i need suggestions for a telescope...

[Rjhere]

Please put this thread in the proper place if its in the wrong place!

So ive been interested in space all my 18 years ive been alive, except some years where i lost interest in nerdy stuff because of school, so im getting some money for my birthday so i could get a better car, but instead i decided to use them on a telescope!

I looked at some and i really like Meade, Celestron and Sky-Watcher, but what i really wonder is what is the real difference between the refractor, newtonian mirror and the cassegrain telescopes?

I have the impression that the cassegrain telescopes are the best, but the most expensive, though i found one on amazon for 400$, which is a really good price! But it only has a 120mm main aperture (i think its called that) and it has that Goto feature which i really dont want because i want to unveil the skys for myself, not just write what i want to see and just be like "oh cool, next".

I also read that the refractor is better for viewing planets because of the contrast, but are more expensive, but the newtonian mirror scopes is cheaper, but requires cooldown, maintenance etc, which is not my thing but i can go with it if its significant. My plan is to view nebulas, clusters, galaxies and planets if its possible.

Base line is, what should i choose of the three types and why? But i do have a budget!

Thanks for taking the time before-hand, i appriciate it so much!

(Here is the Celestron scope i talked about: http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-NexStar-127SLT-Mak-Computerized/dp/B0038LX8XE/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1374415881&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Celestron+Nexstar+127+SLT+MAK)

[Bioman222]

I'd suggest starting with a begginer telescope from Celestron.

But, if the money is enough to by a car.... well... you have lots of options.

[Rjhere]

Thanks for the suggestion, but i want something more powerfull than that astromaster. I doubt its sufficient for looking at planets and nebulas.

Also forgot to mention i wanna do some astrophotography!!!

[Bioman222]

Do you really think a telescope can't see a planet? I mean, even Galileo's telescope could see Jupiter.

I'm just saying. But, I understand if you want something more powerful. Just think before you type things like that

[sal_vager]

Don't buy a beginner scope, you'll end up hating it.

If you don't know the stars yet it is worth getting a starmap and a set of low power binoculars, preferably with large lenses, a 7x50 is recommended for beginners (7 times magnification, 50mm objective lenses, but is hard to find) or a 8x60, which is a more common size for spotting wildlife in low light conditions.

Binocs are very portable and easy to use, you'll have fun with them, then when you know the stars you can think about buying a scope.

The main thing you need to consider is transport, a scope you cant move to a dark site won't get used and is a waste of money, are you cycling? driving? how will you move the scope? how will you protect it in transport?

A refractor is a lot more robust so if your scope is going to get the occasional knock you'll want one of those, as it won't have a mirror that needs to be tweaked every time you set it up.

But to see the most stars you need a big objective lens or mirror, reflectors are cheaper in this regard, and a dobsonian is the cheapest way to get a big objective, but remember you need to transport it.

Most beginner scopes have weedy tripods that will just wobble your view and you'll have no fun, so if you do buy one you will soon be thinking of upgrading the mount.

Don't forget eyepieces, low power ones give the brightest view and the most stars, and most beginner scopes only give you a 10mm and one other if you are lucky, or a barlow lens, you end up with a tiny overpowered view you can't prevent from shaking.

Whatever you buy though, remember you have to move it, and no scope is much fun if you can't find where to point it, one dot looks like any other when you don't know what it is.

[Rjhere]

Yea right now i have some toy galaxy something i got many years ago... It has a 100 something cm aperture. I tried locking onto Saturn, but i dont have the magnification nor the stability of the tripod which is all rusty and stuff.

I also downloaded a starmap on my phone (android) which is showing stars that are visible, though it isnt corrected to how you are located (northern or southern hemisphere), but it is a beginning.

But do the size of the main lens have so extremily much to say? What can i expect to see from a 70-90mm telecope? Is there any i can take pictures with with a decent detail level?

[jaredkzr]

If you want a low cost telescope that will deliver amazing views then I would go with a Dobsonian telescope. I have an Orion XT8 and it is amazing. It doesn't have tracking or any fancy point-to features but there are some that do.

Link: http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/Classic-Dobsonians/Orion-SkyQuest-XT8-Classic-Dobsonian-Telescope/pc/1/c/12/sc/13/p/102005.uts

Edit: To answer some of your questions:

The aperture or the main opening of a telescope is what brings in the light. The larger the aperture the more light you'll soak in which means objects will seem brighter and more detailed. A 70-90mm telescope will get you some shots of the moon and maybe Jupiter and Saturn. You can take pictures through any telescope but with varying difficulties of success. If you want to take deep space pictures of nebula and galaxies then you will need a telescope with tracking features so you don't end up with just a blurred mess of star trails. On a regular telescope you can easily take pictures of the moon and any planets/stars you see.

I've even used my Galaxy Nexus smartphone with a pretty bad camera to take some decent pictures of Saturn with my Dobsonian. If you get a good telescope then the camera will usually be the deciding factor on the quality of pictures. If I use my DSLR camera with my telescope then I can get some amazing pictures.

If you want a good telescope for a low price and don't care about go-to and tracking then I would recommend a Dobsonian hands-down.

One final note: I owned an Orion XT4.5 before my 8" dob and it is a very nice scope for a lot less. It doesn't work as well for deep space viewing of nebulae and galaxies but it is still a very nice telescope.

Edited July 22, 2013 by jaredkzr
More info

[Rjhere]

Thanks for your input, but i think i have concluded with this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/SKY-WATCHER-EVOSTAR-120-OTA/dp/B00A8R717A/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1374453965&sr=1-1&keywords=Sky-Watcher+Evostar+120+EQ3-2

I really like it, and i think its able to do all i wish it. BUT those newtonian/dobsonian is really tempting as they are cheap for their sizes, but the cool down, collimating and maintenance thing is really a drawback

[sal_vager]

That's not a bad scope actually, I have a short tube version of that with the older style tripod.

They have very good objective lenses for the money, build quality for the scope is okay too, but watch for the extras you get as they tend to be extremely poor.

They usually come with a finder scope that is so badly made it is useless, and a 10mm eyepiece and 2x barlow lens, plus the tripods are wobbly and will need a bag of sand/stones to help weigh it down and keep it from shaking.

The mount itself is chunky but build quality is low, you will find a lot of tutorials online on how to strip it down and remove the swarf, grit and cruddy grease it comes packed with, and how to make it work smoothly.

This seems to be a common issue with these chinese scopes, unfortunately.

That one you linked to has a long focal length, so you'll get a lot of magnification with the 10mm, you'll definitely want some low power eyepieces with long eye relief, such as a 25mm and 32mm.

A red dot or reflex finderscope is another good upgrade over the supplied finder, as are some filters if you intend to use this in a city, you will want to filter out the streetlights.

Refractors also need a cooldown period before use, all scope do really, but yeah you'll avoid having to collimate it.

All in all it's better than a beginners scope by miles despite all its shortcomings, the 120mm objective lens is not big enough for really small/dim targets but is great for the larger galaxies, planets and things like that.

[Rjhere]

Yea, ive read that the mounts is very wobbly, but i think that was the AZ mounts, and the one that i linked have a EQ mount. I don't think it is as bad atleast.

Fortunately i live in the city side, and since im in Norway, that means lots of forests. The worlds second largest, or the largest, is just a 10min bicycle ride away, which is a superb spot for astronomy along with many other places.

My last question: will i be able to see nebulae with this? That is more important than seeing the other planets to me. I thought if it's able to look at the planets, it would atleast do good in the DSO section to?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

If you want a low cost telescope that will deliver amazing views then I would go with a Dobsonian telescope. I have an Orion XT8 and it is amazing. It doesn't have tracking or any fancy point-to features but there are some that do.

Link: http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/Classic-Dobsonians/Orion-SkyQuest-XT8-Classic-Dobsonian-Telescope/pc/1/c/12/sc/13/p/102005.uts

I can second the amazingness of the Orion XT8. I've upgraded the finder scope with reflex sight, and it's easy navigating around the sky. I do recommend getting better eyepieces as one of your first upgrades. The included 10mm and 25mm plossls just don't do the scope justice.

[sal_vager]

Yea, ive read that the mounts is very wobbly, but i think that was the AZ mounts, and the one that i linked have a EQ mount. I don't think it is as bad atleast.

Fortunately i live in the city side, and since im in Norway, that means lots of forests. The worlds second largest, or the largest, is just a 10min bicycle ride away, which is a superb spot for astronomy along with many other places.

My last question: will i be able to see nebulae with this? That is more important than seeing the other planets to me. I thought if it's able to look at the planets, it would atleast do good in the DSO section to?

Hehe, I have the EQ mount too, that's the mount I was talking about, it's the legs that make it wobbly, the EQ mount will be rough to use until you strip it.

Good luck transporting that scope by bicycle, the length, and the bulk of the tripod, will be a pain.

Nebula tend to be large and faint so light gathering power is important, you will see them but they will be brighter with a larger objective lens or mirror, you can get round it a bit by using lower power eyepieces as the less you magnify, the brighter your image will be.

If you will be doing astrophotography then you can use long exposures to absorb more light, which is how you'll get those pretty colour images, a 120mm lens can do it but it'll take more time than with a larger scope.

This site should help you understand what you can expect to see, I hope it helps.

[Buzzkil88]

I am about to buy a 12 inch Dobsonian. I have never had a dob, but always wanted a 10 or 12. Making the purchase tomorrow. Won't be sleeping much tonight.... haha