A question about telescopes...?

Question

I cant make my mind up on whether to get a reflector or refractor...

You see im not entirely sure of what i want to look at! By this i mean ive read that a refractor is best for stuff like the moon and planets and celestial objects etc and a reflector is best for deep space. You see of course i would love to look at the moon and stuff so the obvious choice is a refractor but i dont actually know what i would be expecting to see in "deep space" with a reflector. Are the more interesting and unusual objects to be found in deep space? Will i grow bored of a refractor once ive looked at the planets and such and wish i had a reflector to go "deeper"?? Iam so confused!

So what will i see in "deep space as opposed to normal moon, planets etc???

So what will i see better with?

What is more interesting long term?

My budget is about £600 or $1000

Hope this makes sense. I want to explore the sky but just know what i want.

Answer 1

If I was starting over, I would go for a Meade with GOTO, probably used and as large as I could easily and quickly set up. Large scopes are brilliant but require some setting up - do not waste half the night putting it up and taking it down. If I got the bug then I would trade up, based on my experience and knowledge acquired with the starter scope. I agree with what most say regarding the larger scopes, but I still find myself using a small scope for general observations due to the speed of setting up - they are real fun and the GOTO will get you where you want to go with the minimum of fuss.

Answer 2

In your budget, you can possibly get a 6" (150mm) APO refractor, and can certainly get a 10" (254mm) reflector.

The refractor will be on a tracking mount, will barely fit in your car, and will be pretty good.

The reflector will be on a non-tracking mount, but will have a computer to help you find stuff.  Very handy with lots of light pollution, because the alignment stars are very, very easy to spot.  And star hopping in high light pollution requires you to see fainter stars.  The reflector sets up faster, because a two star computer alignment can be done in under a minute, whereas the tracking mount's alignment takes five minutes.  On the ten inch reflector, you can use an oxygen 3 filter, which will let you see nebulae even from centers of major cities.  But these filters block alot of light, and a 6 inch is marginal in it's light grasp.

In my experience, a well collimated 10 inch reflector beats out a similar cost 6 inch refractor.  You have to spend ten to twenty times more on the refractor to get the high contrast that people talk about.

The planetary views you get from a well collimated reflector are pretty good.  You'll be able to see more stuff with a larger scope.

With any kind of scope, you'll have to get out of the city to see much in the way of galaxies.  But you'll see stars, open and globular clusters with either scope from downtown.  Oxygen 3 will get you nebulae with an 8 inch (200mm) scope or larger from downtown.  Away from the city, a filter isn't needed.

Last summer, i was able to see Pluto in my ten inch reflector.  It's just a dot. This is not possible with a 6 inch anything.

Answer 3

Dave -

In general, aperture rules. A refractor may provide slightly better views of planetary targets, but the difference will not be noticeable if your reflector or SCT is well collimated. On the other hand, if you get a refractor with limited aperture (in refractors, aperture costs big bucks) then you are limiting the number of objects that you can see at all. I would not recommend limiting your potential targets intentionally. I think you will really like the deep space objects, especially if you have enough aperture to see them clearly. I never grow tired of seeing the Hercules Cluster or the Swan Nebula or the Sombrero Galaxy. On the other hand, Mars and Venus are generally - frankly - pretty dull. The Moon, Saturn, and Jupiter are always worth an hour or so, but it is not unusual for me to look at 10 or more targets in a single evening. If they were always the same thing, I would go fishing instead.    

Answer 4

It's a widespread myth among beginners that refractors are better than reflectors for solar system objects. It's total nonsense: reflectors are better at all kinds of observing, unless you're prepared to spend thousands of dollars on an apochromatic refractor. I've owned all kinds of telescopes, and the two which I use the most are Newtonian reflectors and Schmidt-Cassegrains. For a beginner, I'd recommend an 8- to 10-inch reflector on a Dobsonian mount as close to the ideal telescope at the best price.

Here are a few web pages with good information on beginner's telescopes:

http://www.gaherty.ca/tme/TME0702_Buying...

http://www.scopereviews.com/begin.html

http://observers.org/beginner/j.r.f.begi...

For more advanced information, read Phil Harrington's Star Ware, 4th edition (Wiley).

You'll get the greatest value for your money with a Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian mount, such as these:

http://www.telescope.com/control/categor...

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtin...

Buy from a store which specializes in telescopes and astronomy, either locally or online; don't buy from department stores, discount stores or eBay as mostly what they sell is junk. Find your local astronomy club (there very probably is one not far away if you really look!) and try out different telescopes at one of their star parties:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community...

Answer 5

This is always a tough question to answer.  One thing that many people discover when they purchase their first telescope is that the deep sky objects just don't look like the pictures you see in magazines and on TV.  So, the best thing is to not overspend on your first purchase.

Sounds like you've read the material on reflectors vs. refractors, which, in general is pretty accurate.  The key lesson for deep sky viewing is aperture - the size of the lens or mirror.  The bigger it is, the more you will see for deep sky objects.

I have looked through all kinds of telescopes over the years and have found that the best thing for a beginner to do is to get a low cost reflector w/ the largest aperture.  Something like an 8-12" dobsonian reflector would be great.  Then, the deciding factor is the size-weight (do you need to move it?) and the price.  Don't worry about the refractor/reflector issue.  This way you get the best of both deep sky and plants (and, don't worry, the planets will look great in a reflector) and the price can't be beat!

Good choices would be the Orion Skyquest ($300-$500 US Dollars) or the Meade Lightbridge ($400-$600).  Whatever you do, don't skimp on the eyepieces - get good ones!  An 8" Skyquest with 3 good eyepieces will cost you about $450-$600 (something like an Orthoscopic or Expanse eyepiece from Orion).  A 10" would be about $650 - $800.  Be sure to check the size so you can get it in your car, etc.

I've put some links below so you can read the details and reviews. I hope this helps!  

Answer 6

Well, the first scope I had was a refractor, and I loved looking at the planets & the moon.  Discovering Saturn's rings for the first time was very cool.  

The second scope I had was an 8" reflector, and it was a little more cumbersome, and the camera mount wasn't great.  I ended up with a lot of very dark pictures - or streaks.

The scope I have now is a 10", with a motorized mount - best thing since sliced bread - and it takes all the fumbling and sighting out of the mix.  If you can afford the computer-guided mount, go as big as you can on the scope.  If not, then I'd recommend starting with a refractor.