looking for the most simple refractor telescope

[jestar]

Hi

I think the night sky fascinates us all , especially as children, maybe some of us forget ! I have a three year old grand son who can tell me the names of the moons which orbit Mars, I didn't even know Mars had moons. He Knows about dwarf plantets and Jupiters giant spot and all sorts of other things, althoug he sometimes gets a little confused. I would love to be able to show him saturns rings and Jupiters moons but I don't know how.

I've done a little reserch on the internet and I really have set my heart on a refractor telescope, so even if this is a mistake I don't think I will change my mind.

What I really would like is an apochromatic refractor but I believe these can be a little pricy, I have a £700 budget.

This might be a lot to pay for a starter telescope but I would hate for Vincent to be disapointed, plus his enthousiasm has re awoken an interest in me that I had long since forgotten so I want something that will be a joy to use, and not left in the cupboard.

Complicated technologies  like go to computers worry me a little, I really am looking for something as simple as possible.

If anyone can help me find what I'm looking for I would be very gratefull.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Something simple on a non-motorized mount would be just the ticket. Something like the Skywatcher startravel series (e.g. 80 or 100mm) on an AZ3 or AZ4 mount would be fine (these are best for wider field views, not so much for planets), or like an Evostar 90mm on an AZ3 or AZ4. The evostars have a longer focal length, which will better detail on planets, but somewhat narrower fields. Other brands make similar scopes.

[rwilkey]

Hi Jestar, welcome to SGL.  I think Michael is right, a 90mm or 102mm refractor will be great for you both, it is an achromatic, not quite the semi-apo you were after, but these are very hard to come by cheaply.  I would suggest the Evostar 102mm on either an AZ4 mount or on a Vixen Porta II (more expensive) mount as I have done.  Will be most suitable for a young person.

[ronin]

At this time I would leave the idea of an apochromat out of it.

A nice simple one is the Skywatcher Evostar 90, another is a Tal 100.

The Evostar on an EQ3-2 is £229 and with an 8mm eyepiece will happily show Saturns rings.

The Tal is a bit bigger and again with an 8mm is good on Saturn.

Both are around 800mm to 1 meter in physical length, if you wanted shoter then Rother Valley and Opticstar do a 90mm scope at 800mm focal length, cost is £245, but you would need a mount and diagonal to complete the set.

The Tal 100 is £250 and again you would need a mount.

Concerning mounts an Alt/Az is easiest but either of the above come on an equitorial.

If on an EQ3-2 you can later add dual motors to drive the scope and so track things.

I would not at this time look at an apo or even an ED simply because the cost is high and the capabilities of one would I suspect be lost on your grandson. Also with a scope comes other expenses like eyepieces. And 4 reasonable eyepieces at £50 sure adds to the cost ultimately.

[jestar]

Thanks hyper giant and Brown dwarf,

A semi-apo? I really am new at this. 

I will go away now and reaserch the telescope you have suggested. 

I have read that chromatic aberrartion can be a problem, is this something I need to worry about ?

[glynnlondon]

I think Michael and Robin are correct an alt-azimuth (AZ) mount is the way to go as it is very intuitive , simply  up / down / left / right. The Evostars would be good for what you need.

Or possibly the Tal 100 rs on an AZ4 , they have a very good reputation.

[Laurie61]

Hi and welcome, if you are looking for an apochromatic refractor for your budget then the default option would probably be an 80 mm.  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-outfit.html 

You will also need a mount, ​the simplest type would be an alt-az like this http://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html 

[jestar]

Thanks Main Sequence,

Now my head really is spinning !

[glynnlondon]

LOL ronin beat me to it on the TAL. Must type faster !

The CA is very well controlled on the Tal according to the Tal owners on here.

[ronin]

Chromatic aberration will be a problem however it is worse on a "fast" scope. Fast means about f/5, these are the ST80's and other short scopes.

All the ones mentioned so far are not "fast" usually around f/10.

The f number is simply the focal length divided by the aperture.

So a Tal is 100mm diameter and 1000mm focal length the f number being 1000/100 = 10. So it is f/10

Except apo's you will get some chromatic aberration, but an apo costs a lot. I have one that is 80mm diameter and it is an inexpensive apo, it would cost you £1000, and as said that is an inexpensive apo.

Semi apo is often a term for ED scopes,

The definition of apo is that 3 wavelengths are controlled, and so the lens needs 3 bits of glass, when ED glass became more easily available they made ED scopes with 2 lens that were close to an apo and they get called semi-apo, others will refer to them as apo.

Really do think you should stick to one of the 3 mentioned so far, Tal 100RS, Evostar 90 or Evostar 102.

If you search round there will be a Tal Owners Group or several, used to be one here.

They have a sort of following and owners swear by them.

They are Russian and generally built like the perverbial tank.

One of my best views of Satrun and it's rings was through a Tal and an 8mm eyepiece.

[dweller25]

Hello Jestar,

Refractors are nice and simple but are very expensive.

There are other options which are more suited to your requirements.......

Dobsonian telescopes are very simple to set up and use and have fantastic performance - an 8" dobsonian costing just £280 will match the performance of the best  5" Apo refractor.

Here is what I am suggesting ....

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

I would also suggest you pop along to your local club to get a better idea of what you would like.

[jestar]

It looks like we are all agreed on the mount, brillian...thanks for the link Proto star. The Tal 100 looks good, thanks Nebula, can anyone tell me the pros and cons between that and the Evostar 102.

Every time I google for telescopes the name Celestron comes up, yet nobody has suggested it.

PS I'm now confussed about usser names as well as telescopes!

[jestar]

Thanks Ronin, I think I'm getting it now. 

You say the Tal is very robust, which has to be good when being used by a beginer and a small boy.

Dweller25 I'm sure your right but, and I don't know why, I just feel that Vincent and I would enjoy a refractor more. It stikes me that they are more straightforward to use and, with practice, will give a clearer image of what we want to see.

[John]

I love refractors (I have 3 of them !) but I have to agree that the dobsonian scope, as recommended by David, would show significantly more impressive and engaging views of all aspects of the universe per £ spent. They are extremely simple to set up and use too. An 8" scope gathers 400% more light than a 4" one and light is THE most precious commodity when it comes to viewing astro objects with the possible exception of the Sun and the Moon and even there the additional aperture will enable more resolution of detail.

Celestron are now owned and made by the same company that owns and makes the Skywatcher scopes by the way.

[happy-kat]

Being 3 you would need a stool for him to see in the eyepeice of an 8" reflector as the tube can be long and the eyepeice is near the top.

A refractor looks like what a 3 year old might expect a telescope to.look like.

[jestar]

HI John,

If Dobsonian scopes are so wonderfull, why have you 3 refractors ?, this really is a serious question.

[jestar]

Thanks Happy-cat, I think you might have hit the nail on the head there.

[Chris]

I would say if you only wish to view the planet's and moon plus the brighter deep sky objects then a 4 inch refractor such as the evostar or tal will do a good job. However, if you think you might be interested in tracking down some fainter objects like galaxies then I would definitely consider a dobsonian such as the skywatcher 200p with its greater aperture. Aperture is king basically, the more you have the more you will see. The only downside to lots of aperture is lack of portability so this is something you need to weigh up. Having owned both a 4 inch refractor and a 200p dob I would say they are both about equal in terms of portability. A third option is a compound telescope such as a maksutov which is like a refractor which has had the light path folded thus making them very portable. The 127mm skywatcher maksutov is a popular choice.

[ollypenrice]

Children often struggle to use telescopes. I'm an astronomy provider so I do have a fair bit of experience of this. They take a while to get the hang of which eye to use and can be quite clumsy, not by normal standards but free moving telescopes on simple manual mounts don't count as normal circumstances! The tiniest nudge and you've lost it. So I must admit that I'd be more tempted by something on a tracking mount. 

Something like this has a lot to be said for it, with better lunar and planetary views than from a non achromatic refractor. Setup is pretty simple and the mount will keep the object in view. http://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/skywatcher-skymax-127-synscan-az-goto.html

There are no easy answers in this game!

Olly

[spaceboy]

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works. I do like refractors but that wasn't always the case. Achromatics suffer false colour and depending on how high your mount and tripod is most of the night can be spent on your hands and knees trying to find stuff. I'm not sure this would be too much fun for kids and retaining their interest while your straining your neck trying to find things might be a deal breaker. Kids tend to want to see stuff and see it now. They also see better than us old timers and the false colour on Jupiter at high magnifications may be all their eye will look at.

I know it's a pain when others come along and suggest some other scope to consider but a MAK has similar attributes to a refractor in that the eyepiece isn't out of reach of children and older and taller people can always sit at the eyepiece.

I don't know what your budget is but I'd give these some thought http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-ota.html    http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-ota.html on a http://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html another good thing is you don't need to spend a fortune on expensive eyepieces to get good views out of a MAK

[wuthton]

All my scopes are refractors as my main interest is astrophotography.

If I was to buy a scope for observing it would be a Dob. Simple to setup and use, great optics for the money.

[John]

HI John,

If Dobsonian scopes are so wonderfull, why have you 3 refractors ?, this really is a serious question.

Perfectly fair question

My refractors do a great job of certain specific tasks and under poor viewing conditions but for all round performance the dobsonian, under decent or better conditions, out performs them, sometimes by quite a long way. It took me quite a few years to realise this though as I was obsessed with the concept of a refractor to start with. When I eventually got an 8" dob (I now have a 12") I realised just how interesting deep sky objects such as globular clusters, planetary nebulae, galaxies actually were having been restricted mostly to seeing them as faint fuzzy blobs with the refractor or, in the case of the fainter ones, not seeing them at all. I also realised that seeing planetary features such as Saturn's Cassini division and Jupiter's Great Red Spot got a whole lot easier with some more aperture ! 

Another reality is that, when I was ready for more aperture a 6" refractor is a comparatively massive beast which require a substantial and tall mount. An 8" refractor costs a small fortune and needs observatory mounting really.

A 12" dob is as large a scope as is practical from my viewing location so that's where I've "topped out".

[jestar]

Don't appologize spaceboy I'm glad of the odd spanner in the works, Vincent is my reason for buying a telescope and I want what will work best for him. 

Hi Ollypenrice, Its my inexperience which makes me shy away from goto mounts so I am here for practical advice from people with experiencel like you, thanks.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

My kids have used their mini-Dob a couple of times and found it fairly easy to look through, although smaller kids might grab the EP and immediately loose the object.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/143145-mini-dob-for-the-kids-finally-ready/

The advantage is that these keep the eyepiece easily accessible at almost any position in the sky (the little Maks also have this advantage). Commercial variants of my mini-Dob abound, the Skywatcher Heritage 130 being a nice example. They do need collimation, which is not something a kid should be trusted with too soon, but it is not rocket science either.

I must say the little maksutovs would be very suitable as well. Superb little scopes, and their compact size means they can be taken to (dark) places much more easily than a 1m tube.

[jestar]

John, 

The advice I have been getting is marvelous, and I think I might be being a little bit blinkered in my insistance on a refractor. In fact I am now very torn between the different types, so please forgive me if I appear to be asking the same question repeatedly.

I am sure that it wont be long before deep space objects become a reason for sitting on the flat roof of my garagage for hours but at the moment we are still exited by the objects in our own solar system, and maybe some of the more obvious constellations. By easier do you mean better ?

What do you think of Spaceboys suggestion ?