Meade LX90 8109031 Telescope
Out of stock |
Similar in Telescopes
- Optical Diameter: 203 mm
- Max Useful Magnification: x 500
- Finderscope: Optical
- Mount Type: Altazimuth
- Focal Length: 2000 mm
- Optical Design: Catadioptrics
- Overview
-
Reviews
-
Compare Prices
User ReviewRead All Reviews »
Great optics, highly portable GoTo telescope
Pros
Quality optics, Easy to set up GoTo function is essential
Cons
GoTo only works if properly aligned, which can be a problem.
Recommended it?
Yes
The Bottom Line:
If you can afford the Meade, go for it, you won't be dissatisfied. If you want a Celestron, buy the Celestron, but get better eyepieces.
This is my 4th telescope.
My first telescope was a 1984 Celestron Super C8 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. That was a great first scope, highly portable. It did have some deficiencies - hard to handle tripod, difficult to polar align. After about 6 years, I came down with "Twoinchitis" - I needed a larger telescope.
My 2nd telescope was a Coulter 17.5" Dobsonian reflector. It was a monster!! 20" diameter tube and almost 7' long, I needed help to set it up. The views were fantastic. After about 6 months, I rebuilt it into something I could handle by my self. Still, it took up almost all the space in the rear of my truck.
Then we bought a slide-in camper. I re-modified the Coulter to fit thru the door. Then we bought a new camper. The Coulter no longer fit, so I had to downsize.
My 3rd telescope was a 12.5" Meade Starfinder Dobsonian reflector. I modified the base to fit in my camper (actually made it easier to use as the eyepiece height was lower). It wasn't the same as the Coulter. About this time, the seeing around my house went down the tubes and I somewhat lost interest. The Mead languished unused in the garage and in 2002 I donated it to the Boy Scouts for use at the summer camp I go to with my Troop. The love it!! I get to use it every summer as I am the camp's astronomy advisor.
Last summer, I decided I wanted another telescope. It had to be portable and it had to have the GoTo function.
There are only 2 manufacturers of consumer GoTo telescopes, Celestron and Meade. My local dealer had a very nice display of both makes, with representatives of each model offered. It was a tough decision, but the Meade LX90 won.
The main difference between the Meade LX90 and the Celestron NexStar is the Meade fork has two arms vs Celestron's one. This makes the unit much more stable. Another difference is the Meade can be used manually, i.e. without the computer, the Celestron cannot. The Meade comes with a 8 X 50 finder, there is no provision for mounting a finder on the NexStar. The finder is essential for calibration of the computer during setup.
So, having gone full circle, is there a difference in the two brands of 8" telescopes? I think so. I think the Meade optics, especially their line of eyepieces, are better than Celestron's.
The bottom line between the two is price. Meade is more expensive than Celestron, by several hundred dollars. Both brands use the same technology to build their units, Meade does a slightly better job on their mid-priced line. There is virtually no difference between the two when it comes to the fancier models with built-in GPS.
Both brands telescopes do the same thing equally - they gather light, which is the only thing a telescope really does. The real difference is the quality of the image being focused on the retina, and Meade has the edge there with higher quality eyepieces.
My first telescope was a 1984 Celestron Super C8 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. That was a great first scope, highly portable. It did have some deficiencies - hard to handle tripod, difficult to polar align. After about 6 years, I came down with "Twoinchitis" - I needed a larger telescope.
My 2nd telescope was a Coulter 17.5" Dobsonian reflector. It was a monster!! 20" diameter tube and almost 7' long, I needed help to set it up. The views were fantastic. After about 6 months, I rebuilt it into something I could handle by my self. Still, it took up almost all the space in the rear of my truck.
Then we bought a slide-in camper. I re-modified the Coulter to fit thru the door. Then we bought a new camper. The Coulter no longer fit, so I had to downsize.
My 3rd telescope was a 12.5" Meade Starfinder Dobsonian reflector. I modified the base to fit in my camper (actually made it easier to use as the eyepiece height was lower). It wasn't the same as the Coulter. About this time, the seeing around my house went down the tubes and I somewhat lost interest. The Mead languished unused in the garage and in 2002 I donated it to the Boy Scouts for use at the summer camp I go to with my Troop. The love it!! I get to use it every summer as I am the camp's astronomy advisor.
Last summer, I decided I wanted another telescope. It had to be portable and it had to have the GoTo function.
There are only 2 manufacturers of consumer GoTo telescopes, Celestron and Meade. My local dealer had a very nice display of both makes, with representatives of each model offered. It was a tough decision, but the Meade LX90 won.
The main difference between the Meade LX90 and the Celestron NexStar is the Meade fork has two arms vs Celestron's one. This makes the unit much more stable. Another difference is the Meade can be used manually, i.e. without the computer, the Celestron cannot. The Meade comes with a 8 X 50 finder, there is no provision for mounting a finder on the NexStar. The finder is essential for calibration of the computer during setup.
So, having gone full circle, is there a difference in the two brands of 8" telescopes? I think so. I think the Meade optics, especially their line of eyepieces, are better than Celestron's.
The bottom line between the two is price. Meade is more expensive than Celestron, by several hundred dollars. Both brands use the same technology to build their units, Meade does a slightly better job on their mid-priced line. There is virtually no difference between the two when it comes to the fancier models with built-in GPS.
Both brands telescopes do the same thing equally - they gather light, which is the only thing a telescope really does. The real difference is the quality of the image being focused on the retina, and Meade has the edge there with higher quality eyepieces.
