Basementboy

I found choosing a first telescope – particularly during lockdown when you can't see or touch anything – a real challenge, but I think I found a good one in the end ... so I wanted to offer my thoughts on the ST80 with AZ3 mount in case it's helpful for someone else considering this telescope. I was looking for: -a very portable telescope to take to the park, as my garden has restricted viewing -a wide field of view (FOV), to help me find objects while I'm learning the sky -visual only – no photography necessary right now -cheap, so I could see if I actually enjoyed looking at the stars in the first place! So, after plenty of great advice from everyone here at SGL (who talked me down from the ledge of my first idiotic plan – an Evostar 120 on EQ5 mount that would have been way too big and heavy for my purposes), I settled on a short tube refractor. I ruled out the Maksutovs for their narrow field of view (FOV), and the various Newtonians for their bulkiness and need for regular collimation, which I didn't want to faff with every time I moved it. I also ruled out computerised Go-To mounts, because of the weight, the need for a separate power supply, and generally the extra hassle of using Wifi and synching electronic devices. Besides, it's cheating, right? I want to find stuff myself at first. Luckily, the Sky-Watcher Startravel 80 appeared in stock for a brief window at FLO (packaged with an AZ3 mount). After hearing more experienced astronomers sing the praises of this basic telescope, I took the plunge. New Scope Day was exciting: the ST80 is solid, metal, reassuringly weighty yet easy to lift with one hand. I was pleased it came with two Plossl eyepieces, and also had a 2x Barlow, a red dot finder and (somewhat annoyingly) a 45 degree diagonal for upright viewing of objects – which I immediately replaced with a secondhand di-electric 90 degree star diagonal for about £35. (Amazon sells new generic Chinese ones for about the same price.) The telescope fits easily into a backpack, and the AZ3 with its aluminum tripod is easy to carry with one hand, so no problem heading out to the park – with one free hand to ward off thugs. I immediately had a bit of whatever the opposite is of beginner's luck: the lenses were out of alignment! The stars were all visible as little "V" shapes. At first I thought I was doing something wrong (EPs? focusing?), but after watching a few youtube videos and getting some SGLer advice, I managed to fix the problem myself. I carefully unscrewed the tube ring inside the dew shield a bit, gave the telescope a gentle shake – while vertical of course – to settle the lenses, and tightened it back up. Bingo: sharp points of light. First impressions once fixed? It's a fun step up from binoculars, though admittedly not a giant leap. I used big, bright stars to navigate to smaller ones, and found the Pleiades (great), the Orion nebula (fuzzy glow, some extra stars), Mars (a large spot of pinkish light, just about visible as a disc rather than a point) and the ridges of mountains on the bottom rim of the Moon, which looked really clear and quite spectacular. To my great delight, particularly given I'm a Gemini, I was able to use the 10" EP and the Barlow to split Castor into two clearly visible stars! (I also turned the telescope on the Shard, which gave me vertigo.) As for the much vaunted chromatic aberration (CA), yeah there's a bit of a purplish edge on brighter objects - the moon, a few stars - but nothing too distracting. In fact it almost looks cool. (Though I can see how you'd get sick of it over time, or if you wanted to do astrophotography.) The book Turn Left at Orion helps me figure out what stars to look at; the Stellarium app help to identify where they were, although the automatic compass doesn't work very well on my Samsung S7: it keeps insisting I'm looking north when I'm obviously looking east. My phone battery also died on my first expedition – which made me glad I hadn't bought a Go-To/synscan. A few other downsides: -The AZ3 mount is very light and easy to whack up in under a minute, but it's paradoxically both a bit rickety and a bit stiff. Things improved once I used a wrench to slightly loosen the "friction bolt" that controls vertical (altitude) movement. But it's a bit jerky, and not very precise: you basically have to just shove it around, and often have to go a little bit past a star so that it will "snap" back into centre when you let go. The slow motion controls do help to centre stars, though, and the ST80 has such a wide FOV that you don't need to be too precise. It also holds the telescope very stable. So it's fine, it's just not very ... nice. -The 45 degree diagonal is not great for astronomy (it's designed for terrestrial viewing), and the Barlow makes things extremely dim. But the eyepieces seem good: a step up from the stock eyepieces I've been warned against. -Speaking of dim, I'm viewing in London, where light is an issue – both the lights around me (even in the park) and the skyglow. The ST80 obviously has some limits in this regard, though any telescope would. Navigation can be quite difficult as a result – I get lost a lot, even with this telescope's very wide view, and I couldn't find things like the Crab Nebula. But again, it would be hard in London with any telescope. I've decided against getting a light pollution filter, given that I already need all the light in my puny 3" aperture I can get. But I'd say manage your expectations, if you're in a city. You're not going to see a lot of incredible swirly galaxies. Nevertheless you will see lots of cool stuff, and it's certainly a huge thrill to find so many things in the sky that you can't with the naked eye. The ST80 is intuitively fun to "point and shoot", and it's easy to set up and cheap enough that I can run around the city with it without too much fear (safety is always a consideration in London). As many people have said, the best telescope is the one you use – so full marks for the ST80 there. One piece of advice to fellow newcomers: I found it takes a few sessions of looking at the sky just to get oriented ... in fact, just to get used to looking through a telescope at all. The brain takes a while to get accustomed. Don't get frustrated, is my top tip – it does get easier with time. Starting with binoculars helped. Alternatives to the ST80? A bigger ST120 would help take in more light – though it would also take in more light pollution and apparently has worse CA – so I'd like to try one though. A small Mak (90? 102?) would give better views of the Moon, which is crisp through the ST80 but doesn't fill the view, and the planets – but given how difficult I've found it to navigate even with the wide-field ST80, I think a Mak would be a poor choice for a first telescope unless you had a Go-To setup. I also must admit I've got my eye on an F7 4" ED doublet to try to do both things well: deep sky objects and planets. But they're expensive, and I want to get the hang of the basics first. So yeah, the ST80: a simple but effective telescope that's fun to use in the city and would be even more fun in less light-washed skies, eg the suburbs or countryside (and perfect to throw in a bag on camping trips). It's not going to blow your mind visually, but it's a great, cheap way to figure out if you like looking up. So far, at least, I've got the bug. Chris

I'm a beginner and just bought an ST80 as my first telescope - and was very disappointed to see "V"-shaped stars. But (with a little advice from some of the sound folk in this very thread), by holding the tube vertically, unscrewing the ring and giving the lenses a little shakedown, it did indeed seem to fix the problem, as advertised! They still feel/sound loose to me (there's a slight clacking movement if I very gently shake the OTA, as if something is moving between two fixed positions) but the stars are now stars. And I split Castor! Very exciting. (For me) Now to figure out how to wring the best out of this not-immediately-wonderful AZ3 mount

Thanks Carl, that's really helpful. Interesting you say they're better than the ED scopes you had before – why is that? Just better build quality these days out of the factory? One of the FLO reps was saying that the price of good telescopes has dropped dramatically in the past decade or two.

Digital sacrilege, I should report you to Google! Just kidding, I'll try that: I'd definitely prefer to buy from a local Uk dealer if possible. Interesting about the zoom eyepiece, too. Do you find any downside?

Great thread, thanks – does anyone have experience with the FPL-51 glass, for viewing (not astrophotography)? They're almost half the price of the 53 and I'm not sure I'd tell the difference just for visual. Any thoughts? Also : are any of these in stock anywhere? Altair didn't answer an email I sent them, and I'm wary of buying anything from the EU (still waiting on a shipment of cork from Portugal ordered six weeks ago)

They were great. The whole night was great. In fact, I'm heading back out to test out your monopod idea!

Thanks, I'll check it out

Just to wade in late here – as a newbie who used binoculars for the first time (in a serious way) last night, I can say that I was definitely very glad I had a tripod. I couldn't really hold my 10x50 binoculars steady with my hands alone. It might have been different if I was lying on my back, or in a very stable reclining chair. But I'd advice getting that monopod, at least. Maybe with practice it gets easier, but I personally wouldn't have wanted to practice if all I could see was a wobbly blur. However, with the smaller binoculars you've bought @technocat, you might be OK. A monopod should be pretty easy to whip out too, however, so it might be something to consider maybe for future. In the meantime, I had a great night of observing from the middle of a very, very bright city! Have fun

Hi – just wanted to let all of you who helped me in this, my original thread, know that, following some good advice, I have started with a pair of binoculars ... and had a terrific night of London stargazing last night. I'm sure the clear conditions and full moon helped, but hey, if the fruit machine didn't pay out early then it would never hook the punters, right? I wrote a few notes about it in the second thread that I started earlier this week – below in case of interest. But just wanted to say thanks everyone Chris

You've all been so helpful, I thought I'd let you know what I saw last night using my first instrument – a pair of binoculars, sold to me by @Tiny Clanger for a song. Wow! Binoculars! Saw the full moon as a sphere in space with what I guess are small mountain ranges or ridges along the bottom edge. Found Polaris, Sirius, Orion (of course) and a few other bright stars whose names I forget. Realised how red Mars is. And then ... up to the Pleiades! What a thrill being able to see something through the binoculars that you can't see with the naked eye. The moon was actually so bright that as well as casting sunlight-sharp shadows around me I suspect it obscured the view of other stars somewhat. But Mars and the Pleiades helpfully decided to appear in the right bit of sky to be visible from my back garden, and without the moonglow, so that was a nice plus. And the mount was very portable to take to the closest park, which has a better and somewhat darker view – though again, the full moon actually washed things out a lot. A few things I struggled with: -double vision. Particularly for tiny dots like Mars, I had a devil of a time trying to get both eyes to resolve in a single pinpoint of light, rather than two. It was much easier with the Moon for some reason -the mount. It's very well built, and super light and strong. But it's clearly for photography: it's designed to move into one place and stay there. I was constantly faffing with loosening the clamps, moving the sight and then clamping it again. I can see an Alt-Az in my future -finding stuff. I was basically pointing and looking. I can see a powerful Mak might be tricky to use at first -phone battery died. So no Stellarium for most of the time. But it underlined for me that I don't want to be messing with phone-based Go-To starfinding (and the attendant power packs and wifi issues and whatever else) while I have to take it to a park. But frankly I didn't need the app. It was just fun to look up. So that's discovery No 1.

@Sadiestorm I'd be delighted, will PM you

Do you mean that's because the advantage it offers over an achromatic is primarily in terms of better astrophotography?

Thanks! The 102 is juuuuust at the top of my price range (accounting for all the accessories), currently 499 at Altair. And yeah I think I'd need an AZ5 w steel tripod so a good 10kg plus scope and other stuff (as you so rightly mention, not to mention extra clothes etc) - 20kg? That's doable in a backpack. But I'd have to carry the mount. Is the reason you say you'd be tempted to go for the 80 mainly just because of the awkwardness of the 102+mount? Or the weight? Or both?

I've been thinking that, yes! But I also quite like the idea of what you say you do ... hunting around just to find anything and everything. GoTo seems cool but a bit like ..... cheating ..... ? I can't help but think that if you struggle with DSO even in Bortle 5 skies, then I'm going to flail in Bortle-9 and might be best off giving up and going planetary for now

Could be! I think 75cm is too long, though – for that I might as well be going whole hog on the 100 ED doublet. But I hear you on price. Wary of splashing out before I know what's what about what. What are your skies like in Norfolk? London really is quite washed out, although my chosen park location – on top of the Burgess Park hill – is about as far from street lights and houses as it's possible to be here. But I'm thinking DSOs might just not work for me in the city. So I'm starting to think to focus on planetary – in which case yep, a Mak!

Did not know that. Stellarium Plus feature, I assume? Thanks for the tip I like this idea. Also the idea of getting a 127 Mak, and more or less sacrificing DSOs, which I likely wouldn't be able to see well anyway. Might as well do what I can in London, as well as I can, without trying to force it. I could always pick up a cheap ST80 later/as well, to see what it's like – though I get the feeling it wouldn't do planetary OR widefield well in London skies. And I do like the portability option of a Mak, and the fact that I assume it will be pretty great on moon/planets. Honestly seems every time I lean toward something, I suddenly find a different option that seems more suitable. Here's hoping it's because I'm getting close to a decision and not just going in circles!

Thanks! Yeah, I know even experienced astronomers love their ST80s, but I fear I'll miss something of the wow factor. The Altair 80ED and 102ED have a focal length of 560mm and 714mm, respectively. I guess that's what I'm wondering: How big a jump is it from a 560mm 3" frac to a 714mm 4" frac? Is it nearly twice as good (as 63% more light would suggest)?

Thanks. Good advice.

Thanks in part to some great advice I've received on SGL, in my hunt for a good all-rounder as my first telescope, I have narrowed the field to a short refractor. But because I can't actually test anything in person, I could use some real-world advice on the final selection. My main requirements are that it be: A - portable, so I can take it to a park in London (I have a garden, but buildings on all sides block a lot of the sky, so realistically I need to carry it 5-10 minutes to a nearby park, ideally stuck in a backpack) B - both good DSO and planetary viewing alike in an urban sky (not imaging) C - under £500 OTA I have ruled out a Dob (portability) and a Mak (for poor DSO and narrow FOV). So I think I've settled on a short tube refractor. I have considered the F5 refractors (cheaper, wide FOV, "bombproof" as someone put it). But I'm a little worried about CA, and build quality, and that the views, while crisp, won't be all that impressive at higher magnitudes. The ST120 would take in the most light but would also probably need an AZ5 w steel tripod (heavy), whereas the ST80 could sit on on a cheaper, lighter mount but might seem sadly underwhelming under Bortle-9 skies. So I've been weighing up an ED doublet - the 3" and 4" Altair Ascents, which with the FPL51 glass are just on the right side of affordability, and seem to solve some of the short tube issues. My question is: 1. What's the real-world difference between an 80ed and 102ed in people's experience? The larger scope only costs £100 more, and boasts it has 63% more light - but how big of a step up is that in terms of viewing appreciation? And does the fact I'm observing in London change the equation? It's also longer (73cm v 54cm) and heavier (4.2kg v 2.8kg) - would that make lugging it to the park that extra bit of a pain that would likely mean I don't take it out as much? No point buying a more expensive scope if I don't use it. It seems like a small difference but 54cm could go in a backpack whereas 73cm can't even fit in my suitcase. 2. Am I wrong to have written off the cheaper F5s? Would the ST102, for example, hit a "sweet spot" for planets, DSO and not too much CA to be annoying (incidentally I'm colourblind so false colour doesn't generally bother me, though focus/sharpness issues certainly would)? Everyone seems very attached to their ST80s, too, but I have a feeling I might want something with a little more flash. I haven't read great reviews of the ST120s either, at least not as "all rounders". Any practical experience of comparing 3" v 4" (or 5") refractors (both ED and otherwise) in a real-world context would be hugely helpful – particularly the thing about the 63% more light in an 4" v 3". Thanks!

Nice. Any major delay crossing the Channel? And did you pay much in customs?

Where'd you buy this from, if you don't mind my asking?

As a Canadian I must protest – moose, not elk! I too am starting to covet an ST80, in my case for my first scope -- something cheap I can take around London to the parks (I can't observe too much in my garden) with a wide enough FOV to help me navigate but clear sharp views. And I like the sound of "bombproof" Now if only I could actually find one...

Thanks. That all makes a lot of sense. A lot of what I'm doing here is trying to understand expectations in order to manage them, so I really appreciate the advice. I don't even have a 1989 Dodge Omni yet so the difference between Ferrari and Lamborghini is essentially esoteric

Good to know. Crucial actually. Thanks

Hello, does anyone have experience with this mount? I'd be attaching it to a Skywatcher 3/8 stainless steel tripod to hold either a 4" or 5" refractor. Thanks! Chris