For the moon, I have different favorites for different purposes.
Smaller apertures can be better (in some ways) for sketching:
Clearly, even a 1-inch aperture is enough to show plenty of detail. It would be a waste of aperture and telescope resolution to sketch such a large region with some of my larger telescopes. I would either have to make a gigantic sketch or omit most of the observed detail unless I were to concentrate my attention on a much smaller region of the moon.
That first alternative is unrealistic and would be ridiculously time consuming -- with the shadows changing significantly before I would be able to finish. The second option is a waste of the capabilities of a fine telescope. I mean, if one isn't going to sketch all that one sees, one might as well be working with a smaller telescope. That final option: sketching a much smaller region -- is what I generally do with larger apertures -- but then one is unable to show the moon's larger features.
Even a pair of binoculars can make for a good lunar "telescope." Here's a 20 year-old sketch of the walled plain Janssen made with the use of a pair of mounted, 20x80 binoculars:
The next time you look at the moon, try a small(er) telescope and look more closely. When it comes to the moon, a lot can be seen even in a relatively tiny image. Is a larger telescope really necessary?