I now have two telescopes which one should I keep?

[Moonshane]

Personally, I think the scopes complement each other. You could always sell the AZ mount from the refractor and the associated bits to save space / raise money if they are the issues. You can only use one scope at a time and it's nice to have options.

[cloudsweeper]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

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

Olly

Oh stop it - now you're tempting me to go faster!

Doug.

[estwing]

4 hours ago, Lockie said:

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.

or put it in your car and make the effort?

you don't hear surfers moaning about the lack of waves in Derby.....A Dob takes 10 mins to set up.

[Chris]

48 minutes ago, estwing said:

or put it in your car and make the effort?

you don't hear surfers moaning about the lack of waves in Derby.....A Dob takes 10 mins to set up.

I do see what you're saying, though personally I don't find the weather reliable enough to load the car up and drive somewhere remote and dark. I've often looked out to see a clear sky, set up in the garden only to see the clouds rolling in and maybe catch a quick glimpse of something. Over the years my kit as become more and more compact to suit the conditions. If a big Dob suited the conditions things would have evolved that way I'm sure. We have a big 22" Dob at our club which I've seen nothing through as of yet. Last time it was set up in my presence the fog rolled in and everyone said "I should have known! lol". I guess it doesn't help that I don't often attend the club, I feel guilty for leaving my wife to deal with our young kids. Family comes first and all that, which is another reason I don't load the car up and drive off somewhere remote.  

P.s. Not moaning, just saying how I see it for me. The big Dob thing obviously suits you better which is fine, but your earlier statement of advice to the OP was just too sweeping for some of us not to respond.

  

 

 

 

[Alan White]

5 hours ago, Lockie said:

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.

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  

Have to agree with Chris.
As to the OP's question, I think we often end up with multiple scopes and kit and then have to do a thinning due to constraints of normal life and money.
As others have said = The scope you use the most is the one you find easiest to set up.

I have a 6" Newtonoan f5 and a ED80mm Refractor, both on an alt az mount, both easy to set up and use.

[Chris]

8 minutes ago, Alan White said:

Have to agree with Chris.
As to the OP's question, I think we often end up with multiple scopes and kit and then have to do a thinning due to constraints of normal life and money.
As others have said = The scope you use the most is the one you find easiest to set up.

I have a 6" Newtonoan f5 and a ED80mm Refractor, both on an alt az mount, both easy to set up and use.

I'm not agreeing with Alan just because he's agreeing with me lol, but what he says is so true. Lots of us accumulate lots of kit, then periodically thin the kit out keeping what suits us at the time. 

And yes, having a easy to setup fast cooling scope can be the difference between choosing to get out there or not. 

Maybe buy a 3rd scope to go with your existing 2  

[niallk]

My 10" dob gives pretty great planetary views, quick to set up, cools pretty fast  - I give it 40mins or so for high power use.  The 250px has a surprisingly thick mirror!

But not only that: perhaps the OP would find value in the versatility of also really getting into DSOs (galaxies, globs, planetary nebulae, etc), and also being great for comets, binaries etc? Especially as the planets are pretty low for the next few years.  Add some cheap Baader film, and you can enjoy sunspot detail in white light.  Even the moon will be incredible, when its around and ruining DSO fun, but you need your telescope fix

A 10" dob is a great all rounder imho, and takes only a couple of mins to set up and put away.

[RobertI]

Well I'm still really enjoying my 130P which is very similar to your astromaster. I'm on holiday down here in Cornwall and I knew I was going to be doing lunar, planetary and doubles observing but due to limited car space it was a toss up between the Tal 100RS (a 100mm achromat refractor) and the 130P. I decided on the 130P as it was easier to pack but also bacause it could sit on a smaller, and easier to pack mount. I haven't been disappointed, first night here was lovely and clear (and amazingly dark) and I had some lovely views of the moon with the 6mm Hyperion giving 106x. Hoping to get some Jupiter this week. 

I'd favour the 130 Astromaster over the 80mm frac, but if you are after planetary/lunar and are not worried about portability then a 6" F8 Dob would be fab - I am very tempted to get one myself. ?

[mapstar]

One scope or two?

I'd stick with them both, although I'm with the comments above about travelling to a dark site as it will get the best out of them no matter what size they are.

As for ease of set up it depends on your circumstances and your thoughts on viewing. 

I only have one scope and it takes 25mins to set up and quite a while to cool down fully. I'm not of the mindset of a couple of hours and home as it maybe anything upto 2 hours to get to my viewing site.

If the clouds come in its unfortunate but I do like to be out all night. I appreciate some have work and family commitments but planning is key................ more time at the eyepiece makes you a better observer. 

 

[25585]

On 17/04/2018 at 17:16, Peter Drew said:

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

+1 on that idea ?

Or a 6 inch SCT. Longer FL and larger aperture in a shorter tube. Back-packable as well.

[MarsG76]

Keep them both.. if you end up selling one, you will endup missing and regreting it eventually.... if you sell you'll only get peanuts for it.. is it worth it giving it away practically for free? Use it as a wide field scope or a guide scope.

 

[xvariablestarx]

2 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Keep them both.. if you end up selling one, you will endup missing and regreting it eventually.... if you sell you'll only get peanuts for it.. is it worth it giving it away practically for free? Use it as a wide field scope or a guide scope.

 

I agree, I sold two scopes before, and maybe got back 40% of their worth. I would prefer to give away to a youngster who was interested in the hobby, than sell basically a new scope at less than half its worth.

[MarsG76]

10 minutes ago, xvariablestarx said:

I agree, I sold two scopes before, and maybe got back 40% of their worth. I would prefer to give away to a youngster who was interested in the hobby, than sell basically a new scope at less than half its worth.

precisely

 

[D4V1D88]

On 17/04/2018 at 16:23, vlaiv said:

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?

Thanks for the advice, I am not sure I am colimating (using a chesire) accurately so a refractor does appeal to me more so now. What do you think of this one:

Skywatcher Evostar-120 EQ3-2 Refracting Telescope 120mm

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skywatcher-Evostar-120-EQ3-2-Refracting-Telescope/dp/B00CYHT2NI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524603635&sr=8-1&keywords=Skywatcher+Evostar+102

The celestron omni looked very short unles you meant the XLT variant?

On 17/04/2018 at 16:24, NGC 1502 said:

 

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.

I prefer the EQ mount as it has slow motion controls. Do AZ mounts with slow motion controls exist? The red dot on the 130 is awful. Ive realised that now that I have used the one ont he 80mm however on the 130 it doesnt look likle you can replace it. Thanks ed!

On 17/04/2018 at 17:16, Peter Drew said:

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

Dobsonians are too big for me :-)

On 17/04/2018 at 17:18, mikeDnight said:

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. 

 

 

 

That's good to know! IS the Starwave classic 102mm F11 achromatic refactor one you would recommend? what does the achromatic mean?

On 17/04/2018 at 17:28, cloudsweeper said:

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.

I dont have to sell one but it seems to me they are very similar so seems daft to keep both.

On 17/04/2018 at 19:29, VNA said:

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.

I haven't ventured into deep sky objects yet so its looking like ill be keeping the 80mm!

On 17/04/2018 at 21:40, Charic said:

......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.

Iv found the Orion SkyView Pro 8" that has a focal length of 1000mm so are my calculations correct.... 480x max useful mag - if i was to use the following EP i would get the following mags:

4mm - 250x / 5mm - 200x / 6mm - 166x / 10mm - 100x

If thats correct how would I get all 480x out of the scope surely not with a 2mm EP...do they even exist?

On 18/04/2018 at 14:27, Alfian said:

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.

I think I am going to keep both you make some very good points!

On 18/04/2018 at 14:42, celestron8g8 said:

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 ? 

What is C.A?

 

[mapstar]

12 minutes ago, D4V1D88 said:

What is C.A?

Chromatic Abberation 

[vlaiv]

9 minutes ago, D4V1D88 said:

Skywatcher Evostar-120 EQ3-2 Refracting Telescope 120mm

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skywatcher-Evostar-120-EQ3-2-Refracting-Telescope/dp/B00CYHT2NI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524603635&sr=8-1&keywords=Skywatcher+Evostar+102

The celestron omni looked very short unles you meant the XLT variant?

Yes, I meant long F/10 version. 120mm is a lot of scope - both in good and in bad terms - it will provide you with more detail and more light grasp compared to 100mm but it will be heavier / bulkier. I also don't think Eq3 is going to be enough for such a large scope.

CA stands for chromatic aberration usually known as purple haze around bright objects. All "regular" refractors have it more or less. You need expensive APO or ED doublets to remove / minimize chromatic aberration. It bothers some people more than other.

Starwave classic 102mm F11 is probably best choice in 4" ahromatic refractor class (those refractors that have CA), but more expensive than both SW and Celestron 4" F/10 scopes.

[wookie1965]

I have two scopes a 8" F5 reflector and a Tal 100rs F10 I use both on a EQ5 goto mount. 

I do want a larger refractor but I will have to get a different mount before that as the EQ5 although quite stable I don't think it would handle a 5 or 6 inch long F ratio achromatic refractor. 

I use both for different things the refractor for planets, double stars and clusters. The reflector for deep sky stuff and I am very happy with both. 

[mikeDnight]

8 hours ago, D4V1D88 said:

Thanks for the advice, I am not sure I am colimating (using a chesire) accurately so a refractor does appeal to me more so now. What do you think of this one:

Skywatcher Evostar-120 EQ3-2 Refracting Telescope 120mm

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skywatcher-Evostar-120-EQ3-2-Refracting-Telescope/dp/B00CYHT2NI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524603635&sr=8-1&keywords=Skywatcher+Evostar+102

The celestron omni looked very short unles you meant the XLT variant?

I prefer the EQ mount as it has slow motion controls. Do AZ mounts with slow motion controls exist? The red dot on the 130 is awful. Ive realised that now that I have used the one ont he 80mm however on the 130 it doesnt look likle you can replace it. Thanks ed!

Dobsonians are too big for me :-)

That's good to know! IS the Starwave classic 102mm F11 achromatic refactor one you would recommend? what does the achromatic mean?

I dont have to sell one but it seems to me they are very similar so seems daft to keep both.

I haven't ventured into deep sky objects yet so its looking like ill be keeping the 80mm!

Iv found the Orion SkyView Pro 8" that has a focal length of 1000mm so are my calculations correct.... 480x max useful mag - if i was to use the following EP i would get the following mags:

4mm - 250x / 5mm - 200x / 6mm - 166x / 10mm - 100x

If thats correct how would I get all 480x out of the scope surely not with a 2mm EP...do they even exist?

I think I am going to keep both you make some very good points!

What is C.A?

 

Fozzie uses a 4" star Wave achromat and its very impressive, with razor sharp high contrast images. As its an achromat it will have some residual colour, but because the scope is F11 it will be very well controlled. If I hadn't already got a 4" apo' I'd go for a 4" Star Wave in a heartbeat. ?

[cloudsweeper]

"I don't have to sell one but it seems to me they are very similar so seems daft to keep both."

......only if you discount design, usage, mounts, apertures, focal lengths, and focal ratios! 

Doug.

[Charic]

On 24/04/2018 at 22:33, D4V1D88 said:

Iv found the Orion SkyView Pro 8" that has a focal length of 1000mm so are my calculations correct.... 480x max useful mag - if i was to use the following EP i would get the following mags:

4mm - 250x / 5mm - 200x / 6mm - 166x / 10mm - 100x

If thats correct how would I get all 480x out of the scope surely not with a 2mm EP...do they even exist?

Not sure where you got the 480x from?
The scope has an aperture of 8 inches, described as a 200mm although their actually 203mm. The focal length is 1000mm.

The theoretical maximum of this scope should be 406x but almost impossible to achieve  due to atmospheric  conditions unless your in a vacuum over the Atacama desert.

Your scopes maximum useful mag is probably 200x the same as the scopes aperture, due to the scopes design, and other external factors, therefore  trying to push your magnification beyond this only ensures that your images will become less detailed.
As you intensify the magnification you enlarge the image, thinning and spreading out the detail, in turn, decreasing the image quality. 

My scope has a 200mm mirror and 1200mm focal length. I can view the Moon at 375x with some decency, but everything else at this magnification is difficult at best under the night sky.

Your magnification results are correct, and if you wanted to get close to the theoretical limit you could use a 2x power Barlow lens in combination with your 5mm eyepiece to achieve 400x power/mag, but the images wont be that great. Not only that, unless your scope has tracking facility, anything at such a high magnification is not static and moves through your field of view at an astonishing rate.

My advice, take the aperture of your scope in mm and use that number to describe the maximum useful magnification you could regularly achieve for real.

Another consideration with your suggested scope is its focal ratio. f4.9 (f5). Telescopes with focal ratio's of f/6 and faster, ie f/5 f/4 are more susceptible to collimation errors, and sometimes also having the need for more expensive  or better corrected eyepieces in order to achieve better edge to edge image resolution.

Nothings straightforward in this hobby.

As to which scope to keep, both have their advantages and disadvantages, but having owned a Celestron product before, namely the 127 Powerseeker, I tend to steer away from Celestron products given my initial experience.