Telescope Brands

[Tribal-Wolf]

You could always buy a Mechano set and a pair of old reading glasses then build your very own Seben scope lol

[umadog]

Basically you get the Chinese mass-produced scopes, which are all made in a couple of different factories and broadly speaking of similar quality within a given price range.

Then you get manufacturers like Vixen, some of whose scope are made in Japan and are of higher quality. Manufacturers such as Takahashi make very high quality and very expensive scopes. e.g. they have an 8" refractor that will set you back about 150k. There are some UK manufacturers, such as Orion Optics, who make both optics and telescope tubes and mounts. These are potentially higher quality than many Chinese imports, although the latter are now pretty good optically speaking. The UK has some nice premium Dob builders, such as David Lukehurst. There are also a bunch on the continent such as Huygens, who make good mirrors, and Sumerian who make portable Dobs. There are many more.

In the US there are a bunch more manufacturers. I think there are more here because it's easier to get to dark skies and out west the weather at night is often warm and it's dry. The good conditions mean that people can more easily justify >12" Dobs with premium optics. They're very expensive but the results are worth it. Optics come from people such as Zambuto, Lockwood, Swayze, Pegasus, and a bunch more. Structures come from companies such as Obsession, Teeter, Webster, Starmaster, Starstructure, etc. These are mostly one-man outfits or very small businesses.

Given the pretty good quality of a lot of Chinese mirrors, you could buy a Chinese Dob and in the future make yourself a nicer structure to go along with it.

[steve_bham]

I have had Meade, celstron, and sky watcher telescopes all are good and all have their own quirks.

[Ganymede12]

What is meant by TAL?

[nicnac]

What is meant by TAL?

its a brand = TAL telescopes (russian)

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/tal.html

[garethmob]

Tal are russian scopes originally made for Russian kids (the alkor) their all made of steel no plastic whatsoever ever but very heavy. I'm looking for one now as their so good they make a lot like celestrons but not all of them are sold over here

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crazyjedi]

Well what is the outcome? Divided I guess- we are a fickle lot eh?

[E621Keith]

Based on reputation

Cat 1 - World class maker, you won't get anything bad from them

Takahashi, Astrophysics, TEC, LZOS (OEM), Software Bisque, Solarscope

Televue

Cat 2 - Good equipment, good QC

Vixen, Orion UK, William Optics, Lunt

Cat 3 - Good and decent equipment, questionable QC

Synta (Celestron, Sky Watcher, Orion US*), GSO, United Optics (OEM)

Cat X - Poor equipment, avoided at all cost

Seben, Optron, Jessops, Argos, Celestron Powerseeker, Toys r us

Not sure about Russian scopes QC. TAL and Intes Micro probably goes into cat 2. There are also a number of specialist scope builder and component manufacturer not listed here.

[steve_bham]

Based on reputation

Cat 1 - World class maker, you won't get anything bad from them

Takahashi, Astrophysics, TEC, LZOS (OEM), Software Bisque, Solarscope

Televue

Cat 2 - Good equipment, good QC

Vixen, Orion UK, William Optics, Lunt

Cat 3 - Good and decent equipment, questionable QC

Synta (Celestron, Sky Watcher, Orion US*), GSO, United Optics (OEM)

Cat X - Poor equipment, avoided at all cost

Seben, Optron, Jessops, Argos, Celestron Powerseeker, Toys r us

Not sure about Russian scopes QC. TAL and Intes Micro probably goes into cat 2. There are also a number of specialist scope builder and component manufacturer not listed here.

I think the larger manufacturers produce more items so may appear to have more failures. But it would be interesting to work out the percentage of defects compared to items produced. I bet it would highlight the questionable QC and might not be as bad as you think.

[ronin]

ou could always buy a Mechano set and a pair of old reading glasses then build your very own Seben scope lol

The cost of a decent mechano set out weighs the cost of a Seben scope these days.

[Krys]

I've haven't owned one but I have only ever heard good things about TAL quality, and as I photographer using former Soviet SLR gear, I'd say the reputation of Russian optics is well deserved.

You won't get better quality for the money, but you probably won't get anything heavier or less portable either. They are blumming heavy, which is why (not having a car) I didn't get one. If you've got a car, or you can use your garden for most observing, then they are great if somewhat weird in the way Russian products often are.

I got a Celestron (TravelScope) and while their higher end stuff does seem to be pretty good from what I've heard here, their entry level stuff is not that great. I'd make an exception for their C90 mak spotting scope which seems to be well spoken of and a rather neat little thing indeed.

SkyWatcher seem eternally popular here and have a huge range of entry level stuff, including the 130P which is a de-facto standard starting point for many people so is very well supported - you'll always be able to get help with it. But avoid their "Astrolux" range, which have the worst mounts you can imagine.

Then there's Tasco...

[Tribal-Wolf]

Basically if you see something you are thinking about buying then check with the folks on here and you will get the help you need to stop you buying a lemon.

[JamesM]

In my opinion, the most important consideration with regards to purchasing a scope is not the word 'best' but actually the word budget - from which you attempt to negotiate the question of performance versus value for money. There is of course a certain vanity with owning particular brands (as evidenced by many a Cloudy Night forum 'discussion') which isn't always helpful in understanding the finer details of performance and reputation which defines the bigger picture of what is 'best'. In addition, the specific demands made by imagers from their kit will be different to those who only observe, and this growing area of interest has already had an affect on the development and choice of new products from which to choose from. In recent times we have experienced a renaissance in scope ownership given the availability and affordability of modern kit, which we can all be truly thankful for, as it allowed us the opportunity to experience these scopes and has allowed us to have an informed discussion about what is 'best' in the first place. Of course how long this will last is anyone's guess.

Ultimately the old proverb that you, 'get what you pay for' is invariably true here in astronomy as it is elsewhere and with it, the notion that you should always attempt to buy the best you can afford is also probably true. The words 'invariably' and 'probably' are used because of course everything keeps changing and there is always a new kid on the block that occasionally might come out with products that is a bit special and affordable, e.g Istar Optical - will have to wait and see if there will be any more.

James

[E621Keith]

I think the larger manufacturers produce more items so may appear to have more failures. But it would be interesting to work out the percentage of defects compared to items produced. I bet it would highlight the questionable QC and might not be as bad as you think.

I agree, the difference between cat 2 and 3 could be due to sample size.

However, I think those in Cat 1 have guaranteed minimum level of optical quality, which the others don't. such as minimum Strehl ratio in refractors, wave error in mirrors and a maximum PE in mounts.

Those brands in Cat 3 do not make this commitment.

[pajr777]

i have the 150P and i can say hand on heart that i would not swap it for anything other than a larger TAL

согласился товарищ!

(Translation: Agreed Comrade!)

[John]

согласился товарищ!

(Translation: Agreed Comrade!)

Treat yourself to a look through an Intes or an Intes Micro sometime. TAL optics are great but Intes / Intes Micro engineering is on a different level again

More pricey too of course but you get what you pay for with Russian gear as well.

[Ganymede12]

So basically, instead of looking for a particular brand of telescope I should look at every other aspect of it and ask a few questions about it here on stargazers lounge.

At the end of the day it's not whats on the side of the scope that matters, It's what's in the eyepiece!

[dav1d]

So basically, instead of looking for a particular brand of telescope I should look at every other aspect of it and ask a few questions about it here on stargazers lounge.

At the end of the day it's not whats on the side of the scope that matters, It's what's in the eyepiece!

True!

And you have created possibly one of the most fascinating and informative non-technical threads I've read on here so far. So thanks

[E621Keith]

So basically, instead of looking for a particular brand of telescope I should look at every other aspect of it and ask a few questions about it here on stargazers lounge.

At the end of the day it's not whats on the side of the scope that matters, It's what's in the eyepiece!

You have got that right. As the price increase, telescopes become increasingly specialised. If your interest in planets, a top of the range widefield astrograph won't do you much good. Likewise, if you are interested in widefield, a top of the range Maksutov Cat won't be any good either.

A brand gives you a level of quality assurance. Which telescope you choose depends on what you want to do with it.

[garethmob]

if you have a look at what scopes i have in my sig ganymeade12

Coulter Odyssey 8 Dob (dob similar to skywatcher 8") for galaxy and nebulars

William Optics megrez 72 widefield viewing and allows me to move to astrophotography

Meade ETX 70AT (my first scope rarely use it, but it is a Mak)

Prinz Astral 500 my newest for solar (sun) viewing and planetary

Opticron 8X42 (binoclour) very widefield views, used more than any other scope

Celestron skymaster 15X70 similar size to the megrez but for closer views but in a binoclour

so iv roughly got a scope to do a specific thing

if you post what objects you wanna view, we can better help with whats best

[Moonshane]

My own process for choosing a scope was that I thought a refractor on an equatorial mount would be great for tracking manually and maybe some pics. I bought a 120mm f8.3 achromat and it was very good but I soon realised that I was for visual observing only and for this, the main thing that matters is aperture. Also I was not that keen on chromatic aberration so was led by the nose the Newtonians and dobs in particular; I like it simple. I bought the biggest I could afford at the time, a 12". This provided such excellent views of all objects that I sold the 120mm refreactor almost straight away.

Whilst the 12" was brilliant at almost everything, I felt that on planets it often failed to deliver when the seeing was poor. By chance a planetary dob (a 6" f11) came up for sale and I secured it for a low price. This gave me excellent views of the planets, moon and double stars.

I have since changed the 12" for a 16" and this is even better on faint stuff and can be masked off to provide even better planetary images than the 6" f11.

What none of the above scopes provided was a wider field of view and for this I bought a used 6" f5 and this is really nice on all targets but of course lacks the aperture for fainter stuff.

In reality, one scope will never do everything and I think what you need to do is decide whether or not you will be visually observing with the kit you buy.

Assuming the answer is no, then buy the largest aperture you can afford and this will provide the most satisfaction, assuming you can lift it and handle it etc.

The brand matters to some extent but as long as you don't but one of the very poor ones referred to above you'll be more than happy with the result.

Hope this gibberish helps in some small way.