Taz777

Hi all, I'm looking at a Bresser Messier 10" Dobsonian telescope as a possible purchase and notice that it only comes with one eyepiece - a 25mm Super Plossl. For a beginner, is this enough to get started or should I buy a complementary additional eyepiece at the same time? If so, any recommendations?

Some information from the manufacturer:

Quote

A good quality 25mm Super Plossl eyepieces is supplied as standard, giving a magnification of 51x.  Additional eyepieces of both 1.25” and 2” barrel sizes can be used with this telescope and are available as an added extra, (practical maximum eyepiece focal length is 4.5mm, minimum focal length up to around 30mm).

The Bresser site recommends this on the product page of the telescope:

Revelation ED 2x Barlow 2"

https://www.bresseruk.com/revelation-ed-2x-barlow-2.html

9 hours ago, Alan64 said:

One of the great, fun things about telescopes, and over binoculars, is that you can change the magnification.  I'd give it up if all I could have is a pair of binoculars.  Instead, I would just walk outside, look up at the sky and muse, "Oh, how pretty", then go back indoors.  It has been said that there is no one telescope that can do it all, in regards to low-power and high-power observing, but I beg to differ.  To observe the sky at a binocular-like 20x, then in the next moment 150x or 200x, and everything in between, is desirable, possible, and with one telescope.  That would cover all bases: the galaxy in Andromeda and the Pleiades; other yet smaller galaxies, globular-clusters and nebulae; then high-powered views of the Moon, the planets and the double-stars.  The brighter and brightest objects in the night sky, the Moon and the planets, are far fewer than the vast multitude of the dim and dimmer deep-sky objects.  We know that the Moon and the planets are relatively close to Earth, and here within our solar system.  But everything else lies outside our home, and at distances to boggle the mind.  The farther out that they are, the farther back in time one sees.  When you look at this globular-cluster through an eyepiece...

...you're seeing it not as it appears at that moment, but rather as it appeared over 20,000 years ago; most ancient.  The light that it sent out, that it may send still into space, took that long to reach us, and at the speed of light.  It is, therefore, over 20,000 light-years distant.  When its light first left that cluster, and headed towards Earth, someone made this out of ivory in what is now France...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Brassempouy#/media/File:Venus_de_Brassempouy.jpg

The refractor and the Newtonian are the oldest yet most effective designs, and from the early-to-latter 1600s.  That's all man had to play with, until much later.  In the 1940s, the Schmidt- and Maksutov-Cassegrains came into being, and that's it, too.  In developing telescopes, the endeavour has proved almost as difficult as making a human eye from scratch.  Collectively, they're the only instruments with which to observe the heavens, and to this day.  It's not a lot from which to choose.  The primary function of a telescope is ever so simple: to observe faraway objects up close.  Back in the golden, olden days, low-power views were handled by the naked eyes, and effectively, as there wasn't nearly the level of artificial light pollution that plagues us today.  Oh, I suppose if all I had was a pair of binoculars, I'd make merry use of it...

...but only if telescopes were non-existent.  But simply knowing that telescopes do indeed exist, then what are we waiting for?

 

Sir, you have a wonderful writing style. I enjoyed reading your post immensely.