looking for the most simple refractor telescope

[nicoscy]

Jestar,

Any scope you get, if you want to get meaningful magnification, you will need to push it with appropriate eyepieces. Irrespective of the telescope, at say 100x magnification and if the eyepiece has the same field of view, the view will be the same with each scope, size wise.

To enjoy the moon, I regularly use from 100 - 250 x magnification. For planets, I again stick to 100 x plus in order to have sufficient magnification to enjoy them.

Therefore any scope you get will need either the handler pushing the scope around for tracking, or a goto with tracking to both find and then keep tracking the target.

Tracking at high magnifications is something that you learn to do but it does take away from the experience a bit. Tracking allows you to relax and lets the eye free to explore the views.

I would therefore recommend the 127 Mak previously mentioned here, along with its Alt Az mount. The cost is fairly reasonable and if this doesn't work as a gift, you can always sell it and recoup part of the cost.

But you need to acknowledge that any new venture always takes us out of our comfort zone and there is a bit of a learning curve. Lots of people here can provide assistance further on, regardless of the type of scope you decide to buy.

Cardinal rule of astronomy: No one scope can do everything. There are always trade offs. I personally "restricted" myself to 4 scopes to feel that I have all bases covered. Therefore you need to pick now the type of scope appropriate to the viewing you plan to do.

The Mak permits quality views of Solar System targets and also a sufficiently large number of DSO. What it cannot do is provide wide field views . But for the job intended, I believe it is the right scope to get.

Irrespective of the scope, expect to put in some serious time to learn about using it and them passing this knowledge on.

[John]

John, 

The advice I have been getting is marvelous, and I think I might be being a little bit blinkered in my insistance on a refractor. In fact I am now very torn between the different types, so please forgive me if I appear to be asking the same question repeatedly.

I am sure that it wont be long before deep space objects become a reason for sitting on the flat roof of my garagage for hours but at the moment we are still exited by the objects in our own solar system, and maybe some of the more obvious constellations. By easier do you mean better ?

What do you think of Spaceboys suggestion ?

By easier I mean just that. Features such as Jupiter's Red Spot and the Cassini Division in Saturn's rings, although well known, don't "jump out" at the observer as much as you might think. Inexperienced eyes need all the help they can get I reckon.

For a few years I had glimpses of such features through my 4" refractors but with the 8" dob there was no mistaking them.

The maksutov-cassegrains that Spaceboy recommends are good scopes but again won't compete with the 8" dob either on performance or value for money.

Anyway, you have lots of good advice from a wide range of experienced folks now - it's rare that there is a concensus on here to be honest

[ollypenrice]

The GoTo mount in its altazimuth form is not complicated to set up.

The length of time an object remains in the eyepiece of an undriven telescope depends mainly on the magnification. At low magnification it is a long time. At high magnification on the planets it is a very short time, a matter of seconds, and a child might well find this frustrating and hard to cope with. This is why I advocate a driven mount.

Olly

[algol]

I have just myself purchased the 200mm dob, and so far I am very happy with it even if I haven't had a proper first light with it.

Saturn was appropriately large and showed the Cassini division, a clear cloud band and 3moon's.

I'd say go for the dob it's a great piece of kit and one I can't see myself upgrading from.

[John]

The GoTo mount in its altazimuth form is not complicated to set up.

The length of time an object remains in the eyepiece of an undriven telescope depends mainly on the magnification. At low magnification it is a long time. At high magnification on the planets it is a very short time, a matter of seconds, and a child might well find this frustrating and hard to cope with. This is why I advocate a driven mount.

Olly

Given the needs of the younger observer, I can see that a driven mount might have some attractions. It is nice to be able to take ones eye from the eyepiece, have a chat about what is being observed and then go back to looking with some certainty that the object will still be in the eyepiece.

[dweller25]

Hello Jetstar,

I agree with Olly and John, a driven mount is a major benefit for very young children and not too difficult to get going, perhaps this may fit the bill.....

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/skywatcher-explorer-130p-synscan-az-goto.html

And here is a video of the same scope with instruction on how to use it.....

[jestar]

Right folks,

I've read through everybodys reply and spent most of the evening looking at the equipment suggested, I'm going to sleep on it but i'll be back tomorrow.

Good night

[jestar]

Morning everyone,

I expect most of you have become fed up with me and left, and I suppose it would be a good idea to go away and learn something about astronomy before I jump in at the deep end and waste a lot of money on something I know nothing about.

Not going to happen!

So same question from another angle....Dobsonian and newtonian telescopes I believe are reflectors, am I wright. They give amazing views of both planets and stars, colours are perfect, set up's easy, and best of all they are relatively inexpensive.

On the other had refractors are, unless you are prepared to shell out a lot of money, difficult to align correctly, give poor discoloured images, if you can see what your are looking for at all,  and would probably never leave the cupboard.

Why then does anyone buy a refractor telescope ? 

[wuthton]

For equipment bought with a modest budget you are (very) generally better off with a reflector.

Once you move into the more premium price brackets many, many more factors come into play. Although it usually boils down to whether you like spiky stars (most reflectors) or not (refractors).

[jestar]

Thanks wuthton,

So you get what you pay for, fair enough. I just have to decide wether I like spikey stars or I want to raid the piggy bank and buy an apochromatic scope.

[happy-kat]

Dobsian refers to the mount.

A reflector can be out on a dobsian base (frequently is and is cheap) or a tripod such as an equatorial mount.

You have two decisions:

1 - what type of mount

2 - what type of telescope

I have a heritage 130p and a startravel 80. One a reflector and the other a refractor.

I like the potential of the right way up view I get in my refractor.

I like the larger mirror of my reflector.

I dislike colimation of the reflector (though it is not hard and is quick to do).

I like the wide field of view in the refractor.

Neither are big enough to see any more than a grey smudge and tick off I saw z,y,z.

Both give great views of the Moon and so far Jupiter.

Though the view of Jupiter in the refractor was better than in my reflector even with the CA.

I love the pin point stars I have in my refractor.

I love the plonk and go of the dobsian base of my reflector.

Mounts

Simple easy to operate and transport AZ3 or AZ4 depending on weight of telescope.

Equatorial.

Go To.

Going to a local place to see some different setups will help loads as wjhat you can't picture is the size and wieght of setups.

This post is brilliant.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/

[wuthton]

If I were you I'd post a message on one of the social groups on here or go to a local club night. You should certainly be able to have look at and through most of the telescope types recommended on here.

At the very least go to an astronomy shop and have a look at them in the flesh.

What is best on paper is quite often not when it comes to real world use.

[ollypenrice]

Morning everyone,

I expect most of you have become fed up with me and left, and I suppose it would be a good idea to go away and learn something about astronomy before I jump in at the deep end and waste a lot of money on something I know nothing about.

Not going to happen!

So same question from another angle....Dobsonian and newtonian telescopes I believe are reflectors, am I wright. They give amazing views of both planets and stars, colours are perfect, set up's easy, and best of all they are relatively inexpensive.

On the other had refractors are, unless you are prepared to shell out a lot of money, difficult to align correctly, give poor discoloured images, if you can see what your are looking for at all,  and would probably never leave the cupboard.

Why then does anyone buy a refractor telescope ? 

Dobsonian and newtonian telescopes I believe are reflectors, am I wright.

A Dob IS an Newtonian. The 'Dob' bit is the simple but incredibly efficient mount. They can be bought with GoTo and tracking but most keep them manual.

On the other had refractors are, unless you are prepared to shell out a lot of money, difficult to align correctly, give poor discoloured images, if you can see what your are looking for at all,  and would probably never leave the cupboard.

No. There is no difference between aligning a refractor or reflector on your target if the magnification is the same. Cheap achromatic refractors do have false colour, though. The faster the F ratio the worse this is. Being small and compact I think refractors tend to leave the cupboard very frequently.

Reflectors give more aperture per unit cost but need collimating, which is not very difficult if you have a simple tool like a Cheshire EP but if you get in a muddle over this, and this is not unknown, it does need sorting. Refractors, in reality, rarely if ever need collimating.

Why then does anyone buy a refractor telescope ? 

Their biggest following is amongst astrophographers of the deep sky, such as myself and those found on the DS Imaging board. They can have short focal lengths which allow the large nebulae to be captured. They are easy to mount. (The accuracy of the mount for tracking is THE big thing in deep sky imaging.) They require no collimation so saving the imager's most precious commodity - time. They don't create diffraction spikes, which some dislike.

Small ones are popular as robust 'grab and go' instruments and can double as nature scopes.

A minority of well heeled observers and/or soul-selling optical junkies (that would be me!!) also like the high end apos simply for the quality of the view, accepting that they cannot go as deeply into the sky as bigger reflectors.

A number of us have suggested catadioptics which are lens-corrected reflectors, compact and, in the case of Maksutovs, incredibly effective on the planets and easy to collimate.

If you went to an astronomical society you could try a few. The Federation of Astronomical societies has an affiliated clubs list here; http://fedastro.org.uk/fas/members/

Olly

[Pig]

Jetstar,

After a couple of years of dabbling with varying types of scopes and eyepieces  I have ended up with a dual mount that is all manual and very easy to set up / grab and go. There is nothing I cannot view from terrestrial to solar and everything inbetween.

[fondofchips]

As a relative newbie, now stargazing for only 18 months I would come down on the side of the refractor as this is all I've used so far.

I've not regretted buying a refractor at all.

From experience I would consider this: -

Look at the nearest objects first, Moon then the planets etc, as they will be brighter in your view & easier to find & get in focus.  This way you will also get practice with the mount.

You will find you way around the night sky this way.

I would not use GOTO from the start as it needs setting up, I have both manual & GOTO, but you will see more in the beginning with a manual mount.

I still enjoy using the manual mount & telescope on it's own.

We can advise you on equipment, but the choice is personal, a Dobsonian will show you more distant objects than a refractor, my best advice is seek out your local astronomy club & get to one of their meetings and look through some telescopes before buying one.

Clear Skies

Fondofchips.

[Paul M]

Priority no.1 is to keep it simple and usable and accessible.

I'd agree with Olly about having some kind of tracking mount. A child's attention span is very short and time wasted trying to keep an object in view is time wasted.

What's the biggest difference between a refractor and a reflector?

For me it's the simplicity. When I was a boy with my 60mm refractor my scope just worked. Plonk it on its tripod and look at the sky! Simples!

I never worried about Chromatic Aberration (although I was aware of it and knew why it was there). I never worried about collimation or even rough handling the scope.

Reflectors are great and at the size where refractors become heavy and cumbersome they come into their own but bring with them the issues of delicate optics in an open tube. They don't bounce too well either!

I have read people talking about collimating refractors but it's not something that needs doing so regularly, if ever. Reflectors by their very nature magnify any misalignment of the optical train and can end up a real mess very quickly in inexperienced or sticky fingered hands. You'd have to really go some to get a refractor so far out of collimation as to render it useless.

I'd have been in heaven with a 4" refractor back in the 70's. Very, very desirable. 

Looking on SGL it seems that such scopes haven't lost their desirability.

And so affordable.

I know what I'd buy....

[jestar]

Righ, a 4" refractor on a tracking mount it is BUT WHICH ONE ?

[dweller25]

Hello Jetstar,

This is a semi APO refractor and probably the best value for money 4" you can buy......

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-100ed-ds-pro-outfit.html

And this is an excellent tracking (and GOTO) mount ......

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

An affordable (i.e. achromatic) 4" frac that shows good planetary detail is big, because it is long. A 4" maksutov will just better its performance on planets, a 5" will have it for lunch. Comparing a 60 or 70mm frac with a 4" without having looked through one is not easily done, as chromatic aberration rises rapidly as a function of aperture. An 80mm F/5 can be quite good, but a 120mm F/5 shows far more chromatic error. The 100ED is a very nice and capable scope, certainly worth considering, but then a 6" Mak or SCT costs less, collects more than twice the light, shows more detail on planets, and is beautifully compact, which means the mount will vibrate less, showing a more stable image. The compact build means any object in the sky is visible at about the same height, which is handy, especially for kids. It also travels to dark sites more easily, and I have found these scopes hold collimation superbly.

[dweller25]

Or....

Consider this OTA.....

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-ota.html

And this mount.......

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq3-pro-synscan-goto.html

[esxste]

Hi Jestar, 

Don't be afraid to pop into your local astronomy shop, or email a few of the suppliers, like First Light Optics. There's a suppliers review forum here which you might find useful to get references on the supplier. 

If I were you, I'd definitely go for a GOTO mount. Practise using it during the day and at night, (you obviously wont see anything during the day but don't point it at the sun... danger of blindness!). Once you've got it worked out, you can take your grandson on a tour of the night skies.  

If you were doing this for your interest alone, I'd recommend a reflector. Their value for money vs performance is unbeatable. But your grandson will struggle to look in the eyepiece of a reflector unaided. A refractor is perhaps your best bet. 

That's my 2p... I'd definately start talking to some suppliers at this point, see what different ones suggest. 

[jestar]

Thanks esxste,

I would like to visit my local astronomy shop but there doesn't appear to be one. There is a club meets once a month which I'm planning to attemd.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, it pays to get a little sheet of Baader solar film, whatever scope you get, and make a little solar filter that fits over the front of the scope out of it (or buy a custom one for your scope, they cost a bit more, but are still fairly cheap). You can then look at the sun and see the sunspots. Even a small scope shows a good deal of detail on our nearest star. I would not let a child do this by himself. Solar astronomy requires care, but if proper care is taken it is a beautiful pursuit

[Paul M]

Thanks esxste,

I would like to visit my local astronomy shop but there doesn't appear to be one.

The closest I'm aware of is Lamberts in Lancaster: http://www.lambertslancaster.co.uk/shop.php?filter=category&id=700, might be useful if you are south Cumbria.

Last time I was there I was just window shopping and they just had a couple of astronomical scopes on display. I'd phone ahead before travelling.

For my "kit fondling" prior to getting my new scope last year I went to OpticStar in Sale, Manchester. I did buy off them too and found them very good.

Now I'm familiar with the modern stuff I wouldn't hesitate to use First Light Optics for future purchases.

[jestar]

Thanks Paul,

I am in south cumbria and lancaster is only an hour away.