What was your next move after an 8" Skywatcher Newtonian?

I can't comment on what to go for after mastering an 8" Newt. What I can offer are my own considerations on progressing step-by-step. I recently set up my bucket list of objects I intend to image in the upcoming months and I continuously scan the astrobin images for worthwhile targets, so the list keeps growing. This process tells me that I will be busy for at least another year with my current widefield scope and there is no need to shop for another one. So my recommendation would be to reconsider whether you really need something else. Your 8" Newt should provide you with way more options than my widefield scope.

Having said so, looking at your images you seem to like galaxies. In a current parallel threat the recommendation was to go for a high quality 10" Newt. I leave the verdict on whether this is a worthwhile upgrade to the more experienced users here.

Good luck and clear skies
Wolfgang

Love my 200pds but I could really do with some help on fine tuning my collimation.

I always thought people develop from smaller to larger focal lengths but why not go the other route.

That was what I was thinking .... it may seem odd, but sounds like a lot of fun.

I BTW see that you are imaging with a 0.9x Skywatcher corrector which I also used for a while - it is IMO a piece of junk and lands the thin-walled aluminium 200 PDS at f/4.5, which is too fast for the given mechanical and thermal quality. There are better alternatives that will improve star shapes, I can give some suggestions if this is of interest.

I think it really depends on your preferences and what you want to achieve, I like good star shape but I dont need perfection; I dont mind sacrificing a little in top end performance if it saves a lot of money and time.  So for me a fast(ish) netownian has been a great fit for the 900 mm focal length range.  My processing skills have improved a lot now and where previously I felt I needed different scopes to get a great image I realise now a lot of the gap was in my aquisition and processing skill (and I still have a lot to learn there!)

So I have the 200PDS, it is fairly "tricked out" with autofocuser, mirror fan, internal floc etc  - I felt I had out grown it a bit and was struggling to find targets that I wanted to spend time on, so I went with a fast widefield lens Samyang F2 135mm but maybe the askar 200 would have been better - this also doubles as a travel rig.  I also wanted an APO in the 400 mm realm and there are lots of options there. 

However after lots of chopping and changing  I still find that the 200PDS is still my main set up and I really just needed to level up other areas of my knowldeged to take the next leap i.e. processing skills and knowldege of different catelogues to refresh my target list. 

In terms of optical quality I think you need to spend a lot if you want to see big gains at the same focal length (assuming you scope is well collimated). I am part of an astronomy group where we have created a database of various optical paramters and my 200PDS and a few others do incredibly well considering it is a fraction of the price of others - but you can also see that some people (I assume with poor collimation or other issues) have very low performance.  I was tempted by something like the Stellavue SVX130T but in the end decided that right now I prefer to have more variety in focal length than higher end optics.  
Instead go widefield with a lens or small APO refractor. 
If you are going to focus on deep sky imaging I would say keep if fast i.e f 4.5 or faster - once you are used to this going for a slower scope is really fraustrating! You could look at the very fast newtonans like the sharpstar hyperbolic newtonians they look interesting but I havent researched them too much.  Edit:  Of course fast rigs present other challenges, but I would rather spend my time overcoming these, but that is a personal preference. 

On my personal list is an ultra widefield lens, and also a plannetary set up but the latter is a long term goal.

Andy Wray:

I always thought people develop from smaller to larger focal lengths but why not go the other route.

That was what I was thinking .... it may seem odd, but sounds like a lot of fun.

Hi Andy. After my beloved 8" f/5 Newtonian, I purchased a shorter focal refractor, in order to address larger field.
Here it is, with his bigger brother.
I am very happy of the choice, the larger field is perfect for the big nebular objects.
I am also thinking to build an even shorter focal setup for ultra wide fields, not to mention portability.

Hello,
in my mind I should have a panel of different focal length.
Considering that I began with:

• Skywatcher MAK150 (planatery dedicated) (F=1800)
• Skywatcher Newton 200PDS (F=1000)

--> The logical newt step is to have a very short focal scope. 
--> So I'm almost sure that next move will be an Askar FRA300  . Just waiting my bank account to be filled a, little bit... 
Clear sky

Hi, I did the inverse move ;-).
I started by visual astronomy moving from 90mm to 125mm to 8 inches then an obsession 15 inches to stop at UC 22inches, the largest aperture I can physically move to a rural dark sky alone with a space wagon car. Views are fantastic, both for deep sky and planets, a very immersive experience each time, under the milky way. But this is a 1h drive +1h setup and reverse  time investment and sometimes the clouds refuse to obey the weather forecast, when the moon is off.
So I decided to go to astrophotography to connect more often with the night sky from my backyard in a light polluted area.
A newtonian 200mm F4 to 5 (I choosed F5) seems to me the very good sweet spot to do both deep sky imaging with reasonably large field of view, planet imaging and small DSO with a powermate or equivalent and when you look at the RC astro MTF analyser (https://www.rc-astro.com/mtf-analyzer/) and look at the various combinations with barlow/powermate x2 and  common pixel sizes from 2.4 to 3.7µ , and seeing from 0.5 to 2.5arcsec, you understand that you are at the sweet spot on earth. You're not really limited by the intrinsic limit of the aperture, even if you have a chance to capture planets with lucky imaging, nor chasing DSO at nominal focal length, and if you go for a focal reducer you can do down 3.5 and really touch very wide field. And you can manage this with a reasonably priced mount. My next choice will be to ask a reknowned mirror manufacturer to prepare a super mirror for my carbon tube once I will be convinced that my mirror is not as good as it could be and impair what I can get from my 8" ;-)
And this is not true for visual observing where aperture is KING. Someday I will have a fixed observatory with a 1m diameter fixed dobsonian F3 

I didn't know either that starting with an 8 inches was a good start. Experience is a light you carry on your back😉

I started with a 8” f5 newton, and I am very happy with it, and added a 80mm f4.8 and a Samyang 135 recently. It is exciting having these different field widths in the toolset!
I have a question: in suburban skies do longer focals, I mean more than 2000 mm, work? I am afraid that disturbed seeing by nearby houses might be an insormontabile limit. 
Thanks and greetings to all the friends here!

Mau