Please help me pick a used telescope: LX200, Nexstar

[skintigh]

So I keep looking at ads to see what is out there and see what I think are good deals, but any help I could get would be great.

They come and go and sometimes come down in price, but here's what has currently caught my eye plus the extras that are important to me, all in the $1500-$2000 range:

10" LX200 with wedge (seems to be gone now...)
10" LX200 with some UWA lenses and other lenses and other goodies
12" LX200 GPS UHTC with a microfocuser, 2 super plossls (one is 2" maybe?) and some other goodies
11" Nexstar GPS with 3 lenses, microfocuser and other goodies.

So what do you think about those choices?

Also, is there a good time to buy one? Like you should shop for a convertible in the winter not the summer, etc. Will a falling economy lead to more deals?

My considerations:
I didn't originally want to spend that much, but it's kinda addicting...

I'm impatient so it must have a go-to computer.

I want the microfocuser for taking pictures (with a camera or webcam), but I doubt I have the patience to take long exposures nor the will to buy an imager so I may not need an equatorial wedge.

Lenses are good, my collection of 3 old plossls is weak.

I think the Celestron is a few hundred cheaper than the others.

I'm a healthy guy, but a little concerned by the weight of the 12" Meade, isn't it like 150 lbs? I think the 11" is under 100 lbs. I'm not worried about setting it up at home, heck I usually carry my 1980s C8 complete assembled in and out of my house, but since I live next to a city I'm thinking about the pain of taking it somewhere dark out in hill country.

Any advise would be much appreciated.

[Kaptain K]

So what do you think about those choices?

It's not like apples and oranges. More like granny smiths and winesaps! Pretty much personal choice. Some like Meade. Some like Celestron. But if they're honest, they'll admit that, whatever their preference, the other brand also makes good scopes.

[RickJ]

Sounds like you are mostly interested in planetary work with a web cam and some visual but no deep sky shooting.

Over the last years the optical quality of both Meade and Celestron (on average) has greatly improved so I'd want to use a 15 year old one before buying. Even new ones have klinkers in their midst. Of those bought by folks I know the Celestron's have had a slight edge for visual work while the Meade's excelled at deep sky which you don't seem interested in. Meade GPS and LX200 scopes on a wedge are very heavy compared to Celestron so keep that in mind.

Optically some of the 9.25" scopes have been super and make a rather good deep sky scope. The 11 is a bit better for deep sky of course though no better for resolution that I've seen (there are likely exceptions) and the 11 is not nearly as lugable as the 9.25. I'd only look at 11 and up for situations where you don't have to carry them far. Though when I was 40 years younger I'd likely lug one anyway. Still, even when young there were nights I just didn't feel like hauling out the "big" scope so kept smaller ones for such occasions. When you want a quick look at something a big awkward scope can be a big turn-off at any age.

Attend a few star parties of your local club, there should be several there of the type you are considering. See what they are like in action and then you'll know which is right for you. Just because I wouldn't want a particular scope doesn't mean it wouldn't be perfect for you.

Today's Meade SCT's have a larger mirror shift when focusing using the main mirror than do today's Celestrons. Older models were rather similar here however. Meade has taken the route of throwing in an electrical focuser and using a mirror lock for the main mirror. This is great for deep sky work with all but today's biggest and heaviest cameras. Celestron has taken the path of greatly reducing mirror shift when focusing. Its still there but nothing like it used to be. Many find it sufficient for their purposes with something akin to a RoboFocuser motor turning the knob. But mirror flop is still a problem for deep sky work when using a separate guide scope. Meade's electric focuser couldn't carry the weight of my STL camera without some sag nor could it handle a full 35 mm frame without some vignetting. More common size CCDs and all web cams wouldn't have a vignetting problem. Most are light enough they wouldn't sag. Just something to be aware of.

Rick

[Siguy]

I personally would go with the 12'', because of the large aperture, GPS, and UHTC coatings. But portability could be an issue.

My advice was sort of blown away by Rick's, though...

[skintigh]

According to my research/math a LX200 10" weighs 89 lbs and a 12" LX200 GPS weighs 123 lbs. That's a pretty big difference. However, now the 12" is gone but that other 10" came back. I also learned the super wedge is another 26 lbs. The Celestron is 84 lbs.

But now I have a new question: is there much difference in the optics between the LX200 GPS (2001-2006 I think) and the classic (19?? - 2001?)? The celestron is 2001.

I tried to go to a star party last week but it was cloudy :( I think there is a meeting of some sort this week.