16 replies to this topic

[MrsM75]

The 5 inch 127mm Skymax Mak is on sale $459 till Dec 31st, it has a 2 inches focuser in the back and a 1.25 adapter so you can use both accessories.

 

Anyways, if anyone want a scope this XMas and newbie you should get this, it totally worth the $459 price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrsM75]

oh and let me post a pic so you can see the difference between Skymax 4 inch 102mm vs the Skymax 5 inch 127mm Mak

Basically the 5 inch is like twice bigger than the 4 inch.

Here is the pic of my two Maks lay side by side.

 

[AstroPhotog]

Thanks for the heads-up and comparison pic. fwiw - I read the 127mm gathers 55% more light than the 102mm.

[MrsM75]

Thanks for the heads-up and comparison pic. fwiw - I read the 127mm gathers 55% more light than the 102mm.

 

Did you end up keep that SvBony SV207 set that was on sale last time? You tend to buy things and return (like me, I'm like that too, lol), I was wondering did you keep that SV207 eyepiece sets of four.

[MrsM75]

For mass production, Skymax make the best Mak line, better than the Celestron Mak, certainly better than SvBony Mak.

[Kim2010]

The 180mm is also on sale for $1,186.55 US.

Interesting

[alnitak22]

For mass production, Skymax make the best Mak line, better than the Celestron Mak, certainly better than SvBony Mak.

Skymax doesn’t make the Maks. They are made by Synta,  same as the 5, 6, and 7 inch Maks that were sold by Orion. I have the 6” Mak and it’s excellent.

 

p.s.,  Celestron Maks are Synta too. So Skymax, Orion, and Celestron Maks all are/were the same scope. ES and Meade are/were different.

Edited by alnitak22, 08 December 2024 - 03:23 PM.

[Sarkikos]

When I first saw this thread I thought, "Looks like a missed another sale!" 

 

But then I checked the email receipt for the 127 SkyMax I bought last month.  The price was $459 ... minus 5% for using a specific credit card.  So, I paid $436 shipped, before taxes. 

 

I like it if others get a good deal.  But I hate it when I miss the deal!

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 December 2024 - 06:51 PM.

[Sarkikos]

The 180mm is also on sale for $1,186.55 US.

Interesting

Is the 180 a Gregory ("spot") Mak or a Rumak?   I think for Maks that large, it probably should be a Rumak.  

 

I have a 150 Bosma Rumak that is sharp for doubles and planet/lunar and has nice contrasty backgrounds for deep sky.   But my SkyMax 102 and 127 also perform very well, without being Rumaks.

 

Nope.  The 180 SkyMax is a Gregory ("spot") Mak.  https://www.highpoin...29231dfa267c875

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 December 2024 - 07:00 PM.

[ChristianG]

The 180 mm Maksutov has indeed a silvered spot on the back of the corrector as secondary. Mine has an excellent star test (no quantitative measurements were made) and it has good contrast as the inside of the baffle tube has ribs (threaded?). I have yet to remove the corrector cell to flock the main tube, maybe in the future I will.

 

I don't think the quality of the instrument suffers much from that simple design (Gregory). I once had an Ioptron 150 Mak with a separate secondary. It wasn't significantly better than the Synta ones. Sold it, the thing was way too heavy! A steel dew shield!

 

I never had the chance to look through the inspiration for the Synta 180, i.e. the Questar 7. But if it is as good as the 3.5, that would be something.
 

Often, the weak point of smaller Synta-made Maksutovs (127 and below) is that the inside of the baffle tube is quite shiny and that degrades contrast. I once compared a recent C90 in which I had inserted a rolled piece of sandpaper painted black and also flocked the main tube, to my Questar. Contrast was almost as good. Cheers!
 

--Christian

Edited by ChristianG, 08 December 2024 - 10:10 PM.

[ChristianG]

By the way, below you'll see on the left my brand new Sky-Watcher 127 Mak with the new 2" visual back. To its right is its somewhat older and bigger brother 150 mm. Both came from the same factory. The 150 is much bigger than just the ratio 150/127 = 1.18... The 127 actually operates as a 118 mm instrument I heard. Maybe the 150 actually operates at 150? The corrector cell is of a different design. And in my observatory I also have a 180 mm, Orion version of Sky-Watcher. Also bigger...

 

--Christian

 

Edited by ChristianG, 08 December 2024 - 10:28 PM.

[alnitak22]

By the way, below you'll see on the left my brand new Sky-Watcher 127 Mak with the new 2" visual back. To its right is its somewhat older and bigger brother 150 mm. Both came from the same factory. The 150 is much bigger than just the ratio 150/127 = 1.18... The 127 actually operates as a 118 mm instrument I heard. Maybe the 150 actually operates at 150? The corrector cell is of a different design. And in my observatory I also have a 180 mm, Orion version of Sky-Watcher. Also bigger...

 

--Christian

 

3795C4DA-9688-4BC4-A67F-C5650C8E34F9.jpeg

My Orion/Synta 150 Mak has a clear aperture of 146mms. It also has a 2” visual back. It’s a great scope.

[RichD]

Your image is very useful to illustrate the difference is size between the 127 and 150 Christian.

 

I have an older 127 and a more recent 150 and the inside of the primary baffle of the 127 is shinier than the 150. The 127 has more of the loop shaped glare when a bright star is just outside the field. It's nearly absent in the 150. Synta have definitely made a few improvements over the years.

 

Both are great scopes, excellent value for money. 

[Sarkikos]

By the way, below you'll see on the left my brand new Sky-Watcher 127 Mak with the new 2" visual back. To its right is its somewhat older and bigger brother 150 mm. Both came from the same factory. The 150 is much bigger than just the ratio 150/127 = 1.18... The 127 actually operates as a 118 mm instrument I heard. Maybe the 150 actually operates at 150? The corrector cell is of a different design. And in my observatory I also have a 180 mm, Orion version of Sky-Watcher. Also bigger...

 

--Christian

 

3795C4DA-9688-4BC4-A67F-C5650C8E34F9.jpeg

If you're talking about clear aperture, a 150 Mak is not going to be operating at the equivalent of a 150mm clear aperture.  The central obstruction from the secondary mirror will reduce the clear aperture, which reduces the effective aperture of the telescope.

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

My Orion/Synta 150 Mak has a clear aperture of 146mms. It also has a 2” visual back. It’s a great scope.

By "clear aperture," you mean just the open circumference of the light path, correct?  This doesn't take into account the reduction in effective aperture due to the central obstruction.  So, really "clear aperture" in this context is somewhat ambiguous and potentially misleading.  Just sayin'. 

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

The 180 mm Maksutov has indeed a silvered spot on the back of the corrector as secondary. Mine has an excellent star test (no quantitative measurements were made) and it has good contrast as the inside of the baffle tube has ribs (threaded?). I have yet to remove the corrector cell to flock the main tube, maybe in the future I will.

 

I don't think the quality of the instrument suffers much from that simple design (Gregory). I once had an Ioptron 150 Mak with a separate secondary. It wasn't significantly better than the Synta ones. Sold it, the thing was way too heavy! A steel dew shield!

 

I never had the chance to look through the inspiration for the Synta 180, i.e. the Questar 7. But if it is as good as the 3.5, that would be something.
 

Often, the weak point of smaller Synta-made Maksutovs (127 and below) is that the inside of the baffle tube is quite shiny and that degrades contrast. I once compared a recent C90 in which I had inserted a rolled piece of sandpaper painted black and also flocked the main tube, to my Questar. Contrast was almost as good. Cheers!
 

--Christian

I have a 150mm Bosma Mak, which is a Rumak.  (Maybe a different branding of the Ioptron?)  It is heavy for its size, but I don't think that's because of the separate secondary riding on the meniscus.  How much can that weight?   I think it's just because of the way they built the OTA, like a tank. 

 

I bought it used.  It didn't include the original dew shield.  A third-party non-metal dew shield works fine and is not very heavy.  

 

The 150 Rumak gives good visual images of the Moon, bright planets, doubles and deep sky.  I especially like the contrasty images of the Moon.  (Visual only.  No AP images.)  But it has a hard time acclimating and keeping up with temp changes.  Not a good winter scope.  I need to insulate it!

 

Mike

[Patrick]

I bet that 190mm Mak Newt would make a nice wide flat field scope.

 

Patrick