WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE? "REFRACTORS ARE NO GOOD"

[refractordude]

A 90mm f/7 refractor was my first telescope purchase. A year later I tried a 90mm maksutov for the longer focal ratio. My refractor with a #8 yellow filter or a 70mm mask gave superior views than the maksutov. I returned the maksutov to amazon.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/refractors_no_good.htm

 

 

 

[Paul M]

I think they are useless too.

I'm currently offering a free disposal service. Send your refractors to me and I'll get rid. For high end refractors, Tak's and the like, I'll pay carriage upto £25.

But seriously, a good quality 90mm refractor will serve you well. I'm talking myself into buying just such a scope. 90mm is a bit small for a Mak . Maybe usable on the Moon and planets but not a lot of light gathering for a compound scope. 

My friend got a celestron 127mm Mak and I was a bit disappointed for him. At that aperture I think they are limited. 

I briefly looked at your linked page and gave up after a few sentences. An 8 inch Mak is a nice scope for quite a few targets. I wouldn't buy 90mm mak for anything other than birding.

[niallk]

I love my dobs.

I love my Lunt Ha specifically tuned frac.

Anything that gives you enjoyment and a sense of wonder...

Hell - sometimes at a dark site I stand back from my scope and just drink in the sky with just my contact lenses 

Edited March 7, 2018 by niallk

[Stu]

Yummy  

[domstar]

Let's all unite against the common enemy - the Judean people's front.

[vlaiv]

I agree with most of the article, except the title - that one is 100% wrong

Does that mean that I don't have and enjoy fracs? Noo ... have two of them, and looking at third (will still be holding on to two, SW ST102 will have to give way ...).

Do I have a dob? Yes, and RC also.

While most of things listed in article are true, that does not mean that refracting telescopes are no good. Even achromatic refractors. I don't think that anyone would be displeased with 4" F/10 achromat on AZ4. Both for deep sky and solar system.

Well if you enjoy observing and you are not after more, better, gooder ...

[Paul M]

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

Yummy  

Yup, that's the fella. Send it to me. I'll give you £25 to cover costs. The tube will make a few Irnbru cans and the tatty old lense will maybe go towards a gin bottle.

[NigeB]

15 minutes ago, domstar said:

Let's all unite against the common enemy - the Judean people's front.

Pah. It's the People's Front of Judea you need to worry about...

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, Paul M said:

Yup, that's the fella. Send it to me. I'll give you £25 to cover costs. The tube will make a few Irnbru cans and the tatty old lense will maybe go towards a gin bottle.

I know, dreadful little pea shooters they are, don't know why anyone bothers looking through them  

[Paul73]

Yep, Stu’s finderscope might look a bit rubbish, especially with all that stuf hanging off the focuser. But, if that is all that you have...... Yes, I am still jealous and too poor.

Why can’t people realise that each type of scope gives you a different observing experience? 

Paul

 

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Paul73 said:

Why can’t people realise that each type of scope gives you a different observing experience? 

Yes, it's all rather silly and pointless.

I've had wonderful view through fracs, SCTs and Dobs. The common theme about the best nights has been being under a nice dark sky. Seeing the whole Veil in a widefield frac is something you can't do with a dob, just as seeing Markarian's Chain in detail or spiral arms in M101 or M51 is something you would struggle to do with a small frac. 'Orses for courses as they say

[Paul M]

2 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

Yep, Stu’s finderscope might look a bit rubbish, especially with all that stuf hanging off the focuser. But, if that is all that you have...... Yes, I am still jealous and too poor.

Why can’t people realise that each type of scope gives you a different observing experience? 

Paul

 

Indeed, and if that experience pleases you then it was the right scope at that time.

Still never seen Albireo look so good through any scope as it did through my poxy old 60mm refractor in the late 70's. It's a voyage of discovery, why rush it?

[Paul M]

Oh, by the way, due to increasing demand and with immediate effect, my price for disposing of high end fracs has increased to £30. Mounts, NEQ 6 Pro and above can also be disposed of at sender's expense

[Ruud]

I like my SCT, I love my refractor. Tighter stars and less diffracted light just makes for a better visual experience.

I saw an 8" refractor the other day. A CFF impossiscope. Cost €25,000 for the OTA, weight 23 kg. I suppose refractors are nice up to 5 or six inch, but beyond they make no sense at all. This one was sold but still in the shop, waiting for the buyer to finish the observatory for it. He also still had to decide on a mount for it. 

http://cfftelescopes.eu/refractor-200mm-f8-2/

[VNA]

That article is not worth the paper it is written on!

It is to be fair that I did not read the article in question--but a title like that makes me cringe in disgust!

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, refractordude said:

A 90mm f/7 refractor was my first telescope purchase. A year later I tried a 90mm maksutov for the longer focal ratio. My refractor with a #8 yellow filter or a 70mm mask gave superior views than the maksutov. I returned the maksutov to amazon.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/refractors_no_good.htm

 

 

 

All telescopes are refractors! Its just that those with quality lenses at the front are the best! Hawks is simply in denial!  ?

[Tim]

"I rest my case."

 

Well I hope Mr Fleck rests his eyepiece case on something a bit more solid than the arguments he used in the article. 

[iPeace]

"After you tire of examining those five bodies in our solar system, what's next?"

Well Mr. Fleck, I'll cross that bridge when I find it.

[ollypenrice]

What do I think of the article?

Olly

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by ollypenrice

[Moonshane]

9 hours ago, domstar said:

Let's all unite against the common enemy - the Judean people's front.

but I thought fracs were supposed to be splitters?

[iPeace]

10 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

but I thought fracs were supposed to be splitters?

Let's face it though - What have the Refractors Ever Done For Us? Apart from...etc.

[AngryDonkey]

Bring out your fracs.... Bring out your fracs!

[mikeDnight]

May be Hawksy has a point. What use is a small aperture on dso's, especially from town?!

Obviously refractors with their limited aperture and high prices are rubbish! 

Anyone want to buy my Tacky-Hashi?

[ollypenrice]

One thing does bug me about refractors, though. Try as I might I can't see those spikes sticking out of stars.

Olly

[Macavity]

NOW they tell me! Just bought this. But occasional "polemics" can have a point?
I see no harm in "tweaking the tail" of the more... sectarian (of ANY "side"!).

FWIW, I have chosen the above to be part of a Solar "Frankenscope". From
my own experiments, the *simplicity* of a lens-based system (over a "CAT")
may give rise to fewer potential problems of internal reflections... Probably!

On the other hand, my refractor (telescope) purchases are unlikely to "excite" 
those on (as someone once said) a more "open ended" budget. [teasing]