Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hey all. I have a plan for an observatory in the back garden, hopefully starting in a year or two. That will be set up mainly for imaging. But I need something to keep me going until then  

 

In in the meantime I would like to get a fairly basic telescope for viewing. I won't be imaging with it. I want something portable, so when I have the obsy set up I still have something small to take to friends houses. I also want it basic enough to teach a young child with  

 

Price wise i am I am looking at the couple of hundred pound mark. I don't want to spend much more in case I don't use it much when I have the obsy (and with building an extension I have limited money to spend on hobbies!).

 

the startravel 102 on an eq1 mount seemed to fit the bill, but I think planets will be a particular selling point to the little one. (DSO's don't seem to impress kids when they just look like a smudge in the sky!). Having read this forum it doesn't seem to be that good for planets. I like the evostar 102 but coming purely on an eq3-2 mount nearly doubles the price. 

 

Any auggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a ST 102 but on a AZ3 mount. I use it mainly for solar observing using a Herschel wedge but it does make a nice grab and go scope for night time sessions. There is some CA present on bright objects but I can live with it. I do not think I would go down the Eq-1 route. It is not a very steady platform to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a 4.5" mini-Dob for the kids out of a spare mirror, which makes a very portable little scope. The Heritage 130P, and similar small dobsonians also fit the bill. The EQ1 mount and tripod are rather wobbly in my experience, certainly with a small but still quite hefty scope like the ST102 on top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of bang for buck I would agree with Jules' suggestion. It is an f8 scope, easy on eyepieces and will give nice results on Planets and the moon. The question is, how portable does it need to be? The 150p is not that heavy so is easy to move about but is reasonably long. It will go in a car easily though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to SGL

For visual you are in a bit of a no man's land. You want it portable but you do not want to see DSO as smudge, even though most are. The only way to improve on smudge type view is aperture. But you do not want a massive reflector as you have portability problem then and also out of your budget.

I would suggest the skywatcher 150p or 200p if you want a bit more aperture. Great "proper scopes" for visual and still reasonably portable.

Or a refractor, something like an ed80(used should be in your budget) will be very portable on a AZ , but for visual on dso not so good. But the ed80 is good for getting into Astro photography.

I hope the above helps☺

Edited by Timebandit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Just to clarify I'm not fussed by seeing DSO's at all for a portable scope. I will save that for when I get a proper imaging set up. If it's an all rounder, then great, but planets and lunar would be the main use. 

 

As for portability i do want small. A 200 reflector is probably at the limit for size. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the problem is becoming that £200 will not really get you much into astronomy these days. Recently a couple of people have asked similar and it is getting harder to identify anything that is of some use. Annother example is getting started in imaging, used to be able to get a 70-72mm ED refractor and an EQ5 for £800-1000, now it is £1000-1200. Aslo you are asking for a scope around £200, bet you want a mount as well. Really the requirement is a reasonable scope AND a reasonable mount for £200.

Will say that thee seems an absence of reasonable 80mm achros these days, it seems to be 70mm the 102mm and the cost jump is widening. Thinking an 80mm f/7 achro would jsut about fit. I do not really like the fast f/5 achro's. Used to be a 90mm but they sort  of faded away.

The Evostar 90 would do, the long focal length allows for Jupiter and Saturn and less CA then a shorter 102. There is an ES 102 that is something like f/6.9 but over budget. Think the ES 102 can be bought with their Twilight mount (?) but again cost rises.

The smaller Mak's may be an alternative, just be aware that the longer focal length will eventually mean a smaller field of view which may pose a bit of a problem.

One area top look into are the EU retailers, they often hold different stock to the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A six inch f/8 Dob will do anything a 4" achromat can, and better, but it's not the kind of telescope you take with you as hand luggage. 

I have a four inch refractor. The OTA is slightly over 5kg. With mounting rings, finder + foot and shoe and eyepieces it is more like 7 kg.  It needs an EQ3-2 at least. Either way, as a complete system definitely not hand luggage!

EQ mounts are heavier than Dob mounts! If you mean portable in the sense that you can take it out in two parts and set it up alone, then both a Dob and an EQ3-2 fit the bill.

My choice would be a six inch f/8 Dob. At f/8 a Newtonian is such a sweet telescope! Low on coma, easy on the eyepiece, a small secondary and complete absence of false colour make for an excellent experience!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another scope to look at is the telescope service of Germany TS 80 F7.5 achro i had one and it was a great scope for about £100 but you would need a mount

Link to post
Share on other sites

This ticks all the boxes in terms of budget, portability, and simplicity:

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

Yes I'm biased as I have one, but I've owned a LOT of scopes and this one is very impressive for a 200 quid scope including mount!

....but don't just take my word for it:

First Light Optics Quote " Of all the telescopes we stock the Skyliner 150p Dobsonian probably has the highest performance-per-£. "

 

Edited by Chris Lock
Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that you want the portable scope mainly for planets.

see here: 

A smallish aperture scope would be a good choice for planets, considering your budget. The dominating effect of the atmosphere causes larger scopes to under-perform on fine detail. For deep-space, which you say is not of primary interest, you would want a larger and less portable instrument.  Any of a small long-focal ratio Newtonian, long-focal ratio refractor or Maksutov within your budget might suit you. E.g a 102mm Mak. Even a 70mm refractor of good quality will give pleasing views of Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon and be less affected by bad seeing than a bigger and more expensive telescope. You'll have to compromise on the mounting as a decent one will be way over your budget. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to get a decent shortlist. Would it be worth adding the evostar 90 with eq3-2 mount? Small aperture, f10, seems like it would be good for viewing planets. The eq3-2 should be good enough to cope with any reasonable upgrade in future. Bare in mind this will always be my portable set up. My permanent one I can go far bigger and invest more money when I'm ready. I live in a dark location anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both 76mm and 100 refractors. The 76mm probably gives a bit steadier image at f/16 than the ED100 at f/9 in poor seeing, but it's not by that much. This is vastly outweighed by how much more the ED100 shows me. The 76 is lovely classic refractor but I couldn't cope with it being my only scope, I would be missing so much through lack of aperture! (I'm sure the Dob Mob would laugh at me calling 4" good aperture when compared to their 20" scopes and dark sky trips lol)

Basically what I'm saying is, if you choose a refractor which I sense you are leaning towards, try and get a 4" 100mm around f/10, as this kind of aperture in refractors still cuts through poor seeing but has the resolution on planets to show interesting detail, will resolve stars in globs, and show some bright DSO's in nice detail compared to smaller refractors.

refractors verses Newtonians - I think refractors show bright objects in a sharper more sparkly, prettier way, but the bigger aperture Newts make the faint stuff more visible and will resolve more detail in good seeing.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Seeq said:

Starting to get a decent shortlist. Would it be worth adding the evostar 90 with eq3-2 mount? Small aperture, f10, seems like it would be good for viewing planets. The eq3-2 should be good enough to cope with any reasonable upgrade in future. Bare in mind this will always be my portable set up. My permanent one I can go far bigger and invest more money when I'm ready. I live in a dark location anyway. 

I'm not personally familiar with that scope or the mount but both look like sensible choices. The EQ3-2 is clearly better than the EQ-2 but cheaper and lighter than the EQ-5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your very first post mentions portable and sharing with children, so a telescope should look like a telescope I think this means refractor plus they are very portable and easy for a child to look through with the eyepiece at the bottom of the tube. The az3 with the evostar90 would be one to look at plus it comes in under budget. The az3 has knobs to turn for tracking the object and is easy to setup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 year old is not that great with my fracs (yet?) he grabs it to look through and knocks it out of position, and knocks his eyes against the eyepiece again knocking it out of position. You need a solid mount with young kids! I need to try him with the Dob and see how that goes? lol.

How old are your kids?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By JacobiteJake
      Hi Everyone
      For the first time in 57 years I'm having the itch to look up  , I'm fed up with looking at people wearing masks, moaning there's no loo rolls and 2mtr distance markings on the floor, so I think me needs to take a deep breath and look through some quality glass and see the amazing views above the clouds.  The problem I'm having, after watching many YouTube videos, is lots of different views on what your first scope should be, so, I need your help please.
      My budget started at around £500 but I'm starting to think I need around £700 to get something I'm going to be pleased with, unless I come across a used one of course.  I'm pretty sure it's going to be mostly visual star gazing I'll be doing and then perhaps as my interest and curiosity grows, I'll have a dabble into astrophotography, although this side of it does look very complicated, not to mention much more expensive.  I have noticed in many videos that there is a push for newbies to get a reflector scope but they do seem a bit too big and cumbersome, and storage is an issue where I live, so I'm thinking more of a refractor. 
      There's a few nice 80 ed scopes out there but as I understand it, the moon will look nice but I'll have a hard job making out the planets like Saturn at maximum power.  102's and 120 seems a good starter but the jump in cost to an ED version is BIG, so I'd like some help on whether or not it justifies the extra money please to remove much of the Chromatic Aboration that many complain about of the cheaper scopes.  I've also noticed that some scopes out there, although different in colour and name, the build is exactly the same and it's said by some, but it's pretty obvious it is, that they are just re-branded and come from the same factory in Shenzen.  So, can you help/advise please, is a 102 or a 120 a good choice, should I pay the extra for ED, and which brands should I consider, i.e. Skywatcher, Celestron etc.  Also, any advise on what extras I will need, I can see most advise on upgrading the 10mm eye piece that comes with most scopes for a better one, and a decent 2x Barlow, but anything else I'll you'll think I will need please and any tips and tricks for a very keen, getting on a bit, newbie, thank you very much.
      Just so you know, I've made my first purchase, it's a planisphere and I'm learning how to use it from a nice chap I've found on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbz3QnAbzFM&t=962s&ab_channel=AstronomyandNatureTV
      Take care, stay safe and clear skies as they say
       
      Kindest regards
      David 
    • By Stefann
      Hi everyone, about a month ago i got my first telescope. Wasn't sure what to get but i wanted something portable and easy to setup and use. After some internet "research" i decided to go for a refractor on a manual alt/az mount. The telescope was on a 50% sale so i decided to go for it , the Meade infinity 90.
       
      The package:
      The scope came in one big box, everything was inside. Included was the optical tube, the mount, 3 eyepieces (6.3mm, 9mm and 26mm), a 2x barlow lens, 90 degree diagonal, red dot finder, an eyepiece holder for the mount and a few manuals. The optical tube:
      The tube has a 90mm (3.5in) aperture and 600mm focal length. It looks and feels as a quality instrument, it has a small dew shield and the focuser is smooth when you move it back and forward. As expected the lens looks to be coated. It has a dovetail bar on it with 3 holes for screws. The mount:
      Light but stable, made of aluminium. It has 3 extendable legs, and 2 slow motion cables (alt/az). One screw to mount the tube on on top (adjustable back and forward). The eyepieces and barlow:
      All 3 are modified achromat eyepieces, the lenses are made of glass and are OK for the beginner, but i would suggest upgrading if you can. The barlow is bad i even think that the optics are plastic (not sure), it is usable if you don't have other options but this should be the first upgrade in my opinion. Observing: First light:
      The telescope arrived in the morning so the first thing i did after a quick setup was to adjust the red dot finder. I looked at some mountains about 20km away, the view was nice and very detailed using all eyepieces. Combining the 6.3mm with the barlow got me a bit blurry view, but the barlow in combination with the other eyepieces was ok. Night came and it was a moonless and clear night (only light pollution from the city i live in). I saw orion right infront of me, "marked" it with the red dot finder where i thought M42 should be and looked through the 26mm eyepiece. It was a bit blurry but after adjusting the focus i could see some nice pinpoint stars and also something fuzzy, i realized it was the orion nebula. After letting my eyes adjust to the view for a few minutes i started seeing 2 faint "wings" on both sides and in the center were 4 very tiny stars, i didn't expect to see that on my first night. I followed my target for about 15 minutes using the slow motion controls , it was easy to do. Also tried the 9mm eyepiece and with it the 4 stars were more easily seen but the faint clouds got fainter so i moved back to the 26mm. Next target was venus, i tried all eyepieces + with combination with the barlow. It looked like a very bright half moon without any details. When using the barlow the view was ok but purple glow was showing around the planet, without the barlow the purple wasn't noticeable. I also looked at the star Sirius which looked nice, bright and much bigger then any other star i could see that night. After Venus went down i decided it was enough for day one. Moon:
      I expected it to look good, but not this good. I was observing the moon for a couple of nights until it got full. I could see a lot of details at the terminator , with low and high magnification. When the moon was full it was very very bright and it looked best with the smallest magnification using the 26mm eyepiece. Jupiter and Saturn:
      I got 2 opportunities to look at these 2, the first time i think the "seeing" was bad. I could only see Jupiters 4 moons and the planet was a bright disc without any details at any magnification i tried. Saturn also wasn't very good, i could see the rings but they were blurry and "dancing" around. But the next time i had the chance to look at these planets the conditions were much better, first target was again Jupiter. With the 26mm eyepiece i could see a white disc with 4 moons.With the 9mm i could see the moons again but now the disc had very faint 2 bands without any color. The view was best with the 6.3mm eyepiece, the 2 bands were clearly visible and on the upper belt on the right side there was a small dark dot, i am not sure if it was anything . Next target was Saturn, event with the 26mm eyepiece i could see that it has rings, i switched to the 6.3mm right away and wow there it was, Saturn and its rings clearly visible, i even think i could spot the cassini devision, but it might have been my eyes playing tricks. I tried using the barlow on both targets but it was making the image blurry, but at this point i had purchased a higher quality barlow and the views were very nice with it , but the  max magnification i could use that night was 133x, anything higher and the image was getting wobbly (probably that was due to the atmosphere that night). After that some clouds came in and it was time to get back to bed (got up just to see the planets in 4am). Conclusion:
      I think i got what i wanted, a small and very portable telescope for some basic amateur observing. I do recommend this telescope to anyone as a first telescope or even to an experienced astronomer who is looking for something light, portable and being able to set it up and start observing in 2 minutes. Also i would recommend you replace all of the eyepieces and the barlow. I got me a few plossl eyepieces and a nice barlow, it was worth it.
      Feel free to ask me anything regarding this telescope i will be more than happy to answer.
      Sorry for any spelling mistakes this review probably contains

      Also i am attaching a few images i took directly off the eyepiece using my smartphone (handheld).


      The Telescope

      The Moon:

      The Moon:

      Venus:

      Saturn:

      Jupiter:

    • By Revilo
      Hello again,
      After many hours of researching and asking on forums I’ve decided not to go down the imaging road as I’ve come to realise it’s way out of my budget. Now after realising this I’ve narrowed down to three telescopes that I’m considering on getting purely for visual use.. Skywatcher 150p 150pl or the dobsonian 200p. What is the difference between the 150p and the pl?  I’m after something that can let me see enough detail on planets that I’ll enjoy and also allows me to get views of deep sky objects. I have been talking to Martin from FLO as well and still can’t decide. I’m hoping you can help me make my decision. I’d also like to know how comefortable these three are as I’ll be most likely doing long sessions for sketching.  My budget is £400 max.
      Thanks for for the help (again).
    • By Lrlinnell
      I have been using my Canon DSLR 5D Mark III with a 100-400 L Lens mounted on a Orion Atlas-Pro AZ-EQ-G mount  for astrophotography of stuff like Orion nebula and Andromeda galaxy but now it is time to purchase a scope.
      I had been thinking of refractor APO Triplet but it seems that a lot of people are having good luck with Newtonian scopes like the Orion 8" f/3.9 Newtonian Astrograph. I would be doing strictly astrophotography, guided, BackyardEOS and PHD. Any thoughts on what might be a good scope?
      I would start with the scope, Canon camera body, mount. Then add guide scope. Then replace the Canon body with CCD. That is the plan anyway.
       
      Thanks, Lloyd
    • By esteb
      Howdy, all.  I am in the process of searching for my first telescope.  I am looking for something that is great for both planetary gazing and stargazing.  I live in an area that has light to medium light pollution, but have access to foothills and mountains, only a couple hours away.  So, I am looking for something that is semi portable, yet still big enough to have a good fov.  Most of the viewing would be done from the back yard, however.  I do plan on doing AP in the future, but just looking or a gazer at the moment.  I have read a lot of good reviews on the skyliner 200p, but was just wondering if there are any that are comparable in quality for a tad less.  the 200p is about $400 US, which is about the top of my price range.  Thanks in advance, everyone. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.