58 replies to this topic

[sol49720]

My youngest grandson was given one about 4 years ago by an evil grinch. He grew up looking through my 6" F/8 space commander by Edmund Scientific and my 14" LX200 GPS and knew what he should see. Brought it to me to check it out. After completely dismantling it and changing all collimation screws, adding springs behind the mirror cell, fixing the secondary mirror holder and overhauling the focuser, it was just barely usable. All this led to myself and grandson obtaining the parts needed to build a scope tube pretty much identical to my Edmund scope but 10" F/6 dob. Found a decent eq mount used that ended up being donated. So the only thing positive I can say is that crummy scope led my grandson down the path of learning and obtaining a good scope. 

[Chuck Z]

Similar to the other tales of woe here, my niece bought a Powerseeker 127 some years ago. She was a teenager working for minimum wage, so it was a major purchase for her, and a great disappointment. I gave her a couple of better eyepieces (the ones that come with it are basically only fit to be used as dust plugs), threw away the rickety metal and plastic tripod (it's absolute trash) and built a wooden tripod that made the EQ mount actually tolerable (after I cleaned the glue-grease from the mount and reassembled with real grease), put a red dot finder on it, then carefully collimated the scope to the extent that it could be collimated - the plastic focuser has a good bit of slop (even after shimming it with some teflon tape ) such that it was only in passable collimation when you focus inward. With those changes, it gave reasonably good images to maybe 100x, wasn't bad on deep sky, and wasn't horrendously wobbly like it was out of the box. Not a good scope, but usable.

 

However, the things I did to make it sort of usable are utterly beyond a beginner, particularly a kid. I've owned (and currently own) a lot of Celestron gear and generally been very pleased with it. Whoever it is at Celestron who okayed putting the Celestron name on those trash-scopes should be required to go door-to-door on their knees to everyone who bought one of those scopes and beg their forgiveness 

[vdog]

My stepdaughter was given one of these as a gift and it currently gathers dust in her garage.  The giver was well-intentioned and no doubt fell for the marketing and affordable price on it.  That's what makes it galling actually.  The manufacturer cannot possibly believe they are offering a quality product.  And there are scopes you can get for the same price that are decent quality scopes, showing that money can still be made while offering a better product. 

 

The highest praise I've ever read for this scope in this forum is that it can be "usable" or "decent," usually after some extensive tweaking, faint praise at best.  Certainly, one can enjoy or be inspired by any scope, but I think that says much more about the persistence and attitude of the observer than the scope. 

 

After finding out about this, I picked her up a Meade ETX 90 in the classifieds.  She uses that one all the time.

Edited by vdog, 07 November 2023 - 10:15 AM.

[ThatsMyCoffee]

I wish I'd read this a few years back. Mine ended up in the bin, right where it belonged. Luckily I had a pair of 10 x 50mm binocs of good quality that I used for star gazing until I could save up for a better scope.

[Claytoncramer]

A neighbor of a friend ended up with one of these.  After seeing Saturn through my Televe-85, she wanted my help.  This is very nearly the worse beginner telescope ever. Except for my first: an Edmund's 3" f/10 reflector.  It came on an alt-az mount, cost $30 in 1969 and we returned it at once.

[bmwscopeguy]

I have it but never looked through it. Got it just for the 6” rings which are useful. The counterweight also has been of use to me in other projects, as well as the slo mo cables. I try to “repurpose” instead of throw away perfectly good parts like tube, front lid etc.

You could probably salvage the primary - it would make a good shaving mirror or peanut dish...

[jmanhere]

Ed TIng posts some good telescope reviews and then general astronomy videos as well. He recently did a review of the Celestron 127.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=IXfR7YTF5a4

[Supernova74]

These celestron power seekers are riddled on Facebook market place and considering celestron has been in this industry for literally decades now there is no exscuses really to manufacture this worthless piece of junk.its a shame really as many beginners in this hobby have most probably rapidly departed in not knowing any different.

[UrsaMayor]

I have one, it's now decoration in my game room. After trying to figure out if I should fix it, or buy a new one, I decided to just leave it as decor for now and got myself an ES DOB1045C. The little scope did one thing well though. It forced me to learn how to use the Eq mount, and I got very decent with it. It also got me an honorary degree in collimation. I feel confident I can collimate any reflector within 30-secs or so, lol.

[JKSnyder]

Wow, quite a lot of commentary! I was gifted a Meade 114 with the same bird Jones design - barlow to make it act like it was F8 - but with the short tube and horrible optics. Like the Powerseeker, it was such a journey of disappointment. It was gifted by someone I love, so i kept it around without use for 15 years. Finally, I sold it on Craigslist. Assembled, it looked kinda cool. So it sold fast. It might be worth the $70 dollars I received, but definitely not worth purchasing new.

 

Meade & Celestron both, IMO, tried to cash in on their reputations when they agreed to allow their brand names onto these toys. Hopefully the short term sales were worth the business risk to their reputations. Imagine if Mercedes stuck its name on a Ford Pinto

[Classic8]

I've never had one of these but bought a couple of cheap department store telescopes. First one I returned as the finder and the mount were really difficult to use. The 2nd one was a small reflector on an EQ mount that I found too unintuitive to use. But I researched and saw better scopes out there so fortunately it didn't turn me away from the hobby.

[bmwscopeguy]

Reviewing the various comments, it seems that there is a little faint praise from the diehards out there, but the general consensus seems to be that you can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, but the unwary buying public will keep succumbing to the glitzy sales pitches, and the people in the know won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Let's consider this string closed. Ed Ting said it much better than I in his video link several posts up.

 

Clear (and hopefully sharp) skies.

[Eric Dunn]

I bought this scope (not knowing any better), here's what I found:

 

Pros:

-Affordable.

 

Cons:

-The stand is barely able to hold it up. If someone across town farts, it wobbles.

-It's stuck in "blurry mode" There doesn't seem to be a way to switch to any other mode.

-The most annoying thing BY FAR is that the slow motion control knobs will not stay on. No matter how hard you tighten down the screw, the next time you touch the knob, it will be loose and you will have to fumble around in the dark to tighten it up ... every single time.

 

 

On the flip side, I bet Sir Issac Newton would have killed for such a scope so I guess I should be thankful. A crappy scope is better than no scope, I suppose.

[primordial ooze]

20 years ago or so, this was the first telescope I ever purchased (used and cheap fortunately) and, I have to admit, actually had a lot of fun with it. Yes, the wobbly mount was frustrating and yes, the optics were soft but it was enough to get a decent enough view of the moon and a few star clusters. I do remember having to fiddle around with it constantly to overcome its many shortcomings but I learned a lot from it and even somehow eek'ed out some lunar images and even one of M42 that I remember being proud of at the time (although today, my phone can probably take a better picture through a beer glass).

 

With all that being said, would I recommend this to a beginner? Heck no! An equatorial mount that is not polar aligned is just a random number generator and looking at objects at zenith can be darn near impossible (for many with a lot of trees around, that's all the sky they have). A mount that is this wobbly is difficult to focus and, with so many knobs to keep track of, a beginner is going to be overwhelmed and feel like they're trying to wrestle a cat into a cat carrier. Adding barlows and single digit FL eyepieces just exacerbates all of its issues. The telescope manufacturers must know all this. They should be able to manufacture an inexpensive 100mm f10 dob (so it could use a cheap spherical mirror) that meets this same price point. There must be some reason they don't unless it's simply their marketing people insisting on them selling these. 

[maknswarf]

Agreed!

 

My first scope in High School was a junk Tasco 3" Newtonian. It never discouraged me. In fact, it made me want to research and own better scopes when I get older And here we are LOL!

My 1st scope was a bargin-type Amazon buy on an atrocious mount with horrible accessories, fortunately it turned out to be quite a gem!

 

The Meade Infinity 102mm achromat, the lens cell is plastic and the focuser a super sloppy rack n pinion with SO MUCH STICKY GREASE that I thought it may be considered a fire hazard but its a 2 inch!

 

Put it on a good Super Polaris EQ and slap a good 2 inch dielectric diagonal and a 35mm Panoptic in and enjoy the Pleiades at 3.5 AFOV!! Even handles Jupiter at a modest 70x with very minimal purple. I plan on doing a full review but I want it to cover how amazing these optics truly are for the $200 I spent in 2018. I have also spent more money than most people would advise on this one scope but it showed me M99, by accident with stupid CHEAP MA eyepeices, so it has a very DEAR spot in my heart! I just got a GSO 2-speed focuser and am drawing up the plans for me to machine a lens cell at work! I'm a machinist so it works out  

[woodswalker88]

I'm the newest of the newbies, just got my first pair of astro binox last month and maybe someone is giving me a scope this weekend. (Orion starblast 4.5). Knowing very little about the technical specs and other jargon, I am unable to evaluate what is a "good" and "bad" scope. I'm trying to interpret what you folks are saying in plain english: the mount is shaky, the mirrors are not well aligned and may be of poor quality, and maybe the eye pieces are the wrong sizes for the rest of the unit. Did I get close?

[Spectrum222]

Neat post! We had a lady who was new to the hobby and part of her "settlement" was her former partner's scope - yes, a 127EQ!!

 

She came out to an event we had running and asked for help in getting it going. Well, I do NOT know what her partner did, but that mount was basically non-functional, likely did not follow instructions, or tried to improve it without understanding the mount. 

 

So, as it happened, one of our club members had a spare Dob mount form a 6" Orion scope he sold the OTA from. Fit the 127 perfectly. Mount issue, solved. The scope WAS collimated and we replaced the crappy EPs with some nicer Orion Sirius Plossls and a 1.25", 2X shorty - it actually worked respectively well. Where a Tak or AP might sit at a 10, and a dime-store hobby-killer a 0-1, and say an Orion Star Blast this was about maybe an 8 (?) or so, this was about almost a 6.5 to at most a 7.0... Maybe she got a good/decently made one, and the only issue was the mount - mostly.  EPs certainly made a difference as well.  

 

She ended up happy enough to enjoy and learn from that moment on. It astounds me why companies go for the entry-level "one-shot" sale, instead of developing a lifetime customer who'd likely buy magnitudes more if they truly could get a decently made first scope. Sad.

 

CS all! 

 

Darren

[Spectrum222]

Those little Star Blasts are decent scopes, woodswalker88!

 

They should be on a Dobsonian style mount, so altitude-azimuth. You should look at getting a collimation eyepiece for it so you can ensure alignment. If you do not get a manual with it, check Orion's website - they should have a downloadable version. 

 

You MAY wish to invest in some additional accessories, but before doing so, if you have access to a local or regional astronomy club, ask a more seasoned veteran for assistance - they can help you optimize that scope (and perhaps a bino mount if you have one), and then you are on your way!  

 

Best of luck...

 

Darren

[AstroBobo]

Baloney.

 People here disparage that Celestron 130EQ for its spherical mirror. I owned it for five years

 

The fault, dear Brutus, was not in the stars (or the telescope). I lacked a mentor who could help me understand how to observe. Star parties did that for me because I could learn from others.

You are comparing the view with a 130/900 regular newtonian with this 127 Bird-Jones abomination. They are completely different telescopes.
 

[vodakjack]

I repectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Yes the optics are sub-par, but what do you expect from a sub-$200 scope including mount and counterweight? 

 

This is a "beginner's beginner" scope. In the 1980s, my dad and I used to look at the moon with a cheap refractor he bought while in the service. I was totally obsessed with astronomy. When he died in 2010, I thought I might try getting back into astronomy. I didn't have much money, and at the time this scope was well-received by S&T and other publications. The scope didn't break the bank and I wouldn't be out of my life savings if a return to astronomy was not my thing.

 

To me, the views of Jupiter, the moon, and Orion were glorious. (From the sound of it, the optical design must've changed for the worse sometime in the last decade-plus.)

For the beginner, there is much more to this product than just the views. The mount is where you learn about using setting circles and other features of equatorial platforms, proper alignment, and equipment setup. It didn't take long to get a bigger scope with computerized mount. Nowadays I use a RASA 11 and an ES ED127. I still have the 127EQ which my kids use.

 

Celestron's 127EQ is not going to get you sharp aplanatic images or help you discover the next supernova. It's not intended for that. However, it is a great entry point for people who are curious about what's up there but don't have the desire to dump a lot of cash or haul heavy equipment around.

 

Are there better options? Probably. However, a lot of people who use this scope may not have much room for one. The OTA of the 114 newtonian cited in this article is twice as long as the 127.

 

The assessment of the 127EQ in this article is way too harsh and does not consider the market audience the scope is targeting. 

[AstroBobo]

What exactly is this audience? People who don't have 0.5 meter to spare? A 114/900 newton with a spherical mirror is way better than this.

[BobSoCal]

... Whoever it is at Celestron who okayed putting the Celestron name on those trash-scopes should be required to go door-to-door on their knees...

... and on a clear night! To "demonstrate how amazing"...

[bmwscopeguy]

I repectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Yes the optics are sub-par, but what do you expect from a sub-$200 scope including mount and counterweight? 

 

This is a "beginner's beginner" scope. In the 1980s, my dad and I used to look at the moon with a cheap refractor he bought while in the service. I was totally obsessed with astronomy. When he died in 2010, I thought I might try getting back into astronomy. I didn't have much money, and at the time this scope was well-received by S&T and other publications. The scope didn't break the bank and I wouldn't be out of my life savings if a return to astronomy was not my thing.

 

To me, the views of Jupiter, the moon, and Orion were glorious. (From the sound of it, the optical design must've changed for the worse sometime in the last decade-plus.)

For the beginner, there is much more to this product than just the views. The mount is where you learn about using setting circles and other features of equatorial platforms, proper alignment, and equipment setup. It didn't take long to get a bigger scope with computerized mount. Nowadays I use a RASA 11 and an ES ED127. I still have the 127EQ which my kids use.

 

Celestron's 127EQ is not going to get you sharp aplanatic images or help you discover the next supernova. It's not intended for that. However, it is a great entry point for people who are curious about what's up there but don't have the desire to dump a lot of cash or haul heavy equipment around.

 

Are there better options? Probably. However, a lot of people who use this scope may not have much room for one. The OTA of the 114 newtonian cited in this article is twice as long as the 127.

 

The assessment of the 127EQ in this article is way too harsh and does not consider the market audience the scope is targeting. 

The market audience targeted is the people that know nothing about telescopes, how to use them, or what to look at. They succumb to the glitzy advertising without delivering the goods. Are there better options for $200. Yes, but people have to be in the hobby to look for them.

 

I would council any newbie to search out a Unitron 50-75mm refractor. These scopes are cheap, were optically excellent and had smooth, precise Alt- AZ mounts. Anyone that started with one of these would still be in the hobby today. 127EQ owners - not so much judging by how many are for sale on the various posts.

 

I'm sure that Celestron shipped these scope with acceptable collimation leaving the factory, but once they go out of collimation, the game is over for the targeted buyer, even if the mount and the accessories hadn't already soured their enthusiasm. 

 

Like I said, you can put lipstick on a pig.....

[UnityLover]

I repectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Yes the optics are sub-par, but what do you expect from a sub-$200 scope including mount and counterweight? 

 

This is a "beginner's beginner" scope. In the 1980s, my dad and I used to look at the moon with a cheap refractor he bought while in the service. I was totally obsessed with astronomy. When he died in 2010, I thought I might try getting back into astronomy. I didn't have much money, and at the time this scope was well-received by S&T and other publications. The scope didn't break the bank and I wouldn't be out of my life savings if a return to astronomy was not my thing.

 

To me, the views of Jupiter, the moon, and Orion were glorious. (From the sound of it, the optical design must've changed for the worse sometime in the last decade-plus.)

For the beginner, there is much more to this product than just the views. The mount is where you learn about using setting circles and other features of equatorial platforms, proper alignment, and equipment setup. It didn't take long to get a bigger scope with computerized mount. Nowadays I use a RASA 11 and an ES ED127. I still have the 127EQ which my kids use.

 

Celestron's 127EQ is not going to get you sharp aplanatic images or help you discover the next supernova. It's not intended for that. However, it is a great entry point for people who are curious about what's up there but don't have the desire to dump a lot of cash or haul heavy equipment around.

 

Are there better options? Probably. However, a lot of people who use this scope may not have much room for one. The OTA of the 114 newtonian cited in this article is twice as long as the 127.

 

The assessment of the 127EQ in this article is way too harsh and does not consider the market audience the scope is targeting. 

The claim of price isnt that much, considering that the orion observer 114mm exists. (139 dollars, diffraction limited, EQ-3, red dot, and two plossls)
Though, I agree that the 127EQ isnt too bad (there are still better options for cheaper, but its usable)

[AstroBobo]

I made a direct comparison of a Sky-Watcher 114/900 with 114/500 model. There's no contest. The 900 FL scope produced excellent images of Jupiter at ~200x while the image in 500 FL was very poor and lacking contrast already at 100x.