[raymo]

All scopes are compromises; no one type or size will do everything really well.
Refractors[lenses, not mirrors] are great for astrophotography, grab and go,
[in the small to medium size range], and lunar/planetary work. They can, of
course, be used for any type of viewing/imaging, but other types will do a
better job. They are low maintenance, no mirror cleaning[or recoating when
scope gets old], and only a very infrequent collimation check.
Downside, achromatic refractors display more or less chromatic aberration[
false colour around the edges of bright objects] depending on focal length
and quality]. This can be greatly ameliorated, indeed almost completely
overcome, if you throw enough money at it, by buying an apochromatic one.

Reflectors are much more bang for your buck, being far cheaper aperture for aperture than other types of scope, and have the advantage of no
chromatic aberration,[if you ever see any false colour it will normally come from the eyepiece]. A 6"[150mm] scope has 4x the light gathering power of a 3" [75mm]. Square of the aperture in inches, so 3x3=9, 6x6=36. 8x8=64
so an 8" has just over 7x as much as a 3". A reflector is also generally size for size lighter than a refractor. Larger aperture also usually means higher usable magnification depending upon seeing conditions].
Downside, mirrors are exposed, so need occasional cleaning[and eventual
recoating], and collimation[ how frequently depends on whether one is a perfectionist, and whether the scope is moved around much]. Over about 6 " wind becomes more of a factor, and bulk also, if you are in any way
disabled, or perhaps elderly. The final downside is coma, where stars in
the outer part of the field of view are distorted, this being worse the
shorter the focal length of the scope. An f/6 is normally not too bad, but
f/5 or shorter, for imaging especially, a coma corrector is pretty much essential[not that cheap]. Years ago many Newts were f/8 or even "slower", but today most are f/6 or "faster".

Catadioptric scopes such as Maks and Schmitt Cassegrains are probably
the best all rounders, and can be pressed into service for most needs.
SCTs as they are known, have by virtue of their design, great focal length,
so any given eyepiece produces higher magnification than it would in
either of the other two types. This means they are good for small targets
such as planets, planetary nebulae,and separating close double stars. Also good for high mag lunar work. They hold collimation much better than a reflector, and are simpler to collimate. They have a short tube, so wind is
not much of a problem. The eyepiece remains in a convenient position most
of the time. When an eyepiece is in place the tube is sealed, so the mirrors
can remain in pristine condition for a very long time. You can fit a reducer
which will give lower mag and a wider field of view for larger objects.[not
cheap].
Downside, relatively expensive compared to reflector[Newt], can be awkward to use when focuser is between the forks of a fork mount,
particularly when the mount is fitted with a wedge.At f/10 photographically
slow, better when fitted with reducer at f/6.3. Corrector plate prone to
dewing up. For perfectionists; slight loss of contrast due to central
obstruction, which is generally a bit larger than a Newt's one. Some
suffer from image shift when focusing.

Maks. Similar in some obvious visual ways to the SCT, but in fact quite different.
Being more complex to make, size for size Maks are a bit more expensive
than SCTs, and are limited in size on the commercial market. Anything
over 7" being very expensive. They are generally of even longer focal length than the SCT[typically f/12.5-f/15, and so are even slower photographically.
They are noted for high quality often high mag images of planets, small
star clusters, and lunar close ups etc: Downside: narrow field of view, so
not usually an owner's only scope.
raymo