Why do I want a refractor? (Do I have a problem?)

[gooseholla]

I have never had the urge to buy a refractor. Even when looking for a small portable scope for grab and go and going out and about, I looked at Maksutovs. I guess that I am a mirror man!

[Chris]

You know whats better than an 80mm f/6 refractor? one for each eye! 

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/vixen-binoculars/vixen-bt81s-a-binocular-telescope.html

[timwetherell]

I use a 66mm apo as a super finder on my larger refractor. With a 2" diagonal and 40mm EP it gives a tack sharp 7° field of view. For wide things it's a beautiful scope in itself! There are constellations that fit in a FoV like that! and actually although the big refractor obviously outperforms it on many targets, there are other occasions where the wide star field surrounding an object in the 66 is more beautiful than a zoomed in view in the big scope I'm not a hot shot imager, but the little 66 is really great for a quick astrophoto too

[perfrej]

I want one, but it's a good job I was sitting down when I downloaded the price list! 

Yes, it is pricey, but do consider the fact that it is made exactly in the spirit of Carl Zeiss Telescopes (as Baader is the caretaker of the old 30-year Carl Zeiss warranty). A used 80mm Zeiss will fetch $4000 I may be fitting a Baader Hyperion focuser, which in many ways is just like the TEC focuser in that it has no bearings at all. The draw tube simply fits the housing very precisely and hence does not sag one bit. Or I will put that focuser on my Tak 106... I'll see...

Back on topic - no, Mr Thread Opener, you do not have a problem (or we all do)

/per

http://www.baader-planetarium.uk.com/productinfo.php/focusers/focusers/hyperion-3-inch-focuser-for-newtonian-telescope/4140

[ollypenrice]

Heh heh, these things aren't rational but small refractors do give the best widefield views of any telescope. Small Maks are small, which is good, but they shoot themselves in the foot by not being able to do the one thing that big scopes can't do, and that's open up the field. You can use binoculars instead, of course, but scopes are easy to use with dedicated filters. The entire Veil or the entire Rosette in O111 or LHC... Yummy.

Olly

[JRWASTRO]

Andy, you are suffering from a perfectly rational, irrational love of refractors, something I gave up fighting long ago.

I love the contrast and sharp views in them, even though I know they are out performed in light grasp by newts.

I take mine all over the place, having 85mm, or even 60mm with me at a very dark site gives me some amazing widefield views.

You know it makes sense ;-)

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It can also get very expensive. Reflectors are good . I have two but there is something about a mirror that does not make me feel good ... they need re-coating. Good refractors are forever. Put them in a velvet lined, brass cornered timber box and they will become a family  heirloom!

Jeremy.

Jeremy

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Much as I admire Zeiss quality (I have a load of Zeiss lenses for my Contax SLRs, they are superb), I personally would not fork out a whole load of money based on the view of an artificial star (though I have no problems if people do find that compelling enough evidence, that's entirely their own call). Real stars are seen through an atmosphere that can seriously throw a spanner in the works, so it remains to be seen how much of a difference you will see under real conditions. It is of course true that at a certain level of quality, the effort of gaining just a smidgen more quality requires seriously more cost, and that the market for the top scopes is simply a lot smaller than for the cheaper alternatives, further adding costs. This can make prices seem unreasonable (although at some point you do feel you are paying for the branding itself). I do not doubt the Zeiss scope is a superb piece of kit, but you have to wonder whether most observers would see the difference at all. I find my cheap Chinese 80mm F/6 triplet gives stunning views when equipped with a wide field EP like the Nagler 31T5 (5.3 deg FOV, amazing). Using 22T4 and a 2" Amici prism, it doubles as a stunning spotting scope in daytime. I have heard some stories of variable quality in these cheaper triplets, but I trusted that Markus Ludes would not sell it under the APM brand name if it were a dud (branding again ). Olly, who knows his refractors, liked the view through them (3 years ago, I think, not last summer). For visual, you can get great views from small fracs that cost a fraction of the Zeiss (drool-worthy as it is).  

[perfrej]

Ah, but I will use it entirely in AP, not visual. Interestingly enough, the 193mm big brother of the Travel Companion (same glass, same design) is so rich in contrast that you can gaze stars in the daytime.

/per

[Qualia]

In terms of observing as opposed to imaging, I think we can been taken in a bit by refractors and perhaps before purchase, expectations can run a little high. Refractors are no magic wands; a 3" or 4" scope is, after all, a 3" or 4" scope, albeit a very, very good one.

But if you're looking for a robust, perfectly made, ultra-compact, gorgeous looking, highly versatile scope, then a refractor really rocks and should have their place in everyone's arsenal. They count among the most attractive scopes out there, both at the eyepiece and standing back just to admire their design and certainly their heft, build and simplicity give many an heirloom feel.

Sure, they don't have the punch of larger and equally as gorgeous newtonians, but then I wouldn't have thought one buys a frac to get that 10" to 16" experience. Instead, a decent frac is simple, clean, and functional and is aesthetically equal to the greatest works of art. A smallish frac can triple up as a white light and Ha solar scope and at night deliver beautifully crisp, wide views. If they're small they will be your traveling companion for life. Who could really ask for more?

[spaceboy]

I think every astronomer should have a refractor of some sort to hand. Sure achromats suffer CA which isn't to everyone's taste but this is only significant on really bright objects and you soon find you get used to it in a similar way newt owners get used to coma.

I feel there is no beating the closed tube design and unobstructed optics of a refractor especially on double stars and the moon. I really have no success with newts on double stars. Yes they split close doubles but they just don't seem to do it as cleanly as a frak. A smaller long FL frak just doesn't suffer the seeing as bad as Newtonians. There are MAKs that are super sharp with closed tube design but again I found a refractor gave better view more consistently.

If widefield views are your thing then again a a short FL frak can offer  wider and sharper views (more demanding on EP though) than most other telescope designs of similar size.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Ah, but I will use it entirely in AP, not visual. Interestingly enough, the 193mm big brother of the Travel Companion (same glass, same design) is so rich in contrast that you can gaze stars in the daytime.

/per

Isn't that called solar observing

[Earl]

I think a small refractor shows context over object, not unlike binos just tighter.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

BTW, any 7 or 8" scope with sufficiently high Strehl value will be able to do show stars in daytime sky (and some smaller ones too, depending on the visual magnitude of the star). There is a simple relationship between the degree of concentration of light in the centre of the Airy disk, the brightness of the sky, and limiting magnitude. The brightness of the sky and aperture have a larger impact on that limiting magnitude than the Strehl value itself (because that only says how close the performance of the scope is to the theoretical ideal).  Given a similar size scope, there will be little between a 0.96 and 0.98 Strehl scope (or even a 0.99 Strehl). However, an 8" 0.96 Strehl scope will easily beat a 0.99 Strehl 4" scope in terms of limiting magnitude during daytime, due to the increased actual concentration of light in a small solid angle, simply due to the increased resolution of the scope.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think a small refractor shows context over object, not unlike binos just tighter.

Very true. They have the added advantage of the possible addition of filters over most binoculars

[Liquid360]

I had this same infection, not the only ending up with a new TAK but with a stellarvue 90mm as well. Why 2 francs of similar size? Honestly I have no idea. Something enchanting about wide field refractors.

[cotterless45]

I never thought or refractors, until I looked through one at a star party. I was just blown away by the sharpest of views , the contrast and the simplicity. I'm afraid that when you get bitten by the frac bug, there's no cure !

It's got to be a refractor,

Nick.

[timwetherell]

Yep, once you've had a 'frac, you never go back. Well maybe you do, but it's a nice slogan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I never thought or refractors, until I looked through one at a star party. I was just blown away by the sharpest of views , the contrast and the simplicity. I'm afraid that when you get bitten by the frac bug, there's no cure !

It's got to be a refractor,

Nick.

In a similar vein, I looked through Olly's 20" dob at M101 this summer, and now I just know I want a big dob at some point

[AndyWB]

I've got a dob, a grab n go mak and bins. I would still like a nice frac for no other reason than they look good and it would be something else to have. Don't actually need one at all. If I had a load of money I would have a shed full of kit to look at the clouds!

This is what I'm worried about - that that's what's going on...

[happy-kat]

Get a small inexpensive one it is good to try something different :-) I will also see if mine will fit the heritage base as it has a dove tail bar.

[Luke]

Frac = solar observing and imaging bliss! re: white light, if you've not done so already, try to look through a 100mm or larger frac with a Herschel wedge and Solar Continuum filter, the detail is *very* impressive, the view is green-tinted (!) but you tend to not notice it after a while. I enjoy looking through a 60mm in white light too and it is super portable, but white light views are extra fun in my SW ED100.

Because of solar, my 60mm frac gets used far more than my 16 inch dob, with a Herschel wedge for white light and with a Quark for h-alpha. Aperture is king, but the best scope is the scope you use the most!

[Caldwell14]

Yep, once you've had a 'frac, you never go back. Well maybe you do, but it's a nice slogan

I have owned a ED80, ED100, ED120, TAL100RS, Vixen SP100 and a Celestron 4 inch refractor...

I now own a single scope, it a reflector. It's unlikely I will buy another frac if I am honest.

[Caldwell14]

I have owned a ED80, ED100, ED120, TAL100RS, Vixen SP100 and a Celestron 4 inch refractor...

I now own a single scope, it a reflector. It's unlikely I will buy another frac if I am honest.

And I never thought I would say that...

[Dude_with_the_tube]

I have owned a ED80, ED100, ED120, TAL100RS, Vixen SP100 and a Celestron 4 inch refractor...

I now own a single scope, it a reflector. It's unlikely I will buy another frac if I am honest.

have a peak through John`s 6" F12  Istar or F15 rules(Dave`s) 5" F15 D&G or Big Maks (Stu`s)or mine 6" ED and you will change the view on fracs

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have looked through the TEC140, and that did not change my mind. At that aperture I prefer buying a bigger, faster Newtonian. It is the small, faster, wide-field fracs that changed my mind.