How to spend £1500 on my first scope?

[thesatanbug]

How to spend £1500 on my first scope?

Easy.

Though as a newb myself I would issue a little warning about running out and spending a load of money on a first setup. I don't know how long you have been thinking about getting into astronomy (of any kind) but I'd say step back for a minute and consider a few things. Your expensive new scope is going to spend 99.99 % of the time sitting there looking at nothing but the inside of the dust cap.

Get the basics right first and do a bit of reading. Learn at least two constellations (Ursa Major, Ursa Minor) that you can find with the naked eye, and know where to find the pole star. If it's visible that is. No amount of GOTO and computers can get you out of that one.

I'd say choose a good viewing scope anyway, up to 8" if you want potability, that has photo mounting potential, along with a rugged mount (EQ-5 should do). All you will need apart from that is a filter and you're good to go. Though nice to have and essential for photography you don't even need goto to start with, that can be added later. Then get competent using that lot. If it's windy enough to blow any scope on a EQ-5 around, you probably wouldn't want to be outside anyway.

Again, I'm not trying to put you off, but if you don't get a few simple things right first, frustration sets in and it won't be the fault of the equipment.

The thing you need to be wary of when choosing a first scope, is a sort of mission creep sets in. I started off looking at cheap beginner's scopes and before I knew it I was eying up £1000-2000 systems. It's very easy being beguiled by all the shiny stuff on offer to look up. After a bit of reading I discovered the truth, that you don't need a supersonic scope to get good views of the night sky. A little knowledge is worth a lot more than an expensive scope.

I ended up spending £600,00 all in (scope, filter, mount, goto, books, power supply) and can add CCD to it later if I decide to try a bit of photography.

[Astro_Baby]

I'd agree with the transport issues as I live in a flat. I have had plenty of clear nights where I just cant be bothered because after a long day at the office packing up all the gear and walking it down 8 flights of stairs (two or three times because of the weight and bulk) and driving for an hour is just too tiring - and I only do observing.

Satanbug has it right too - astro imaging contains all the seeds of putting people off the hobby in frustration. Very little of this kit is ever plug and play in any meaningful sense and even a basic scope presents a learning challenge (as the endless posts asking "why cant I polar align, get my GoTO working, see anything at all etc etc ?" testify to.

When I came into the hobby I thought I'd do imaging as well - as an ex pro photographer it seemed natural BUT the cost, the time and the need to be portable pretty quickly killed that off - besides I got into this to be out under the sky - not stuck indoors processing 10 zillion pics

Even the bulk of observing kit can be quite awesome which is why of late I have taken to using my TAL 100 most of the time. Its just lighter and less weight. The super newtonian just gets to stay packed up in a blanket box most of the time. This yeat at Salisbury will be - ummmm only the 3rd or 4th time its been out of storage.

As to £1500 - its gone in a flash in this hobby - I'm not suggesting this as your kit but my kit list in order of acquisition looks like this

SkyWatcher 200 on an HEQ5 £900 (yes I know - its big, bulky, never gets used etc etc but I like it - is that a crime )

Chesire collimator £20

Battery Pack £24

Sky-Watcher Panaview Eyepiece £75

Thats the first thou spoken for and doesnt inlcude the scope cases, leads, red light torch.

The next thou went up in smoke in eyepieces ( £300 for one of them), better finder scopes (about another £400 all told) and a better focuser (another £250)

Thats two thou

Then I decided I wanted a smaller lighter scope for grab and go - oh then I found a few 'bargains' and on and on it goes.

Just visual can eat up £2k with no sweat and that assuming you dont lose money on an expensive mistake. Mt first scope cost £175 plus an EP kit of about £200. Both of those lost money on sale but then I assumed they would but I saw both bits of kit as a test really and accepted that.

[Simon1990]

Hi,

The SGL For Sale forum is an excellent way of getting far more scope n gear for your money. Buying new gear is great, but you can get so much more second-hand, especially if you can find a bit of kit which has been loved and cared for, it could be as good as new, almost You'll have to get up to 50 posts though to view it, but it is well worth the money. I would advise a 10 or 12" Meade LX200GPS setup - I've seen incredible photos taken with those, and I've seen well-care-for examples go for under £1000 on the forum! Then you can buy all the bits you need on top of that for £500-1000. Hope this helps.

[e=mc2]

What's the consensus on the CPC 800 XLT Schmidt Cassegrain as a first telescope for primarily observing but to upgarde using a wedge etc to get into photography at a later date?

[great_bear]

f10 is neither use nor ornament but for other purposes it looks interesting.

- and also, since when was "F10" considered "fast"??

(as stated in the TAL200 blurb...)

[great_bear]

f10 is neither use nor ornament but for other purposes it looks interesting.

- and also, since when was "F10" considered "fast"??

(as stated in the blurb on that link...)

[Psychobilly]

What's the consensus on the CPC 800 XLT Schmidt Cassegrain as a first telescope for primarily observing but to upgarde using a wedge etc to get into photography at a later date?

Thats what I use..... I started out visual and small CCD imaging away from home...

Now, most of the time its just being used as a mount though...

I tend to do most of my imaging through a Megrez72 FFIII combo and guide with a 500mm f8 and Meade DSI II c...

Not exactly portable .. but it lives on a substantial pier and wedge in the observatory and I haev worked on the Az Bearings for it to "cope"...

I love imaging on this "fork" setup as I can image stright through the Meridian without the hassle of a meridian flip...

Peter...

[Briggsy]

£2k to spend on your first telescope, alright for some!

[fatwoul]

Well you could go badly wrong with one of those for deep sky imaging since f10 is neither use nor ornament but for other purposes it looks interesting. Thanks for the link because I didn't know about this one. However, the blurb does contain one bit of pure linguistic silliness; ' non-aspheric.' Would a normal person translate this as 'spherical?' Will we start calling aspheric systems non-non aspheric? Who writes this stuff?

Olly

Actually, "Non-Aspherical" has been used to describe photographic lenses for some time, although I hesitate to understand why it is a selling feature.

Although it sounds like (and strictly speaking is) a double-negative, it simply implies that the curvature the lens possesses is neither aspherical nor spherical. It's a fancy term to describe imperfect optics in cheaper lenses. For example, when a camera lens manufacturer offers an aspherical lens, often they will also offer a different version that doesn't possess the aspherical element at a cheaper price. When discussing two such lenses from the same manufacturer, people often refer to them as aspherical or non-aspherical, simply to clarify which version of the lens they are talking about.

This doesn't, however, explain why such a term would be used in any sales material. Some lenses have proved to benefit from lacking an aspherical element, and have become more saught-after than their aspherical counterparts, but those examples seem few and far between.

[brianb]

it simply implies that the curvature the lens possesses is neither aspherical nor spherical.

That's like saying a figure drawn on a sheet of paper is neither a circle nor not a circle ... one possibility excludes the other by definition.

"Non-aspheric" is marketing speak of the worst sort. Or "balls" if you prefer.

[fatwoul]

That's like saying a figure drawn on a sheet of paper is neither a circle nor not a circle ... one possibility excludes the other by definition...

That would be true if telescopes were made of single lenses, but they're not.

Since telescopes and photographic lenses are made of multiple lens/mirror elements, the term isn't referring to the shape of a specific element, but is instead explaining that such an element is missing.

It isn't saying "this particular lens element is not an uncircle", which would of course be nonsense. It's simply saying "the lens system in this lens does not contain an aspherical element but another version of this lens does".

Nikon have released a couple of such lenses over the years, one version having an aspherical element, the other version not. In forum discussions, it's easier to refer to them as the asph or non-asph, just so people know which one you're referring to.

It's bad english, but there is a reason behind it. A better term might be "aspheric element free" or something, but people are lazy and non-aspheric is easier to say and type.

But I still don't understand why it would be a selling feature. It's like saying "this telescope is fantastic because it is missing an element that can help with correction".