8 replies to this topic

[asaint]

Celestron C80ED vs Orion's 102mm Maksutov

[bobch]

I have used both of these scopes and while it is true the celestron has a wider field of view of course, why would a person want 80mm compared to 102mm. All I know is that it is definately true what his review said about the 102 orion mak is alot better on both deep space objects(much more resolution and as a planet lover, the 102 mak shows much more finer detail on the planets than the 80mm does. I love it's compactness and it's very fine smooth focusing action. I don't understand what he means about the mak being more expensive though but I did buy the 102 mak ota to use on my heavy duty photographic video tripod. The cool down period for the mak is not really that long except maybe if it's 10 degrees or so. Both are fine scopes but the mak has definately better optics. In fact it has GREAT OPTICS. My friends have compared it with other scopes and it is even far better than the 3 questars we compared it to and their well over $2000. I have over 35 years being an ameteur astronomer and have owned over 150 scopes and this little 102mm mak has some of the finest optics I have ever had the pleasure to own. It shows much finer detail on everything I have looked at and it is just flat out a great scope at a GREAT price. I do use a good lumicon 90 degree diagonal with it all the time. Thank you for reading this short review. I did not say much about the 80mm refractor simply because the mak to me and quite a few of my seasoned astronomical friends also agree about what has been stated about the orion Apex 102 mak. I also have the orion 127 mak which is just plain incredible.

[Blair]

Apparently, you did not read my article correctly as I stated the Mak was cheaper than the 80ED.

I'm more into rich field and double star viewing is why I would pick the C80ED.

Then there are those that wouldn't understand why we would bother with a scope with an aperature less than 6 inches.

There is not a right or wrong here only different scopes for different purposes.

[Blair]

Also, I wouldn't say it has better optics only that it does have more of it. Also, at powers less than 150X would I say it shows that much more detail of the planets. In my seeing conditions I seldom can use above 100X on the planets.

[mooreorless]

Hi Blair,I liked your review very much.I thought it gave the strengths of each scope and the weakness of each scope.Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Steve M

[Dave Chadsey]

Thanks Blair,
Good review.

Dave

[Blair]

Steve and Dave thanks for your compliments.

In a few months, after I get to use the scopes on Saturn and Jupiter for instance, I plan to do a follow up article.

Blair.

[matt gray]

Well done Blair.

Interesting to me because I also use the 102mak on an AZ3, and while I've been impressed with it, I feel the need to move on and try something else for a while. I've been Leaning towards an 80mm short tube ED, for the wide view's, knowing full well I'll be trading this for planetary performance...
Sorry to hear your seeing wont allow you to push the little mak. It's a rare night where I'm allowed to get much over 150x, but there has been times where the mak has done very well at 215x and over.

Thanks again for your contribution Sir.

matt

[Blair]

Thanks Matt.

I have decided to use the EQ mount that has been sitting in the spare room for months now. There are times I wish I could look straight up but the AZ-3 can not. Also bought Orion's 100mm f/6 OTA (which arrived today) to put on it. I owned one before and liked it and it shows a little more for DSO viewing than the C80ED. Will probably do a comparison between it and the C80ED but will probably not be published until next year as I want to compare the two on Saturn and Jupiter.

Blair.