315+ Telescopes Ranked

View Rankings

Celestron 127EQ PowerSeeker Review – Not Recommended

Celestron’s PowerSeeker 127EQ is so bad that I'm genuinely baffled as to who in the world would’ve given this product a green light for manufacturing.
Photo of author

When you read one of my reviews at TelescopicWatch, you can trust that not only have I gotten to use the product, but I’ve compared it to numerous others and tinkered with it down to the literal nuts and bolts. When I'm not writing reviews, I'm out under the night sky with my own homemade or modified telescopes, with over 7 years of hands-on experience in astronomy, having owned 430 telescopes myself, of which 20 I built entirely.

Tested by

Score Breakdown

Optics: 1/5

Focuser: 2/5

Mount: 1/5

Moon & Planets: 1/5

Rich Field: 1/5

Accessories: 1/5

Ease of use: 2/5

Portability: 4/5

Value: 1/5

Read our scoring methodology here

Celestron’s PowerSeeker 127EQ is the perfect example of why our website exists and why some Amazon reviewers are not knowledgeable enough to review complicated telescopes.

In my analysis, its reviews are written by a mix of incompetent and misdirected newbies with extremely low expectations, old fogies who only briefly look at its specs and assume it’s a bargain, and outright fake or misleading reviews written by paid shills or robots. With a poor optical design, poor construction quality, abhorrent eyepieces, an impossibly undersized mount, and marketing claims that should be confined to the days of mail-order scams, it’s almost believable that the 127EQ is some kind of mischievous prank pulled on beginner astronomers. 

I noticed Celestron claims this scope can reach up to 450 power, a figure too high for a 5ʺ telescope, let alone any telescope—a claim that should be an immediate red flag for anyone looking to purchase a decent telescope.

How It Stacks Up





Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ


See All Telescopes' Ranklist

Best Similar Featured Alternative: Orion StarBlast 4.5 II EQ Reflector

What We Like

  • Looks like a telescope
  • Might actually provide a focused image

What We Don't Like

  • Terrible optics
  • Terrible accessories
  • Mount literally incapable of functioning with the included telescope
Not Recommended Telescope

I firmly believe that the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ doesn’t belong on any reputable website that sells telescopes, Amazon, the collection of any amateur astronomer, or anywhere that isn’t the bottom of a landfill. It’s one of the lowest-quality telescopes around, and yet it’s peddled by a world-renowned brand and given praise by many experienced astronomers, most of whom, of course, have never actually bothered with trying to use one. Don’t take one, even if it’s for free.

I spent a few days doing everything possible to get my 127EQ to work. I’ve owned dozens of telescopes. I’ve serviced hundreds. I know what I’m doing, and after all my efforts, I was still presented with images worse than any telescope I’ve ever looked through.

Overview Of The 127mm Bird-Jones Optical Tube

127EQ Optical tube
The Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ is a 127 mm(5ʺ) f/7.87 (focal ratio) Newtonian with a focal length of 1,000 mm.

Once we do some basic math, we’ll immediately notice something odd with the specifications of the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ. The optical tube is only twenty inches (500 mm) long in reality. How does one fit a “Newtonian” optical system with a 1000mm focal ratio (not a Cassegrain optical system, which actually “folds” the light path into a smaller physical package) into that small of a tube?

The answer is that the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ is not a Newtonian. It’s a Bird-Jones.

The Main Villain: Bird-Jones Optical Design

Bird and Jones were two amateurs in the 1950s who sought to create a simple telescope with a spherical instead of a parabolic primary mirror and a corrector lens/Barlow in front of the secondary/diagonal mirror. This design, in theory, can work well, and some properly executed Bird-Joneses do in fact work quite well.

But the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ is anything but properly executed.

Unlike the classical Bird-Jones style, which puts the corrector lens just in front of the secondary mirror, the 127EQ’s “corrector” is mounted in the focuser (see below picture). This means that the corrector will move whenever we move the focuser, thus assuring the correction is basically never spot-on.

Bird Jones telescope design's optical path diagram
Bird-Jones telescopes’ light path diagram

Even if the corrector’s placement was not an issue, the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ’s corrector itself is not a proper corrector lens. It is just a Barlow lens inserted into the focuser drawtube. So, it doesn’t fix the problem it’s supposed to fix as per the theory: the spherical aberration caused by the use of a f/3.5 spherical primary mirror in the 127EQ. This spherical aberration makes it impossible for the telescope to make sharp images, even at very low magnifications.

Rather, the corrector-Barlow simply makes the path of the light rays through the telescope a little steeper, which in theory might be enough to provide a pretty decent, if not the sharpest, image. But because it is mounted in the focuser, the 127EQ’s corrector is always moved away from its ideal position. This means that the scope can only produce images that are barely good enough for a telescope of its size and price. At worst, the views are a completely mushy, unusable mess.

Next Problem: Improperly Made Primary Mirror

To make matters worse, the PowerSeeker 127EQ’s primary mirror isn’t even a precisely manufactured sphere. It’s a random shape that came straight out of the polishing machine.

The PowerSeeker 127EQ primary mirrors that I’ve tested have had rough surfaces and all sorts of microscopic holes and hills that damage the image, as well as many other complicated flaws.

These are all caused by the fact that nobody actually bothers to test these things before throwing them in the telescope. If Celestron performed any quality control on the PowerSeeker 127EQ, after all, it might not have been created in the first place.

The primary mirror also appears to me to be secured to its support with solid gobs of epoxy, which warp and distort the mirror due to the stress they induce on the glass. I believe this further hinders the already limited capabilities of the telescope.

The Difficulties in Collimating the Scope

With the corrector lens in the focuser, it’s hard to collimate the Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ because the corrector makes the reflected images of the primary and secondary mirrors look very small. The corrector lens also inhibits the function of a laser collimator.

So, to collimate the 127EQ, I must first remove the corrector lens. This means taking apart the focuser, carefully unscrewing the ring that holds the corrector, and being careful not to get fingerprints or grease from the focuser drawtube on the corrector lens. I then temporarily put the focuser back together to collimate.

After collimating the scope, I then have to take the focuser apart again, re-install the corrector, making sure to put it in the right way, and then re-assemble the focuser.

The Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ also has collimation screws that don’t move much and are easy to strip.

Collimating the 127EQ was hard enough for me to do in the shop; a beginner attempting it out in the cold and dark will find it impossible.

Problems With Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ Accessories

127EQ Accessories

If you thought the Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ’s optics were bad, the eyepieces are actually worse by every stretch of the imagination. 

The 50x low-power eyepiece that comes with the 127EQ is a 20mm Kellner. 50x is a bit of a high magnification for “low power” with a 5” telescope, especially one with poor optics.

The 20mm Kellner has a permanently installed “erecting prism” that flips the image right-side up. The erecting prism is included so that Celestron can claim that the telescope is capable of terrestrial viewing. But it comes at the expense of sucking up quite a bit of the light entering the telescope, blurring the image due to its extremely low quality and providing a field of view reminiscent of a drinking straw. Because of this, it will be hard to find targets or fit them into the field of view. The included next-to-useless finderscope won’t help much with this.

For high magnification, the 127EQ comes with a 4 mm Ramsden. The last time a Ramsden had any place in an amateur astronomer’s eyepiece box was in the 1960s, when a Kellner or Orthoscopic was rare and sought after.

Like the included 20mm eyepiece, the 4mm Ramsden has a tiny field of view. Worse, however, it has a tiny eye lens and next to no eye relief—meaning I’ve got to jam my eyeball into it to see much of anything. And it provides 250x, which is too much for even a quality 5” telescope (which the 127EQ is a far cry from). It’s also generally low quality and would provide a mushy image anyway, even if there were not too much power for the scope to handle.

The included “3x Barlow” is a plastic-lensed abomination that exists to provide the “450x” Celestron claims the telescope is capable of (in actuality, very few telescopes are capable of, let alone used at, 450x). It is completely useless and should be discarded.

For a finderscope, the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ comes with a 5×24 unit with a single plastic lens and a plastic eyepiece. To get a usable image, the lens’s aperture is closed down to less than 10 mm. This takes away its ability to gather light. The bracket is also hard to align with the telescope, so the finder is almost always pointed in the wrong direction and is therefore useless. You’re better off removing the finder itself and using the bracket as a peep sight.

The Undersized EQ-1 Mount

The EQ-1 mount provided with the PowerSeeker EQ telescopes is actually fairly respectable in terms of build quality and operation. But it can’t hold up a telescope as big as the Powerseeker 127.

Not only is the mount very unstable when the 127mm optical tube is on top of it, but the counterweight that comes with the telescope is not heavy enough to keep it balanced. So, when using the 127EQ, I have to always lock up the mount axes a little bit to keep the whole telescope from moving around on its own. This means that as I move the telescope around the sky, the motion is jerky and less than smooth, which makes the stability problems I’ve already talked about even worse.

Between these issues and the terrible included finderscope, it is hard for me to get the 127EQ pointed at pretty much anything besides the Moon.

Should I buy a Used PowerSeeker 127EQ?

No, not even for $1.

Alternative Recommendations

Almost anything is going to be better than the PowerSeeker 127EQ; even a pair of 7×50 binoculars is likely to lead to more satisfaction in exploring the night sky. However, here are a few of our top picks:

Under $300

  • The Zhumell Z100 and Orion SkyScanner 100mm have less aperture than the 127EQ, but thanks to the ridiculously poor design of the 127EQ, they of course easily outperform it in image quality. These telescopes, as with all others we recommend, both feature parabolic primary mirrors with no internal corrector lenses and quality accessories and mounts.
  • The Zhumell Z114 and Orion StarBlast 4.5 Astro are both even better than the smaller 100mm tabletop scopes mentioned above, with the same great optics, accessories, and easy-to-use mounts. They are night and day compared to the awful experience of the 127EQ.
  • The Sky-Watcher Heritage 130P offers slightly more aperture and infinitely better views than the PowerSeeker 127EQ, all in a convenient and portable package thanks to its collapsible tube. The included accessories are great, too.

For other telescope recommendations, read our article on ‘Best Telescopes’ or view our Telescope Ranking page.

What can you see with the Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ?

The Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQ’s low-quality optics are a permanent handicap, even if you upgrade the accessories. If you can manage to get the scope collimated and deal with the frustration of aiming it, expect to see the following:.

Solar System

  • Mercury – An ill-defined smudge. It’s unlikely you’ll be able to resolve its phase.
  • Venus – The phase is easy to see, albeit with a lot of glare surrounding the planet caused by the corrector lens and low-quality eyepieces.
  • The Moon – A fairly decent view, but nowhere near as detailed as the sights delivered by a telescope with quality optics.
  • Mars – An ill-defined blob, even when it’s close to Earth. You might just be able to make out an ice cap and maybe a dark smudge.
  • Jupiter – The moons are obvious (but then again, they’re obvious in a pair of cheap birding binoculars too). The two equatorial cloud belts are visible, albeit low in contrast. The Great Red Spot, normally a pretty easy catch with a careful eye and almost any half-decent telescope, is not sharply defined enough to spot.
  • Saturn – The rings are visible, though fuzzy, and maybe a couple of moons can be spotted. The Cassini Division in the rings cannot be seen, and you won’t be able to glimpse any of Saturn’s fainter moons besides Titan and Rhea.
  • Uranus and Neptune – Assuming you can even find them, the PowerSeeker’s optics are bad enough that you can’t distinguish either planet as a clear disk.

Deep-sky objects

Many of the most exciting star clusters are visible, but lack crispness. 

  • Emission nebulae: The Orion Nebula looks okay but the Trapezium star cluster is mushy. The Lagoon is a wispy cloud, with bloated, ugly stars inside it. The Swan is ill-defined. 
  • Galaxies are troublesome to find and lack anything resembling detail. 
  • Forget most planetary nebulae; they’ll be blurred beyond recognition.
  • Splitting any remotely close double star with the 127EQ is impossible.
Zane Landers

An amateur astronomer and telescope maker from Connecticut who has been featured on TIME magazineNational GeographicLa Vanguardia, and Clarin, The Guardian, The Arizona Daily Star, and Astronomy Technology Today and had won the Stellafane 1st and 3rd place Junior Awards in the 2018 Convention. Zane has owned over 425 telescopes, of which around 400 he has actually gotten to take out under the stars. These range from the stuff we review on TelescopicWatch to homemade or antique telescopes; the oldest he has owned or worked on so far was an Emil Busch refractor made shortly before the outbreak of World War I. Many of these are telescopes that he repaired or built.

24 thoughts on “Celestron 127EQ PowerSeeker Review – Not Recommended”

  1. You said in your review the following: “So, to summarize this review of Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ, there are better options than the 127EQ in its price range.”
    What are some of the options to which you alluded?

  2. This is my fist telescop..,,,and the last one from Celesting….
    The focuser is cheap, it moves of axis , the colimation is real bad…
    The quality of optic is almost like viewing a plastic lens telescope….
    I feel even bad to seal to someone else…

    • Celestron makes GREAT telescopes. The NexStar line is fantastic. The 4/5/6/8SE, EVO9.5 and EDGE11 are very well regarded in the field. HOWEVER as with anything you get what you pay for.

  3. I agree with everything said, but want to add one ray of hope. The collimation of this telescope is nearly impossible, but there is an unorthodox salvation. Collimate as usual to the point where the bad cannot be made better. Then, as the final step, do not adjust the primary mirror further, but make the final movement(s) on the secondary mirror with its adjustment screws. Keep adjusting (small movements) until the diffraction disks when defocusing both directions are perfectly circular (yes, it is possible). This will yield pinpoint stars and good detail in lunar craters not otherwise achievable. Then, at best, the frustration ends and one has a decent grab-and-go scope. Finally, plan on trashing the accessories and buying replacements at the outset. However, never plan to use an eyepiece more wide-angle than 20mm; focus on the periphery is unachievable at a wider angle. The advice not to buy this telescope is actually sound, though, especially for the novice.

  4. wish i found this site before i bought the eq127 . while i got good veiws of moon jupiter saturn, not much else ,i had a 50 dollar scope years ago, i was able to see the horse head nebula. couldnt get it with this (as you said) garbage i,m just going to give it to someone i,d like to annoy. and pick one of your recommendations thanks .

    • Sorry, Daniel, byt no one is able to see the Horsehead nebula even with a 5″ scope. You need to have more than 12″ scope, really dark sky, healthy eyes, and probably an H-beta filter to kinda faintly see something at where it is.

    • Sorry, Daniel, but no one is able to see the Horsehead nebula with a 5″ scope. You need to have more than 12″ scope, really dark sky, healthy eyes, and probably an H-beta filter to kinda faintly see something at where it is.

  5. The only reason I bought EQ127 is that the equatorial mount was a pretty good deal for me to mount my DSLR camera. I would say for some astrophotography beginners if you need an equatorial mount for wide-field photos, it is an OK deal. However, do keep in mind that don’t expect to obtain good astrophotos through the telescope itself.

  6. OMG I thought I was crazy!!! This telescope is belongs in the garbage. I 100% agree with everything the reviewer said. I’ve never been able to see anything!!! My eyes and neck hurt from the award way you have to bend to view through the straw hole!! The quality of the lenses suck and it’s impossible to get the telescope to remain still/not move

  7. I just spent 2 hours with this thing and as I’m trying things that I know better common sense wise, I just assumed the issue was user error. There is no way to sight the finder scope, there is very unclear assembly, the mount is sturdy and the weight of the whole setup made me feel incorrectly confident this is a sturdy solid piece of hardware, the slightest dial totally throws the line of sight if the thing doesn’t just sag on it’s own, it does get strangely locked up on the axises and regardless it’s going to require macro line of sight adjustments ( I honestly thought that the sky was just faster towards morning because of how often I’m trying to keep the image to stay, I gave up on Jupiter altogether and tried the moon, I couldn’t see anything even the light capture would barely register. I feel scammed and cheated. I don’t understand how newcomers like myself can manage to make this useful. Maybe just as a decoration? I’m not trying to sound dramatic, because even if you could hypothetically see okay images, the whole thing is so unruly that I couldn’t imagine anyone thinking “okay I need about an hour before I can start looking as something and even still the image has no payoff”. I don’t understand based on my research before the purchase that this was the only review that perfectly described my experience. Is it that they have what it takes and I’m just inherently bad at this or are people to embarrassed they can’t use something that in theory should be easy to even as you say that they have luck of the draw as it relates to the components happening to be of better quality. This doubt in the equipment was confirmed once I read the only dissenting opinion about this telescope. I don’t understand why reputable reviewers and whole sites say this is the absolute best you can get for under $200 as it is easily as the same or better than the next bracket. You just can’t argue with some things. There is no way to calibrate the finder scope for the most part. It’s just there and awkward to use on top of that.

    I want a scope that is accessible and capable for on the go. I understand that having something portable makes the quality for the lower price suffer a bit. I would be happy even with something like this if it worked. Little heavy is okay. Something sturdy that isn’t nodding off constantly, my hands are to shaky to operate something that can’t even remain static on it’s own. Live in central texas with a good amount of light pollution but there is top quality spots not far out. I can’t imagine a better reason to get out into the state for the different opportunities to observe but to also just get out of the city and explore this state, have something reliable and isn’t irreplaceable because of cost.

    • Well said. Many sites are incentivized to sell PowerSeekers by getting a commission from Amazon, hence the fake and misleading reviews. Unfortunately, in addition, a lot of astronomers recommend the 127EQ not having used it because they either think the aperture for the price seems like a great deal – or, worse still, give it a pass purely because of the Celestron brand name.

    • thing doesn’t just sag on ITS own, it does get strangely locked up on the AXES

      my hands are TOO shaky to operate something that can’t even remain static on ITS own

  8. Why didn’t I see this?
    I am surveyor, so though I am new to telescope but still figured out the basics quickly, however I just can’t focus on Jupiter correctly. I know the tripod is unstable and the finder scope is terrible, but I never thought this tube itself could be so shitty. This page answered all my concerns and now all make sense.

  9. I had the misfortune to have a close encounter of the first kind with one of these abominations a few months ago. I’ve been told that my diatribe on it was unnecessarily scathing, but it was a paean compared to your forensic analysis 🙂 . Thank you!

  10. I thought it was just me but this article has made clear it’s not a user error…shame I didn’t come across this article until after purchasing! Thanks for sharing.

  11. I was convinced I was just the worst beginner star gazette ever. This telescope has had me discouraged and unmotivated to look at the sky at all. Lol And then I read this and all these comments. And everything makes sense. I am both relieved and regretful that I hadn’t read this before I bought it. But now I am hopeful for the next telescope I purchase. But which one? Any recommendations?

  12. Wish I read this website earlier. I thought I did my homework before buying one, but I am disappointed with this telescope. Seems like it’s impossible to get a focused image and you do have to be really careful that the scope doesn’t just tip over on you. Sky viewing is better with binoculars.

  13. This is an absolute hobby-killer for the newbie. Incredibly frustrating to use if you have no time-in with an EQ mount and the optics are exactly as stated several times in these comments…terrible. There are 2 saving graces though. To set them up, After a lot of frustration, I ended up spending much LESS money at Costco on an Omni 102AZ and was compelled to exclaim “W-T-F” out loud the first time I used it because it was so much better and easier to use. So, the first saving grace was that I was able to remove the lens from the cheapo 127EQ 3x Barlow and use the housing as a draw-tube extender for my eyepiece camera to give me a bit more space to focus. Second, I have ADHD as an adult and found that repeatedly disassembling and reassembling the garbage 20mm ‘Erector’ eyepiece that came with the 127 was a great fidget toy to help keep me focused during virtual meetings for work 🙂

    • LOL, certainly a good use for that erecting eyepiece – and yes, almost any Barlow works as an extension with the lens taken out which is nice. The Omni 102 AZ is excellent!


Leave a Comment