Christmas Telescope HELLLLLP NEEDED :D

[toma2209]

Hey fellow stargazers!

I am a complete novice so please go easy as done a small bit of research into telescopes but its left me unsure on what to get. I livve in the suburbs and want to just be able to have a casual look at the moon, planets, and the odd star. My budget is £75-£150ish. There are afew I've found on Amazon which look good can cared for your advice...

I have a few questions;

Reflector or refractor telescope? 

How much maintenance does a reflector telescope need? and How often?

Can you get a decent telescope to see these things in this price range? If you know of a better one than I've found please make suggestions....

Thanks  

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-90-AstroMaster-Refractor-Telescope/dp/B000MLHMBM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1448920490&sr=8-9&keywords=refractor+telescope

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-31042-Astromaster-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B000MLL6R8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448920668&sr=8-1&keywords=reflector+telescope

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-Powerseeker-127EQ-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B0007UQNKY/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1448920668&sr=8-8&keywords=reflector+telescope

[pipnina]

If you have a look at www.firstlightoptics.com you will find a SkyWatcher 130p heritage for £129. Combine that with a cheshire collimating EP and you're set for years.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/cheshire-collimating-eyepiece.html- cheshire eyepiece

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html- Telescope

Reflectors do require slightly more maintenance than refractors but only in the sense that the mirrors need to be alligned once in a while. It sounds daunting but really is easy after you've done it once.

This guide should help you immensely if you get a reflector: http://www.astro-baby.com/collimation/astro%20babys%20collimation%20guide.htm

I've been using a scope very similar to that one for nearly a year and have been very pleased with it. But just a note, I would recommend starting with something either dobsonian mounted or alt-azimuth and avoid equatorial mounts until you're comfortable.

Welcome to the forum!

    ~pip

[Putaendo Patrick]

Telescopes do two things, they magnify and they gather light. The bigger their aperture, the better they are at gathering light. All things being equal, a bigger aperture results in clearer, more detailed views. And also allows higher magnifications. Thus the Celestron reflector 127 is superior to the 114.

Reflectors use mirrors which are cheaper to make than glass, so they generally offer better value than refractors, or put another way, you get a bigger scope for your money.

Mounts also eat into the price, so the simpler the mount the better the scope for a determined price. The simplest and cheapest mount is a Dobsonian, where the scope sits on the ground and you swivel it around by hand. Probably the best price/quality ratio would be 150mm Dobsonian reflector,  if you can stretch another 25 pounds for example http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html This really is quite a serious telescope and will keep you happy for a long while if you continue with the hobby. The Heritage 130 recommended above is also a good choice, and extremely portable - you can take it practically anywhere and set it up in seconds! A great option for holidays or if you travel.

The Celestron Astromaster 114 is supposedly slightly better quality than the larger 127 Powerseeker, although there's nothing wrong with the latter. The Powerseeker does, however, come with notably poor eyepieces which you will probably soon want to upgrade with at least one of medium/high magnification. A suitable inexpensive Plossl will add about 20-25 pounds. Both these scopes come with rather light-weight Equatorial mounts - these are designed to allow you to follow the course of the Moon, planets and stars as they move across the sky. They have to be alligned north against the Polar Star. This can be a bit difficult at first, but soon comes with practice!

It is also worth remembering that any amateur telescope at whatever price will not allow you to see the tremendous colour images of nebula etc taken with the Hubble Space Telescope or multi-million dollar reseach observatories! Don't expect too much!

[Putaendo Patrick]

Toma - my link was to

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html

[toma2209]

Thanks so much for the advice guys. Been thinking about it and I think it being portable and able to store away is most important so thinking the refractor's are looking like the better option. Is there any you would recommend?

Thanks for all your help again

[happy-kat]

The heritage 130p is very storeable and portable.

Check out you tube video to get an idea of scale/size.

[pipnina]

Thanks so much for the advice guys. Been thinking about it and I think it being portable and able to store away is most important so thinking the refractor's are looking like the better option. Is there any you would recommend?

Thanks for all your help again

As far as fracs go. I think this one would be a pretty good starting scope: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-80-az3.html

It has a nice wide view (3.3 degrees~ with the lowest power eyepiece) and would likely be best suited to looking at larger, brighter objects, there are a few. But since it's quite portable you could transport it to nice dark skies to see the darker large objects.

Only drawback is it's a little low power for planetary use... Usable definately but not ideal.

For planetary http://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-90-az3.htmlwould be moderately better... But it would be almost unusable for deep sky (the exit pupil (and therefore brightness of the image) is a bit low even at the lowest power) so I (personally) would go for the first scope.

However, the 130p heritage would likely be the best performer out of the 3 I mentioned. And it slightly cheaper and by no means hard to transport. But if it is just that little bit too bulky then I'd go for the startravel.

Whatever you choose, dark skies make the biggest difference to what you see.

Good luck!

    ~pip

[Charic]

I have the Power Seeker 127EQ, and I purchased its replacement within the first few days of ownership, made the decision the first time I used it. 

Its of poor quality in my experience, and has a corrector lens in-built inside the focuser tube  that causes all sorts of issues, with folk removing this lens in order to collimate their scope ? A spherical mirror is ok on-axis, collimation is not really required, and even if fully marked up and centre spotted, collimated, and with better eyepieces  its still a poor scope IMHO.

If your visiting Inverness in the next 3 weeks its yours, if its still in a brown box in the new shed ( I have  just moved a shed to the skip, and quite possibly the telescope went with it, as I have'nt seen it for a few days now, but there are more boxes to look through?

Avoid the Celestron Powerseeker.

[mikeDnight]

Out of all the scopes suggested so far the one that would give the best all round performance would be the 150mm Newtonian. The smaller, shorter Newtonians are not in the same league optically and I'd be much happier with a 90mm refractor for studying the moon and planets. If you could increase your budget so as to be able to afford a refractor of 100mm aperture and around 900mm focal length, then it becomes a thoroughly capable all round instrument. You could check out prices on FLOs web site.

Mike

[Putaendo Patrick]

Sorry to hear of Charic's bad experience with the Powerseeker 127, and interested to hear from aeajr that it is a Bird-Jones, I thought that design was a short lived fad of the 1970s or 80s!

So far as my own experience is concerned, I recently borrowed an old and abused 127 powerseeker from my neighbour to casually try out a new eyepiece, a secondhand 7.5mm Celestron Ultima, before my new telescope arrived. The powerseeker's tripod was missing a few screws, the finderscope was broken etc, but this I put down to years of misuse. The supplied EPs were very poor, but also mistreated. My impression of the OTA however was quite favourable! Using the 7.5mm on the moon, I got sharp correct images. No collimation issues.  My neighbour had bought the scope several years before, and in fact didn't even know what collimation was!

As I say, this was casual use just to ensure there were no obvious flaws in my EP. This said, given the pretty beaten up state of the scope I was pleasantly surprised and certainly not disappointed with the OTA. Just my opinion, maybe I was lucky or older models are better?

[toma2209]

Thanks Having seen the YouTube clip of the hertiage 130p I think its portable enough to take into school (trainee science teacher, biology specialist before the rants come in ) and to store at home when not in use.

In a review I watched he mentioned to get a celestron 4(taking its mm) eyepiece, I take it he is referring to this one...?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-93316-Omni-Eyepiece-4mm/dp/B00008Y0S5

Thanks again for all your help. 

[Ricochet]

I would avoid using a plossl at short focal lengths as the eye relief is very short (something like 2/3 or 3/4 the eyepiece focal length, can't remember which) making them impossible to use with glasses and uncomfortable without. BST Starguiders/Explorers (£50) or Celestron X-Cell LXs (£60) are pretty standard recommendations for an eyepiece that is a step up from a plossl and/or the supplied eyepieces but neither are available as a 4mm.

[DaveS]

Have a look through this range from FLO

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes.html

And avoid amazon like the plague for anything astro. FLO is my go-to supplier, and not just because they sponsor this site, their service is second-to-none, and their prices *very* competitive.

[happy-kat]

As a general outline I have read not to go higher than the telescope focal ratio so a 5mm for the heritage, I use a 6mm but my most used eyepiece is a 16mm.

[pipnina]

Thanks Having seen the YouTube clip of the hertiage 130p I think its portable enough to take into school (trainee science teacher, biology specialist before the rants come in ) and to store at home when not in use.

In a review I watched he mentioned to get a celestron 4(taking its mm) eyepiece, I take it he is referring to this one...?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-93316-Omni-Eyepiece-4mm/dp/B00008Y0S5

Thanks again for all your help. 

If you're getting the 130p heritage... try the 5mm version of this EP: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/skywatcher-uwa-planetary-eyepieces.htmlit seems to have good reviews. Dunno if anyone else could confirm.

[Charic]

...... on the moon, I got sharp correct images. No collimation issues.  My neighbour had bought the scope several years before, and in fact didn't even know what collimation was!............

If someone has not seen the Moon up close, then the Power-seeker will provide an image, but that's where it stops for me. On Jupiter, I cannot make out any detail, I can on my 200P

As for Bird_Jones, I'm not sure why the the format was adopted, but its actually  Jones-Bird,  with the same result.

The user manual describes basic visual collimation, and if needed, the unit should be sent back to the manufacturer. This scopes primary mirror is not centre spotted ( mine is now ) but makes no difference to the final image, or makes collimation any better. As long as you can see the three primary clips, your good to go with a spherical mirror. Drop the scope and it still works, yes it does! but don't practice dropping it?