Another What Telescope thread ...

[Hiijinx]

Hello all,

I am looking at purchasing my first telescope after having experienced great fun using my old pair of 9x63  binoculas gazing at the sky.

Having read various guides here, on YT and FLO I think I understand the very basics on what to look for/avoid but wouldn't mind some expert advice.

1 - My budget is £ 300 max and would like something with decent build quality that will last.

2- I would like the option for terrestrial viewing as we have a lovely view of the south downs here so realise this most likely points to a refractor but since I estimate about 70/30 star gazing usage, would I be silly getting this over a reflector model with better specs/£?

3- Placement is also a consideration and would like something easy to move and with its own stand - am I right in saying a dobsonian needs a table? It would be mainly used from our south facing office window (with light pollution) and North facing garden (little light pollution)

4- If I should go for a refractor, I have read some reviews complaining about due to the sheer length, you end up sometimes nearly laying on the floor trying to look through the eyepiece - is this true?

5- AZ/EQ mounts- The EQ seems the favourite but can it be used for earth viewing at all?

6- Finally, I have read about erecting prisms - do they really make a reflector suitable for terrestrial?

Useage would be purely just for gazing, no photography and would like to go the manual way of searching with a guide book rather than a GoTo.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to exploring the sky some more!

Hiijinx

[Dave In Vermont]

As terrestrial views are also wanted, I would suggest that a Newtonian reflector be crossed-off the list - erecting-prism or no. I would suggest that you take a long look at Maksutov-Cassegrains. Something like this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-supatrak.html

This would allow you to disengage the drive that provides tracking of celestial objects when you use it for terrestrial pursuits. Maksutovs - as they are generally called - would provide very sharp views of planets and other smaller objects from our solar-system like comets. And very good views of more Earthly denizens. Also some DSO's would be candidates. And resolving tight double-stars are Maksutov-bait as well.

I'll let others weigh in now.

And welcome to SGL - it's nice to have you aboard!

Enjoy -

Dave

[Hiijinx]

Hello Dave thanks for the reply.

I had not seen these before so will do some reading. So by "disengaging the drive" - I would be able to maneuver it like a manual telescope and not have to rely on the motor? 

[Dave In Vermont]

You'd only be wanting to use the drive while you are viewing a planet or other entity up in space - to compensate for the Earth's rotation which is magnified by a factor of how much magnification your using. At 100X, things above go zipping by. So it's just for your convenience. You don't have to use it, but most would agree that these are great. And yes - you find objects, terrestial or celestial, manually. It's not a go-to as per your wishes.

Dave

[gls]

I'd use the bins for terrestrial viewing and buy an 8" dob. Or a 10" if you can find one second hand for your budget.

[gls]

4 minutes ago, gls said:

I'd use the bins for terrestrial viewing and buy an 8" dob. Or a 10" if you can find one second hand for your budget.

 

Chances are, if you do buy a frac, you'll soon get aperture fever and end up buying something a lot bigger anyway.

[Paul73]

My SkyWatcher ED 80 doubles as a terrestrial scope quite well on a simple AZ mount (SW AZ4 or similar needed). True, the planets ain't huge and you will struggle with the fainter galaxies. But, the wide field views are stunning.

These would have to be bought 2nd hand to get anywhere near the budget. Not sure about cheaper options, but for the sake of a little bit extra...... And, I have no experience of less expensive refractors. So there may be a cheaper option available.

Remember. No scope can excel at all things.

Paul

[neil phillips]

Also depends on what field of view you want, when you say terrestrial viewing are we talking zooming right in, if so then yes a Maksutov-Cassegrain  would be good. But the field of view would be small, Also same restrictions under the night sky.

Maks are useless for sweeping around the milky way, the field of view is just too narrow, but great for planets and the moon. Another good option could be SCT maybe a secondhand 6" with a focal reducer, could give a wider field and a high power option. Not sure I would rule out a good F5 Newtonian, they can produce good wide fields of view on terrestrial once you get used to the sideways viewing. Great for sweeping around the night sky, and with a barlow high power too

[mikeDnight]

The star travel 120 and the evostar 102 are within your budget at first light. Both are capable scopes with the star travel giving wider views of star fields and the evostar being better for higher power views of moon and planets, yet it too can give impressive wide field views.

Mike

[Timebandit]

Hello and welcome on SGL. Because of your budget and wanting to do a number of viewing types there is going to be a compromise. You really either ,need to up your budget to get a good refractor either new or second hand or accept a compromis IMO.                       If it was me and wanted a good scope and best bang for buck I could get I would be looking at a skywatcher 200p or 250p(used should be around your budget) on dob. The dob in my opinion would be best for you ground based mount and just up and down and side to side movement to locate and track the target. IMO I do not think you will get a better dob in your budget range, very popular with people and good reviews. I would then use this for your night views of the space object and use bins for earth based viewing.   If you do want a bit of both on a budget and a frac then I understand the TAL 100 rs I think has a good strong following  and is a well respected frac in around your budget on a mount such as possibly a AZ3 (check manufacturer spec range) would be an effective combination.                                                 !                                                                                       If you can up your budget(buy used) on a frac and want a good all-rounder then the Skywatchher 120ed on a  AZ 4 mount is very good as I have this and it is effective. I hope this helps☺

[Hiijinx]

Thanks all for the replies.

After sleeping on it and researching all of your suggestions I think your general consensus of "there is no scope which can do it all" finally made me decide that I should invest in the best I can for night sky viewing and maybe buy a cheaper refractor in the future for terrestrial.

What are the chances of using a Dob through an open window? Without a tripod I assume it would depend on a sturdy table? As for outside, do you just place it on the ground or does it always need a platform?

[happy-kat]

Little. Imagine placing the telescope next to the window and trying to get your head at the eyepiece. Personally I would read reviews on the startravel 120mm or ST102mm from users.

The best telescope is the one you can actually use regardless of flash or size of aperture.

A 200p dob stands as tall as an adult.

Dob refers to the base the telescope is a reflector. A dob based telescope can be table top then the reflector is small. A 200p dobsonian base weighs 11 kilos and sits on the floor, the actual telescope is heavier.

[Dave Lloyd]

5 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

The star travel 120 and the evostar 102 are within your budget at first light. Both are capable scopes with the star travel giving wider views of star fields and the evostar being better for higher power views of moon and planets, yet it too can give impressive wide field views.

Mike

Got both of these and as mike has said they both do their designed tasks fairly well.  The f5 102 does display chromatic aberration but it doesn't become an issue with wide field stuff. The evostar while still showing a bit of c.a on bright objects never - to me anyway becomes an issue.

[Dave Lloyd]

Sorry mike I misread your post. I've got the st102 and the evo120 ha ha. But the comments still apply.

[gls]

1 hour ago, happy-kat said:

A 200p dob stands as tall as an adult.

A very small adult. Without measuring it I would say it stands no more than 1.5 meters.

 

edit - I've just measured mine and the tape measure read about 128 cm.

 

Quote

A 200p dobsonian base weighs 11 kilos and sits on the floor, the actual telescope is heavier.

The telescope is also lighter than the base.

[Timebandit]

Hello . A 200p stands as tall as an adult ? If at 128 cm I would say maybe a snowhite dwaf size ☺, but seriously I do not consider  the 200p  adult size so this may be a bit off  putting to the OP.  I think it would be a manageable scope and a decent performer. I have a 14inch dob and  that really is adult size?     

[gls]

17 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

Hello . A 200p stands as tall as an adult ? If at 128 cm I would say maybe a snowhite dwaf size ☺, but seriously I do not consider  the 200p  adult size so this may be a bit off  putting to the OP.  I think it would be a manageable scope and a decent performer. I have a 14inch dob and  that really is adult size?     

Agreed, my 12" is more what I would consider adult size and the 8" is much lighter and far more manageable than it.

I even made a platform for the 8" to stand on so I dont think putting it on a table of some sort would be a problem either. I actually think it's better on a platform because it stops you bending down or squatting too much and giving yourself back or leg ache.

[happy-kat]

There is a great photo that shows them in a line various dob sizes.  Found the post this was the image.

 

The complete 200p telescope is 26kilos. Perhaps the info I found had spilt the weight incorrectly.

The image might help you decide if you could use it out of the open window. If you could get to a retailer to see different telescopes might help you in your decision.

 

[Hiijinx]

The dobsonian is purely a stand and the actual telescope is no different from https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html , correct?

 

I think I have narrowed it down further to need;

a. A stand (more expensive than a dob I know but feel I would use it A LOT more)

b. Simple - ie no power/tracker, just a point and look scope which does not require batteries/power supply.

c. Terrestrial no longer a requirement, just a bonus.

 

My goals are to search the sky mainly for planets/stars with a book and tick them off.

 

Have also upped my max budget to include the following.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-eq3-2.html

^^** (question on this one - it has been said the FoV is quite poor for searching, just how bad are we talking here? Like looking through a toilet roll tube, better/worse?)

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-102-eq3-2.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-120-az3.html

 

The bottom 2 being cheaper would allow for some potential accessories to try and improve them also.

If it were your first scope with your own money, which would it be and why? 

 

Thanks again everyone

[happy-kat]

Hi
Do you still have the need to setup and look out through a window for one of your observing positions?

If my money I would not get a telescope with an equatorial mount personally.

Edit: reasons it is bulkier and heavier then the mount I would prefer.

This review was just a few days ago and is on one of the telescopes you list but on a tripod that gives left/right/up/down movement, just like a dosonian base but in tripod form.

link here

 

[Hiijinx]

Hey Happy-kat,

 

Yes one of my positions will still be from my south facing window - the rest from the garden on the north side. 

I had wondered about the EQ/AZ mount - would this https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-az3-alt-az-mount.html fit the scopes on my shortlist and if so, would it change your opinion?

Have read the ST -120 review you linked, it really sounds like a gem of a bargain!

[gls]

2 hours ago, Hiijinx said:

The dobsonian is purely a stand and the actual telescope is no different from https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html , correct?

You are correct that the dobsonian is the name of the stand but the two telescopes are actually different.

The dob is has a focal length of 1200mm ( f/5.91), whereas the eq5 has a focal length of 1000mm (f5). Which means the scope with the dob is a bit longer, has a slightly narrower field of view and gets a higher magnification with any given eyepiece (a 10mm 60 degree eyepiece would give you 100xmag and a 0.6 degree fov in the eq5, and 120xmag and 0.5 degree fov in the dob - to put this in perspective the moon is 0.5 degrees), which could make it better for planets etc., and because the eq5 is faster it could mean that it's less forgiving of cheaper eyepieces so it could cost you more to get accessories. I've never used one myself so I cant really comment on this, perhaps someone who owns one, or had one, could chime in?

If you have stellarium you can input different scopes eyepieces to get a feel for what the field of view would be like with all of them. This is what I used for the calculations so I blame that if they're wrong.:D

Quote

If it were your first scope with your own money, which would it be and why? 

If it were me, out of the ones you've listed, I would go with the 200p eq5 simply because you will gather more light and see more objects, with more clarity. But, as you can probably tell from my sig, I'm a fan of dobs so I would get one of them myself.:D

I agree with happy-kat about the stand though, it's not really needed unless you plan on doing astrophotography and even then I think you would be better off with a bulkier stand. Although I dont do astrophotgraphy either so it would be helpful if someone who does could chime in. If you plan on doing astrophotgraphy and the stand is up to the job, it could be one less thing to upgrade later on.

But out of the ones listed I would still go for the 200p eq5.

Hope this helps and makes sense.

[gls]

45 minutes ago, Hiijinx said:

I had wondered about the EQ/AZ mount - would this https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-az3-alt-az-mount.html fit the scopes on my shortlist and if so, would it change your opinion?

I've never used one but I personally think it will be a wobbly pos and a waste of money.

edit - it's actually the mount that comes with the startravel 120, and wouldn't be an upgrade for any of them imo.

[Hiijinx]

Thanks for your honesty - it seems the best AZ I can find is https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html which seems to be reviewed well.

[gls]

TBH, since all the scopes you're looking at come with mounts, I wouldn't worry about it and would see how you get on with them first. If you find you dont like them, then upgrade it, but until then, I personally wouldn't bother and would save my money.

You can find lot's of alt-az mounts here btw - http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/index.php/language/en/cat/c21_Mounts-----Alt-Azimuth.html

edit - and then I might be more tempted to buy a cheap, wooden surveyor's tripod and fit a mount to it. Instead of buying a mount and tripod in one.