who has what REFRACTOR, REFLECTOR OR BOTH

[spaceboy]

Thanks for all the positive comments about the thread guys. I just hope it will help others who have pondered the same question I keep asking myself.

Thanks very much for the offer Dave. I have a bit more saving to do so I would be grateful if I could come and have a look through a frak in the mean time

A quick update on the scores.

REFRACTOR...................74

SCT.............................24

MAK.............................12

REFLECTOR....................34

MAK-NEWT....................3

RC................................1

Again they may be a couple off but still clearly out in front are refractors.

Thanks to everyone for posting pics as it's great to see some superb set ups be they mirror or lens.

SPACEBOY

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks for all the positive comments about the thread guys. I just hope it will help others who have pondered the same question I keep asking myself.

Thanks very much for the offer Dave. I have a bit more saving to do so I would be grateful if I could come and have a look through a frak in the mean time

A quick update on the scores.

REFRACTOR...................74

SCT.............................24

MAK.............................12

REFLECTOR....................34

MAK-NEWT....................3

RC................................1

Again they may be a couple off but still clearly out in front are refractors.

Thanks to everyone for posting pics as it's great to see some superb set ups be they mirror or lens.

SPACEBOY

I make that 74 vs 74, unless you want to say Maks, Mak-Newts and SCTs are catadioptrics, in which case we have:

Refractors: 74

Reflectors: 35 (Newt+RC)

Catadioptrics: 39

[John]

Whichever way you read the figures, refractors are clearly still very popular - despite the fact that they don't necessarily give the maximum "bang for your buck"

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Whichever way you read the figures, refractors are clearly still very popular - despite the fact that they don't necessarily give the maximum "bang for your buck"

Which is why I got one (two if you count the 16x70 finder). As rich-field scopes fast refractors are great. Photographically they are also excellent.

[Adz]

Whichever way you read the figures, refractors are clearly still very popular - despite the fact that they don't necessarily give the maximum "bang for your buck"

This was the alluring factor in my purchase of a 8" reflector. But a principle that I believe can be a bit misleading.

For example, we see a lot of people asking what first scope questions. Invariably the answer that gets put forward a lot is that aperture is king, and quite rightfully so. I took this as sound advice and also based on my own experience within photography, eg. a fast lens was always a better lens.

But there are quite a few more complicated things to deal with a reflector that for a newbie might be quite intimidating compared to if they had bought a refractor.

Another aspect is that all of the cheap and nasty scopes that might be bought as an initial start into astronomy (like myself) are refractors. So a logical next step would be a larger, better quality refractor.

Don't get me wrong I am not criticising or anything. I have just been dealing with these opinions recently and it suddenly all came out when I read that bang for buck thing

What does everyone else think?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Bang-for-buck-wise a Newtonian takes a lot of beating, especially if you steer people towards the slower scopes with more tolerance for mis-collimation. I have looked through cheap achromatic refractors and at high magnification they are often dismal (at least, the fast ones).

What stands out more than anything is that many of us have a mix of scopes, each serving a certain purpose.

[Adz]

Bang-for-buck-wise a Newtonian takes a lot of beating, especially if you steer people towards the slower scopes with more tolerance for mis-collimation. I have looked through cheap achromatic refractors and at high magnification they are often dismal (at least, the fast ones).

What stands out more than anything is that many of us have a mix of scopes, each serving a certain purpose.

Yes when I was considering purchases I think that I should have read up on the importance of the focal ratio and the effect it has. Out of interest, what sort of speed would you recommend for an amateur looking to buy an 8" reflector as a step up from their previous kit? and what would you consider a cheap achro?

[brianb]

what sort of speed would you recommend for an amateur looking to buy an 8" reflector as a step up from their previous kit? and what would you consider a cheap achro?

f/8 is good, certainly not faster than f/6 except for specialist purposes with an expert user. A "cheap" achro is one costing less than 5 times what a decent Newtonian of the same aperture would cost.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Yes when I was considering purchases I think that I should have read up on the importance of the focal ratio and the effect it has. Out of interest, what sort of speed would you recommend for an amateur looking to buy an 8" reflector as a step up from their previous kit? and what would you consider a cheap achro?

I got my hands on a 50 euro 70mm F/5 achro, with horrible wannabe Huygens EPs. I have now transformed it into a neat finder scope, and with a 22mm 70 deg AFOV Erfle it is clearly better (at 16x70) than the 15x70 binoculars I have. At 44x with a 8mm Radian EP the image gets decidedly grottier on the moon, with clear violet or yellow fringes (depending on focus). Don't ask about the effect of adding a 2x teleXtender .

Still, as a wide field instrument it is far from bad, once you toss the plastic Huygens "EPs" in the bin, after salvaging the barrels. These now serve as the barrels of ex-binocular Kelner 25mm EPs, which the boys can play with.

The little 4.5" F=500 Newtonian I have (also cheap) is a lot better, but collimation is a recurring issue. In this case I also had to bin the "EPs".

[reddoss]

Here are the main scopes I use for imaging, execpt the SCT. I use that as my grab and go on it's SE mount.

[S.A.M]

I prefer refractors (127mm triplet) as they do not really need to be collimated and do not get affected too much by dust or dirt. I also have a 200mm SCT for general use. Friend at the society that I am a member of is trying to get me to buy a Dob, we will see?

Peter

[spaceboy]

Now that's the kind of collection I would love Reddoss

I just wanted to point out that I have no regrets having reflectors as I did get a lot for my money. My reflectors give me some superb views of the planets and DSO's and I could never have achieve the same aperture in a refractor. This said I keep finding myself asking should I have a refractor as it is a telescope that has stood the test of time and from these figures proved to still be a very popular design. After reading some reviews it was said that a refractor could offer me more observing time over a reflector due to the closed tube design and unobstructed aperture allowing smaller diameter tubes for better portability. I agree that different scopes offer different experiences but in this case as I was going down in aperture I wanted to make sure the expense was justified.

I think some good points have been made and I would maybe consider recommending refractors to beginners in the future as a lot of new people on the forum seem terrified at the thought of collimation and I guess most are putting up with sub standard views from their scopes because of it. The most obvious shortcoming of reflectors in particularly fast Newtonian is showing the flaws in cheaper eye pieces. Replacing those cheap ep's can it's self end up becoming and expensive hobby .

[spaceboy]

Hi all

Thanks to everyone for your help and pictures! I hope some of you found it interesting and that beginners may find it helpful when deciding on their first telescope.

As the thread has gone quiet I will put up the final scores for the survey as............................

REFRACTOR...................76

SCT.............................26

MAK.............................12

REFLECTOR....................36

MAK-NEWT....................3

RC................................1

OR

Refractors: 76

Reflectors: 37 (Newt+RC)

Catadioptrics: 41

SPACEBOY

[AndyUK]

I have the same as PortableAstronomer - A Skywatcher 190MN Mak-Newt (for DSO's), and an Equinox 80 (for wider-field DSO's, although it hasn't had its 1st light with me yet as I've been tied up with getting the MN working).

There's also a Skywatcher 180 Mak incoming soon (for planetary) - I'm hoping that will complete my OTA setup (for now )

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Hi all

Thanks to everyone for your help and pictures! I hope some of you found it interesting and that beginners may find it helpful when deciding on their first telescope.

As the thread has gone quiet I will put up the final scores for the survey as............................

REFRACTOR...................76

SCT.............................26

MAK.............................12

REFLECTOR....................36

MAK-NEWT....................3

RC................................1

OR

Refractors: 76

Reflectors: 37 (Newt+RC)

Catadioptrics: 32

SPACEBOY

Or rather

Refractors: 76

Reflectors: 37 (Newt+RC)

Catadioptrics: 41

Just a little correction on the adding up;)

[spaceboy]

Thanks Michael

[skywatcher1701]

80mm Skywatcher pro ( The gold one)

80mm Skywatcher st ( The blue one as a guide scope)

will post my set up sometime so you all can have a look.....

well here is my set up...........

set up.bmp

[skywatcher1701]

sorry, try again

[li'l john]

A 70mm refractor and a 110mm reflector.

[spaceboy]

Refractors: 77 + 1 :D

Reflectors: 38 (Newt+RC)

Catadioptrics: 41

[Orion_the_Hunter]

8" Dob (reflector). Sits on the SSW facing balcony so I don't need to take it anywhere; it's ready to use in a few minutes.

[Byz1453]

Go on then, I'll add another vote for fracs...

WO FLT 98, sorry no pic....

[Stu]

Two 'fracs and one mak

Here's the mak!

Stu

[cgarry]

Okay, I have bought a refractor since I last posted in this thread. Actually, I think this thread might have been the reason for buying it, I thought I might be missing out on something!

So it seems that this thread is now having an effect on its own result.

My WO Zenithstar 80 FD:

Cheers,

Chris

[Horus]

Mead LX90 8" & Evostar 80ED DS 3.1"