Telescope Suggestions

[Atlas2342]

These months lately, I've become more interested in astronomy and have wanted to buy a telescope.

Can you guys recommend some telescopes that would preferably:

-Work well in semi-light polluted areas

-Easy to work with as a beginner (I have never owned any telescope before)

-Easy to maintain and produces sharp images

-Relatively cheap (maybe under a $100?)

Thanks 

[VaPaL]

Sharp images observing or for photography?

Under $100 there is these:

https://www.telescopes.com/collections/telescopes/products/celestron-astromaster-lt-76az-reflector-telescope

https://www.telescopes.com/collections/telescopes/products/vixen-space-eye-50-refractor-telescope

But their small aperture will limit what you can see with a polluted sky. They have alt-azimuth mount, easier to you, but i suggest trying an equatorial, worth the affort in learning (will be useful if you go along with the hobby, but not much now). For a little more, ~$150, you can get this: https://www.telescopes.com/products/celestron-astromaster-114-eq-reflector-telescope. Bigger and with an equatorial mount and Celestron make decent quality telescopes.

The bigger the better. With polluted skies you will need a larger telescope to be able to see what a small one sees in a less polluted area. Say a 150mm in a small city will be equivalent to a 70m in the field, There are filters that help with that, look for LPR or UHC filters.

Keep in mind that heavier, sturdier tripods reduce the vibration.

NEVER go for a deprtament store telescope, and don't buy them based on magnifying power. Do as much research as you can before you buy. I took a year of reading to buy mine.

This is a start (https://www.telescopes.com/blogs/helpful-information/18553028-how-to-select-your-first-telescope) but look for other sources.

[Atlas2342]

@VaPaL Would you recommend reflectors or refractors? Also, its mainly for optical viewing but photography could be useful too...

 

[VaPaL]

I prefer reflectors, they are cheapier than the refractors. But both have their pros and cons. Cassegrains are very popular due to their small size, but they are more expensive. I read that refractors have a better photography performance than reflectors (for the same size), but I'm not experienced with photography, but I plan to start some day. For it though you NEED to have an equatorial mount, you will need to put some motors in it for longer exposure photos, or a computadorized mount (but this is for someone that is more serious into it).

Also reflectos produce that cross shape on the stars due to the secondary mirror mount.

[UmbralRaptor]

Unfortunately the standard good telescope options are at $200 (4-5" newtonians like the AWB Onesky and Orion Starblast) and $400 (8" dobs like the Zhummel Z8).

Reflectors (especially ones with dobsonian mounts) let you get a great deal more aperture per $ than refractors or catadioptics.

Astrophotography tends to require somewhat different (and much more expensive) equipment than visual. (hopefully subject to revision soonish)

[Green Baron]

No revision from my side :-)

$100 is really tight, i'd go for a used dobson from someone who gave up, together wth 2-3 eyepieces. A dobson is a newtonian mirror on an alt/az-mounting. Newtonian mirrors need some adjusting from time to time (if so equipped), especially when they are carried arounf a lot. alt/az-mounting need constant adjusting of 2 axisses when viewing. There is a lot of information out there over these things.

Refractors are easier to handle but for 100,- you only get a hose with a plastic lens. Probably just money thrown out of the window ...

Photographic equipment is different, if you want to do it right(tm).

[VaPaL]

There is another option, binoculars. Basically two small refractors, the gave you the advantage of using both eyes and some can be used with a tripod. An option to consider, in fact, I read a bunch of articles that said it was the best option for starters. There're some folks that even prefer them. Keep in mind that you won't be able to used it for photography and they don't have that much of aperture, but it's worth to give a look.

[cantab]

I got started in astronomy with binoculars and I think that's the way to go. They're dead easy to use and there's a good range of stuff to see with them, whether it's studying the mountains and craters of the Moon, hunting out faint fuzzy galaxies, or wondering at bright open clusters and the starfields of the Milky Way. Especially in an urban location the binoculars will help "punch through" the light pollution.

10x50 are the most popular spec. Any more magnification or aperture and they get too big and heavy and sensitive to shaking to hold by hand. But anywhere from 7-10x mag and 40-50mm aperture is fine for astronomy. When choosing a pair, look for reviews in reputable astronomy or birding magazines and websites, don't just judge by 'box ticking' features because that says nothing about quality. $100, even $50, will get you a pair of binoculars that you won't need to upgrade.

EDIT: If you already have a decent pair of binoculars, or you just really really want a telescope, then:

In my view the most important thing is ease of use, and that comes from having a stable mounting. You want the telescope to move when and where you want, then stay still while you're looking through it. Remember that at for example 100x magnification, every little shake is also magnified a hundred times. You also want the focuser - the bit the eyepiece goes into - to be made decently too, for the same reason. All that makes the difference between an enjoyable time and a frustrating one. On a $100 budget the most usable and stable telescopes are the tabletop "Mini-Dobsonians" such as the Orion Funscope 76 or Skyscanner 100.

I own a similar scope to the Funscope and can say it ticks the ease-of-use box. As far as views go, it's OK. It's a cheap small telescope and can't be expected to match bigger and/or more expensive stuff. Its strong point is widefield views and open star clusters, similar to what you get from binoculars actually, but gaining the ability to up the magnification to bring slightly smaller clusters to life, especially if you get an eyepiece giving around 50x. It's also good for hunting "faint fuzzies" - galaxies, globular clusters, even comets. They don't look like much in a small scope but the fun is in trying to see them at all. The weak point of these mini-Dobs is that they aren't good on planets, because they use a cheap mirror that isn't the ideal shape so they don't give crisp view at high (above about 75x) magnification. But then no small cheap scope is great on planets because to resolve fine details requires big aperture.

Edited July 23, 2016 by cantab

[Waxing_Kibbous]

IMO a good first move would be to find a local astronomy club and go out with them some night to get some hands on experience with different telescope types and pick the brains of experienced stargazers while actually using the gear. Potential side benefit: picking up a used scope cheap.