I now have two telescopes which one should I keep?

[D4V1D88]

Hi,

About a year ago i bought my first telescope an Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ (reflector). It has been great! I was really happy with the results of viewing the moon and saturn. Last week after finding out maplins was going out of business and had 70% off stock I straight away visited my local store and ended up buying an Celestron Inspire 80mm AZ (refractor) for £80 reduced from £180. I used it the other night and the results where from memory just as good as the astro master. 

My main interest is viewing planets. I am after opinions on which I should keep so please give me your opinions or correct me if anything is incorrect. My plan is this...

Keep the 80mm refractor as it is easier to transport and doesnt require collimation. swap the tripods around as I prefer the equtorial mount. keep the finder scope from the 80mm as it is more accurate. Are these telescopes of a similar spec? Is it daft to get rid of one? Attached are the pictures of the two telescopes I own.

Thanks all

David

[Galen Gilmore]

The 130 itself is a much more capable telescope, I assume. With an extra 50mm of aperture the detail on the moon, planets, and DSO's will be much better.

Although I have heard bad things about the 130, especially the bird-jones design which causes optical quality problems.

[vlaiv]

Just now, Galen Gilmore said:

The 130 itself is a much more capable telescope, I assume. With an extra 50mm of aperture the detail on the moon, planets, and DSO's will be much better.

Although I have heard bad things about the 130, especially the bird-jones design which causes optical quality problems.

Astromaster 130 is classical F/5 Newtonian so it should be good but for best performance on planets and the Moon - good collimation will be really important.

Any chance you sell of both and get your self 100mm F/10 refractor to use with that CG-3 mount? It will be less portable than 80mm, but should provide you with probably better views of planets and Moon than both.

Look at SW Evostar 102 F/10 or Celestron OMNI 102 F/10. It looks that prices have gone up a bit at the moment, so maybe second hand?

[NGC 1502]

 

Hello David. It’s always a tough call to give thoughts on a question like this.

If you really need to sell one or the other, I’d take your time to decide if you possibly can. Have a few sessions with both scopes in action. Perhaps the winner will reveal itself to you with more use. Compare the views, taking your time.

You mention collimation. Have you found a problem with collimating the 130 ?   I wouldn’t let that be the decider myself. How do you find the EQ mount versus the alt-azimuth? 

I’ve used a Celestron 130 myself when visitors at my local club came for advice. The only problem I had was with the unusual type of red dot finder, I’m used to a regular red dot finder myself. Of course finders can be replaced, but if you’re happy with yours, then it’s not a problem for you.

Ok, as you’re asking, I’d keep the 130 myself, but of course what suits me may not suit you, and that’s the important question.

See what others say, not just me.

Good luck !  Ed.

[Paz]

I would vote for keeping the reflector myself, but a good way to test is the next few times you go out which do you pick given the choice. If you find yourself going for the refractor because it's easier then it may be best to stick with that.

[Peter Drew]

I would sell both and get a 6" F8 Dobsonian.  

[mikeDnight]

If the moon and planets are your prefered interest, I'd keep the 80mm refractor. It won't give you the same light grasp as the 130, but it will give sharper images which is preferable.

You could also consider selling both the 130 and the 80mm and invest in a 100mm refractor or Maksutov, which are ideally suited to lunar and planetary observing. 

 

[cloudsweeper]

David - If you really like the equatorial mount, the 130 has the advantages of a larger aperture.  Plus it has the shorter focal length, so gives wider fields of view.

But the frac is very easy to use.

Do you have to sell one?  Lots of us here have a multiple 'scopes!! 

Doug.

[alanjgreen]

15 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I would sell both and get a 6" F8 Dobsonian.  

Me too!

if I had to have one then the 130mm reflector.

But a 150mm dob is way better than both of these for about the same money. A dob mount is way superior to these cheapo tripods.

[Peter Drew]

A good6" F8 will spank any refractor at the same price point. 

[estwing]

31 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

A good6" F8 will spank any refractor at the same price point. 

every time....bigger is better and don't let anyone tell you different

[VNA]

Keep both: one for each eye!

Kidding aside, your two scopes are very different and you will very quickly realize their important differences,
The refractor is great for planetary observation and the reflector is better at deep sky. But both are relatively small,
notheless very capable.

[paulastro]

1 hour ago, estwing said:

every time....bigger is better and don't let anyone tell you different

Not if Mars is only 11 degrees altitude, the seeing is poor and you have to transport yourself and scope in a small car to a nearby hill to get a view it isn't!! 

[Charic]

4 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

I would sell both and get a 6" F8 Dobsonian.  

......or consider an 8" f/6, a  further step up from the 6".

You will still see the Planets when their correctly placed, and the Moon is awesome though an 8" reflector.
Not as portable as a small refractor, but  something to consider if your upgrading.

[estwing]

29 minutes ago, paulastro said:

Not if Mars is only 11 degrees altitude, the seeing is poor and you have to transport yourself and scope in a small car to a nearby hill to get a view it isn't!! 

funny...Mapstar transports a 22" dob in a car by himself....not to look at Planetzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[paulastro]

Well, no of course.  The 22" dob would give lousy views of planets in those conditions I described in my last post .

In the case of telescopes it's a case of horses for courses.  The reason most experienced astronomers have learned that it's not true that one type/size of telescope is best for all occasions and purposes.

[coopman827]

You're bothered by having only 2 scopes?  My maximum was 9 a few years ago and then I sold a few to get down to my current 6. 

[cloudsweeper]

6 hours ago, coopman827 said:

You're bothered by having only 2 scopes?  My maximum was 9 a few years ago and then I sold a few to get down to my current 6. 

I've sold three on, currently have two, and want/need at least two more.  Sadly, Mrs. Sweeper has yet to be convinced about the sanity of all this. 

Doug.

[Alfian]

Why does it have to be one or the other, as others have said there is nothing wrong with having multiple scopes. It becomes clear after a while that some scopes do somethings supremely well, while no one scope does everything well, or at least fulfill every individuals particular wish, although its nice to wish it did.  It will be useful to spend time with each scope and appreciating the pros and cons and getting a feel for what you like. Its interesting that SGL members develop their particular preferences, whether it be for Reflectors/Dobs, Refractors or SCT/Maks and everyone will have a useful opinion as to that choice. One certainty though is that at some point you will want to upgrade, so getting some idea of what you want is good, although that will no doubt evolve with time too. Who ever said this was easy? One important thing I learned early on was that a good mount is at least as important as the scope. The 130EQ pushes the CG3 mount to the limit so an upgrade to a larger reflector inevitably means a new mount. This is where the 6" & 8" dobs score so well. Incidentally, despite Celestron naming the mount a "CG3" it is the equivalent of what is usually considered an EQ2. An EQ3/2 is an altogether better mount. One final thought though in terms of which one to keep, is that there will always be times when for whatever the presenting reason its great just to "pop out" and have a quick look at what there is to see. The very portable, robust, easy to use small refractor setup is ideal for that and compact enough to cart around to where ever you want to go, so the 80mm could be useful for that purpose.  That said, I like refractors, so I'm biased.

[celestron8g8]

Two things to consider also . The reflector uses mirror so there shouldn't be any C.A. and if there is almost undetectable . I have a Bushnell just like yours and viewing is great and I've actually taken a image of Jupiter with it long time ago and I don't have it to show , sorry . The refractor is an achro so even tho sharp images C.A. is going to pop out a lot especially on planets and the moon . Either one are really grab and go . One is sharper than the other . Things you need to consider is does C.A. bother you or not ? 

[VNA]

On 4/17/2018 at 16:52, coopman827 said:

You're bothered by having only 2 scopes?  My maximum was 9 a few years ago and then I sold a few to get down to my current 6. 

You could sell one more to D4V1D88, then you would have only 5! Just a thought?

[ollypenrice]

On 4/17/2018 at 20:18, estwing said:

every time....bigger is better and don't let anyone tell you different

Bigger is better if all things are optically and mechanically equal, portability doesn't matter and you don't want a wide field of view. But what if they're not, it does and you do? 

lly

[cloudsweeper]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Bigger is better if all things are optically and mechanically equal, portability doesn't matter and you don't want a wide field of view. But what if they're not, it does and you do? 

lly

Thanks Olly, I'm now content to pursue my plan to get a good 10-inch Dob and be perfectly satisfied with it! 

And no coma corrector either.

Doug.

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

Thanks Olly, I'm now content to pursue my plan to get a 10-inch Dob and be perfectly satisfied with it! 

And no coma corrector either!

Doug.

Our 20 inch F4 has never seen a coma corrector and nobody has ever suggested I find one in the last 13 years...

Olly

[Chris]

Bigger is always better.....if you have an obsy in a very dry climate on top of a mountain, and adaptive optics. If you live in average suburbia, then you might consider a scope which isn't too effected by seeing conditions, cools quick, and fast to setup/take down to be a better option.

 We would all prefer the mountain version but it's sadly not practical for most of us.

On 17/04/2018 at 19:18, estwing said:

every time....bigger is better and don't let anyone tell you different

I've told him different  

To the OP, test both scopes side by side on your next session to see which you prefer. don't worry if you want to keep both, some of us have many scopes as it's part of the hobby to look through/image through different optics