ashm4n

I am also eyeballing them. How big of a problem is the lack of slow motion screws on them?

I understand. Coincidentally while googling I stumbled across thread of yours from 2 years ago discussing the 90/660 around the time of it's release. It has further swayed me in it's direction. Everywhere I look it's paid with the az pronto. How good/bad of a mount is it?

Thank you for the extremely informative reply. That CA table is a great guide. I was led (by myself) to believe that the 90/900 is a super long and therefore very free of CA scope. However I see now that at that aperture you gotta be over f/12 13 or more if CA reduction is your main goal. And yeah I guess you are right about the price point there are no APOs :D. One thing about the Celestron. It's not 90/900. It's this one https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astromaster-series/celestron-astromaster-80eq-md-refractor-telescope-with-motor-drive-smartphone-adapter.html was just wondering how you think it compares to the skywatchers.

Gotcha on the heritage topic. What makes you pick the 90/660 over the 90/900 skywatcher? I know the f/10 would be better as far as chromatic aberation goes, so does the larger FOV of the 660 make up for that and then some? Also the Celestron is nearly 100 pounds cheaper? Would you say it's also 100 pounds worse :D?

I know the focal length is measured only when extended. However usually the focal length corresponds with the depth at which the mirror is located in the tube and hence the maximum angle at which light can enter. Therefore bigger focal length results in a narrowed angle and hence smaller FOV. So if we do not cover the extended part, while focal length is 650, the mirror is in the bottom of a smaller 40ish cm tube, so doesn't that result in a larger angle and therefore larger FOV? I might be wrong, I'm just stating my reasoning for you guys to correct my mistake if I am.

In that case I guess CA shouldn't scare me as much. For the beginning it will be fine, and if I get hooked further I could just invest in a good filter. Sidequestion. The collapsible Heritage can retract and extend the focal point. However the sides of the extender are empty, so does that mean it has a focal length of 650, but the field that you see is as if the focal length was ~400 (or however long the tube is) since that's the actual depth at which the mirror is located under the entrance of the tube, and the real restriction regarding the maximum angle at which light can enter?

I've also come to understand that, CA aside, a refractor would produce a sharper and overall more pleasant image than a reflector. And that in more polluted areas the bigger reflector also takes in much of that pollution as well, resulting in a not-that-great (that I believe is the technical term) image. I've been checking out the second hand market in my country but it's a pretty small one. Not much variety, especially when I filter for my requirements.

Thank you for your reply. Do you think CA would be too apparent even in the f/10 scope?

I think I faintly remember that eclipse, however I was almost 8 years old at the time, but I'm pretty sure the one I'm remembering right now is the one you are talking about Also, yes, I've read the FLO topic. Just looking for some on-hand experience from actual people who have used the scopes.

Hello, fellow gazers! New guy here, asking the age old question for the bazillionth time. I've done my best researching the topic, reading through previous posts and watching several hours of youtube content, so I have formed something of a baseline understanding of it. But first, a little background information: I've always been fascinated with astronomy and all things space, however for some reason that is beyond me, it has never occurred to me that I could buy a scope and take a look for myself. I was recently introduced to this world by a friend of mine, who out of the blue showed me pictures of Jupiter and Saturn through his scope. I didn't even know he had one. I have a good understanding of what is to be expected from someone's home telescope, so instead of being underwhelmed, expecting a Cassini photo, I was in awe. That basically set me on the path of research that inevitably led me to this wonderful forum. Reading through previous topics everyone seems extremely friendly, patient and open to explain in great detail. Several youtubers warned that astronomy enthusiasts love talking about their gear, so it didn't come to as much of a surprise. Before stumbling on this website however I first discovered a local forum from my country (Bulgaria), however that was absolutely not the case. Reading through "beginner telescope" topics there everyone was being an absolute "elitist" with quotes like "if you're not spending at least 800 pounds (adjusting for currency here) you better quit altogether". It was a quite discouraging, however after seeing all that many of you have had to say, I see that it was also not true. On to the matter at hand. Researching types of telescopes, sizes, ratios and what not I've managed to narrow it down a bit. I'm pretty much set on a refractor. Not only because it "looks like a telescope", which it does btw. The collimation, acclimation and general characteristics of reflectors don't appeal to me as much. As for budget, I believe I could stretch it to 200 pounds, maybe 250 tops. Target objects - idk really, I haven't tried anything to know what I prefer. I live in the capital so light pollution is definitely a problem when considering DSOs. Size doesn't pose a problem. I have space to store it and I'm a big enough man to carry a meter long telescope and tripod. I was really surprised that size was such an often mentioned issue in other discussions. As far as mounts are concerned. I believe I would prefer an AZ mount, but that is flexible. I checked out some tutorials on EQs and they are really not that complicated and have some clear benefits. Also completely uninterested in photography at this point. I just want to observe. Here are several telescopes I've been eyeballing and some questions I have about them: 1. Skywatcher Evostar 90/900 2. Skywatcher Evostar 90/660 3. Celestron Astromaster 80 4. Skywatcher 705 and 707 on the lower end of the spectrum, however as most everyone says, if you can get the bigger aperture, get it. I understand the difference between the 90/900's f/10 and the 90/660's f/7-ish. I've been reading up on Barlow lenses and Focal Reducers, of which I see the former being much more prevalent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 2x Barlow would effectively make the 90/660 into a 90/1320 of sorts. In that case would the 660 have more versatility with just that extra Barlow? Also, does the Barlow lens hinder the quality in a way? For example would a 90/500 with a 2x Barlow be inferior to a 90/1000? If so, in what way? Color? Resolution? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the listed scopes (especially the first 3). Your experience with them, the positives the negatives, what they are good at and what they aren't. I understand that in this price range for each "+" you have to sacrifice something else. I would like to have a better grasp of the compromises that I'm making. Are there any others that you would recommend?