You say Reflector, I say Refractor...beginners help please.

[H3rtsman]

Hello all,

I've been staggering through hundreds of web-pages and catalogues for the last few weeks, and bought/read the very helpful Phillips guide to stargazing with a telescope, but I'm still hopelessly undecided which telescope to buy.

I have about £300 max to spend and want that impossible mix of good planetary, lunar and deep sky...plus I'd like to capture as much as feasable with my DSR/SLR [competent photographer already].

I am drawn to the 150mm reflector, but shy from its apparent frailty and complexity [not to mention the C word: Collimation]; as a photographer I'm equally drawn to the seemingly more robust 4" refractor and its analogy with the long telephotos with which I'm familiar. I've had the Evostar 120 with Equatorial mount recommended, but am in your hands I feel. Thanks in advance, Tim

[decomo50]

Sounds like your goin a be a refractor man

[pel]

For that budget and Astophotography requirement, I think you've got to got for the Skywatcher 150p on EQ3-2.

People on here have said you can't achieve enough inward travel on the viewer to focus it though. So you'd need to research.

Collimation only takes a few goes to get confident with.

Can you stretch your budget to a SW 200p on Eq5? I love mine.

[H3rtsman]

Thanks both; a vote each way eh? A pity that retailers aren't only open at night when you could literally see what you're getting.

[Shibby]

I'd vote for the reflector. For photography, you might find an achromat a bit disappointing and you won't afford an apo for the budget. Also, the reflector gives you a lot more bang for your buck; don't be put off by the complexity, it's a very common beginner scope these days.

But get the PDS version if you can - your SLR camera(s) will not reach prime focus otherwise.

[pel]

I thought you had mentioned the prime focus problem before Lewis.

[Pug]

Also, are there any astro clubs in your area? They're usually a friendly crowd, then you can try before you buy.

[idbvideo]

+1 for Reflector. Colimation is easy after a couple of goes.

Also less of a dew problem with a reflector.

For AP your gonna need an EQ mount unless you are prepared to take realy short exposures. With a reflector this type of mount will put your eyepiece in some strange places for visual work, however, this is easily sorted with some additional rings, be it mounting rings, embroidery rings or whatever you chose to make Wilson Rings from. I use embroidery rings as stops, this allows me to leave teh OTA loose.

[Chris]

I'm a refractor man myself and image with a small Apochromatic refractor, so I'm not being biased when I say go for a 150p reflector as this is more the allrounder you are looking for i.e. its good visually for DSO's and planets, yet its fast optics f/5 makes it great for imaging, don't be worried about collumnation it isn't difficult to learn:) You get a lot for your money with a reflector, on the other hand if you want to image with a refractor you need a Apochromatic refractor which will correct for all 3 wavelengths of light, if you get a cheap achromat you'll suffer chromatic aberration and bloated distorted stars. Apochromatic refractors are expensive, the cheapest I can think of is the starwave 80ED for 295 pound but even this has slight chromatic aberration, or the Equinox 66 which is 315 pounds and thats just for the optics. A 150p will cost you 179 pounds for the optics and the new black diamond series has better back focus for astrophotography compared to the old blue tube, but if you are serious about imaging I would go for the 150PDS which is still only 229 for the optics, or Altair astro's GSO 150 DS 199 pounds. Don't forget that if you want to image you'll need an EQ mount which has a RA drive motor plus a T-ring and t-adaptor for you camera:)

hope this helps

Chris

[H3rtsman]

Folks, thanks for some thought provoking input; the thread leans towards reflector it seems at the moment and I'm relaxed about that; just want to get the best for my linited £s. The 150pds seems good advice, but £600+ with the motorised mount is a bit beyond me at present .

[Stargazer_00]

you can get a regular EQ3-2 and get motors for an additional spend, sooner or later you will just wish you'd saved up and got a better mount anyway.

getting into AP is a deep money pit if it bites you

[Qualia]

I have about £300 max to spend and want that impossible mix of good planetary, lunar and deep sky...plus I'd like to capture as much as feasable with my DSR/SLR.

Just a whip through some shoddy thoughts:

a) To get more aperture for your buck, I'd recommend more often a Dob, then a reflector and then a refractor.

For a clearer, sharper, better quality, higher contrast image, I'd recommend you a refractor. Inch for inch, there's no other OTA (Opitcal Tube Assembly) design which can beat them.

c) For me, from what I've seen, a refractor is the least troublesome type of telescope. They need scant maintenance - if any, there's no necessary cool down period, there's no obstruction or diffraction spikes, they're robust and solid, and you're ready to observe just as when you want to observe. For around £300, I'd always recommend the Tal 100rs as a great scope for beginners.

d) However, inch for inch, refractors are more expensive than a reflector and for the £300 you will have a hard time finding a refractor much larger than 4” or 5" in aperture. So, for £300 which will include the OTA, mount and tripod, I'd recommend you a reflector or dob set up.

e) However, with astrophotography, I imagine the OTA is not nearly as important as a solid and stable mount. I figure this is the most important part of the system, with the camera coming in next and leaving the telescope in last place. In astro-photography, the focal ratio, size and weight of the OTA will be more important than its aperture. Thus, if this were the direction of interest, I'd recommend a really decent mount and a smallish refractor.

f) In the end you will probably end up spending more than 300. You will probably want to get yourself a couple of eyepieces (semi-decent ones will cost you between 50 to a 100 quid a piece), and as you move on, a case to store them in, cleaning stuff, maybe a case for your scope and mount, a filter or two. What looked like 300 has just doubled.

So my advice, go slow. Save a little more if you can and in the meantime get yourself to a local astro-club to try out their scopes. See what you like. Save for a good, solid mount and I figure the OTA will follow.

By way of example, after a few months of oohing and arring, writing here, going to a local astro-club to try out their scopes, a list of my own compromises (inner-city Spain, limited transport, scant opportunity to get to really dark sites for DSOs etc) I went for a Celestron CG-5 and the magnificent Tal 100rs which in total set me back about €500.

[H3rtsman]

Qualia, and all others,

Thanks so much for taking the time to put your thoughts together for me; they really have been helpful.

This sounds a bit like my lifelong photography hobby: several hundred pounds ago in the 1970's it began with a simple Olympus 35mm viewfinder, and now look!!

I agree that the mount/tripod seems to be more key than I first imagined, but I may have to settle for one that can be motorised at a later date [or until the next bank job!].

Thanks again, I remain open to you ideas and suggestions,

Tim

[Stargazer_00]

you can get pretty good images just sticking a good lens on a DSLR i hear? might be a good way to go to start with

[David JM]

For planetary and lunar photography you will probably be better off with a webcam and stacking the video clip. If you go for an unpowered mount that will also do away with the need for super accurate tracking.

[ollypenrice]

A few things.

- When people say that refractors deliver the finest views per unit aperture they are right, they do. But these are premium apochromatic refractors and they cost a fortune. I use two in my work and the little one was £3.5K and the big one about £6K. On your budget you are talking about cheaper achromatic refractors and these will not compete with budget Newtonian reflectors, not even slightly. On a budget the Newtonian wins easily on all counts. Photography exaggerates the chromatic abberration in budget fast achromats . They are not imaging instruments, not at all.

-The next thing to grasp is that astrophotography is all about mount, mount, mount. If you are already a photographer then buying a mount and imaging with lenses you may already have is likely to bring success. While the one down can get results with a small scope, astrophotography begins at the level of the HEQ5 mount. The longer the focal length the better the mount has to track. No way out of this. So camera lenses of short FL on a budget mount give you a fighting chance.

There's another way. If you use a webcam on the moon and planets a budget mount/Newtonian can work because you align and stack the individual video frames after capture. The 'guiding' is retrospective, if you like. Webcams roundly outperform the best DSLRs on the planets.

This picture was taken using a Samyang 85mm prime camera lens in a 6 panel mosaic. http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Photography/Widefield-images-including/i-2dPLFNr/0/X3/ORION-V6-X3.jpg

Olly

[H3rtsman]

Olly,

Thanks for your detailed thoughts; they re-enforce earlier comments. the mad thing is I just popped into a local Camera/Telescope retailer today and they recommended a Celestron Nextstar 102 SLT, this came completely out of the left field: I'd never even considered this type of fully motoirised alt-az type refractor; should I re-start all my research? Would the non-equatorial mount confound me?

[RikM]

I had the same interests and budget when I started out 2 years ago and opted for a 150P on an EQ3-2 with the dual axis motor drives. I stuck at it for 12months and managed to get some deep sky images that I was not afraid to show in public, but it required a lot of effort and they were (compared to what can be achieved with the right kit), not very good. Have a look at my deep sky album for examples.

Last year, I upgraded to an NEQ6 mount with an autoguider and the improvement was immediate and dramatic. The picture comments in my albumn should say which equipment was used for each, so I would also support the view that for deep sky AP, it is all about the mount. It doesn't reduce the effort, but you get a much better result for the same effort.

The 150P black diamond single speed does reach focus with a Canon DSLR provided you use the right adaptor to connect to the scope Either a MaxDSLR adaptor, a FLO 2" adaptor or a t-ring and use the bottom half of the 1.25" eyepiece adaptor (but you can't use 2" filters if use the EP adaptor).

[H3rtsman]

Rik,

thanks so much for your imaging comments...they lean me back to the 150p. Great images by the way; especially the deep sky!

Tim

[ollypenrice]

Olly,

Thanks for your detailed thoughts; they re-enforce earlier comments. the mad thing is I just popped into a local Camera/Telescope retailer today and they recommended a Celestron Nextstar 102 SLT, this came completely out of the left field: I'd never even considered this type of fully motoirised alt-az type refractor; should I re-start all my research? Would the non-equatorial mount confound me?

If they recommended this for astrophotography sack them.

1) You need an equatorial mount for AP. An alt az mount does not correct for field rotation. That is real basic stuff.

2) The scope is a fast achromat and has loads of false colour easily avoided by using a refector.

That was world class bad advice.

Olly

[Stargazer_00]

they probably have a few extra in stock and are trying to move them.. that couldnt be more obviously a bad choice for AP. I know that and I have zero practical experience with AP! a few hours searching the internet would tell you that.

[H3rtsman]

Very clear cut Olly. I have to say the 'scope just didn't feel right and for the quoted £329 I wanted to make sure I wasn't being lead off course, and I don't mind a bit of fiddling around to manually locate what I'm after with a chart and clear skies, so the motorisation aspect is something I can visit later.

Setting aside the ability to recreate images such as Rik's [above in the thread], I'm starting to sense that the Explorer 150 with EQ3 may just be the best bet simply as a way of simply seeing the objects in question with the budget I have.

Thanks again,

Tim

[RikM]

Very clear cut Olly. I have to say the 'scope just didn't feel right and for the quoted £329 I wanted to make sure I wasn't being lead off course, and I don't mind a bit of fiddling around to manually locate what I'm after with a chart and clear skies, so the motorisation aspect is something I can visit later.

Setting aside the ability to recreate images such as Rik's [above in the thread], I'm starting to sense that the Explorer 150 with EQ3 may just be the best bet simply as a way of simply seeing the objects in question with the budget I have.

Thanks again,

Tim

Setting aside the option of imaging the objects, then a Skyliner 200P Dobsonian would be a very much better scope for visual astronomy and cheaper too.

Edit: that's not to say the 150P isn't also a good scope for visual use, I use mine on an AZ4 for widefield views, but it just can't compete with the f/6 200P Dob.

[Probablynot]

You say Reflector, and I say Refractor

You say Dobsonian, and I say Newtonian

Reflector, Refractor, Dobsonian, Newtonian ...

Let's call the whole thing off!

But no, don't call the whole thing off!!! It's your decision! Make it, and stick to it, and love it!

[Chris]

your senses are serving you well in my opinion:), with your budget and an interest in both visual astronomy and wanting to dable in AP I re-iterate the 150p on an EQ3 mount and the single axis RA motor kit. Its not the best mount for AP but its the best mount for AP you will get with your budget and it will get you started, I would recommend filling the Ali tripod legs with sand though this will really make the whole thing more sturdy for AP. I second the vote though for the 200p dob if you dont wan't to do any AP. Have Fun:)