Have you chosen a scope on looks alone?

[F15Rules]

We all know that the optics of a scope are by far the most important functional aspect, whether it be a refractor, sct, newtonian, dobsonian etc etc.

But, knowing that is the case, how many of us choose, or have chosen, scopes based on how they look ? Or, conversely, how many of us have not chosen scopes, possibly with superb optics, because of how they look?

I confess I have. I'm a sucker for refractors, specifically longer ones, which I know aren't the most popular variant these days...they are usually achromatic, but nevertheless razor sharp. But an apochromatic reflector is available in a larger size at lower cost than a good achromat. So why do I always choose the frac? I think it's just because to me they look "right"..

In the same way, I like Maks, but not so much reflectors such as newts or dobs - and yet I know people who swear by them (Moonshane springs to mind - hi Shane!).

What do you guys think, do looks count for too much when selecting our next scopes?

[John]

I prefer the looks of a 4" F/15 refractor to my 4" F/6.5 Vixen I think but, and it's quite a big but, the faster focal ratio makes the scope much, much easier to mount and the faster focal ratio coupled with the ED doublet objective makes the stumpy little Vixen more versatile than the, undoubtedly lovely, F/15 would be. I'm starting to feel similarly about my 6" F/12 too I'm afraid and would probably move to 6" ED doublet of around F/7-F/9 if I had the chance. I guess practicality is winning over aesthetics for me

[cutepetgroomer]

I go for one that will look easy to set up and store. Yes I know the bigger scopes may be willing to show more but sometimes portability is key.

[baggywrinkle]

For me it is optics, setting up, storage and transportation that comes above looks.

[Chris]

Put it this way, my 100mm f4 mini dob doubles as an ornament, this is going to sound bad but it's on the shelve next to our wedding photo, and yes my wife is ok with that (I think?). :-)

[Alien 13]

I agree that the scope package is more important to me than their ultimate optical performance i could have gone the ED80 route but longer focal length with not so good focusser and the fact that my scope looks so cute swung it for me.

I guess if i was to get a canon L lens i would chose the 70-200 zoom over the 200mm prime purely because i dont like the all black finish of the prime.

Alan

[Fozzie]

I fear I may be doing this very thing this week by ordering a altair astro 4" f11 achro.... still can't bring myself to get a more sensible second hand 100mm ed scope....

[nightfisher]

I bought my TAL for its optics, just so happened to look like a proper telescope so a bonus

[cotterless45]

I look at the objective, coatings count .

My old fracs have had a hard pre unloved life. They do look good in the dark, the 102 is always admired as the ota is oversized

Nick.

[F15Rules]

I fear I may be doing this very thing this week by ordering a altair astro 4" f11 achro.... still can't bring myself to get a more sensible second hand 100mm ed scope....

That scope looks uncannily like the Lyra Optics 102mm F11 by Lyra Optics: http://www.lyraoptic.co.uk/Telescopes-Accessories.html

I owned one of those and they are cracking refractors built to a high spec - optically every bit as good as the trusty Tal 100RS (maybe even a tad ahead) and well ahead on fit and finish quality. The Lyra one is made by Kunming Optics who are known for good quality, and Glen at Lyra field tests each one before release. I really like the traditional black and white finish with matching finderscope rings, but I must also say the Altair version with it's silver coloured trim looks very fetching too. 

I think both these scopes are proof positive that how a scope looks does greatly affect our buying decision!

Fozzie, pictures and first light review please asap, once you've decided which one to go for...

Dave

[nicoscy]

First it is about the optics quality. Then comes size, quality of construction and looks.

And yes, looks do matter. You will be using a specialised instrument for a - hopefully - long time. The pleasure in owning a telescope lies in the views, the workmanship and the overall look and feel of the instrument.

But I would never go for looks at the expense of optical quality and  other considerations like size, ease of use and general quality.

However, I would spend more on a good looking scope with the optics to match. It happens I am expecting my 140mm Orion Optics UK Mak to be delivered soon and I also have on order a 60mm Triplet APO from Moonraker scopes.

Both telescopes cost more than other "comparable" instruments but the Mak is only 3.5kgs in weight, has higher quality optics and designed to avoid mirror shift. The Moonraker scope is custom made based on a 60mm FPL-51 Triplet APO lens assembly from an Altair Astro 60mm APO. The lens in the Altair is awesome, but I am willing to pay to get a scope that has the looks to match the lens quality and is unique from a user's perspective.

I am willing to cut on other things in life (probably useless expenses, but by quitting my daily Starbucks coffee and cutting caffeine completely, that's about EUR 1,500 saving annually) which do not matter to me so much, but I am not willing to compromise on high quality optics, functionality and aesthetics (in that order) on my astronomy gear.

[RikM]

I wouldn't buy an inferior telescope just because it looks good, and I would definitely not buy a good telescope if I thought it looked ugly. What I am trying to say is that I wouldn't 'buy' something because of its looks but I would 'not buy' something because of its looks.

[Chinapig]

However, I would spend more on a good looking scope with the optics to match. It happens I am expecting my 140mm Orion Optics UK Mak to be delivered soon and I also have on order a 60mm Triplet APO from Moonraker scopes.

Sounds an interesting pair. On looks alone, having seen them at the IAS a few months ago, I would buy a Moonraker in a heartbeat. Beautifully conceived and engineered and, by all accounts, using quality optics. Wonderful looking scopes. Domestically, I'm not sure I can justify the cost, but they're not off the retirement-scope short list just yet. A 60mm triplet Moonraker is a nice idea!

[nicoscy]

Chinapig, 

An interesting pair indeed, but as I mentioned, I am willing to cut down on other frivolities to buy the gear I want. Being married with a kid, telescope gear is purchased only when I feel that every other need of the family is taken care of first.

Mark at Moonraker is an interesting fellow to work with and it should be a small jewel of a telescope. Although retirement is ages away, I wanted to have a small refractor which I can set up outside in a heartbeat for quick looks of the moon and planets and double stars. I figured that a high quality custom 60mm falls under the category "I will be buried with that scope" so I figured I should go all the way.

Funnily enough, the cost of a custom 60mm is the more or less the same as for any larger refractor that Mark makes as it still needs a lot of time on the lathe, polishing, fitting bits and bobs together e.t.c. So financially, not a "wise investment" but from an aesthetics perspective, I couldn't be happier.

[RikM]

There is no way I would chose a shiny metal telescope. I have too much local light pollution and I am sure the reflections would be a major distraction to observing.

[nicoscy]

Rik,

Mark can make you a scope in any colour scheme you like. I still haven't decided on mine as parts are still being fabricated. Internally, the scope will be flocked with Protostar flocking paper (OTA + dewshield) and both OTA and dewshield will also sport light baffles, so it should be as dark as it gets in terms of reflections inside the scope.

If you have to much local light pollution, I assume you do more lunar and planetary viewing therefore no dark adaptation is required so reflections are not a worry. I always leave some light on close by when I observe the moon and planets as I prefer not using scotopic vision for such objects.

[ronin]

Not really excited by reflectors but I would buy something like a Sumarian for the appearance of it.

It may be a case of a light bucket has it's uses, so having one in the armoury plugs a hole, and if I were to have one then the Sumarian's would have to be the one.

So one that one basis I suppose yes I would.

[nicoscy]

Ronin,

Tried the Sumerian 12" f5.3 and battled with it for 8 months. Bad experience due to inappropriate shipping and damage that occurred and I returned it, but for what it is worth, beautiful scopes.

[happy-kat]

I choose my Orion ST80 over the sky watcher one because it was white

[Liquid360]

I originally chose Meade over Celestron because orange makes me look fat.... although I've been told it's actually my face that makes me look fat. Now I have a shiny new FSQ-106EDIII. I have no mount yet which is fine because I can't bring myself to take it out of its plastic because it's just sooo pretty and I don't want it dirty[emoji57]

[Macavity]

I thought my 8" TS/GSO f/4 Newts *looked* fairly cool as VIDEO light bucket.

(TS Monorail focusers [i now have two] always look quite imposing though?)

IF allowed to DREAM - I might be tempted by (The carbon fibre look!)

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p4611_TS-Boren-Simon-8--f-2-8-PowerNewton-Astrograph.html (Borg-Sorensen 8" f/2.8)

For overall coolth, the Officicia Stellare (Star Workshop? lol) TRUSS designs...

http://www.staroptics.it/astronomia/Officina%20stellare/ultra_crc_320.htm

But (from my kidulthood) I still think WHITE (they have to be white!) tube *refractors* look best:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Observatory#mediaviewer/File:Pulkovo_refractor.jpg

SPM's Observers Book of A: The "26" Pulkovo". A Zeiss Achromat, apparently. 

[YKSE]

For me it is optics, setting up, storage and transportation that comes above looks.

I belong to the same functional camp, telescopes and related stuffs are to me for looking through them. Except checking for need of cleaning any optics, I barely look at them

[philj]

Modern scopes its function over form for me, the optics come 1st and looks dont really come in to the equation. As for my main pashion, antique/vintage/classic refractors, its predominantly form which draws me to them, I get them then if they dont perform they go to make room for one that does. I think Ive reached my limit now as far as old scopes are concerned (yeah right) Im sticking with my 4" f15, 3" f13 (big and small brassy) and my Towa 339 80mm f15, these look superb and perform really well so unless something really top notch comes along for next to nothing I will stick with these plus my 4 modern scopes.

[John]

Interesting mix of views in this thread

As you get to know more about scopes and equipment I think your perceptions of attractiveness can change:

Example 1: I did a bit of filming with ITV a few years back when they wanted some footage of a group of astronomers using their scopes. Most of the other folks brought along SCT's and dobs including a massive 17" dob which took ages to assemble. I took my ED120 refractor on a simple alt-az mount. When they started to plan the filming they tried arranging us in different ways, as they do, but they always seemed to want my refractor in the front of the shots. They actually asked that the wonderful 17" dob be taken off the shot as they felt that viewers would not know what it was !

It was the most capable and potent scope there of course and us astronomers were drooling over that dob but it was lost on the production team

Example 2: When I first got into astronomy (pre-WWW days) I took the American magazine "Astronomy" and occasionally "Sky & Telescope" too. I used to gaze at the wonderful equipment they had available over there, particularly the Unitron refractors and the classic looking (to me) Meade and Parks equatorially mounted newtonians with their white sonotubes and their black crackle finished mounts. In the small ads at the back of the magazines was a company called "Tele Vue" selling plossl eyepieces and something called a Nagler eyepiece for what seemed very high dollar prices. What a naff name for astro gear  I thought at the time - I'm never going to buy any of their stuff, it sounds rather tacky.

Got that one wrong .......

[philj]

I agree John, most non astro folks (muggles) recognise a refractor but struggle with the more exotic designs.

My 4"F15 is guaranteed to draw attention at any public do, despite the much bigger more exotic gear around.

I also drooled over the Unitron ads in S&T back then, also the Fullerscopes photocopied catalogues with the big refractors, never dreamt I would eventually have one