Starter Telescope - Celestron Astro FI 102?

[sunking]

Good afternoon all!

I am looking to buy my first "real" telescope. I have owned a couple of cheap toy store type scopes in the past and have always been disappointed...I know, you get what you pay for...

I am considering purchasing the Celestron Astro FI 102. There are a couple of things that are drawing me to this telescope. First, it is recommended as a good starter telescope by the folks at space.com. Second, it seems to have some nice integration with my handheld devices which I really like. I am a technology "geek" and the idea of pointing the telescope at an object found on my cell phone/iPad running an app is attractive.

So, what I am look for from all of you kind folks is you opinion on this telescope. Is the technology good? Will it suit my needs as a beginner for the next 18 to 24 months? Can I upgrade it beyond what comes in the box?

Here is a link to the Celestron Astro FI 102: http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/astro-fi/astro-fi-102mm-maksutov-cassegrain-telescope

Celestron also offers the Astro FI 130: http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/astro-fi/astro-fi-130mm-newtonian-telescope. Would this be a better choice then the 102? 

Thank you in advance for your opinions. I look forward to becoming an active member of this community!

Kind regards...Dave

[Putaendo Patrick]

Be aware that the 102 and the 130 are different types of telescope, each with their strengths and weaknesses. The 102 is a Maksutov design which combines mirrors and lenses, and has an effective focal length of about double the 130 which is a reflector telescope with a focal length of 650mm. In practical terms this means the 102 will work best at higher magnifications but with a much smaller field of view, it would be excellent for example for lunar and planetary observing. The 130 will perform better at lower magnifications with a considerably wider field of view, so very useful for DSOs

Both telescopes have relatively narrow apertures - the bigger the aperture the better you can resolve faint objects. Personally I'd recommend something a little larger, such as this with an aperture of 150mm https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/sky-watcher-star-discovery-150p.html   Probably not as compatible with your aps and gadgets, but I think an all round better telescope. Don't know if it's available yet in the USA but Skywatcher are increasing their presence in the market so it might be worth asking around.

[ronin]

I suspect each of the two you supply a link to are ultimately about the same in terms of a "starter scope".

Half of me says the 102 Mak is likely to be slightly better, just no idea why. Also I have a 105 Mak here and never use it, prefer to take a refractor out even if smaller diameter. As I have but never use the 105 Mak it would be a bit odd to say to go get the 102.

You ask about "upgrade beyond what comes in the box".  Really the upgrade is the eyepieces, the supplied Kellners are not great and for the 102 Mak then reasonable plossl's should improve things a lot. The 130 is I guess f/5 and so a plossl should again improve things but depending on the quality they could be at their limit. f/5 is where thing start to change and better items are, or may be required. If you decided on the 130 then I suggest the AT Paradigms, Agena do the same under own brand name, both $60.

The mount is likely to be just enough for either scope, manufacturers do not throw in a mount that is more then capable of handling the scope. Guess it is actually the same mount in either case.

Can either scope be used without the WiFi interface? Just wondering what happens if that fails. Technology is great until it goes wrong. Although it is time that scope manufacturers caught up a bit.

Scope again: The Mak will give a narrower view in general, you will not really get much wider then 1 degree, but it is likely to be easier to transport around, should be good on planets*. The reflector will give the wider views and likely lesser magnifications, so a little better on "object" like M42, M45 etc.

Planets: Really you have 2. Jupiter and Saturn. Mars will not be around for another year and it is too small. The Mak should be fine for Jupiter or Saturn. The reflector should but I suggest that Saturn is at the toop of what it can do. You would likely need an 8mm Paradigm and a reasonable 2x barlow.

Both will I assume need aligning, only mention this as the mention of a computer and wifi often gets people thinking the scope does it all, they don't.

For whatever reason I still think the 102 over the 130. But not a clue why. I half suspect it is the compact package of it but that is a poor reason for picking one over the other.

If you did get the 102 then at the same time get a 32mm plossl or a 40mm plossl, use that for alignment as you get a wider view and it helps locating stars.

[alanjgreen]

Hi Dave,

I would go with the larger aperture every time. So the 130mm would win in my view. More light equals brighter view.

My first scope was a 130mm and it got me going, it had goto so I could find and view stuff and I appreciate what it did for me.

I outgrew the scope in 3 months and moved onto 8" aperture as i wanted to see more than tiny tiny things in the eyepiece !

So if you go with the 130 then I would suggest not going over the top with extras and upgrades as your next step may be in fact to move to a bigger scope.

There is a limit to what a small scope can show you.

Interestingly, if I were you now I would get the skywatcher 150p star discovery mentioned by Patrick above. It's about the same price and has 6" aperture, which I would favour over the wifi gimmick that the Celestron has.  

Please also research out 8" scopes as you could get an 8" skywatcher dobsonian within your budget that will show more objects than all the scopes mentioned so far. An 8" scope gathers twice as much light as a 6" making a much brighter image and fainter objects can be viewed. Of course the dobsonian scope has no electronics to keep the price down. There are goto dobsonians available, they cost more than those you had listed though...

Alan

[sunking]

Thanks for the replies everyone! They are appreciated greatly! I will have a look when I get home from work and will likely have some follow up questions based on the response.

Thanks again!