There are no bad 120 to 130mm ED or triplet refractors on the market today. Find one that makes you smile when you look at it, is comfortable on the mount you plan to use it with and you can afford comfortably and you absolutely will not be disappointed with it.
Some people are hung up on sliding dew shields, some like the black tubes, some the white tubes, I don't like the pebble finish scopes but that's just me.
Any focuser you get, regardless of the scope, can be upgraded to a better aftermarket one if you want one.
I've noticed in this hobby, there's plenty of wiggle room in costs even if you claim to have a tight budget. Sacrifice something else in your life for a few months and get the scope you want most of all or you will not be happy in the long run.
Its a great hobby, the equipment is half the fun. Spoil yourself and get what you want. Refractors are Great and fun even just to look at. Take a bunch of photos of it when you get it and enjoy life!!!!
I beg to differ, there are plenty of both new and old FPL-51 class doublets and triplets that are a poor value IMO. These entry level triplets NEED FPL-53 to show a significant optical edge to justify their additional cost over even cheap FPL-53 doublets which are a lot less money. A good FPL-53 ED class doublet like the slower Synta 80mm, 100mm and 120mm tubes are all better performing than the moderate speed f/6 - f/7ish low cost FPL-51 ED class triplets and MUCH better optically than the typical FPL-51 ED class doublets. Glass DOES matter if looking for modern, larger, faster objective scopes for imaging, especially for OSC imaging and for visual use unless the scope is very long and slow which is a legitimate goal if impractical for most.
I have been down this road and back more than once and have come to the conclusion that if you want to buy a lower cost but still reasonably well corrected visual or narrow band capable doublet it needs to have an FPL-53 class ED element and be on what is considered the slower side by today's standards. Triplets for the picky visual user willing to wait an hour or two to cool down and imagers shooting OSC or at high pixel pitches nothing but an FPL-53 ED class triplet or a Tak TSA or TOA will get the job done at the highest levels optically, don't even talk about focusers. To say or think otherwise about glass types has IME been wishful thinking which I had to give up on.
The real issue nobody seems to mention or understand is the cost of using a less expensive ED glass type is the hidden cost of owning and using a much longer slower scope chasing the performance of the faster FPL-53 ED class lenses. Sure maybe you could buy a longer FPL-51 ED doublet but to match the color correction of an FPL-53 doublet the lower class ED lens would need to be much longer and require a heavier more costly mount and unless you already own a big SUV or larger station wagon transporting a refractor much longer than a 1,200mm focal length scope is a Royal PITA.
As you say astronomy is a hobby. But for many people astronomy is not just a "hobby" but the pursuit of technical and aesthetic perfection and control over the outcome at the eyepiece or image is where the joy of astronomy comes from for them. Amature astronomy is a lot cheaper than a lot of hobbies, like say being a vintage Ferrari collector but allows the same passion and pursuit of the details that make the person happy. I'm not a vintage Ferrari collector because IMO if something costs that much I'm going to drive the bejeezus out of it.