones (uw80). I believe the 40mm pentax xw has a 47mm field stop, but it is around $500 and has a bit of field curvature. I wound up selling mine. On the cheaper end, a GSO made 40mm wide field kellner, like what comes in those 2" eyepiece kits, is also a good option for a mak, and celestron has them on clearance for $49 right now, and I think the astromania branded ones are normally $59. Ignore the 56deg specs on those as they are closer to 65ded. I wouldnt suggest the 42mm superview as it is a tad narrower field than the 40mm, despite what the specs say (it is not 68, more like 58), it is also not as nice of a view. Only the 15mm and 30mm superview are decent in my experience, and a 56 plossl is much better, and wider than the 50mm superview. But any of them are better than being limited to 1.25 32mm and 40mm plossls on deep sky
Nice review, and a nice scope. I am fairly new to astronomy, but I understand what Focal Ratio is. You mentioned this in relation to dim images. Im sure this topic can get quite complicated, but can you explain why a slow focal ration would produce dimmer images. Many thanks!
Hi, thanks for the positive feedback. For the f/ratio i was being imprecise. For a given final magnification image brightness is only related to aperture not f/ratio. For extended objects like the Ring Nebula the long focal length linked to the slow ratio means that the image size is larger for a given eyepiece, compared to a different scope of the same aperture and shorter focal ratio i.e. it has a higher magnification. So the light is spread over a larger angle and the overall image appears dimmer visually. There are other issues like exit pupil, and I have read long discussions of this topic online, but I suppose I meant that "the Ring Nebula is big in the SkyMax, but it seems dimmer than in another 6-inch scope of faster ratio, with the same EP". Sorry if I was unclear.
Nice explanation. I also have seen many discussions on forums regarding this topic. To be honest, it seems like even the really experienced people on the forums do not really know what it means. I think its one of those subjects which will be constantly talked about. Keep up the good vids!
Hi Graham, nice video! I was wondering the cool down issue as stated your video is around an hour for the 150mm mak; then what is the cool down time for the 127mm mak for high mag planetary work? And if you had to choose between the 5" celestron c5 SCT or the 127mm mak which would be the better planetary scope? Thanks.
Thanks, I didn’t notice much of a difference in cool down. 30 mins seems to do the job taking the OTA from indoors out. For planetary i would pick the Mak. My old C5 is pretty decent but contrast seems better on the Mak. Not comparing apples with apples I know, as the coatings on the old SCT won’t help. Overall I think the 127 is a great little scope. Portable yet capable.
@@JenhamsAstro Thanks for your reply. Guess the only other issue I wondered that the Mak might not be as bright or too dim for binoviewers as they take some extra light to work well. Thoughts on this? Any brightness difference to note between these scopes?
@JenhamsAstro part of that is due to the coatings on the older c5, it is either an un coated corrector, or it has "special coatings ", only at the very end of orange tube production is when starbright coatings came out. But all are inferior to modern coatings. The other part is the larger obstruction of course
Hello Jenham's.Sorry for possible stupid questions. I am new to astronomy and bad know English, and the youtube subtitles are not correct.Translate google.I want to buy a Skywatcher 150 , but may look into the Skywatcher 127?Skywatcher 150 I like its size and weight,that you need to pay attention to ? I understand it is only for bright objects(planets) or something else?Thank you .
Hello, do you already own a mount for a telescope, or do you plan to buy one for the telescope? I ask because the 150 is almost twice as heavy as the 127, and it is important to have a stable mount which can take the weight.
Expect SW EQ-5,most likely just visual observation .But I am interested in optical quality of the Skywatcher Skymax 150 pipe compared to the Skywatcher MAK 127?
Optically they are both very good scopes but as Maks they are best for the moon and planets (which are bright) and also bright, small deep sky objects. As a result, in my opinion aperture is not such a major issue as it would be for fainter targets. The 127 is a good performer for half the cost and weight of the 150, and with less time needed for cool down. If I had to choose which of these 2 scopes to carry outside and setup I personally would pick the 127, as i think the best scope is actually the one you use the most, rather than the biggest. If you wanted to do visual observation of a wider range of targets, including dimmer galaxies/nebulae then a Mak is not the best option (either the 127 or 150). Other SW scopes including the excellent ED80/100 Pro/Equinox refractors or their Newtonians are more versatile. As a first scope the ED80 would be top of my list. I hope this helps.
Thanks for the reply.In our country they say that the ideal(universal) telescope there .ED80/100 Pro/Equinox possible and the ideal(universal) but it's not ideal )).If the MAC is not perfect so why do you have so many of them and you use them ?
Good question! I got the Maks because I wanted to try webcam imaging of the planets, and they are very good for this. The C90 was my first and it is such good value I will keep it. The 150 grabs more light, but to me it isn't a quantum leap better than the C90 (which cost 1/4 of the price). Overall if I had to keep one scope it would be a small refractor like the ED80 (I have a William Optics GT81 now which is similar). For visual I prefer the wider field of the refractor, and it is also good for DSLR astrophotography. It is just my personal view.
There are adapters available for the 127 that allows the use of sct thread 2" diagonals or visual backs. The 127 is wonderful with 2" eyepieces, despite the misinformed nay sayers
fran Pardo Hola, there is a good video here ua-cam.com/video/WatdQlPp22Y/v-deo.html which includes some ways of adjusting the dovetail bar. I haven’t tried these methods myself but they could be useful. Thanks for your interest in the channel. Graham
Do you know of a tabletop Dobsonian mount for a larger Mak? Say a 127 or 150mm? I have a cheap Omegon Dob mount for my C90 Mak and it's great, but want more aperture. Also would I see a noticable difference from 90mm to 127mm? Mainly interested in planets, lunar and solar viewing as I have crap visibility (lots of trees) and lots of light pollution at my house. Thanks for the video mate :)
I can use my 127 on the mount from my skywatcher heritage 130 dob and skywatcher actually offer their own model for this called a 127 virtuoso GTI, albeit with tracking. I’m not aware if the 130’s mount is for sale on its own though. These little dobs come up used quite often. The 127 is a good step up from a 90 if you have the right mount. The difference isn’t enormous though as those targets are bright.
Are there any tele-compressors for Maksutovs? I bought the highly regarded Orion 180 Mak-Cass., second-hand and now would like to get a tele-compressor to use it for wide-field imaging as well. Next best thing to an APO but much cheaper. All things being equal nothing beats aperture.
Hi Dan, i've never used a reducer with my Maks, but i've heard that some people had good results with a reasonably cheap Antares reducer, but you need to be careful not to get a unit which includes unwanted correction as well (for SCTs). I imagine the results are influenced by the size of the visual back (this has varied a bit over time with these Maks) and of the particular EP being used. Sorry not to be more help. Please let me know if you get a chance to try one with the mighty 180! Graham
@@JenhamsAstro I got it from an excellent source on Astromart. He was an Optical Engineer. He gives the Orion (skywatcher) 180 Mak. very high marks. It has an obstruction by area of 8.4% which is quite good. A compressor would make this similar to an apochromatic refractor used for deep sky photography at a fraction of the cost. Remember also that nothing beats aperture
Great advice. I have teh Skymax127 and aa carrying handle would be a great asset. My 'other' oner one is an 80MM ED F7 refractor + field flattener. Our local sky conditions are never very good, hence the compromise.
@@JenhamsAstro thanks for the answer, if I can ask another Q. You mentioned about 1 hour cool down for the 150 Mak. How does your Skywatcher 127 Mak compare? 45-50 mins? Or drastically better, like 30mins? Also (sorry, last Q), which is your favorite scope if you can only use one? Thank you for your time.
J Barry Hi. The 127 cool down is much shorter, mine seems happy after 30 mins or so. Of the Maks I prefer the 127 as it offers a good package of weight, price and performance for me. If I had a permanent setup then the larger Maks would be more interesting. Of all my scopes, the GT81 is the one. Still love refractors! Clear skies!
hi have you tested it out on jupiter yet. i have the 200p newt and was thinking of a new scope to use like the 127 mak or yours but the bulk and weight puts me off with the 150. would it work on the vixen porta 2 mount? and do you know what the widest field 2 2 inch eyepiece this can handle? all the best and great channel👍
Hi Robert, I will have to think about the widest field question, but I have tried it on Jupiter and the visual results were good after cooldown. They were not quite the quantum leap improvement I was expecting compared to my C90 though. Probably I will get better results with more time. I have a Porta 2 which I use with my other scopes. I have put the SkyMax on it and I would say it's too heavy for it. I wish I'd gone to the 127 as a step up from the C90, but this is partly because my mounts are now more grab and go in size these days (sold my HEQ5 -> error). Thanks for the positive feedback on the channel.
Hi Graham, Do you still have the 150? Can you articulate why you "liked it BUT didn't love it" ? Has anything changed since? I have a 127mm Mak and it gives really nice views. I fair deal for a used one came up - but not really sure if i should upgrade. I just compared a friend's C6 and it's a bit brighter not really anymore detail. I have an HEQ5 and a EXOS2 ( rated for 28lb) - and I'm sure the mounts will handle fine for visual. I like the 127 because it is quick to Grab-n-Go and cools fairly quick. I'm hesitating to upgrade because the 127 has satisfied me and not sure if the step up is worth it. I appreciate your comment on SCT's. Maybe a real step up is an Edge HD.
Hi Nate, I find the 127’s size to be “just right” for me. If I’d persisted with the 150 I’m sure I could have learned to love it e.g. using the ADC, but at the time it seemed a lot of bulk for a 6” scope, without offering a huge step up in results from the 127. An HEQ5 will definitely handle a 150 no problem, but personally it wasn’t quite the right fit for me. If you want real bulk you could buy a 10” Dob as I have recently, but that’s another story!
Hi Robert, a minimum of Heq5 pro size. Personally I don't like the lighter Eq5 and the 180 will overwhelm it. You may end up getting the goto even if you don't plan to use it.
Hi, I have a Skywatcher MAK150 and would like to switch the visual back to an adapter for SCT. I could not unscrew because it's too hard to take the visual back. Can you guide me? Is there a clip or pin that holds the visual back? Best regards. Roger
Hello Roger, on my 2016 model there is no clip; the visual back just unscrews from the thread on the back and then accepts SCT accessories. I am aware that the design may have changed to this recently. Is yours a new model? Graham
Did you try your Mak 150 with a Focal Reducer? I've used mine with the Celestron .63 reducer/corrector, altho I am considering trying the Antares 0.5X reducer, which does not include the "corrector" element. It is tricky to include the reducer with a Crayford focuser back - I think only Moonlite includes an solution for this, and it is a bit more expensive and probably heavy.
David VB Hi David, no I haven’t tried a reducer with my Maks, although I have read a few positive reviews. For now I’ll stick to my refractor for a faster scope (although 6” refractor-like performance would be nice if you tell me its a winner!) Graham
@@JenhamsAstro Sorry Graham, I phrased my question wrongly and you misunderstood me..I'm asking if the Vixen Great Polaris mount is suitable to carry a SW 150mm Mak. It seems the weight is within spec but I was just wondering if anyone had direct experience. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion.
Muesli711 No problem I should have worked it out (I do still need a handle though 😁). I’d say the GP will be just about OK for the 150 as I imagine you are thinking of visual observation rather than photography. I owned a GP some years ago and liked it, and now have an AP which is really just an updated, modular version. You might need to buy another counterweight? I was surprised at the 150’s solidity when I first picked it up.
If i were you David i would start with a good set of Binoculars to learn the sky first. As jenhams says a MAK is for planets and brighter objects only. if you want to see DSO then a 8 inch newt will be a good starter scope. but you will need to upgrade eyepieces such as celestron xcell. The supplied eyepieces need to go in the bin. thanks Rob
Zara Hall Hi Zara, the views are very good albeit with the narrow field of view of a Mak which isn’t ideal for moving nature targets. It’s a bit of overkill really, you don’t need such a large and relatively heavy scope for terrestrial viewing in my opinion. If you do want to go beyond typical “birding” scopes then a smaller Mak like the C90 is more than enough. If you have a Mak for astro already it should perform well terrestrially as long as it isn’t cooking in a hot sun. But it wouldn’t be my choice otherwise. Graham
I have just been gifted the very 150 mak-cass. as in your video with HEQ5 mount. I KNOW NOTHING OF ASTRONOMY. I have the 28mm x 2" EP. I have just bought an 2x Barlow and an 9mm EP is on order, please tell me whats the best EP for deep space ? 58mm ? dave.
Hi David, that is a great gift! If you are looking for a lower power EP then a couple of options are the Skywatcher Panaview 32mm or the Baader Hyperion Aspheric 31mm. These will give a wider field and crisper image than the supplied 28mm. I would not initially go for the longest focal length EPs, as they can become very heavy and you might not gain that much benefit with the Skymax. The Skymax is never going to be a wide-field telescope but a decent quality EP can give great "lower" power views of brighter DSOs. If you want to read up on astronomy kit info it is worth looking at sites such as Stargazers Lounge or Cloudy Nights. People often post comments and questions on topics such as EPs. I hope this is useful.
You could also try a focal reducer. Edit: but eventually I read that appropriate EP is better for that. For Mak 127 these were recommended: 24mm = 68 degrees 32mm = 52 degrees 40mm = 43 degrees
Thanks Eddie. The top items with the 150 for me are the planets, once the scope is cooled down (yes i know i have said that before but it has a big lump of glass at the front and it caught me out initially). Good for double stars too, and globulars. I hope you enjoy your new arrival. Cheers, Graham
Hi Pete. The Celestron Motorised focuser will not fit onto a 5" scope like the 127. In fact it is difficult to get any focuser that will without doing some DIY (I've looked!), with the exception of a JMI unit that says it fits (but that I haven't tried). There must be a market for a kit of brackets and gears that would make it work! Please let me know if you come across an alternative solution. Graham
Hi Jennifer, I can’t say for sure as I have no personal experience of the 180. For me the issue (beyond cost) would be the mount. The 150 is quite hefty and the 180 more so. I’ve settled on the 127 and plan to spend any extra pennies on a camera upgrade instead.
Hello, the field of view and inherent magnification of the skymax mean it is best suited to small, bright objects, so it can produce good results on globular clusters, planetary nebulae and double stars, but it is not suited to big faint objects, like galaxies or dark nebulae within the milky way. Of course Maks are great for planetary photography. So as so often the answer is "it depends". For me, milky way imaging isn't its strength. If you want to capture the North America nebula or the Veil, for example, you would do better with a scope with a wider field and faster (lower) focal ratio that a f/12 Mak, such as an f/6 apo refractor or f/5 newtonian reflector. I hope this helps, Graham
Astro-Physics did a 10 Inch f14.6 but I'm pretty sure that's been discontinued, obviously there's a limit to how big they can be made and still be profitable, those big lenses get really expensive and heavy. Orion optics apparently do a 210mm f20 the OMC 200 but they push £10k so well out of my price range So the OMC 200 8.25" is the largest I know of that's available.
Thanks. A 150mm Mak will give good daytime terrestrial views, but i would recommend a smaller, lighter telescope instead such as a 70-80mm refractor. A spotting scope doesn't need to be as big or heavy as the Skymax, as light grasp is not such a concern as it is for celestial viewing. If you really want a Mak for daytime use, a 90mm is more than sufficient for most uses. I hope this helps.
Hi, my current mount is a Vixen AP, but if i am honest the Skymax 150 is too heavy for it. I would say something like an EQ-5 would be the minimum size (9kg payload), with an HEQ5 (15kg payload) or the AZ-EQ5 being ideal.
I'd say the 150 for planets and the moon. For more general astro the 6SE could be a better choice, as it has a wider field of view and is lightweight. But for AP at high powers I'd go with the Mak.
For me, the really telling part of your (excellent!) presentation was when you said that star images were 'not quite as sharp as with a refractor'. That tells us a lot. Planetary images might look nice, but you would always be aware that they are not giving the fine detail they should. These Maks are a compromise.
Today, after several weeks using my new 10-inch dob that is like yours, I got an Explore Scientific 127 mm Maksutov-Cassegrain. I think it will serve well. Its focal length is 23% longer than the SkyMax 127. I am going to need to watch and rewatch your Mak videos to learn how best to use it.
Jeremy Rundle Thanks. Yes the standard accessories are only adequate. Probably SW could omit these and drop the price a little, as most Mak OTA buyers probably have their own favourites already. Not exactly a starter scope!
I don't understand why anyone would buy a Mak, and then stick a huge focuser on the back. This optically detunes the scope and you lose performance. The Mak is critically dependent on the spacing between the meniscus and the mirror. When you push the image way out the back as is necessary when using a large focuser like this, you change the spacing so much that optical performance is lost. You would be better off with an SCT, which is less sensitive (but not insensitive) to spacing. Or, you would be better off with a classical Cassegrain with fixed mirrors. Just SMDH. These "upgrades" just become folk wisdom in spite of their dubious nature.
I do rough finding with a red dot finder. Then I switch to a 9x50 illuminated centering finder. That put's my 127mm Mat-Cass in the field of view. Orion sells a Dual Finder Scope Mounting Bracket so you can have both mounted on your scope. I also use a 20mm illuminated centering eyepiece. It really helps me locate objects quickly.
I like the high tech animation! You were spot on about aperture fever: I just sold my HEQ5, and minutes later bought one of these to replace my 127. Should have watched your video first.
😂 I wonder if I didn’t give my 150 enough time or whether it wasn’t a good example. I’d be happy to hear that your 150 is a great scope. Please let me know.
@@JenhamsAstroDid you check the collimation on it Graham? I recently purchased a 150 for myself and it's tack sharp on the planets and lunar. It's also no slouch on some of the small bright DSO's. Great on globular clusters also.
awesome review! wonderful telescope, I am thinking of getting this scope as a Christmas present to myself. it's main use will be visual use of the planets. thanks again
Hi Graham,
Addressing your concern about the lack of a handle on the scope: I bought from a yacht chandlers adhesive grip tape about 4" wide that would be commonly stuck to walkways on boats. Wrapped around my C90, which has a diameter which stretches my hand width, it provides a secure grip just with fingers.
Cheers
Martin
That's a good idea. For a bigger scope the only handles I have seen retailed are from Altair, and they were for attaching to tube rings, so no good for the SkyMax. A gap in the market!
thanks mate. i think i will go with the 127 and change the focuser and star diagonal for grab and go. i love my 8inch newt really good as a good all round just heavy and not very grab and go. i will do some research on what eyepieces to use to get the most out the 127. i was looking at the c90 mak but i think the 127 will have the edge over. keep going with the 150 i think you will get some impressive views when jupiter is higher. all the best☺
Lovely and tremendously helpful review! So this OTA has no chance to reside safely on an EQ3 mount for astrophotography work? Can the Celestron C6 work with an EQ3?
Thanks! I think the 150 is too heavy for an EQ3. The C6 would be slightly better but not really suitable either. Really you need to look at an EQ5 class of mount as a minimum for AP with these OTAs, even if a lighter mount would be OK for visual observing. An HEQ5 class of mount would be even better if your budget can stretch. Clear skies! Graham
Very well-done review.
Currently have the 127 mac. I was thinking of upgrading to the 150. Is there much point? Would I see much difference.
Did you ever try it with 2" eyepieces? They really open up the dso possibilities. A 56mm plossl for brightest image and widest true field. Some 38-42mm superwides also give the widest true field or very close to that (45.7mm field stop for 38mm Q7 and swa/swan types) and the WO 40mm swan is probably in the maximum 46-47mm field stop.
Chinese 30mm UW80s are a bit narrower true field, but the 84deg 30mm widescan III, if you can find one, goes all the way to the edge. I miss mine, I had to replace it with a widescan II, which does not go all the way to the edge, but closer than the chinese clones (uw80).
I believe the 40mm pentax xw has a 47mm field stop, but it is around $500 and has a bit of field curvature. I wound up selling mine.
On the cheaper end, a GSO made 40mm wide field kellner, like what comes in those 2" eyepiece kits, is also a good option for a mak, and celestron has them on clearance for $49 right now, and I think the astromania branded ones are normally $59. Ignore the 56deg specs on those as they are closer to 65ded. I wouldnt suggest the 42mm superview as it is a tad narrower field than the 40mm, despite what the specs say (it is not 68, more like 58), it is also not as nice of a view. Only the 15mm and 30mm superview are decent in my experience, and a 56 plossl is much better, and wider than the 50mm superview.
But any of them are better than being limited to 1.25 32mm and 40mm plossls on deep sky
I already got the 127, but now that I have a mount fever (EQM35 vs HEQ5). I might end up with a retrograde aperture fever as well.
Nice review, and a nice scope. I am fairly new to astronomy, but I understand what Focal Ratio is. You mentioned this in relation to dim images. Im sure this topic can get quite complicated, but can you explain why a slow focal ration would produce dimmer images. Many thanks!
Hi, thanks for the positive feedback. For the f/ratio i was being imprecise. For a given final magnification image brightness is only related to aperture not f/ratio. For extended objects like the Ring Nebula the long focal length linked to the slow ratio means that the image size is larger for a given eyepiece, compared to a different scope of the same aperture and shorter focal ratio i.e. it has a higher magnification. So the light is spread over a larger angle and the overall image appears dimmer visually. There are other issues like exit pupil, and I have read long discussions of this topic online, but I suppose I meant that "the Ring Nebula is big in the SkyMax, but it seems dimmer than in another 6-inch scope of faster ratio, with the same EP". Sorry if I was unclear.
Nice explanation. I also have seen many discussions on forums regarding this topic. To be honest, it seems like even the really experienced people on the forums do not really know what it means. I think its one of those subjects which will be constantly talked about.
Keep up the good vids!
Thanks for this review, really helpful!
Hi Graham, nice video!
I was wondering the cool down issue as stated your video is around an hour for the 150mm mak; then what is the cool down time for the 127mm mak for high mag planetary work? And if you had to choose between the 5" celestron c5 SCT or the 127mm mak which would be the better planetary scope?
Thanks.
Thanks, I didn’t notice much of a difference in cool down. 30 mins seems to do the job taking the OTA from indoors out. For planetary i would pick the Mak. My old C5 is pretty decent but contrast seems better on the Mak. Not comparing apples with apples I know, as the coatings on the old SCT won’t help. Overall I think the 127 is a great little scope. Portable yet capable.
@@JenhamsAstro Thanks for your reply. Guess the only other issue I wondered that the Mak might not be as bright or too dim for binoviewers as they take some extra light to work well. Thoughts on this? Any brightness difference to note between these scopes?
@@Astroturf100 Sorry missed the BV. I haven’t used any with a Mak sorry.
@JenhamsAstro part of that is due to the coatings on the older c5, it is either an un coated corrector, or it has "special coatings ", only at the very end of orange tube production is when starbright coatings came out. But all are inferior to modern coatings.
The other part is the larger obstruction of course
Hello Jenham's.Sorry for possible stupid questions. I am new to astronomy and bad know English, and the youtube subtitles are not correct.Translate google.I want to buy a Skywatcher 150 , but may look into the Skywatcher 127?Skywatcher 150 I like its size and weight,that you need to pay attention to ? I understand it is only for bright objects(planets) or something else?Thank you .
Hello, do you already own a mount for a telescope, or do you plan to buy one for the telescope? I ask because the 150 is almost twice as heavy as the 127, and it is important to have a stable mount which can take the weight.
Expect SW EQ-5,most likely just visual observation .But I am interested in optical quality of the Skywatcher Skymax 150 pipe compared to the Skywatcher MAK 127?
Optically they are both very good scopes but as Maks they are best for the moon and planets (which are bright) and also bright, small deep sky objects. As a result, in my opinion aperture is not such a major issue as it would be for fainter targets. The 127 is a good performer for half the cost and weight of the 150, and with less time needed for cool down. If I had to choose which of these 2 scopes to carry outside and setup I personally would pick the 127, as i think the best scope is actually the one you use the most, rather than the biggest.
If you wanted to do visual observation of a wider range of targets, including dimmer galaxies/nebulae then a Mak is not the best option (either the 127 or 150). Other SW scopes including the excellent ED80/100 Pro/Equinox refractors or their Newtonians are more versatile. As a first scope the ED80 would be top of my list. I hope this helps.
Thanks for the reply.In our country they say that the ideal(universal) telescope there .ED80/100 Pro/Equinox possible and the ideal(universal) but it's not ideal )).If the MAC is not perfect so why do you have so many of them and you use them ?
Good question! I got the Maks because I wanted to try webcam imaging of the planets, and they are very good for this. The C90 was my first and it is such good value I will keep it. The 150 grabs more light, but to me it isn't a quantum leap better than the C90 (which cost 1/4 of the price). Overall if I had to keep one scope it would be a small refractor like the ED80 (I have a William Optics GT81 now which is similar). For visual I prefer the wider field of the refractor, and it is also good for DSLR astrophotography. It is just my personal view.
the 127 does not have any 2 inch opening at tubus? has reasonable won 2 "eyepieces to use it?
the 150er has standard 2" on tubus....
There are adapters available for the 127 that allows the use of sct thread 2" diagonals or visual backs. The 127 is wonderful with 2" eyepieces, despite the misinformed nay sayers
Hola buenas,sabes como corregir el error de cono en el Mak 127 goto de skywatcher?.Muchas gracias
fran Pardo Hola, there is a good video here ua-cam.com/video/WatdQlPp22Y/v-deo.html which includes some ways of adjusting the dovetail bar. I haven’t tried these methods myself but they could be useful. Thanks for your interest in the channel. Graham
Do you know of a tabletop Dobsonian mount for a larger Mak? Say a 127 or 150mm? I have a cheap Omegon Dob mount for my C90 Mak and it's great, but want more aperture. Also would I see a noticable difference from 90mm to 127mm? Mainly interested in planets, lunar and solar viewing as I have crap visibility (lots of trees) and lots of light pollution at my house. Thanks for the video mate :)
I can use my 127 on the mount from my skywatcher heritage 130 dob and skywatcher actually offer their own model for this called a 127 virtuoso GTI, albeit with tracking. I’m not aware if the 130’s mount is for sale on its own though. These little dobs come up used quite often. The 127 is a good step up from a 90 if you have the right mount. The difference isn’t enormous though as those targets are bright.
Are there any tele-compressors for Maksutovs? I bought the highly regarded Orion 180 Mak-Cass., second-hand and now would like to get a tele-compressor to use it for wide-field imaging as well. Next best thing to an APO but much cheaper. All things being equal nothing beats aperture.
Hi Dan, i've never used a reducer with my Maks, but i've heard that some people had good results with a reasonably cheap Antares reducer, but you need to be careful not to get a unit which includes unwanted correction as well (for SCTs). I imagine the results are influenced by the size of the visual back (this has varied a bit over time with these Maks) and of the particular EP being used. Sorry not to be more help. Please let me know if you get a chance to try one with the mighty 180! Graham
@@JenhamsAstro I got it from an excellent source on Astromart. He was an Optical Engineer. He gives the Orion (skywatcher) 180 Mak. very high marks. It has an obstruction by area of 8.4% which is quite good. A compressor would make this similar to an apochromatic refractor used for deep sky photography at a fraction of the cost. Remember also that nothing beats aperture
Great advice. I have teh Skymax127 and aa carrying handle would be a great asset. My 'other' oner one is an 80MM ED F7 refractor + field flattener. Our local sky conditions are never very good, hence the compromise.
There is a gap in the market for scope handles! Possibly not a route to riches though.
@@JenhamsAstro 6:15 thank you for the warning! Was about to use it as a handle too when it comes 😅
For the narrow view, you can use a focal reducer right? that would instantly give roughly a %40 wider view?
J Barry I haven’t tried one but I’ve read that a reducer (vs a reducer corrector) can increase FOV but you may get some vignetting.
@@JenhamsAstro thanks for the answer, if I can ask another Q. You mentioned about 1 hour cool down for the 150 Mak. How does your Skywatcher 127 Mak compare? 45-50 mins? Or drastically better, like 30mins? Also (sorry, last Q), which is your favorite scope if you can only use one? Thank you for your time.
J Barry Hi. The 127 cool down is much shorter, mine seems happy after 30 mins or so. Of the Maks I prefer the 127 as it offers a good package of weight, price and performance for me. If I had a permanent setup then the larger Maks would be more interesting. Of all my scopes, the GT81 is the one. Still love refractors! Clear skies!
@@JenhamsAstro i also have a GT81 and a 127 Mak.
hi have you tested it out on jupiter yet. i have the 200p newt and was thinking of a new scope to use like the 127 mak or yours but the bulk and weight puts me off with the 150. would it work on the vixen porta 2 mount? and do you know what the widest field 2 2 inch eyepiece this can handle? all the best and great channel👍
not 22 but 2 inch. typo😕
Hi Robert, I will have to think about the widest field question, but I have tried it on Jupiter and the visual results were good after cooldown. They were not quite the quantum leap improvement I was expecting compared to my C90 though. Probably I will get better results with more time. I have a Porta 2 which I use with my other scopes. I have put the SkyMax on it and I would say it's too heavy for it. I wish I'd gone to the 127 as a step up from the C90, but this is partly because my mounts are now more grab and go in size these days (sold my HEQ5 -> error). Thanks for the positive feedback on the channel.
hola buenas.Sabes como corregir el error de cono?....gracias
Hi Graham, Do you still have the 150? Can you articulate why you "liked it BUT didn't love it" ? Has anything changed since? I have a 127mm Mak and it gives really nice views. I fair deal for a used one came up - but not really sure if i should upgrade. I just compared a friend's C6 and it's a bit brighter not really anymore detail. I have an HEQ5 and a EXOS2 ( rated for 28lb) - and I'm sure the mounts will handle fine for visual. I like the 127 because it is quick to Grab-n-Go and cools fairly quick. I'm hesitating to upgrade because the 127 has satisfied me and not sure if the step up is worth it. I appreciate your comment on SCT's. Maybe a real step up is an Edge HD.
Hi Nate, I find the 127’s size to be “just right” for me. If I’d persisted with the 150 I’m sure I could have learned to love it e.g. using the ADC, but at the time it seemed a lot of bulk for a 6” scope, without offering a huge step up in results from the 127. An HEQ5 will definitely handle a 150 no problem, but personally it wasn’t quite the right fit for me. If you want real bulk you could buy a 10” Dob as I have recently, but that’s another story!
Hi there wot would be the best manual skywatcher mount to go with the skywatcher skymax 180mm thanks
Hi Robert, a minimum of Heq5 pro size. Personally I don't like the lighter Eq5 and the 180 will overwhelm it. You may end up getting the goto even if you don't plan to use it.
Hi, I have a Skywatcher MAK150 and would like to switch the visual back to an adapter for SCT. I could not unscrew because it's too hard to take the visual back. Can you guide me? Is there a clip or pin that holds the visual back? Best regards. Roger
Hello Roger, on my 2016 model there is no clip; the visual back just unscrews from the thread on the back and then accepts SCT accessories. I am aware that the design may have changed to this recently. Is yours a new model? Graham
Did you try your Mak 150 with a Focal Reducer? I've used mine with the Celestron .63 reducer/corrector, altho I am considering trying the Antares 0.5X reducer, which does not include the "corrector" element. It is tricky to include the reducer with a Crayford focuser back - I think only Moonlite includes an solution for this, and it is a bit more expensive and probably heavy.
David VB Hi David, no I haven’t tried a reducer with my Maks, although I have read a few positive reviews. For now I’ll stick to my refractor for a faster scope (although 6” refractor-like performance would be nice if you tell me its a winner!) Graham
Hi. Does the dewshield some improve on the contrast on daytime image?
Yes i think a dewshield helps to stop stray off-axis light during the daytime. I saw this on my "old vs new C90" video.
Hi Graham (or anybody), would a Vixen GPE mount handle the SW 150 Mak? Thanks for any feedback
Sorry I am not sure. There seems to be a lack of handles on the market for Maks, so if you find one that fits please let me know. Graham
@@JenhamsAstro Sorry Graham, I phrased my question wrongly and you misunderstood me..I'm asking if the Vixen Great Polaris mount is suitable to carry a SW 150mm Mak. It seems the weight is within spec but I was just wondering if anyone had direct experience. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion.
Muesli711 No problem I should have worked it out (I do still need a handle though 😁). I’d say the GP will be just about OK for the 150 as I imagine you are thinking of visual observation rather than photography. I owned a GP some years ago and liked it, and now have an AP which is really just an updated, modular version. You might need to buy another counterweight? I was surprised at the 150’s solidity when I first picked it up.
If i were you David i would start with a good set of Binoculars to learn the sky first. As jenhams says a MAK is for planets and brighter objects only. if you want to see DSO then a 8 inch newt will be a good starter scope. but you will need to upgrade eyepieces such as celestron xcell. The supplied eyepieces need to go in the bin. thanks Rob
Tại sao nó có giá đắt gấp đôi Sky mak 127, bạn có thể giải thích cho tôi không, chất lượng quang học có tốt hơn Sky mak 127 hay chỉ là sáng hơn
How does it perform for terrestrial viewing?
Zara Hall Hi Zara, the views are very good albeit with the narrow field of view of a Mak which isn’t ideal for moving nature targets. It’s a bit of overkill really, you don’t need such a large and relatively heavy scope for terrestrial viewing in my opinion. If you do want to go beyond typical “birding” scopes then a smaller Mak like the C90 is more than enough. If you have a Mak for astro already it should perform well terrestrially as long as it isn’t cooking in a hot sun. But it wouldn’t be my choice otherwise. Graham
I have just been gifted the very 150 mak-cass. as in your video with HEQ5 mount. I KNOW NOTHING OF ASTRONOMY. I have the 28mm x 2" EP. I have just bought an 2x Barlow and an 9mm EP is on order, please tell me whats the best EP for deep space ? 58mm ?
dave.
Hi David, that is a great gift! If you are looking for a lower power EP then a couple of options are the Skywatcher Panaview 32mm or the Baader Hyperion Aspheric 31mm. These will give a wider field and crisper image than the supplied 28mm. I would not initially go for the longest focal length EPs, as they can become very heavy and you might not gain that much benefit with the Skymax. The Skymax is never going to be a wide-field telescope but a decent quality EP can give great "lower" power views of brighter DSOs. If you want to read up on astronomy kit info it is worth looking at sites such as Stargazers Lounge or Cloudy Nights. People often post comments and questions on topics such as EPs. I hope this is useful.
You could also try a focal reducer. Edit: but eventually I read that appropriate EP is better for that. For Mak 127 these were recommended:
24mm = 68 degrees
32mm = 52 degrees
40mm = 43 degrees
Great review! I am waiting delivery of my 150 this week, what are some of your favorite objects to look at with the 150 of you care sharing?!
Thanks Eddie. The top items with the 150 for me are the planets, once the scope is cooled down (yes i know i have said that before but it has a big lump of glass at the front and it caught me out initially). Good for double stars too, and globulars. I hope you enjoy your new arrival. Cheers, Graham
hi can you use celestron's auto focuser on sky watcher max 127
Hi Pete. The Celestron Motorised focuser will not fit onto a 5" scope like the 127. In fact it is difficult to get any focuser that will without doing some DIY (I've looked!), with the exception of a JMI unit that says it fits (but that I haven't tried). There must be a market for a kit of brackets and gears that would make it work! Please let me know if you come across an alternative solution. Graham
Is a 180 worth the extra money? That's where I am right now . Can not decide between the 2 of those
Hi Jennifer, I can’t say for sure as I have no personal experience of the 180. For me the issue (beyond cost) would be the mount. The 150 is quite hefty and the 180 more so. I’ve settled on the 127 and plan to spend any extra pennies on a camera upgrade instead.
Thank you!!. My common sense side of my brain says the 150 is more practical than the 180. Hahaha.
Hi sir,
Does this scope is capable to do the imaging like milky way with dslr or ASI camera? TQ
Hello, the field of view and inherent magnification of the skymax mean it is best suited to small, bright objects, so it can produce good results on globular clusters, planetary nebulae and double stars, but it is not suited to big faint objects, like galaxies or dark nebulae within the milky way. Of course Maks are great for planetary photography. So as so often the answer is "it depends". For me, milky way imaging isn't its strength. If you want to capture the North America nebula or the Veil, for example, you would do better with a scope with a wider field and faster (lower) focal ratio that a f/12 Mak, such as an f/6 apo refractor or f/5 newtonian reflector. I hope this helps, Graham
Can i buy telescope i am sri lankan, but not available in our country
Just out of interest, do you happen to know what the largest commercially available Maksutov is?
Good question! The Skymax 180 comes to mind. Do you know of any larger?
Astro-Physics did a 10 Inch f14.6 but I'm pretty sure that's been discontinued, obviously there's a limit to how big they can be made and still be profitable, those big lenses get really expensive and heavy.
Orion optics apparently do a 210mm f20 the OMC 200
but they push £10k so well out of my price range
So the OMC 200 8.25" is the largest I know of that's available.
Astro Shlibber OK good to know, but also outside my budget range. I expect they would have a long cool down!
Seems I was wrong, 254mm F14.5 Maksutov-Cassegrain Astro-Physics $22,000.00
Hi. Nice review and telescope. Please tell me if it is good for terrestrial observations. Thanks.
Thanks. A 150mm Mak will give good daytime terrestrial views, but i would recommend a smaller, lighter telescope instead such as a 70-80mm refractor. A spotting scope doesn't need to be as big or heavy as the Skymax, as light grasp is not such a concern as it is for celestial viewing. If you really want a Mak for daytime use, a 90mm is more than sufficient for most uses. I hope this helps.
@@JenhamsAstro Thank you very much.
Das ist ein feines Teleskop.
Excuse-me, I look for your vidéo where you change 90° by a focuseur. Because I have a M150 and I want to increase Map.
With wich mount you use it?
Hi, my current mount is a Vixen AP, but if i am honest the Skymax 150 is too heavy for it. I would say something like an EQ-5 would be the minimum size (9kg payload), with an HEQ5 (15kg payload) or the AZ-EQ5 being ideal.
Jenham's Astro Yes for my is correct an heq5 or advance vx celestron.
Yes either of those should be OK with the Skymax.
In Italy the cost is 1200€.But is a good mount even for astrophotografy
This one or Celestron 6SE ???. I will use for astrophotography, target the Moon. I appreciated your opinion. Thank you.
I'd say the 150 for planets and the moon. For more general astro the 6SE could be a better choice, as it has a wider field of view and is lightweight. But for AP at high powers I'd go with the Mak.
8:30 But I want it, hnngg.... Bigger... Must get bigger...
Is this a true 150 mirror scope?
I'm not sure, I didn't measure mine but I suspect it may operate at a slightly lower aperture.
It is a nice scope
no images
For me, the really telling part of your (excellent!) presentation was when you said that star images were 'not quite as sharp as with a refractor'. That tells us a lot. Planetary images might look nice, but you would always be aware that they are not giving the fine detail they should. These Maks are a compromise.
You just saved me $780 US.
Today, after several weeks using my new 10-inch dob that is like yours, I got an Explore Scientific 127 mm Maksutov-Cassegrain. I think it will serve well. Its focal length is 23% longer than the SkyMax 127. I am going to need to watch and rewatch your Mak videos to learn how best to use it.
Nice video but the diagonal and eyepiece really are cheap crap (Oh and I use Baader click lock)
Jeremy Rundle Thanks. Yes the standard accessories are only adequate. Probably SW could omit these and drop the price a little, as most Mak OTA buyers probably have their own favourites already. Not exactly a starter scope!
Olaermanososquierodiossellamajeova hola os he escrito
I don't understand why anyone would buy a Mak, and then stick a huge focuser on the back. This optically detunes the scope and you lose performance. The Mak is critically dependent on the spacing between the meniscus and the mirror. When you push the image way out the back as is necessary when using a large focuser like this, you change the spacing so much that optical performance is lost. You would be better off with an SCT, which is less sensitive (but not insensitive) to spacing. Or, you would be better off with a classical Cassegrain with fixed mirrors. Just SMDH. These "upgrades" just become folk wisdom in spite of their dubious nature.
Erm, Erm, Erm.... Urgh
The Earth is flat, the Moon is flat.
Tf
Sorry, can't get excited about Chinese mass produced junk.
Fair enough, although for me so far the Chinese kit has been decent (minus my recent quality issue with a C8 that is).