88 replies to this topic

[CHASLX200]

My SW150 Mak was past insane nuts freaky sharp.

 

-- I didn't think there was anything beyond freaky sharp.  So is the heirarcy is freaky sharp, nuts freaky sharp, insane nuts freaky sharp, past insane nuts freaky sharp?   And then the 826 must be ... some unpronouncilbe symbol like prince used to use.  So what you are saying is the SW150 Mak goes to 11? 

I have a rating system for scopes.

[Dave Novoselsky]

I had a LX85 Mak and was not that great.  They all very as well.

I think most ‘production’ scopes vary to some degree, which is why I believe AT and TE have offered, at a reasonable upcharge, a ‘upgraded’ version of their production models where the manufacturer (KUO I believe, at least for AT) checks the individual scope to ensure it meets specific optical and mechanical criteria and then sells it as the EDL variation.  That way unless you are buying a premium product such as AP or TEC etc it’s a crapshoot as to how well what you get performs.  
 

An example Chas is your sainted 826.  Yours and most others out there are really good.  The first one I got back in the day was terrible and went back while the replacement sent was okay but nothing that blew my socks off.  
 

there are fewer duds out there today than when during the era when the 826 was born, the use of computers providing for more consistency in optics as it has elsewhere.  Did I get lucky with my LX65 Mak?  Probably and to be honest I had some concern when I decided to buy it but the price was very right.  Collimation tools and star testing was a pleasant surprise so the roll of the dice here proved successful.

[Terra Nova]

65 SCT's is what i had.  My mission in life is to break 5000.. Just odd you harrassss me when it it none of your B's wax why i sell scopes. I never asked you.

I have no desire what so ever to harass you or comment further on your silly posts Chas. It's much easier to just put you on ignore.

[luxo II]

So what you are saying is the SW150 Mak goes to 11? 

'Tis true... a very few rare unicorns do go to 11.

I own one, and have looked through another.

 

Most are 7-8. The Russians managed 9 pretty consistently, but once, maybe twice in your life you come across one that is just incredible.

Edited by luxo II, 21 January 2025 - 12:35 AM.

[quilty]

65 SCT's is what i had.  My mission in life is to break 5000.. Just odd you harrassss me when it it none of your B's wax why i sell scopes. I never asked you.

You can tell a number at least. While I'm uncertain if I own 7 or 8 scopes. Or 9? Bikes as well, maybe 15 2/3 or rather 12 and 4 times two thirds
I promise to never more ask why you sold a scope.
In the beginning I thought you were after the ultimate pifs scope and found once your chase was over.
But the chase is better than the catch to you. And to Lemmy

[CHASLX200]

I have no desire what so ever to harass you or comment further on your silly posts Chas. It's much easier to just put you on ignore.

That was hint to you to do just that last weekend.

[CHASLX200]

I think most ‘production’ scopes vary to some degree, which is why I believe AT and TE have offered, at a reasonable upcharge, a ‘upgraded’ version of their production models where the manufacturer (KUO I believe, at least for AT) checks the individual scope to ensure it meets specific optical and mechanical criteria and then sells it as the EDL variation.  That way unless you are buying a premium product such as AP or TEC etc it’s a crapshoot as to how well what you get performs.  
 

An example Chas is your sainted 826.  Yours and most others out there are really good.  The first one I got back in the day was terrible and went back while the replacement sent was okay but nothing that blew my socks off.  
 

there are fewer duds out there today than when during the era when the 826 was born, the use of computers providing for more consistency in optics as it has elsewhere.  Did I get lucky with my LX65 Mak?  Probably and to be honest I had some concern when I decided to buy it but the price was very right.  Collimation tools and star testing was a pleasant surprise so the roll of the dice here proved successful.

Even the best vary some.  I gots a Zambuto i have not used yet and you can bet i won't lose sleep thinking it is a mush dog.

[alnitak22]

Go for it! There’s a big difference, and fifty over sixty years is a lot fewer that the 100s you bluster to have owned. What, 200 SCTs alone you said somewhere!? I actually USED the scopes I’ve had, and most tended to stay around for a while. I also downsized with purpose. I had a systematic collection of classics primarily, that I built up over the years and then sold off with the purpose of moving into a smaller place because it was no longer practical to keep them. Not because I lost interest almost as soon as I got them. I wasn’t just grasping at this and that as in your self-acknowledged HUNT which you stated was your sole purpose. Moreover, I never repeatedly purged to announce the junk in the trunk is gone along with continually whining about my plight, oh woe is me to look for pathetic sympathy.

Thank you! And I know you were actually holding back! Ha! 

[quilty]

Sorry, I can't agree. Chas is not whining, he's rhyming. A high speed and high throughput scope tester with his unique benchmark scale up to pinfs.

Edited by quilty, 22 January 2025 - 04:01 AM.

[Dave Novoselsky]

Why don’t we give this a rest and go back to just discussing scopes.

[Freezout]

make it easy. What mount do you have? The Skymax 150 easily rides on an NEQ3, the 180 won't and I'm afraid the Bresser 6 neither.
GP or similar at least. (I very much prefer the NEQ3 to the GP)

I never had a NEQ3 but I doubt it's enough for a stable view. Specifications from manufacturer themselves says 5kg max, a Skymax is more than 5kg just for the OTA naked.

 

For my Mak 150mm I had a Skyview Pro (sold by stupid mistake), own now a CG5 and a Skytee, and I would not put the Mak on something lighter. It's not a grab & go telescope. Just little bit too much heavy to be one (personal opinion). 

[CHASLX200]

Most Maks seem fine chaps these days. My 8" Intes would have been good if it could have been collimated.  My SW180 was good but never did throw me back in the seat. I have a chance to use a 703 so maybe i will one day.

[quilty]

I never had a NEQ3 but I doubt it's enough for a stable view. Specifications from manufacturer themselves says 5kg max, a Skymax is more than 5kg just for the OTA naked.
 
For my Mak 150mm I had a Skyview Pro (sold by stupid mistake), own now a CG5 and a Skytee, and I would not put the Mak on something lighter. It's not a grab & go telescope. Just little bit too much heavy to be one (personal opinion).

I need not to doubt because I'm using the NEQ3 for years therefore I know it does well. For visual, don't know about AP.

And that's crucial, wouldn't have a rig at more than 17 kg. At least not for a 6 inch scope

Edited by quilty, 22 January 2025 - 04:07 AM.

[paulsky]

My options real are Explore Sci. 150 or the Sky Watcher  Mak 150..!! 

Some know the ES model? 

[quilty]

I'd have the Skymax. The ES weighs at least 1 kg more and seems to have a native fl of 2.4 m despite its advertised 1.9 m

Many good reports on the Skymax, only very few for the ES

Just changed my mind: Get the ES, we're short at reports on it

Edited by quilty, 22 January 2025 - 05:01 AM.

[quilty]

Why don’t we give this a rest and go back to just discussing scopes.

I didn't start this one just felt the need to...
Why don't you post like this on NOs. 41, 53 and 58? Pretending your whish to stay topic.

Some opinions are more equal. I use to support the less equal ones

Edited by quilty, 22 January 2025 - 05:49 AM.

[Freezout]

I need not to doubt because I'm using the NEQ3 for years therefore I know it does well. For visual, don't know about AP.

And that's crucial, wouldn't have a rig at more than 17 kg. At least not for a 6 inch scope

That’s interesting. For the sake of clarity, are we both speaking about the same mount?

https://www.apm-tele...er-neq3-2-mount

I’m surprised because it’s rated “only” 5kg for visual. Also the usual sellers here do not even propose that combination NEQ3 + Mak 150mm, they always sell the Mak with a EQ5 mount. But they propose NEQ3 + Mak 125mm.
But if it works for you it’s very fine of course, the mount is clearly way lighter to carry than an EQ5.

[CHASLX200]

I didn't start this one just felt the need to...
Why don't you post like this on NOs. 41, 53 and 58? Pretending your whish to stay topic.

Some opinions are more equal. I use to support the less equal ones

I know the last 2 scopes i got have given me a sea of clouds for weeks.

[quilty]

That’s interesting. For the sake of clarity, are we both speaking about the same mount?
https://www.apm-tele...er-neq3-2-mount
I’m surprised because it’s rated “only” 5kg for visual. Also the usual sellers here do not even propose that combination NEQ3 + Mak 150mm, they always sell the Mak with a EQ5 mount. But they propose NEQ3 + Mak 125mm.
But if it works for you it’s very fine of course, the mount is clearly way lighter to carry than an EQ5.

It is.
And it's in fact, a bit heavier than the GP/EQ5 for it is made of cast iron and not aluminium. And not as smooth and stable.
But dont'd know exactly why but with the GP I'm always looking for the tracking and clutch knobs. Somehow it always has them at the most unexpected positions.
The NEQ3 is more intuitive

[quilty]

I know the last 2 scopes i got have given me a sea of clouds for weeks.

So sort them out, bad mush dogs :-)

I've only had half a mediocre night for weeks now. Can't really tell about my Skymax6.
Maybe the glittering black ones are better than the golden ones.

Well last week there were good skies some 100 km away, everything above 300m elevation. But nothing but mist here

[CHASLX200]

So sort them out, bad mush dogs :-)

I've only had half a mediocre night for weeks now. Can't really tell about my Skymax6.
Maybe the glittering black ones are better than the golden ones.

Well last week there were good skies some 100 km away, everything above 300m elevation. But nothing but mist here

Have not had a month like this since the 80's when we had real winters.

[revans]

Staying with a Mak for planets, the moon and double stars I think you would enjoy the Skymax 180.  I think I'd rather have a C6 SCT than a Skymax 150 though, because for my purposes the C6 is more versatile.  It gives views essentially as good as my Skymax 180, or very little different in my average seeing conditions.   I would think a lot of folks might advocate for a C8, but I just like the size and feel of the C6 better and I prefer its focal length.

 

Rick

[paulsky]

Rick, 

 

The truth is, first of all I don't know very well if my patio would allow me to use the 180 regularly and not three days a year, I mean its performance, in this case perhaps the 150 would be better... I'm not sure.
On the other hand, regarding Mak 150 vs C6, you talk about versatility..., but the collimation thing doesn't convince me very much, hence the Mak 6"..., but the larger field of the C6 attracts me but I don't know If I would pay a high price in terms of lower sharpness and contrast in the C6, this one also weighs less... mmmm, it's not easy...

[quilty]

if cost is no point the C8 weighs no more than the Skymax6. Collimation is no issue for neither scope

[treadmarks]

if cost is no point the C8 weighs no more than the Skymax6. Collimation is no issue for neither scope

Collimation is definitely an issue for an SCT. You do need to collimate it, and you can only collimate it on a night of good seeing or with an artificial star placed 70+ feet away. And with an F/2 mirror, small errors can have a big impact. There is a bright side though, SCTs hold collimation very well. Mine hasn't needed to be recollimated for years.

 

Not needing to collimate is one of the advantages a Mak has over an SCT and possibly the only advantage. The only other advantages I could see argued are the smaller secondary and QC concerns.