2307 replies to this topic

[John R.]

I purchased the 90mm f/7.3 refractor. Here's a mini-review of it..

 

https://www.cloudyni...3#entry12484958

 

I have since learned the eyepieces are not plossls, but even lower quality MA's. No biggie since I use some of my other and slightly better EPs in this scope but the MAs aren't terrible.

 

EDIT: I just saw Anony's post #43 quoting my summary of this scope after I'd posted this. Apologies for the redundancy.

I have better eyepieces than the ones included with this scope, but, for now I’m trying to use the scope as a new to the hobby person would. Would they be able to use it? 
So far I’m leaning toward a qualified, ‘maybe’. 
That said the finder is useless trash and unusable. A neophyte would not know that you don’t really need a finder or that for $15 you can get a RDF from Amazon that can fit the studs on the tube if you drill a couple holes in the plastic foot. 
For myself, just going finderless for now. 

[Anony]

I doubt I’ll go that high. My plan is; 

20mm MA,  25x

10mm MA,  50x 

10mm MA with a 2X barlow,  100x 

I also have a 4mm aspheric, 125x, and I might try that, just for kicks.

If seeing permits that is. 

I believe you also bought the 70mm Mak, correct?

 

I'm sort of curious how they compare viewing-wise. My first thought was that the Mak would be the narrow view scope... refractor wide view scope, but then I realized they may be more or less exactly the same.

 

Light gathering probably is around the same w/ both scopes. And I think the refractor is f/8ish, while the Mak is a bit fast (for Maks) at f/10-11ish. There may be a touch of CA with the refractor, but it probably won't be very noticeable.

[rocco13]

I believe you also bought the 70mm Mak, correct?

 

I'm sort of curious how they compare viewing-wise. My first thought was that the Mak would be the narrow view scope... refractor wide view scope, but then I realized they may be more or less exactly the same.

 

Light gathering probably is around the same w/ both scopes. And I think the refractor is f/8ish, while the Mak is a bit fast (for Maks) at f/10-11ish. There may be a touch of CA with the refractor, but it probably won't be very noticeable.

I've done a daytime and nighttime shootout with the 90 refractor and my 90 Mak. The refractor was very slightly brighter (as expected, with no central obstruction), and wider FOV. The Mak also performed well but when I used different EPs to roughly match the magnification (frac is f/7.3, mak f/13.9) it wasn't much of a difference. Keep in mind that was a very informal comparison under Bortle 7/8 skies, and nor did I try to be scientific about, just going by each view with different EPs and objects such as a few open clusters and M42. Both were able to give me E & F in Trapezium for a few seconds here and there.

 

There is a small horseshoe-shaped asterism in one of the Double Clusters (NGC 869). I often use that to determine seeing conditions if I can steadily see the dimmest star. Conditions that evening were pretty decent, and each scope passed that test.

 

As much as I like that little Mak, the refractor won by a nose. But even at F/7.3, the tube is still long enough to get uncomfortably low when viewing near zenith. That's a plus for the Mak, eyepiece stays relatively the same place. And the Mak is a bit more stable on that budget tripod. Especially if there's any breeze at all.

 

I would absolutely recommend this for someone starting out, but with the caveat that they'll eventually outgrow the tripod more than the scope. If a little CA doesn't ruin your night, then this scope with better EPs on a steadier mount is no slouch.

Edited by rocco13, 14 February 2023 - 02:30 PM.

[John R.]

I believe you also bought the 70mm Mak, correct?

 

I'm sort of curious how they compare viewing-wise. My first thought was that the Mak would be the narrow view scope... refractor wide view scope, but then I realized they may be more or less exactly the same.

 

Light gathering probably is around the same w/ both scopes. And I think the refractor is f/8ish, while the Mak is a bit fast (for Maks) at f/10-11ish. There may be a touch of CA with the refractor, but it probably won't be very noticeable.

The 70mm Spectrum Mak is 750mm focal length and their 60mm refractor is 500mm, so it is 2/3 the FL of the Mak. The Sarblue 70mm Mak is 1000mm FL and my Orion StarMax 90mm Mak is 1250mm FL. 
Between the Sarblue and Spectrum 70mm offerings I specifically wanted the shorter FL because I feel it is a better all around type scope, at least for me. Especially since I already have a 90mm Mak with 1250mm FL. 
It compares favorably with my old 60mm that is 700mm, just in a very compact package. That old 60 is 29 inches long. 
Compairsons;  (values rounded) 

Mak with 25mm Plossl, 30x at 1.7 degrees TFoV, wide enough to take in the pleiades. 
Mak with 10mm Plossl, 75x at .7 degrees TFoV, enough magnification to view planets at small but sharp scale. 
Mak with 6mm Wide field EP, 125x at .5 degree, about as much as I would ever push it. 
 

60 refractor with 25mm Plossl, 20x at 2.5 degree, nice wide sweeper. 
60 with 10mm, 50x at 1 degree, 

60 with 6mm, 83x at .7 degree

60 with 10mm + 2X barlow, 100x at .5 degree, this is as high as I feel comfortable pushing the 60 refractor. 

 

 

[Anony]

I've done a daytime and nighttime shootout with the 90 refractor and my 90 Mak. The refractor was very slightly brighter (as expected, with no central obstruction), and wider FOV. The Mak also performed well but when I used different EPs to roughly match the magnification (frac is f/7.3, mak f/13.9) it wasn't much of a difference. Keep in mind that was a very informal comparison under Bortle 7/8 skies, and nor did I try to be scientific about, just going by each view with different EPs and objects such as a few open clusters and M42. Both were able to give me E & F in Trapezium for a few seconds here and there.

 

There is a small horseshoe-shaped asterism in one of the Double Clusters (NGC 869). I often use that to determine seeing conditions if I can steadily see the dimmest star. Conditions that evening were pretty decent, and each scope passed that test.

 

As much as I like that little Mak, the refractor won by a nose. But even at F/7.3, the tube is still long enough to get uncomfortably low when viewing near zenith. That's a plus for the Mak, eyepiece stays relatively the same place. And the Mak is a bit more stable on that budget tripod. Especially if there's any breeze at all.

 

I would absolutely recommend this for someone starting out, but with the caveat that they'll eventually outgrow the tripod more than the scope. If a little CA doesn't ruin your night, then this scope with better EPs on a steadier mount is no slouch.

That sounds promising in regard to the refractor. What is your Mak... a Celestron C90?

 

Zenith issues plague all refractors (besides maybe ST-80 sizes or smaller). And CA bothers some folks, others shrug it off. It kind of comes with the territory with faster acros, I wouldn't consider that a big deal. They all have it.

 

How bad was your wobble/dampening time with that refractor on the spectrum mount? It wasn't so great when I tested a 102mm ... think it's the same length as the spectrum 90mm, but yours may be a smidge lighter.

 

Think a weight or something on the eyepiece tray might help? I'm guessing it's more an arm/balance issue though, as the tripod itself seems relatively sturdy (at this pricepoint).

Edited by Anony, 14 February 2023 - 02:45 PM.

[John R.]

What I find a bit odd is that both my Omni 102 and Spectrum 90mm refractor have the same 660mm FL. 
If I didn’t already have the Omni then I’d consider the Spectrum 90 but at this point it would be almost a duplication. 
I chose their 60 because I wanted a compact and featherweight scope. With a little work it will fit in perfectly between a 60x360mm Celestron Travel scope, and the Spectrum Mak. 
Right down the middle. And every one will work on the same AZ mount. 

[Anony]

The 70mm Spectrum Mak is 750mm focal length and their 60mm refractor is 500mm, so it is 2/3 the FL of the Mak. The Sarblue 70mm Mak is 1000mm FL and my Orion StarMax 90mm Mak is 1250mm FL. 
Between the Sarblue and Spectrum 70mm offerings I specifically wanted the shorter FL because I feel it is a better all around type scope, at least for me. Especially since I already have a 90mm Mak with 1250mm FL. 
It compares favorably with my old 60mm that is 700mm, just in a very compact package. That old 60 is 29 inches long. 
 

 

Last night I sort of conked out around 9mm w/ my Mak. But seeing wasn't so good. I'll see how high I can go on Jupiter or the Moon, if my skies ever cooperate. And I still sort of gawk at that little Mak, surprised how small it is ... it's certainly a lot easier to move around/use than an equivalent refractor.

 

Mostly curious though how the views between your cheapo $30-ish scope compare to the Mak. I realize the focals are different, but adjusting for magnifications, was wondering as far as sharpness/brightness/clarity, etc. I'd guess they should be around the same on most targets.

[Anony]

What I find a bit odd is that both my Omni 102 and Spectrum 90mm refractor have the same 660mm FL. 
If I didn’t already have the Omni then I’d consider the Spectrum 90 but at this point it would be almost a duplication. 
 

I'm guessing wherever they get it from simply made it at that size, and... well, everyone gets the same scope.

 

I think the old Infinity 90 was the same length? Or thereabouts. And Costco has a 90mm Celestron that seems the same too.

 

It'd make more sense though if the 90mm was a bit shorter, in-between ST80 and AZ  102 sizes. But I guess on the plus side, the 90mm may have a smidge less CA.

 

If the 90mm shapes up though, it may be an okay beginner scope. Or an option for those who simply want the mount for their smaller Maks. Buy the mount, free scope included.

 

Edit: 

 

And checking old specs, Infinity 90 was actually 600mm (6.7). While the Costco Celestron 90-AZ is listed at 600mm, but they state 7.3. So that's not quite right.

It's possible they are all the same, including the spectrum, but their listed specs are wrong (somewhere).

Edited by Anony, 14 February 2023 - 03:26 PM.

[rocco13]

That sounds promising in regard to the refractor. What is your Mak... a Celestron C90?

 

Zenith issues plague all refractors (besides maybe ST-80 sizes or smaller). And CA bothers some folks, others shrug it off. It kind of comes with the territory with faster acros, I wouldn't consider that a big deal. They all have it.

 

How bad was your wobble/dampening time with that refractor on the spectrum mount? It wasn't so great when I tested a 102mm ... think it's the same length as the spectrum 90mm, but yours may be a smidge lighter.

 

Think a weight or something on the eyepiece tray might help? I'm guessing it's more an arm/balance issue though, as the tripod itself seems relatively sturdy (at this pricepoint).

Orion StarMax 90, basically the same as a C90.

 

Wobble/dampening time was 3-4 seconds. Doesn't sound like much but it does get annoying when trying to achieve perfect focus. The biggest issue was when using the slow-mo controls as they naturally have a tendency to oscillate like a fast pendulum when you let go of them. No matter how delicately and gently I try to ease them out of my hand, the vibrating still occurs for those few seconds.

 

A weight may help, but I attribute the biggest issue to me is it's just a very lightweight tripod. I'll have to try weighing it down next time out. I'm not perceiving an arm/balance issue with either scope I've put on it.

Edited by rocco13, 14 February 2023 - 03:58 PM.

[John R.]

Never liked the flexible wands for slow motion control. First thing I replaced. 
Replaced azimuth with wood knob from hole saw cutout. 
Replaced altitude with radio knob. They don’t flop around. 
 

Looks clear but will not be able to get out until 9:00-9:30, quite chilly but I have wool hat, gloves and warm coat. 

[John R.]

Back in house, tonight better than last night. 
Obsessed with my new $34 60mm refractor. Think I’ll call it ‘Goldilocks’, at 500mm it is not too long, not too short, but just right. Even with the supplied MA eyepieces, a 20mm and 10mm for 25x and 50x the views are just really crisp. For 100x screw in a 2x barlow on the 10mm. 
One odd thing is that there is hardly any in-focus travel, with the 10+2x there is only 2 mm of travel left before the focusing is full forward. 
As the weather warms I’ll probably drag out the Omni 102, but for now this little AZ mounted is, at 7 lbs. just effortless to leave set up by the back door. 
I do not believe that I want to look through an ED or APO scope. Could become discontented with what I have. Let me go a little longer in blissful ignorance. 

[John R.]

A decent 60 mm should be good for 120x, I typically go up to about 160x.

 

I wonder how the mount will work at those higher magnifications.

 

Jon

Ah, took me awhile but had that Spectrum 60/500 out again tonight on the slo-mo AZ mount that came with the 70mm Mak. 
Wow…just wow, I’m impressed. (Of course, I’m easily impressed.) 

Only looked at the moon tonight. Started with a 15mm Orion Expanse for 33x to locate the moon. 
Then moved on to a 6mm EP for 83x…..still clear image 

Then thought I’d may as well go crazy and screwed in a Svbony 2X for 166x. 
Still getting more detail out of 166x. So, surprised that it could be pushed that much and still present a pleasing image. 
The air seemed exceptionally steady and that no doubt helped quite a bit. 
This ain’t some fancy ED glass scope, it’s 1/10 the price of a typical ED60 something. 
If you take off the hood and diagonal it’s only 18 inches long, short enough to travel in an airline overhead. 
 

edit; At 166x the mount damps in 2.5 seconds.

Edited by John R., 05 March 2023 - 03:18 AM.

[Anony]

Ah, took me awhile but had that Spectrum 60/500 out again tonight on the slo-mo AZ mount that came with the 70mm Mak. 
Wow…just wow, I’m impressed. (Of course, I’m easily impressed.) 

Only looked at the moon tonight. Started with a 15mm Orion Expanse for 33x to locate the moon. 
Then moved on to a 6mm EP for 83x…..still clear image 

Then thought I’d may as well go crazy and screwed in a Svbony 2X for 166x. 
Still getting more detail out of 166x. So, surprised that it could be pushed that much and still present a pleasing image. 
The air seemed exceptionally steady and that no doubt helped quite a bit. 
This ain’t some fancy ED glass scope, it’s 1/10 the price of a typical ED60 something. 
If you take off the hood and diagonal it’s only 18 inches long, short enough to travel in an airline overhead. 
 

edit; At 166x the mount damps in 2.5 seconds.

Something I noticed with the tiny mak is there is grab and go, then there are scopes like these. These are more like barely notice you are holding them and go... and feel like they have the heft of binoculars.

 

I assume you are testing with the slow motion mount, not the one that came with the scope?

Edited by Anony, 05 March 2023 - 11:02 AM.

[John R.]

Something I noticed with the tiny mak is there is grab and go, then there are scopes like these. These are more like barely notice you are holding them and go... and feel like they have the heft of binoculars.

 

I assume you are testing with the slow motion mount, not the one that came with the scope?

Yes Anony, was using the AZ slo-mo mount that came with the Spectrum 70 Mak. As the moon was almost directly overhead I had to extend the tripod legs all the way to raise the eyepiece hight for comfortable viewing seated, and it was still just a bit too low. 
This scope, on my homebuilt cradle, with the diagonal and a heavy eyepiece is still only about 1lb. 12oz. for the OTA, and the mount is another 5lbs. So, for less than 7lbs you have a one hand carry that can be brought outside and set up in a couple of minutes. 
I leave a low power eyepiece on it so mostly you don’t need a finder. Then drop two more eyepieces and the barlow in a coat pocket and you are ready. 
 

One fear I do have about singing the praises about this inexpensive refractor is the dreaded ‘sample variation’ sometimes found in this type of product. I might just have a particularly good sample, another poster buys one because of my postings about it and theirs turns out to be a dog. And they wonder, ‘What is that guy going on about, this thing is not near that good.’ 
Of course they may have a good return policy, I don’t know. 
Bought a Svbony 70mm travel scope from Svbony’s ebay store that was just bad optically. Had to jump through a couple of hoops to get a prepaid return label, but I did get a full refund. 
So maybe these folks stand behind their product also. The problem for Spectrum is that when a customer wants a return they never know if the customer knows what he is talking about on their problem is operator error. 

Edited by John R., 05 March 2023 - 03:49 PM.

[John R.]

Well Anony, because the two scopes from Spectrum, the 70 mak and 60/500 refractor both proved to be very good I decided to try for a third. And so it was that their 70/400 refractor arrived today. Soon after I had to head to Portland for a memorial so didn’t get back until almost 10:00. Did get a quick peek at M42 as it was setting behind trees and the Pleiades were about 20 degrees up. Both looked good at 20x and 40x with the cheap eyepieces supplied. Tried a 6mm Orion Expanse for 66x and the view held up well. 
Next to Mars, spotted with the 25mm tried the 6mm, red dot, dancing around, 6mm with Svbony 2X for 133x, little bit bigger red dot flaring with moments of slightly less flaring. No surface markings apparent. 
Now bedtime, turn clocks ahead one hour. 

[Anony]

Well Anony, because the two scopes from Spectrum, the 70 mak and 60/500 refractor both proved to be very good I decided to try for a third. And so it was that their 70/400 refractor arrived today. Soon after I had to head to Portland for a memorial so didn’t get back until almost 10:00. Did get a quick peek at M42 as it was setting behind trees and the Pleiades were about 20 degrees up. Both looked good at 20x and 40x with the cheap eyepieces supplied. Tried a 6mm Orion Expanse for 66x and the view held up well. 
Next to Mars, spotted with the 25mm tried the 6mm, red dot, dancing around, 6mm with Svbony 2X for 133x, little bit bigger red dot flaring with moments of slightly less flaring. No surface markings apparent. 
Now bedtime, turn clocks ahead one hour. 

I was a little curious about that model, as most 70/400s aren't so great for whatever reason.

 

How high can you crank it on the moon? And do you have another 70mm to test against (or I guess the Mak)?

 

My generic scope tests tend to be the trapezium (how easy can 4 stars be spotted?).... Jupiter's bands (when it was out) ... star clusters and then the Moon. Latter is for mag cranking and to see how bad CA may be.

 

 

If it works okay-ish with the included mount, and is around ETX 70 quality as far as optics go, it may not be a terrible super budget recommendation. Like a poor man's ST-80... very poor man...

 

They have a unibody 70mm I inquired about, but it's not available yet. If super cheap I may consider it, just to test against my ETX 70. I'd either give it away or I guess use as a travel scope/ETX replacement. My ETX is kind of trapped in a horrible mount with the worst focuser imaginable. But when I say super cheap, I mean cheap cheap.

Edited by Anony, 15 March 2023 - 01:47 PM.

[John R.]

I was a little curious about that model, as most 70/400s aren't so great for whatever reason.

 

How high can you crank it on the moon? And do you have another 70mm to test against (or I guess the Mak)?

 

My generic scope tests tend to be the trapezium (how easy can 4 stars be spotted?).... Jupiter's bands (when it was out) ... star clusters and then the Moon. Latter is for mag cranking and to see how bad CA may be.

 

 

If it works okay-ish with the included mount, and is around ETX 70 quality as far as optics go, it may not be a terrible super budget recommendation. Like a poor man's ST-80... very poor man...

 

They have a unibody 70mm I inquired about, but it's not available yet. If super cheap I may consider it, just to test against my ETX 70. I'd either give it away or I guess use as a travel scope/ETX replacement. My ETX is kind of trapped in a horrible mount with the worst focuser imaginable. But when I say super cheap, I mean cheap cheap.

At 20x with the included MA20 eyepiece there were brief moments when I fancied I could resolve the trapezium, might have been wishful thinking. But with the MA10 at 40x would definitively resolve it. 
Mars is just getting too small to see much. Haven’t had a chance to look at the moon. Everything was getting pretty low in the west and I could see atmospherics were having an effect. 
I’m not a 3:00 AM observer, I’ll usually pack in in by midnight. Of course trouble is, at 47N astronomical twilight doesn’t end until almost midnight in the middle of high summer. 
I didn’t even try the included tripod mount. As long as I have the AZ mount that came with the 70mm mak just don’t see a reason except to perhaps to report on it. 
I have already removed the finder studs and short vixen rail and taped the holes. As shipped the scope is very back heavy and the bottom position of the 1.75 inch rail places the focusing nobs axis vertical when using the AZ mount. I just completed a cradle for it and will need to order a 8 inch vixen style rail from Amazon so it can be balanced and be used with the AZ side mount. The cradle holds the scope with a geared hose clamp and thick felt protects the finish. 
Never expected to just buy these scopes and use them as is. Even the little mak now has a 5 inch vixen rail so it can be balanced with heavy eyepieces. 
As you can see I am an inveterate tinkerer and cannot leave stuff as found. Believe a lot of us here are similar. 
Cloudy nights gives us too much time to fiddle around with our scopes. 
I paid $39.08 total for this scope. Think for that price it is useable. Ordered direct from their website, they shipped it for free and didn’t charge sales tax. 
However, having both, I would recommend their 60/500 refractor. It would be a little cheaper at $34.84 with the 15% discount and I think it is a ‘Goldilocks’ scope. Not too long, not too short, it’s just right.

Edited by John R., 15 March 2023 - 08:26 PM.

[Anony]

Mostly asking about the mount in relation to beginners... like if someone came here with a mighty $50 budget, could we in good conscience recommend either of those scopes to them with the included mounts? Are they somewhat usable?

 

And you are making me want to get that 60mm scope even though I can't fathom a use for it.

 

I suppose being a little slower it may be a bit sharper than the 70mm? I would have assumed the 70mm would beat it though. Then again, could simply be better optics. And a lot of 70/400mm scopes aren't the greatest to begin with.

[Magnum45hp]

John, As you have both the 60 and 70 could you please give the length of these OTA's.  Dimensions are not mentioned on their web site.. Thanks... Frank

[Anony]

John, As you have both the 60 and 70 could you please give the length of these OTA's.  Dimensions are not mentioned on their web site.. Thanks... Frank

According to the specs listed, I see 400mm for the 70mm and 500mm for the 60mm.

 

The data isn't listed on the main page, a little hidden away.

 

https://spectrumoi.c...-specifications

Edited by Anony, 15 March 2023 - 10:10 PM.

[Magnum45hp]

I guess I was not clear in what I was asking.. I meant the physical  length in inches, how long would the tubes be ?  Sorry, Frank

[Anony]

I guess I was not clear in what I was asking.. I meant the physical  length in inches, how long would the tubes be ?  Sorry, Frank

400mm = 15.748

500mm = 19.685

 

According to google. Focuser may add a bit too. Maybe dew shields add a little as well? Guess perhaps it may be best for John to answer after all, if you need exact sizes.

Edited by Anony, 15 March 2023 - 10:44 PM.

[RichA]

If that 80mm f/11 is a refractor, and assuming it has at least marginally passable optics, it then may *potentially* be overall the best telescope among those you listed.

 

Personally, I’d tend to think a better idea might be to avoid all scopes in this price range, simply take a bit more time and save up to around  $400,  and use this to  buy a decent 6-inch f/8 Dobsonian, which would have vastly greater overall capability (except maximum TFOV) as compared all of the $150 and cheaper scopes mentioned. 
 

Also: if $150 is your actual chosen limit, then you will find you can easily get a much better used scope from shopping in the online astronomy forums personal ads, or on Craigslist or similar forums.

 

Frankly, virtually  anything less than perhaps $200 new in the current market can pretty much be rightly considered “disposable junk”.

The 70mm Mak reminds me of this one:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ting-scope-f10/

[John R.]

Mostly asking about the mount in relation to beginners... like if someone came here with a mighty $50 budget, could we in good conscience recommend either of those scopes to them with the included mounts? Are they somewhat usable?

 

And you are making me want to get that 60mm scope even though I can't fathom a use for it.

 

I suppose being a little slower it may be a bit sharper than the 70mm? I would have assumed the 70mm would beat it though. Then again, could simply be better optics. And a lot of 70/400mm scopes aren't the greatest to begin with.

Ok, it has cleared up a bit. The dipper is out and I tried the 60mm on the included tripod….

Couldn’t see anything for about 30 seconds then realized had left the cap on. There, that’s better. 

Sorry but it was frustrating. In altitude one must allow at least a third of the field with the included 20mm eyepiece (25x) for sag when you lock the altitude and let go. I believe a new person would get tired trying to follow motion with the 10mm (40x) eyepiece. 
At 25x focused in on Mizar and Alcor locked both axis and tapped the scope, it damped in 2 seconds. With the 10mm at 40x damping was 3 seconds. The legs of the tripod are light but seem to be sturdy and reasonably stiff. 
The head however is lacking in my opinion and too imprecise. 
It is a shame really, good scope, not good tripod head. 
I has mentioned this before but….the most important accessory for a new person in this hobby is an experienced observer helping them. 
It is a real shame their AZ mount is not available by itself. Perhaps a good recommendation is to just buy the 70mm mak which can be had now for $85, and that is an absolute steal and even a neophyte would be able to use it. It’s focal length of 750mm is manageable and close to a typical 60mm/700mm refractor that litter the market and sell for well under $100. 
The included MA20mm and MA10mm eyepieces yield 37.5x and 75x, the 4mm aspheric is difficult, use the included 2x with the 10mm for 150x. These are passable starter eyepieces. 
I just bought a 32mm plossl which gives me 23x but haven’t had it out yet. I’m not sure if the RACI diagonal would allow for the full field with the 32mm but fortunately it takes regular 1.25 inch and I have a couple of good quality mirror diagonals. 
Guess there is just a minimum of money necessary for a decent first scope. If a person could not afford or didn’t want to spend $85 then perhaps they would not want to spend $35 only for it to sit in a corner after several frustrating try outs. 

 

[John R.]

I guess I was not clear in what I was asking.. I meant the physical  length in inches, how long would the tubes be ?  Sorry, Frank

 

 

 

Ok, just measured both scopes. 
The 60mm with diagonal and 20mm eyepiece, focused at infinity is 22 inches long. With diagonal removed and draw tube in it is just shy of 20 inches. 
The 70mm with diagonal and 20mm eyepiece , focused at infinity is 17 inches long. With diagonal removed and draw tube in it is 13.5 inches long. 
Hope this helps. 
The clouds have moved in again, sigh. 
By the way, the 70mm maksutov with diagonal length is 10.25 inches. 

Edited by John R., 15 March 2023 - 11:56 PM.