Inexpensive scope for brighter deep sky views

[Robthepiano]

I’m presently using an Altair Ascent 102ed scope in an az Gti mount in Bortle 4 skies. I’m very pleased with this as a good all rounder and quick to setup. Anything faint tends to be a disappointment though and I wondered about a second inexpensive scope to supplement this when I want to target faint fuzzies. Would something like a short tube refractor like an st120 be a help?

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, Robthepiano said:

I’m presently using an Altair Ascent 102ed scope in an az Gti mount in Bortle 4 skies. I’m very pleased with this as a good all rounder and quick to setup. Anything faint tends to be a disappointment though and I wondered about a second inexpensive scope to supplement this when I want to target faint fuzzies. Would something like a short tube refractor like an st120 be a help?

How about something like a Heritage 150p? Would give you a decent leap up in aperture, is not overly expensive and can be removed from its dob base and fitted to other mounts. Pretty sure the AZ-GTi would handle it.

[Carbon Brush]

To bring up the faint stuff you need aperture. Or go to EEVA.
What do you mean by inexpensive? Does the budget (and handling/storage) stretch to an 8" dob?
This size is (in my view) a good compromise between aperture, cost and carrying.

[Knighty2112]

Depending on where you live, with light pollution you may not see much more improvement. I live in Bortle 7 area which is crud for looking at all but the brightest deep sky stuff even with a 10 newtonian that I own, so generally tend to use one of the 3 ‘fracs I own for most stuff. If you live in an area with darker skies then you would get better results with a larger aperture.

[Knighty2112]

OK, just seen you said you live in bortle 4 area, which definitely would give better results.

[Elp]

It should. But in my B7 there's minimal difference between my 102 refractor and my C6, in fact the refractor is better because it's sharper so you can see detail better, crucial if the object is a dim smudge to begin with.

Have you tried an UHC filter, don't know how well they work on broadband targets.

Edited January 29 by Elp

[Robthepiano]

Thanks, I think an 8 inch dob is at the outside edge of what I would want to store/ move around but maybe a 150. And I have a skylight filter but that never seems to make any difference!

[Carbon Brush]

Just to add....
The general Skywatcher type dob benefits from a bit of interior darkening (flocking and/or paint) to reduce reflections, boosting contrast.

HTH, David.
 

[Robthepiano]

Thanks, I think an 8 inch dob is at the outside edge of what I would want to store/ move around but maybe a 150. And I have a skylight filter but that never seems to make any difference!

so just checking no one thinks a 5 inch wide field refractor would be an improvement?

[mikeDnight]

I love the Skywatcher StarTravel 150. Its awesome on brighter deep sky, and can knock out a nice, bright, wide field at F5. It is a rich field scope by design, so not the best planetary scope.

[Elp]

1 hour ago, Robthepiano said:

so just checking no one thinks a 5 inch wide field refractor would be an improvement?

The viewed image will be brighter. But enough to make a difference to the whole experience, not so sure. It's better to get secondary scopes which offer something completely different (eg short FL wide field, or larger aperture longer FL), no point in getting a scope so similar to one you already have unless you intend to replace it.

[Space Hopper]

3 hours ago, Robthepiano said:

Thanks, I think an 8 inch dob is at the outside edge of what I would want to store/ move around but maybe a 150. And I have a skylight filter but that never seems to make any difference!

so just checking no one thinks a 5 inch wide field refractor would be an improvement?

Don't underestimate the size / weight of a 5" refractor. I would say theres not that much between that and a 200mm Newt, the refractor probably heavier too, and of course it would require a suitable mount. Forget the AZ GTI.