HELP!!! TELESCOPE SHOPPING

[Ruud]

No, it's not all opinion and preference.

You are buying on a beginner's budget and want as versatile as possible a telescope.

For general use, a 6 or 8 inch Dobsonian will provide the best value. A Dobsonian has a stable mount, offers the potential of a wide range of magnifications and is easy to use. Maintenance is easy once you know how to deal with optics, and that's not too difficult to learn. Additional costs will be limited: maybe you'll want a an extra eyepiece or two.

Here's Trevor getting reunited with an 8" Dob. If you check out his channel you'll see all sorts of specialised equipment (manufacturers lend him stuff in the hope he'll make videos about it). This guy knows what he is talking about. He has tried it all.

It's weird. Somewhere near the end of the video his voice breaks. I don't recall him filling up over any other type of telescope. 

 

 

 

[carastro]

I would not recommend a cheap manual EQ mount they are difficult and frustrating to operate.  It you don't want to spend on a motorised GOTO mount then I think the Dobsonian is your best bet as in the previous post.

Carole 

[Ashford1701]

so what dobsonians are recommended for this price range? besides the heritage 130

[Alan64]

1 hour ago, Ashford1701 said:

refractors do seem pretty complicating now. so with telescopes there's no perfect design? its all opinion and preference right?

Refractors are actually the least complicated design.  You've got the doublet-lens at the front, and the focusser at the back; a straight shot...

Newtonians are the most complicated...

That secondary-mirror there at the front moves in every conceivable direction, but it must come to rest in only one position, and in uniting the primary-mirror at the back with the focusser/eyepiece at the side, as shown.

Refractors came first, in 1608, but the early ones were so bad, with rampant false-colour, that Newton came along sixty years later and created a telescope using mirrors only, which exhibited zero false-colour.  Newton was disgusted with the performance of the refractors of his day.  But then in the early-to-mid 1700s, and after Newton had passed away, the achromatic refractor was developed.  The false-colour and the length of the tubes were greatly reduced.  Had Newton had an achromat at his disposal, the Newtonian as we know it might never have come to be.  Just as the Newtonian hasn't changed much for all those centuries, the achromatic refractor hasn't either, save for the short ones which arrived in the latter half of the 20th century.  Although I consider the arrival of the shorter achromat a regression rather than a progression of the refractive design.  I have one short achromat, an 80mm f/6, and I don't take it too seriously.

Refractors and Newtonians are what I term, "The Old Ones". 

The reason you get less aperture with a refractor at or near the same price-point is because it's harder to make lenses than mirrors.  Lenses must be of clear, optical-quality glass, crown and flint glasses, in the case of an achromatic doublet...

With that doublet, four surfaces must be ground and polished; extra work, and extra money. 

Mirrors can be made of common glass, like that used for jars and cookware, but it does need to be free of bubbles at least near the surface into which the exotic curve is ground and polished...

...and then aluminised for a highly-reflective surface.  But with a mirror, only one surface requires grinding and polishing; less work, and less money.  The glass used for telescope mirrors may also contain impurities, just like ordinary glass does.  The glass for the lenses of refractors, eyepieces and other optical aids should not contain either bubbles or impurities.

You can get a 200mm "Dobsonian" for £275.  A 200mm achromat, just the doublet lens with no tube, for £1600.  But that's for an achromat.  If you want a refractor to perform identically to a Newtonian, with no false-colour at all, a 200mm apochromat runs about £36,000.  Then there's the cost of the mount to support it.

There are two examples in nature itself which suggest the refractor as the ideal with which to observe the heavens: the lenses of the human eye, and galaxial, gravitational lensing...

http://www.cfhtlens.org/public/what-gravitational-lensing

It all boils down to how you wish to observe the celestial void.

[Charic]

On 25/12/2018 at 13:24, Ashford1701 said:

Is it a better idea to wait a few months, do some studying and buy something more expensive?

 

There's definitely no rush with  buying a telescope, but your excitement will give in, and you will want one sooner than later, yet  the stars will still be there when its time.
You don't need to wait Months though, as you can study every night, but there's a bewildering amount of information heading your way, and that makes  for information overload, so not an easy task  when it comes to making that critical decision.

That said, take a look here https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html  

The scope is easy to use, making it a joy, rather than messing about with any EQ system, which you don't need for visual observations, just don't go there as a beginner !

You should also be able to find these on the second hand market too, normally down to some folk simply wanting a larger aperture, but the 8" 200P has so much going for it, at the right price range,  and you do get a lot  of telescope for your money, and get a look at the moon at over 200x power, that will blow your socks off? the view is amazing. The Planets,  are quite small, Jupiter the size of a small pea, but the detail is there, when the seeing conditions allow.

 

 

[Seanelly]

On 25/12/2018 at 08:24, Ashford1701 said:

Is it a better idea to wait a few months, do some studying and buy something more expensive?

 

My only piece of advice would be to slow it down until you've read more extensively into what you are doing to give yourself a better chance of getting it right the first time, or close enough at least.

[Alfian]

12 hours ago, Seanelly said:

My only piece of advice would be to slow it down until you've read more extensively into what you are doing to give yourself a better chance of getting it right the first time, or close enough at least.

Does anyone ever get it right first time? Is there even such a thing? In my expeteience and many others from what I've seen its a case of buying what you think is ok, learning all you can then when you realise that no one scope does everything you want, or do it well enough, buy another scope. And so it goes on down the slippery slope. It would be wonderful though  to get most things right first time, certainly save a lot of cash.

[Seanelly]

There is little doubt that  you can get closer to right by informing yourself beforehand. I spent several months on this site and in reviewing equipment before dropping a cent and I'm very pleased with the results of my astrophoto gear. But if you hear of a good weather-fixer come onto the market, I'd be happier still.

I went the impulsive route with the observing dobs, starting with a 4.5" then jumping to a 6" before quickly curing my fever with the 10", which I've owned, but more importantly used, for twenty years. If I'd been around an information site like this one back then I might have at least saved the cost of the 4.5" (which I gave to my nephew, so not a big loss, as he's still got his 'eye to the sky', I like to think partially beccause of that gift).

[ShrewView]

I don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but if you can find an astronomy club near you, then you get to meet a few people and potentially try a few scopes before you buy one?

[Sunshine]

I would avoid inexpensive department store telescopes touting 600 powers, and Astrology.