Jump to content

Thinkin about this .....

Akula

Recommended Posts

Akula

Akula

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks guys.

It does say available for immediate dispatch on the site.

But so did the one on telescope planet , and still does lol.

Tony , the one you recommended , it does not give you too much info on the lens etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Akula

Akula

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It doesnt really say which lens come with it.

I know that is not the be all and end all , but the only thing i could find out was it has 36x .

"High quality optics start with each lens being hand selected so only the finest grade of optical glass is used"

What exactly does that mean.

PS Remember im new ;):D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
It doesnt really say which lens come with it.

I know that is not the be all and end all , but the only thing i could find out was it has 36x .

"High quality optics start with each lens being hand selected so only the finest grade of optical glass is used"

What exactly does that mean.

PS Remember im new ;):D:D

It comes with a 25mm eyepiece. It's a better scope in virtually every department than the Bresser, despite the fact that you don't get quite as many accessories with it. As has been said already the mount on the Bresser is very awkward to upgrade wheras the one with the Celestron is a standard design and more stable in it's standard form than the Mon 1 that the Bresser comes with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whippy

Whippy

Posted
Posted

Rather than regugitate John's post, I can only agree with what John has said about the Celestron. I was unaware of the issues with upgrading the mount on the Bresser too so that gives it another minus point!

In fairness, most eyepieces supplied with scopes are 'alright', not anything special and in most cases, they're one of the first things you look to either upgrade or expand upon anyway so I wouldn't worry too much in that respect.

"High quality optics start with each lens being hand selected so only the finest grade of optical glass is used"

What exactly does that mean.

I guess what it means is that the lenses are well, 'hand selected' rather than just all going through by machine on the production line. It's a decent scope and will give you decent views of brighter objects. Just be aware that it will have some false colour on objects like the Moon but you can buy filters that lessen this.

Tony..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pvaz

pvaz

Posted
Posted
Hahaha my GF will be happy to hear that.

If you're on a budget you should get a reflector telescope instead of a refractor. Reflectors provide decent views on any target and you can get a lot more aperture (light gathering power) for the same cash as they are cheapest to make.

This is a 150mm scope, easy to use and setup and comes with 2 eyepieces allowing you to switch between 48x and 120x.

Dobsonians - Skywatcher Skyliner 150P Dobsonian

Add this item to it and you'll have 48x, 96x, 120x and 240x available:Tal 2x barlow

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whippy

Whippy

Posted
Posted
If you're on a budget you should get a reflector telescope instead of a refractor

FWIW, there no reason why you should get a reflector. Of course, you could get one for the reasons you mentioned but some people just like refractors for a multitude of reasons.

Tony..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Akula

Akula

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Im not really on a budget , but ive read refractors are slightly better for planetary use etc , long story but the scope in my 1st post is the one my mum ordered , she ordered it before i got a chance to tell her about the Celestron omni XLT102, and she was gettin a bit pee`d off with me changin my mind and mucking her about.

I think it will be ok for a start , i do plan on getting a reflector telescope also , as i would like to view deep space also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Space Bat

Space Bat

Posted
Posted

The obvious question should be what interests you in Astronomy...?

I am with pvas - ones first scope should be a reflector as it is versatile enough to do a great many things...but that is a personal opinion.

Refractors are so much more expensive at the ranges that accomodate the same versatility you want from Astronomy and the lower end refractors can leave you somewhat dissapointed. (personal opinion)

Perhaps the best thing would always look out a local astronomy club where you can get the chance to test both a reflector or refractor?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pvaz

pvaz

Posted
Posted
Im not really on a budget , but ive read refractors are slightly better for planetary use etc , long story but the scope in my 1st post is the one my mum ordered , she ordered it before i got a chance to tell her about the Celestron omni XLT102, and she was gettin a bit pee`d off with me changin my mind and mucking her about.

I think it will be ok for a start , i do plan on getting a reflector telescope also , as i would like to view deep space also.

Refractors are generally known to be better for planets as they don't have a central obstruction. On the other hand I think that fact only holds for simillar apertures. The thing is, you can buy a reflector with twice the aperture or more for the same cash or less.

With that difference in aperture I can't see a refractor out performing a reflector in any specific target. Besides in the price range you're looking for the refractors suffer from coulor aberration (CA) that usually shows on bright objects (ie.: planets and moon). You could solve that by getting an APO refractor for a lot more money. Reflectors on the other hand are always APO.

To be honest, given a fixed budget, I believe you'll always get a better deal on a reflector. The only point where the refractor wins is the fact it doesn't need to be collimated (alignment of the lenses/mirrors) while the reflector does need it on regular basis for optimum viewing. For that reason if you are considering astrophotography an APO refractor may give you better results then a reflector as it's always performing at it's best and the long exposures of the camera make up for the lack of aperture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.