Telescopes for beginners

[Amyb]

I know I got a lot of advice about binoculars, we went with 10x50 in the end. We were using them tonight (really clear skies for the last 2 nights ) while they are great I think I want a scope too. I can locate the planets and have Stellarium and an app to locate things. I want to be able to see the planets a lot better then just the blobs through my binoculars. I know there is going to be a lot of different advice and I will be traveling to a specialist shop at some point too but would like to know your recommendations. We are going to the space centre tomorrow so going to have a look at there scopes whilst there as well.  My budget is around £250 at the moment, I would prefer less!! I don't want to spend a fortune  on a first scope as I imagine I will want to upgrade as time goes on and I have time to save. Also something that is easy to use for a beginner as I haven't handled a scope before. Thanks. Amy 

[jetstream]

A dobsonian mount scope will work well for you if size is not a factor.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

[gnomus]

Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian would be my choice at this price point.  (Its only £25 above budget).  But do bear in mind that you will need a way of collimating it and you will want a decent star atlas - probably the Sky and Telescope Pocket Atlas.

[Dave In Vermont]

First off, your post says you went with 7 X 10 binoculars. That must be a typo? The last digitindicates the aperture of the binocs. And '10' is way too low. The smallest I've ever seen were 7 X 24mm. My 2 pairs I have are 8 X 50mm and 15 X 70mm. Anywho - onto a telescope.....

As you've indicated you'd like to get a good look at the planets in our solar-system. So what this tells us is that you're looking for a telescope that has the largest aperture possible - and the highest magnification. And the lowest cost available. This combination, which is very common, describes a Newtonian-reflector. And to appease your low budget (also a common one), A Dobsonian mount and the scope should have as high a 'F' number as possible. The 'F' is optical shorthand for the focal-ratio. To find this number one would take the focal-length of the scope in millimeters, and divide it by the aperture.

And as an example let's take a scope with a primary mirror or lens of 100mm and a focal-length of 1,000mm. And we do this: 1,000 / 100 = 10. The scope is a F10.

So I'd be looking around for a Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian-reflector. See what you come up with in your price-range from shops or off the web. You want a good shop that will support you every step of the way, especially after you buy it.

Happy hunting -

Dave

PS - I was busy typing when the above 2 posts appeared. Ah well - we're all on the same page!

[brantuk]

There's a reasonably priced second hand scope for sale here on the forum that meets your budget and includes a couple of nice extras - might be worth considering:

 

Alternatively look on Astro buy/sell uk website. Hope that helps

[Amyb]

45 minutes ago, Dave In Vermont said:

First off, your post says you went with 7 X 10 binoculars. That must be a typo? The last digitindicates the aperture of the binocs. And '10' is way too low. The smallest I've ever seen were 7 X 24mm. My 2 pairs I have are 8 X 50mm and 15 X 70mm. Anywho - onto a telescope.....

As you've indicated you'd like to get a good look at the planets in our solar-system. So what this tells us is that you're looking for a telescope that has the largest aperture possible - and the highest magnification. And the lowest cost available. This combination, which is very common, describes a Newtonian-reflector. And to appease your low budget (also a common one), A Dobsonian mount and the scope should have as high a 'F' number as possible. The 'F' is optical shorthand for the focal-ratio. To find this number one would take the focal-length of the scope in millimeters, and divide it by the aperture.

And as an example let's take a scope with a primary mirror or lens of 100mm and a focal-length of 1,000mm. And we do this: 1,000 / 100 = 10. The scope is a F10.

So I'd be looking around for a Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian-reflector. See what you come up with in your price-range from shops or off the web. You want a good shop that will support you every step of the way, especially after you buy it.

Happy hunting -

Dave

PS - I was busy typing when the above 2 posts appeared. Ah well - we're all on the same page!

Yeah total mistake I went for a 10x50 lol I was looking at something that said 7 and didn't realise what I typed. Thanks for the info makes more sense to me now when I'm looking at different ones

[Amyb]

Thanks will check them out 

[Putaendo Patrick]

There are several basic considerations you might want to ponder before making a decision:

Is weight and/or size a problem? Do you live in a high rise flat with no lift? Will you use it in your garden or transport it by car to another site? Do you suffer from back problems? I believe in another post you said you had a child, do you want to involve him/her?

Simply put, there are three types of telescope, three types of mount, and three ways to navigate the sky, giving nine possible combinations if I'm not wrong .

• Newtonian or Reflector telescopes use mirrors to capture the light. If bigger is better, they represent the best value. These do, however, need periodic collimation (aligning the mirrors), with practice this is not at all difficult but will need some extra accessories such as a Cheshire eyepiece.
• Refractor telescopes use lenses (like the old pirate telescopes). Depending on size or aperture (the diameter of the lens) they are either inexpensive or expensive as it costs a lot more to make large good quality lenses. For certain applications they are the best, personally for lunar and planetary observation I prefer them, similarly for some photography others recommend them.
• Telescopes which combine both lenses and mirrors. Designs include Maks and SCTs, but in general these are considerably more than your budget.

Mounts include two types with a tripod and one which simply sits on the ground:

• Alt-azimuth simply rest on a tripod and swing left-right and up-down.
• Equatorial mounts follow the course of the stars as they "move" across the sky.
• Dobsonian mounts sit on the ground (no tripod) and again move left-right and up-down.

Dobsonian mounts are the cheapest to make, so more money goes on your telescope. They are very solid and probably the best bet for visual observation. Alt-azimuth are also simple to use (perhaps best for children to control). However, if you think you might want to get into astrophotography (a very expensive niche to do well!) these are very limited. Good equatorial mounts are the most precise, but also the most expensive. Depending on quality (and weight) they often have model names such as EQ1, EQ2, EQ3 etc. Frankly anything mounted on an EQ1 or 2 will be shaky, and this is one thing you want to avoid at all costs.

Thirdly, finding the stars: this can be done manually, hopping from known brighter stars to find your objective, or with a "go-to" computerised system. I personally, am a very general observer and enjoy the manual approach, along with plenty of fascinating distractions along the way. For me, I feel it gives me a wider knowledge of the sky. Others prefer the facility to programme an object into the telescope's computer and find it automatically - faster and less error! Go-to, however, obviously ups the price considerably. A third option is a motorised telescope which is somewhere in between. A small motor allows you to track objects in the sky as they move. Good Go-to or motors are essential for serious photography.

The last point I will make is magnification. In general you can double the aperture of a telescope in millimeters to give a rough idea of its theoretical magnification. Thus a 120mm telescope is capable of x240 magnification. However, two considerations are important: atmospheric conditions often limit this - in the UK many people say x200 is the maximum, and secondly, often you don't need excessive magnification. Much excellent observation can be done at x60 or x80 for example, although for the Moon and planets you will probably want x120 to x200.

The magnification of a particular eyepiece depends on the focal length of the telescope - the formula to calculate magnification is the focal length of the telescope divided by the number of the eyepiece, thus a 10mm EP in a telescope of 1000mm gives x100 magnification. In general, telescopes with shorter focal lengths (for example 600mm) are better for lower magnification wider view observation while telescopes with longer focal lengths (for example 1000mm) will perform better at higher magnifications.

[Alan64]

A 150mm f/8 Newtonian on a Dobson-mount would be somewhat more compact and easily managed...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html

I don't know if they come with a collimation-cap; possibly, but just to be certain...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/rigel-aline-collimation-cap.html

http://www.astro-baby.com/collimation/astro%20babys%20collimation%20guide.htm

...then, in future, more eyepieces may be desired, and a barlow perhaps, to complement and enhance the experience. 

The 200mm f/6, however, is the sweet spot... http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

[Amyb]

22 hours ago, Putaendo Patrick said:

There are several basic considerations you might want to ponder before making a decision:

Is weight and/or size a problem? Do you live in a high rise flat with no lift? Will you use it in your garden or transport it by car to another site? Do you suffer from back problems? I believe in another post you said you had a child, do you want to involve him/her?

Simply put, there are three types of telescope, three types of mount, and three ways to navigate the sky, giving nine possible combinations if I'm not wrong .

• Newtonian or Reflector telescopes use mirrors to capture the light. If bigger is better, they represent the best value. These do, however, need periodic collimation (aligning the mirrors), with practice this is not at all difficult but will need some extra accessories such as a Cheshire eyepiece.
• Refractor telescopes use lenses (like the old pirate telescopes). Depending on size or aperture (the diameter of the lens) they are either inexpensive or expensive as it costs a lot more to make large good quality lenses. For certain applications they are the best, personally for lunar and planetary observation I prefer them, similarly for some photography others recommend them.
• Telescopes which combine both lenses and mirrors. Designs include Maks and SCTs, but in general these are considerably more than your budget.

Mounts include two types with a tripod and one which simply sits on the ground:

• Alt-azimuth simply rest on a tripod and swing left-right and up-down.
• Equatorial mounts follow the course of the stars as they "move" across the sky.
• Dobsonian mounts sit on the ground (no tripod) and again move left-right and up-down.

Dobsonian mounts are the cheapest to make, so more money goes on your telescope. They are very solid and probably the best bet for visual observation. Alt-azimuth are also simple to use (perhaps best for children to control). However, if you think you might want to get into astrophotography (a very expensive niche to do well!) these are very limited. Good equatorial mounts are the most precise, but also the most expensive. Depending on quality (and weight) they often have model names such as EQ1, EQ2, EQ3 etc. Frankly anything mounted on an EQ1 or 2 will be shaky, and this is one thing you want to avoid at all costs.

Thirdly, finding the stars: this can be done manually, hopping from known brighter stars to find your objective, or with a "go-to" computerised system. I personally, am a very general observer and enjoy the manual approach, along with plenty of fascinating distractions along the way. For me, I feel it gives me a wider knowledge of the sky. Others prefer the facility to programme an object into the telescope's computer and find it automatically - faster and less error! Go-to, however, obviously ups the price considerably. A third option is a motorised telescope which is somewhere in between. A small motor allows you to track objects in the sky as they move. Good Go-to or motors are essential for serious photography.

The last point I will make is magnification. In general you can double the aperture of a telescope in millimeters to give a rough idea of its theoretical magnification. Thus a 120mm telescope is capable of x240 magnification. However, two considerations are important: atmospheric conditions often limit this - in the UK many people say x200 is the maximum, and secondly, often you don't need excessive magnification. Much excellent observation can be done at x60 or x80 for example, although for the Moon and planets you will probably want x120 to x200.

The magnification of a particular eyepiece depends on the focal length of the telescope - the formula to calculate magnification is the focal length of the telescope divided by the number of the eyepiece, thus a 10mm EP in a telescope of 1000mm gives x100 magnification. In general, telescopes with shorter focal lengths (for example 600mm) are better for lower magnification wider view observation while telescopes with longer focal lengths (for example 1000mm) will perform better at higher magnifications.

I live in a bungalow but get good views from my garden. I want something quite portable  as I plan to take it to the countryside nearby.  Yes I have a daughter she's very interested in space and I noticed the last few days she's also wanting to search for planets and the moon. Thanks so much for all the information  

[REG78]

I'm new to this myself as a present for xmas I got a skywatcher reflector 130-900mmEQ2 and am getn som really decent views of planets & the moon wud blind you after a while really clear I'm only still using EPs that came with scope and I'm the same easy brought in and out of the house not tht dear either you shud check thm out

[Amyb]

10 hours ago, REG78 said:

I'm new to this myself as a present for xmas I got a skywatcher reflector 130-900mmEQ2 and am getn som really decent views of planets & the moon wud blind you after a while really clear I'm only still using EPs that came with scope and I'm the same easy brought in and out of the house not tht dear either you shud check thm out

Thanks  I will have a look at it 

[Alan64]

This is another option, of slightly smaller aperture under a 150mm, at 130mm, but with a much shorter optical tube than either the 150mm or 200mm "Dobsonians"...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p.html

Magnifications would range from a binocular-like 20x up to ten times that, at 200x, and with additional eyepieces and a better-quality 2x barlow.  There is a slight curve in learning how to use an equatorial mounting, but by motorising just the RA axis, any object can be made to stand still in the field-of-view of the eyepiece for long periods; automatic, hands-free tracking, and especially useful at higher magnifications...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-ra-motor-drive-for-eq2.html

The f/5 Newtonian itself contains a parabolic primary mirror, and over that of the spherical type. 

 

This is the f/7 version with the longer tube, but said tube can overwhelm the mount, especially at higher magnifications and when the wind blows...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130.html

It also comes in a motorised version... http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130m.html

However, the longer Newtonians that come with those two kits have spherical rather than parabolic primary mirrors.  Spherical mirrors cannot focus all of the light rays at one point... 

Which means that a parabolic mirror makes for sharper images.  It is for that reason that I would recommend the 130mm f/5 listed first, in addition to its more compact size.

Incidentally, Newton's first telescope, in 1668, was an f/5, albeit with a spherical primary mirror only 33mm in diameter...

[ronin]

Wait, is my answer.

Visit a few clubs with scopes to have a look at, the scope may be the easy aspect the mount may be a greater problem. You have manual, motor, goto as a simple start. If I recall an earlier post this is to include your daughter, if so then you have to consider what she will find the easiest - I own a couple of Meade Goto's, but I think you said she is 10 and operating a Meade goto my not be the solution for her. Equally she cannot do it much worse then I do, so she could be better at it.

From memory there is a club at Peterborough, Cambridge and Bedford. Vist each and have a look. Although Cambridge do not have people outside observing as a rule through their own scopes, so that one is a bit iffy at least for getting an idea of scopes.

Another factor is that summer is here, well almost and the nights are short and days long so little real observing time. Fenland Paul has mentioned a "Gazing on the Green" night in about 10 days at Over (South of you) if clear and if possible drop in there. Would expect a couple of scopes to be there to look at and through - all weather dependant however. Point is it starts at 20:00 and I notice that the sky is still a little bright at 20:00.

If you visit a shop then go to look initially.

I have a Bresser 102 achro, nice size, not costly, would do most things OK, drawback is the weight. It is brilliant at nothing specific and I would say something like that, it does just about all things decently. Problem is everyone has their own idea and it is based on their requirements and experience. Hence the "Wait".

Would be a bit of a drive but the Letchworth Club occasionally has public observing nights with 8-10 scope present, look for LDAS on google.

[Amyb]

Thanks for all the information everybody  

[Bino Pete]

Great for our neighbouring planets.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/266684-celestron-nexstar-127-slt-goto-mak-for-sale-new-nov-15/

[Astro Imp]

You've had loads of great advice, all I would add is take your time and try and see some of the suggestions in the flesh so to speak.

Good luck.

[Knighty2112]

If portability is important, and it will be getting lugged around a lot then a refractor of some sort may be a better option as it will hold up better to transportation, and requires less maintenance than a reflector. Either way go and see as many as you can from a good shop that specialises in astronomy to get a flavour of the size and weight of all the different telescope models.  

[Amyb]

Thanks for all the great advice everyone 

[Torin]

Bit late on this one, but if you really want to buy a starter scope and just can't wait then the Heritage 130p is a great little scope. I've had one now for a couple of years and really been nice to use with my family.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

 

[Amyb]

Thanks all for advice. It's my birthday next week and a good friend of mine won this on eBay for me as a surprise - Bushnell large telescope 675x 4.5 reflector. Model 78-467 it only cost £15 as she bid on a whim as it was local to us. Don't know if it's any good (probably a rubbish one knowing my luck lol) but going to collect tomorrow so will soon see. Will give me more time to investigate other scopes out there and build my budget. Anybody have or had this one? 

[brantuk]

Never had that particular scope, but here's the manual for you:

http://bushnell.com/getmedia/c2bf8d78-55de-440d-91c5-50ab13381548/78-9675_Voyager.pdf?ext=.pdf

[Amyb]

8 minutes ago, brantuk said:

Never had that particular scope, but here's the manual for you:

http://bushnell.com/getmedia/c2bf8d78-55de-440d-91c5-50ab13381548/78-9675_Voyager.pdf?ext=.pdf

Thanks  

[Torin]

On 04/04/2016 at 22:58, Amyb said:

Thanks all for advice. It's my birthday next week and a good friend of mine won this on eBay for me as a surprise - Bushnell large telescope 675x 4.5 reflector. Model 78-467 it only cost £15 as she bid on a whim as it was local to us. Don't know if it's any good (probably a rubbish one knowing my luck lol) but going to collect tomorrow so will soon see. Will give me more time to investigate other scopes out there and build my budget. Anybody have or had this one? 

Excellent news, best thing to do now is learn about your telescope works so you can get the most out of it. Then if and when you are wanting to upgrade you will know what you want out of a telescope.

[Amyb]

12 hours ago, Torin said:

Excellent news, best thing to do now is learn about your telescope works so you can get the most out of it. Then if and when you are wanting to upgrade you will know what you want out of a telescope.

Yeah i was quite pleased though I think it needs collimating. Haven't had a chance to take it out yet to see if it does for definite. The local Astro club have said they will help me if I go to the meeting next month if it does