Sky Watcher Pro Series Mak

My current main 'scope is an Orion Optics Europa 250. It's a 10" (ish) f4.8
device.

I've seen the new Sky Watcher Pro series and I'm rather taken by the 150mm
f12 Mak. At 440UKP for the OTA it's quite nicely priced as well.

The question I have is: with it being f12 is it likely to give better planetary
performance than the f4.8 Europa? This is assuming equal optical quality.

Many thanks.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

In article , Jim wrote:
My current main 'scope is an Orion Optics Europa 250. It's a 10" (ish) f4.8
device.

I've seen the new Sky Watcher Pro series and I'm rather taken by the 150mm
f12 Mak. At 440UKP for the OTA it's quite nicely priced as well.

The question I have is: with it being f12 is it likely to give better planetary
performance than the f4.8 Europa? This is assuming equal optical quality.

Forgot to add: this is for visual use only, not imaging.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

Concise answer: NO

Andrea T.

In article .com, wrote:
Concise answer: NO

Thanks :-)

er...what would the slightly less concise answer be?

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

NO WAY :-)

Seriously though, how can you expect a 6" to come even only close to a
10" if of the same optical quality.

Andrea T.

In article . com, wrote:
NO WAY :-)

Seriously though, how can you expect a 6" to come even only close to a
10" if of the same optical quality.

Probably due to the fact that I've heard (somewhere, not sure where) that
'slower' telescopes are better for planetary work than 'faster' ones.

Hence the f12 might be better than the f4.8, even though it's smaller.

I take it this is wrong?

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

Indeed very wrong.

Andrea T.

In article .com, wrote:
Indeed very wrong.

Ok, thanks.

Out of interest, what _does_ make a good planetary 'scope, or is there
no such thing at that simplistic level?

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

Probably a very good sky, seeing wise :-)

Apart from that, any large, well baffled, quality telescope (very mucho
£££) will probably qualify as a planetary scope, if the CO is kept
below the 30% threshold.

Andrea T.

In article .com, wrote:
Probably a very good sky, seeing wise :-)

Apart from that, any large, well baffled, quality telescope (very mucho
£££) will probably qualify as a planetary scope, if the CO is kept
below the 30% threshold.

Once again, thanks.

For some odd reason I now feel slightly disappointed that I have no need
to save/spend 440UKP...

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"