If you started all over again, what would be your equipment choices?

[pedromreis]

So, from someone that is starting, spent around 150€ on a budget scope, books and some gadgets, and is committed to, this time, make smart buys, my questions are:

- If you started today, where would you spent your hard earning money, and most importantly

- If you  started today, where would you NOT spend your hard earning money.

Thanks!

[Mr Spock]

I wouldn't get a refractor again. The chromatic aberration, to me, make them unusable. I'd probably start with a small Newtonian on a Dob mount. Nice, crisp, colour free images.

[Peter Drew]

I don't think I'd start again, I would probably take up something less stressful , like amateur bomb disposal.     🙂

[Jm1973]

I wouldn't buy cheap eyepieces. I'd go straight for something half decent.

[pedromreis]

2 minutes ago, Jm1973 said:

I wouldn't buy cheap eyepieces. I'd go straight for something half decent.

For a layman, an example of half decent 10mm? 

[John]

If I was starting again I would try and get a 200mm aperture scope to start with. A dobsonian would be fine because I'm not going to try imaging.

An experienced and skilled observer can do a lot with a 100mm aperture scope but when starting out I was not experienced or skilled so the "helping hand" of some decent aperture is very valuable in getting some satisfying views early on.

I would also invest in a red dot / illuminated reticule finder such as the Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder to complement (rather than replace) the optical finder that comes with the scope.

I would budget to replace the stock eyepieces with decent upgrades such as BST Starguiders, Baader Classic Orthos or Vixen NPL plossls which cost around £50 each.

I would buy a cheshire collimation eyepiece rather than a laser collimator and learn how to use the cheshire with the scope.

I would also invest in the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky atlas.

If I had any money left I would buy an O-III or UHC filter.

Forums such as Stargazers Lounge were not around when I started out but since they are now, I would join and absorb as much as possible from the folks who are following a similar path to where my interests lay

[Nyctimene]

Agree with John. 8" - 10" Dob, Orthoscopic eyepieces, UHC+O III filter, RDF/RACI finder combo, Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas, SkySafari Plus. Decent observing chair, warm clothing,  winter boots.

Stephan

[NGC 1502]

+1 what John said.......absolutely brilliant.  If you’re a visual observer you cannot beat John’s advice.

Ed.

[Alan64]

If the 150€ must include books and accessories, the telescope choices will be limited.  If not, then you might consider a kit among these...

If a refractor, the longer ones exhibit minimal false-colour whilst observing brighter objects.  They also have the smallest apertures among telescope designs...

http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/telescopio-meade-70-900-polaris-eq/

...or... http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/telescopio-skywatcher-70-700-az2/

FLO, the host this site, also carries that kit... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/sky-watcher-mercury-707-az-telescope.html

With a Newtonian, you generally get a larger aperture for the same cost...

http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/telescopio-sw-dobson-100x400/

That one however is best for low-power observations, if that's your interest; similar to binoculars.  For more versatility, and in observing most everything in the sky, at low and high powers...

http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/1556/

FLO carries both of those kits as well...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

FLO also carries this kit... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-114p-virtuoso.html

If you want the ability to track your objects, the mount of this kit features slow-motion tracking controls...

http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/telescopio-reflector-skywatcher-114x900-eq2-2/

...as does this one, but a refractor with a smaller aperture... http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/telescopio-meade-70-900-polaris-eq/

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I started with a home-made 6" F/8 Newtonian on a dob-like mount. I would probably do the same, or buy an 8". The Celestron GP-C8 I got later was a sound investment. I bought it almost 25 years ago, and I still have it.

[pedromreis]

Thank you all!

I really appreciate these advices and I'll try to follow them! 

[pedromreis]

6 hours ago, Alan64 said:

If the 150€ must include books and accessories, the telescope choices will be limited.  If not, then you might consider a kit among these...

Sorry, I was not clear. I already spend that. But that is not my "budget", that is only something I bought out of impulse just to get me started... 

I meant for the future. Your post was fantastic! I now have some options to pursuit... 

Nevertheless, I'm trying to contact local amateur astronomer groups and will try to join them to experiment all the different types of telescopes out there and their differences. I have no doubt they also give me good advices.

[RT65CB-SWL]

At present, I am quite happy with what I have, though I wish I had a got C8 or C9.25 SCT instead of the C6.
My other two 'scopes are a TeleVue Ranger and Meade ETX105. Unfortunately all cost >€150

My 'best' bargain find to date was this e/p...

my SkyWatcher 2"/28mm LET|LER Apex for £7.50GBP 

[Shimrod]

2 hours ago, pedromreis said:

Sorry, I was not clear. I already spend that. But that is not my "budget", that is only something I bought out of impulse just to get me started... 

I meant for the future. Your post was fantastic! I now have some options to pursuit... 

Nevertheless, I'm trying to contact local amateur astronomer groups and will try to join them to experiment all the different types of telescopes out there and their differences. I have no doubt they also give me good advices.

if we're taking a holistic view of spend, then I'd start with buying a house in a darker sky area and with less restricted views. Then an observatory to reduce set up time....

[Alan64]

6 hours ago, pedromreis said:

Sorry, I was not clear. I already spend that. But that is not my "budget", that is only something I bought out of impulse just to get me started... 

I meant for the future. Your post was fantastic! I now have some options to pursuit... 

Nevertheless, I'm trying to contact local amateur astronomer groups and will try to join them to experiment all the different types of telescopes out there and their differences. I have no doubt they also give me good advices.

I re-read your initial post; I understand now.  Rather, that was my fault.  Now we're getting somewhere...  

You have three designs of telescopes from which to choose: refractors, Newtonians(reflectors), and Cassegrains.  I have at least one from each design...

A refractor is the only design that uses a lens for the objective.  All of the other designs use mirrors. 

Cassegrains are reflectors, too, and always have short tubes.  Many prefer them for that characteristic.  Cassegrains are for the medium-to-high powers, not for low-power, wide-field views of the night sky.  They are an ideal for close-up views of the Moon, the planets, the stars, and quite a few deep-sky objects.  Most deep-sky objects are small, and will fit within the lowest-power view of a Cassegrain.  

On the other hand, refractors and Newtonians can have long, medium or short tubes.  Long and short refractors...

Long and short Newtonians...

The long ones are good for the medium and higher powers.  The shorter ones are good for low-power and wider views of the sky.  Each type has its advantages and disadvantages.

Refractors normally do not require collimation, the alignment of the optical system.  All others, reflectors, do require collimation, and to varying degrees.  The goal in collimating a telescope is simply to produce and enjoy sharp, pleasing images, particularly at the higher powers.  For the lack of a better analogy, the procedure is like the tuning of a guitar or other.  Many years ago, I referred to a relation's reflector, one from his early youth, his first, as his "star-banjo".

I might think that you are looking for a telescope that will show you everything, that does it all.  From low-power, wide-field views of the Milky Way in summer; the galaxy in Andromeda, the Orion nebula, and the Pleiades in winter -- to narrow, high-power views of the Moon and planets, the stars and star-clusters.  Indeed, to see with your own eyes the Trapezium within Orion, if not the Horsehead with a far, far larger telescope.  Or, you simply want to see the smaller, dimmer objects in the sky, that seem hidden, yet more brightly and closer.

The closest I have to an all-rounder, that at least attempts to do it all, is this 150mm f/5 Newtonian...

Through that one, I've seen the lower-power wider views of the sky, of course.  A telescope doesn't have to work hard to produce those.  But I have also seen the festoons and whorls within the equatorial-bands of Jupiter, and through that very telescope.  A telescope, and the eyepieces, etc, did have to work hard to produce that.  That's why collimation is so very important, to learn and master; to enjoy the procedure even.

Have you seen this one?  It's not too difficult to collimate...

http://site.astrofoto.com.pt/welcome/produto/dobson-gso-8-de-luxe/

[pedromreis]

@Alan64

So much to learn!

I was inclined to a newtonian already for my first telescope. Will put that 8" on my short list, tks! 

As I said, before big expenses I need to experiment a bit, look around, talk to people. So far everybody says that the first telescope should be something like that.

[pedromreis]

17 hours ago, John said:

 

I would also invest in a red dot / illuminated reticule finder such as the Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder to complement (rather than replace) the optical finder that comes with the scope.I would budget to replace the stock eyepieces with decent upgrades such as BST Starguiders, Baader Classic Orthos or Vixen NPL plossls which cost around £50 each.

I would also invest in the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky atlas.

If I had any money left I would buy an O-III or UHC filter.

The eyepieces are one diameter only right? 1,25 or 2. 

Whats the purpose of those filters? Point me to a link plz.

What pocket sky atlas you recommend?

Tks!

[andrew s]

This happened to me for real. My observatory  burnt to the ground and the insurance paid up.

I got a Paramount ME, 300mm Newtonian Zerodur mirror, SX CCD, PC and a garden shed to convert into a ROR observatory.

Regards Andrew 

[IB20]

17 hours ago, John said:

If I was starting again I would try and get a 200mm aperture scope to start with. A dobsonian would be fine because I'm not going to try imaging.

I would also invest in a red dot / illuminated reticule finder such as the Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder to complement (rather than replace) the optical finder that comes with the scope.

I would budget to replace the stock eyepieces with decent upgrades such as BST Starguiders, Baader Classic Orthos or Vixen NPL plossls which cost around £50 each.

If I had any money left I would buy an O-III or UHC filter.

Forums such as Stargazers Lounge were not around when I started out but since they are now, I would join and absorb as much as possible from the folks who are following a similar path to where my interests lay

 

17 hours ago, Nyctimene said:

Agree with John. 8" Dob, Orthoscopic eyepieces, UHC+O III filter, RDF/RACI finder combo, SkySafari Plus.

Stephan

This is pretty much how I have started out, primarily because of the advice given from experienced SGLers (and some lockdown spare cash!). 
 

Extremely grateful for it too as I have seen some wonderful sights in 4 months and look forward to many more months and years with this very capable set-up.

[John]

1 hour ago, pedromreis said:

The eyepieces are one diameter only right? 1,25 or 2. 

Whats the purpose of those filters? Point me to a link plz.

What pocket sky atlas you recommend?

Tks!

I would go for 1.25 inch eyepieces to get up and running. 2 inch eyepieces will give a wider field of view but to start with a 30mm plossl will do fine for low power observing.

The filters I mention enhance the contrast of nebulae. This is a really good one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/astronomik-filters/astronomik-oiii-filter.html

The atlas I recommend is the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Telescopes-Pocket-Sinnott-30-Mar-2006-Spiral-bound/dp/B011T83TX6/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/259-5840706-6980031?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B011T83TX6&pd_rd_r=d0c23dfe-6f5f-4092-9f66-a1f0244390d2&pd_rd_w=nQfaC&pd_rd_wg=botGv&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT&psc=1&refRID=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT

 

[mikeDnight]

If all I had was €150, I'd buy a Pocket Sky Atlas, a pair of binoculars, and learn my way around the sky, which is pretty much what i did when i started 40 years ago. (I bought a Nortons Star Atlas back then though).

With a more significant outlay I would definitely buy a "good" altazimuth mounted 4" to 6" refractor if I could afford it, and wouldn't touch a reflector of any kind. I'd also buy a small selection of good quality eyepieces and a barlow lens. And I'd still buy a Pocket Sky or Norton's Atlas and learn my own way around the sky.

I wouldn't entertain any electronic goto or app assisted gimmickry,  as i'd rather invest in good optics where it really counts, and also because I want to learn where things are and be able to find them for myself.

[Louis D]

If quality, low cost ED refractors had been available in 2000, I would never have bought my ST80.  Horrible purple fringing and spherical aberration along with a mediocre focuser.  I had hoped it could double as a spotting scope, but the haziness of the view was more than I could take.  In the end, it has sat mostly unused in the closet for 20 years.

I ended up paying about the same 13 years later in inflation adjusted dollars for my used AT72ED which blows the ST80 out of the water in every way except weight.  I actually paid much more for my ST80 in 2000 than they sell for new today!

[Alan64]

5 hours ago, Louis D said:

If quality, low cost ED refractors had been available in 2000, I would never have bought my ST80.  Horrible purple fringing and spherical aberration along with a mediocre focuser.  I had hoped it could double as a spotting scope, but the haziness of the view was more than I could take.  In the end, it has sat mostly unused in the closet for 20 years.

I ended up paying about the same 13 years later in inflation adjusted dollars for my used AT72ED which blows the ST80 out of the water in every way except weight.  I actually paid much more for my ST80 in 2000 than they sell for new today!

About five years ago, I came this close...[ ]...to getting an Orion ST80, an 80mm f/5 achromat.  But then, I ran across this...

https://i.imgur.com/JDZsVqh.jpg

It's at f/6 instead, and with the same 2" focusser that was found on the Stellarvue AT1010 "Nighthawk" during its production.  I think the cemented-doublet of my own, and perhaps that of the Stellarvue, were made by GSO.

The doublet exhibits a blemish however...

I can see it jutting out all the way until I reach a perfect focus, in so far as it might, but it doesn't seem to affect the images.  

Synta, the manufacturer of the Orion ST80, and under other marques, started operations round the time you acquired your own, and all that that may entail.  Still, it's at f/5 nonetheless.  But the ST80 is by no means dead...

https://www.meade.com/telescopes/infinity-80mm-altazimuth-refractor.html

Quite frankly, I consider even my own to be little more than a "kaleidoscope", and a regression of the achromatic design.

[Alan64]

9 hours ago, pedromreis said:

The eyepieces are one diameter only right? 1,25 or 2. 

Eyepieces come in both 1.25" and 2" barrel-diameters...

Nowadays, 1.25" is the standard, and with 2", and even 3", eyepieces available.

I have some from decades ago, however, and some newer, that came in the even-smaller, Japanese .965" format...

The 32mm Plossl in the background at far left is for comparison.  The .965" eyepieces for telescopes were born of those for microscopes.  Microscopes back then were regarded as more important, and for reasons obvious, than to go about creating special ones for telescopes.  There are actually quite a few eyepieces made for microscopes that may also be used for telescopes.

Plossl eyepieces are the minimum in performance eyepieces today, and at 1.25".  They represent a great value for the outlay, and the images are quite good; for example...

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/ts-optics-32mm-1-25-super-ploessl-eyepiece/p,12450

When choosing Plossls, keep in mind that those shorter than 9mm have tight eye-relief, to where you almost have to touch the eye-lens of the eyepiece with the eye itself, and in order to see the full view that the eyepiece offers.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Alan64

[pedromreis]

2 hours ago, Alan64 said:

Plossl eyepieces are the minimum in performance eyepieces today, and at 1.25".  They represent a great value for the outlay, and the images are quite good; for example...

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/ts-optics-32mm-1-25-super-ploessl-eyepiece/p,12450

When choosing Plossls, keep in mind that those shorter than 9mm have tight eye-relief, to where you almost have to touch the eye-lens of the eyepiece with the eye itself, and in order to see the full view that the eyepiece offers.

When you talk about "performance" is the quality of the image that you get right? Like in a good lens for a dslr?

Being Plossls the minimum, what are the next, better, ones?

Will a better eyepiece like those costing around 50€, assuming an eyepiece that comes standard in a 500€ telescope, dramatically improves the viewing experience?