mikeDnight

For £700 I think I'd keep my eye on Astro Buy & Sell. You'll often find a second hand Skywatcher 100 ED or similar. They are really superb! And to be honest, I feel most ED refractors are so good these days that you don't need to worry about getting a lemon. Although Takahashi are great, and its a privilege to own one, the performance gap between them and today's ED apo's has closed dramatically over the last 20 years.

If you're looking for a sharp complementary scope, I'd suggest you discard the idea of a SCT, as they really don't deliver as visual solar system copes. They have light grasp and theoretical resolution, but nearly always produce soft, poor definition views when compared to pretty much any other design of telescope. As imaging instruments they can be superb! Refractors are arguably the sharpest scopes out there, but they are expensive aperture for aperture. They do however often compensate for their lack of resolving power by delivering superb definition and contrast, and can also out perform larger apertures in delivering the most aesthetically pleasing views of the Moon and planets. Maksutov's, unlike SCT's, approach refractor sharpness but with the advantage of greater aperture, or lower cost. Classical Cassegrains are both sharp and powerful due to their greater focal ratio, and cool relatively quickly as the are op-en tubed. You could however consider a long focal length, smaller aperture Newtonian, such as a 150mm F10, which would be a great solar system scope. Personally I love refractors, but that's a secret!

So you're the reason why they installed book tagging in libraries!!

I talked a friend into buying a 100mm Helios way back in 1999 as I didn't have the courage to pay for a scope made in China. First light through that little achro, which I think cost my friend £245, settled my suspicions, as the stars were sharp and any CA was very well controlled. There was no moon in the sky so we spent the evening checking out a few Messier objects and simply sweeping through star fields. I remember M1 revealing a N shaped tructure within its nebulous glow. The following day I ordered a 100mm for myself, but the day after I changed my mind and altered the order to a 120mm F8.3. The price for the 120mm Helios, which came with a beautiful EQ3, 90° mirror diagonal, 2X Barlow, and three lovely silver top plossl's, was a miniscule £275. First light was on a crescent Moon, and my first thought was "Where's the CA?" There was CA of course, but it was nowhere near as bad as I'd expected. The 120mm Helios achromat was a joy to use. Within a year or so I'd bought a 150mm F8 which was superb as a deep sky/comet seeker. Galaxies and nebulae drifted effortlessly into its field of view. Again, there was observable CA around the Moon and the brightest stars, but this was never made to be a lunar and planetary scope. It's speciality lay in its ability to deliver wide, rich star fields, and the study of nebulae and star clusters. The 150mm was a perfect comet seeker! The down side to these Chinese achromats became evident over time, as other observers bought their own Chinese achromats. The problem was never the CA. Such scopes will always show CA, its the nature of the beast. The real issue was spherical abberation, which was highly variable from one scope to another. Some were so bad they were unusable and had to be returned. However, when you got a good one it was an awesom beast! On a side note, I never found any kind of filter to improve the view in terms of counteracting the chromatic abberation. I prefered the natural look. Of course a UHC or OIII can be very helpful on some fuzzies.

I always judge a book by its cover. Seriously though, there is something about seeing Scotty smoking his pipe and standing alongside his telescope that oozes relaxed contentment. The cover of Starlight Nights is another who's cover has something special about it. Peltier's 4" Mogey refractor standing alone and silhouetted against a starry sky has always held a particular magic for me. It's perhaps my favourite book!

Here's another gem from the past. Walter Scott Houston's Deep Sky Wonders. I think its been long out of print though it may be found secondhand.

All I can say is that after 20 years in the hobby at the time, such a comparison motivated me. In 2001/2002 when a friend told me he paid £1000 per year to be a member of a local golf club, and a further £15 per game, it gave me the needed incentive to set aside a few pounds each week until I could afford the scope I wanted. It took me a while but eventually I was able to buy my dream scope at that time. Compared to my friends hobby, my hobby was cheap as I only need to pay once for life. It did mean I be disciplined and empty my pockets of loose change before I spent it, and stop impulse buying of junk foods and drinks as well as takeaways.

When you look at the cost of a season ticket to support a local football team, then multiply that by how many children you may have, then add one wife if she's interested, the cost a astronomy as a hobby pales. Thank goodness I hate football, as do my wife and son's. If I was short of funds I'd save for a 6" Newtonian if I were looking for a serious telescope that could do it all. Unlike a season ticket, the telescope would last a lifetime.

I hadn't paid too much attention to M78's accompanying glow of nebulosity until you mentioned it, I just sketched what I saw. I would have likely spent some time observing the field while under a blackout hood, so my dark adaption would have been quite good. The sketch was made using a prism diagonal, so mirrored compared to your reflector. Interestingly, I've just looked at O'Meara's Messier Objects and it does mention several such nebulous glows surrounding M78. (NGC's 2064, 2067, & 2071). I'm not sure which I managed to see but it will likely be easier in you reflector due to its greater light grasp.

I'm exactly the same. Reading a novel is something I've always struggled with. My wife thinks there's something wrong with me, which I can't really argue with. I do have two works of fiction in my collection, H. G. Well's The Time Machine, and The First Men In The Moon. I love the latter as the British beat the Americans to the Moon by a long shot, and had much more of an adventure. I like to think it was probably true and just written in the guise of fiction! 🇬🇧

I miss the old Sky & Telescope magazine, which was by far the best of the astro mag's in its day. The modern incarnation is merely a shadow of the former. I think Mallas contributed to S&T as early as the 1950's right through to the 70's. So looking back I think S&T played a very big roll in fuelling my enthusiasm. I have a library full of past gem's, but which from a visual observers point of view are as valueable to me now as they would have been when they were new. Telescopic Work For Starlight Evenings, by W. F. Denning, is a case in point. It isn't scientifically accurate as our understanding has become clearer, but Denning's sections on Telescopes and observing are still inspired.

It was and still is The Messier Album. The photo of John Mallas twiddling with his 4" Unitron was a real motivating force, perhaps as much as any of his sketches. Even back in 1980 my heart was set on owning an excellent 4" refractor. I never really wanted anything else, and over the years larger scopes have usually left me cold and although impressive to look at are often an anticlimax for me. I'm still thrilling at what I can see through my 4". 😊 Sky Atlas and Norton's Star Atlas, and now Pocket Sky Atlas are all vital to me as I avoid goto like the plague. But a truly inspirational book that fires my enthusiasm every time i read it is Leslie C. Peltier's autobiography Starlight Nights, The Adventures of a Stargazer. Below is a sketch I made of M78 a few years back using a 100mm refractor:

Yes you're right. All eyepieces have potential to create false colour. Many modern eyepieces use special glasses in their design which controls it. Wide angle eyepieces show lateral colour and you'll often find a colour fringe around the edge of the field of view. It often amuses me when people critique apochromatic refractors and complain about colour, as its usually the eyepiece that's the problem. Personally I find simpler designed narrower field eyepieces to show less, or even no perceivable false colour. Orthoscopic's and quality Plossl's can be excellent and give superb on axis sharpness that has the edge over wide angle designs, but they are usually limited to a 42° to 52° apparent field of view. Of course when observing deep sky any lateral colour present isn't really noticeable. It usually only becomes evident when observing the Moon. It's a case of horses for courses really, with wide field for deep sky and high definition minimal glass narrower field for Moon and planets.

Pretty sure they're dew spots. Doesn't look like anything to worry about and they may possibly disappear when cleaned. Even if they don't, they won't affect performance. I use the caloclean spray and cloth which is great and cheap.

Hi Andrew. How are your local seeing conditions? May be there is haze in the atmosphere? That could exaggerate the CA problem and may make the view soft.

I would expect the colour correction to be excellent, but far more important will be the figure. If its excellent, showing virtually no spherical abberation, the scope should be a formidable performer. It would certainly greatly outperform both the 80ED in terms of light grasp, resolution and colour correction, and will leave the 120 Evostar achromat in the dust in its lunar and planetary performance. It should also show tighter star images than the Evostar 120 achro, which will provide better definition of lunar and planetary.

Not me! I keep on making the same mistakes time and again. Even my C.V. state's "Not Very Bright But Can Lift Heavy Things!" The only thing I've done right, at least from my point of view, is to maintain my love of refractors. I started out with a small refractor (60mm) in 1980 and still use a relatively small refractor (100mm) today. Other kinds of scopes, some quite large, have come and gone but none have satisfied me like a good refractor.

I initially installed a permanent pier in my back garden simply to make setting up easier, but i still had to make three journeys before and after. It was the after that bothered me most, as I'd be tired and frozen and the scope would be caked in ice. Then I'd have to bring it in to thaw out, then bring in my eyepiece case and power pack, and then go out again to securely cover the mount and electronics. I eventually found I was making excuses so as not to observe. Building an observatory was the best thing I ever did. It shields me from intrusive lights, freezing winter breezes, and after closing the roof and turning the heater on, it makes a pleasant boys club where my observing buddies can chat without annoying the boss.

I acquired a liking for whisky quite a while ago, purely for medicinal purposes of course. If I think i might be a chance of getting a sore throat I'll have a whisky, and I don't get a sore throat. And if I have a sore throat I'll have a whiskey or two and nolonger care about the sore throat. It's a miracle substance! I think I've always had a love for binoculars and wide field scopes. Strangely the aperture bug never really bit me. I think that was because of the book Starlight Nights, The Adventures of a Stargazer, where the author Leslie Peltier used relatively small aperture refractors for most of his life and did great things with them. I suppose that book made me content with my lot. As for double stars, I think its the beauty of the contrasting colours that appeal. Measuring position angles and separations may also be both fun and addictive too, but I imagine it could get costly as I'd probably want to reacquire another 6" Tak.

Thanks Mike. That's a real complement comming from you, as I think you are an outstanding visual observer. Your sketches always thrill me and never fail to impress and inspire me.

That's perfect! Don't doubt you're doing the right thing, as it will greatly increase your observing joy. You'll only have your tube assembly to attach each time you observe, and if you cover your mount with a canvas garden chair cover, it and any electronics will never get wet. Whatever material you choose will be better than no pier.

I used a canvas garden chair cover that I bought from a garden centre to cover my Losmandy GM8 and G11 equatorials. These were permanently mounted on a pier and open to the elements. Yet by covering the equatorials along with their electronics, and securing the canvas cover using a bunji cord, wrapping it several times around the pier, the mounts and electronics never got wet. The mounts were there for years and weathered storms, snow, rain and heat. The canvas chair cover cost me £10.

Those are great old Photographs Mark and Paul. I was but a pup back in 1968, being only 6 years old. It wasn't until I was 18 that the astro bug bit and I bought a 60mm Prinz Astral from Dixon's. I spent hours drawing Sun spots through that scope. Those old 60mm refractors may be looked down on today as being little more than toys, but they were enough to ignite the enthusiasm of countless budding astronomers around the world. I also bought an old SLR camera from a flea market, removed the frosted glass from inside so I could use it for astro photography. I think the photo below is the only photograph that camera ever took when in my possession. 1980

When I was in my late teens, I'd look forward all week to Friday night, as Friday night was when I went to a fellow observers observatory. Derek was my mentor of sorts. He was a variable star observer, and his observatory was nothing grander than a small garden shed which housed a pair of Swift 16 X 70 pier mounted binoculars. I'd usually arrive around 7.30pm, spend several hours finding messier objects and various other targets of interest, interspersing sessions with coffee breaks. Usually I'd arrive home between 1am and 2am, then try and sneak back out again with my 12 X 60 binoculars on their tall home made wooden fork mount and tripod without disturbing my parents. Once set up on the back patio I would try and find every object that Derek had previously shown me that night. The thrill of success was intoxicating. Back in 1980 every Messier object that dared to rise above my local horizon was easy pickings for my 60mm binoculars and my young eyes. My confidence as an observer rapidly grew and I felt like I was part of a privileged class of very special people - the Stargazers. I prefer the term Stargazer to amateur astronomer, as in my case I rarely do anything with a scientific purpose; I'm just here for the fun ride. Comets were my thing for the first 20 years of my hobby, and I would follow and plot the path of each one that came within the range of whatever instrument I had at the time in my Norton's Star Atlas. Then almost overnight my interests changed. For someone who avoided the Moon and had little interest in the planet's, my astro polarity flipped. I can't be certain what the cause of the change was, but I've now spent more years observing the planet's and our Moon than I did comets and fuzzywuzzies, but with equal zeal and enthusiasm. Double stars could so easily be my passion for the next 20 years if I let them get hold of me, and if I'm lucky enough to stay the distance. I'm 60 in three days! But I love this hobby with just as much passion as i did when I started out. Couldnt imaging anything better as a lifetime hobby.

Hi Huddo, Welcome to SGL and to a great hobby. A 150mm Newtonian is a seriously capable scope and will do everything you ask of it. May be an EQ3 could carry it, but it would be at its limit. The eyepiece of a Newtonian can get into some strange positions, so how's your back? I'm not 60 until Feb 4th, yet my back is my Achilles heel, figuratively speaking. Comfort is key to being relaxed at the eyepiece, and if you're comfortable you'll undoubtedly see more. Other scopes that will be great for Moon and planets would be a 127mm Maksutov Cassegrain or a 102mm Starfield ED refractor. Both could be carried by an EQ3, or an AZ4 or AZ5 altazimuth mount. I like the latter two scopes as they are so comfortable to use, yet very capable scopes.