The Worst Telescope You Owned/Looked Through.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

The worst telescope I own is one of those tiny Celestron First Scopes that came out for the 2009 Year of Astronomy. It probably did more to damage amateur/recreational astronomy than anything else that year or since. I paid $20 for it on Ebay, and that was too much. Anyone who paid $90 or so dollars for it new, I suspect would have been bitterly disappointed.

At the time, it was either US Sky & Telescope or US Astronomy magazine that did a glowing review of it stating how good it was for such a price, and the sharp images it produced. Whichever magazine it was, it must have damaged its reputation, because yes you can get a barely sharp image, but only if the object you are looking at is held exactly in the centre of the field of view. Any slight movement away from the centre makes the star or planets start to distort shockingly, to the point of being abysmal at the edge of the field. Any pair of binoculars showed better images of the moon than this "telescope".

The only thing good about that telescope is that it looks pretty neat on top of a book shelf, and it impresses my friends' kids (though I won't let them look through it and ruin the illusion).

But the absolute worst telescope I've ever seen was two years before the Celestron First Scope came out when some friends spent several hundred dollars on a telescope to look at ships in the bay, and asked me to have a look at it, as something was wrong. The telescope was a Tasco Galaxsee 114mm reflector with a tube length half the size of what one usually sees, 500mm focal length from memory. They lent it to me, the images of stars were junk, I collimated it, the images were still junk. I made up little aperture masks which should have shown me several pin point dots of the stars, but instead showed huge flares/ little comet shapes aimed at the edge of the field.

What the Galaxsee in fact was, was the big brother of the later Celestron First Scope. I was really quite astounded. At the time, I'd actually been quite impressed with cheap Tasco refractors and Tasco long tube reflectors, as they were noticeably better than the cheap telescopes that were around 15 years earlier. I just couldn't believe that a company like Tasco could put their name on such a piece of junk, and charge big dollars for it.

What's the worst telescope you've owned or have seen through?
Regards,
Renato

[Larryp (Laurie)]

I think magazine reviews are often slanted in favour of the article being reviewed, simply because the publisher does not wish to upset the advertisers who make some of this stuff-its better to look for independent reviews, although they are often difficult to find!
In 30 odd years in this hobby, I have owned in excess of 20 telescopes of all different types. I can't say any of them were bad, but the most disappointing one I had was a Vixen VMC110. Optically it was fine, but the image was so dim that the only thing that looked any good at higher magnification (100x) was the moon. I think I used that scope once and immediately sold it!

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

mine was a horrible Celestron 'First Scope' ( ha ha , what a joke ! ) 50 refractor .
I picked this up at Cashies for $30? just for a try and all I can say about this scope is ,,,,, I am glad I grabbed it off the market before a starry eyed new first timer got hold of this rubbish , never a truer word spoken about this trash ,,, HOBBY KILLER !!! .

I dumped this thing , could not even see myself giving it away ,,
( more plastic than Michael Jacksons face )
An emberrasment .

Brian.

[PlanetMan]

Sadly I have only been in the astronomy hobby for half the time of Laurie and yet I have owned more than double the number of scopes in that time so I am clearly destined to never pay off my mortgage.

Ironically, akin to Larry my worst experience with a Telescope was also a Vixen - a NA140 - however also akin to Larry it wasn't terrible but simply disappointing in terms of performance for something sporting such spec's. The ideas/theory was attractive but the reality simply didn't work Some folks seem to think that if it is made in Japan or it supposedly has some sort of changed coatings this has a greater effect in improving it's image over the laws of physics and optics in terms of refraction, focal length ratios etc

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

snip....

In 30 odd years in this hobby, I have owned in excess of 20 telescopes of all different types. I can't say any of them were bad, but the most disappointing one I had was a Vixen VMC110. Optically it was fine, but the image was so dim that the only thing that looked any good at higher magnification (100x) was the moon. I think I used that scope once and immediately sold it!

I am similar to Larry - 30+ years, including a Tasco 60mm refractor, LX90, LX200, Bintel Dobs, two SDMs - no lemons.

[-George-]

The one I got right now... 'none'. Doesn't show me anything extra above what my eyes see. Every night I go out, I feel irritated that I don't have a better one than this because I can not see planets any larger than pin points. Can't wait to replace this junk scope within the next 2 weeks (hopefully) with a GSO 12" which should be pretty good.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Years ago my mother-in-law bought a 'telescope'; not sure from where but the reject shop would be a good guess. I only saw the moon through it. More purple haze than a 70's rock concert (but without the euphoria) and somewhat less detail visible than naked-eye. No harm done as she would never have really used it and god only knows why she bought it, because I'm sure she didn't. Some poor souls have turned up at club meetings with scopes of a similar ilk (and that is sad because they were interested in astronomy) but nothing I've seen compares. Really, two chemist shop magnifying glasses in a cardboard tube would have outperformed this little joke.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

I think magazine reviews are often slanted in favour of the article being reviewed, simply because the publisher does not wish to upset the advertisers who make some of this stuff-its better to look for independent reviews, although they are often difficult to find!
In 30 odd years in this hobby, I have owned in excess of 20 telescopes of all different types. I can't say any of them were bad, but the most disappointing one I had was a Vixen VMC110. Optically it was fine, but the image was so dim that the only thing that looked any good at higher magnification (100x) was the moon. I think I used that scope once and immediately sold it!

Yes, that's the other aspect of a bad telescope, poorer performance than expected for the money. Especially if it's a lot of money.

I can understand magazine reviews being somewhat slanted, but to my mind that may involve not being critical on grey areas. I recollect Claude in the Adelaide astronomy shop pointing out to me a review in S&T which I'd also read, saying how an APO refractor was superb, and then mentioning in passing the violet twinge at high power - as Claude pointed out, that telescope plainly wasn't an APO.

To my mind, in the case of the tiny reflector First scope, the right thing for the magazine to do, would have been to tell the manufacturer that they'd review something else he put out, as they couldn't in good conscience write anything good about the First Scope.
Regards,
Renato

[Meru (Michael)]

Haha excellent thread Renato, I have enjoyed reading about everyone elses experience. I'm not the only one then!

My first scope was a bushmaster 3" reflector or something of the likes... wait for it... for $200!!!! This was about 8 years ago when money went alot further. Needless to say, the views of the moon & planets were atrocious. My barlow was a plastic kaleidoscope and the moon was a purple haze indeed!

Though all being said, I owned it for 2 years and loved the views it gave regardless of how bad they were. Made me appreciate the stars for what they were, not what they looked like Upgrading to the skywatcher 8" newt on the EQ5 kit made me realise what I was missing out on though! It's sad because everyone expects to see pictures like in the magazines and often are turned away from the hobby. We must continue to educate and spread the word!

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by PlanetMan

Sadly I have only been in the astronomy hobby for half the time of Laurie and yet I have owned more than double the number of scopes in that time so I am clearly destined to never pay off my mortgage.

Ironically, akin to Larry my worst experience with a Telescope was also a Vixen - a NA140 - however also akin to Larry it wasn't terrible but simply disappointing in terms of performance for something sporting such spec's. The ideas/theory was attractive but the reality simply didn't work Some folks seem to think that if it is made in Japan or it supposedly has some sort of changed coatings this has a greater effect in improving it's image over the laws of physics and optics in terms of refraction, focal length ratios etc

Actually, this poor performance issue reminds me of the third worst telescope I've ever looked through. My only experience of achromat refractors at that stage was with an 80mm short tube refractor, which gave tiny violet halos at very high power.

Then one night at a club meeting I got the chance to look through a club member's pride and joy, a really long tube Meade 90mm achromat refractor. I was expecting to see something much better than in my telescope - instead even at moderate power, all the stars had huge bright violet halos - far worse than anything in mine. I didn't have the heart to tell him how poorly it was performing.
Regards,
Renato

[Steffen]

My worst one was the Aldi table-top Dob – before I fixed it. Out of the box it was plain not working. The secondary mirror was only partly underneath the focuser and the screws in the secondary cell weren't long enough to put the mirror in the right spot. A few screws and a spacer later the little scope actually worked ok, surprisingly so considering it only cost $50.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Star Hunter]

"The worse telescope is the one you haven't looked through..."

It's like the old saying.. "The best chair to sit in, is the one you haven't sat in.."

Jokes aside, my first 4" reflector was a scope that pulled out with four struts from the main steel tube that locked into place. Same principle as the SW Flexidobs. While its collimation was always up the spout, once fixed the images were superlative.

But the worse el cheapos was the ones that came out in '86 prior to Halley's Comet. Cheap plastic lenses, finderscopes that had a stop inside.. one would have got better results looking through a pencil with its lead removed!

Who remembers the ads for Bosch and Lomb telescopes in S & T mags back in the 70's and 80's? "... the tube is so strong, the military fire rockets out of it..." !!! Crickey, I'd hate to see the firing pin...!! Even Meade used photos in their ads taken with pro scopes for their Newts. and early SCT's....

So, can anyone actually pin down a scope that DOES live up to its name in build and image quality?

[loc46south (Geoffrey)]

Yup - I've got a Tak Mewlon 250S - I bought it 5 years ago - it arrived in NZ in perfect collimation and the findersope perfectly aligned - It has been carted around on the back of a landrover and my 4 x 4 ute. The collimation is still as good as the day it arrived. The scope is built like a tank - what other manufactured suggests that you use the finderscope as a lifting handle.

Cheers

[Star Hunter]

Originally Posted by loc46south

Yup - I've got a Tak Mewlon 250S - I bought it 5 years ago - it arrived in NZ in perfect collimation and the findersope perfectly aligned - It has been carted around on the back of a landrover and my 4 x 4 ute. The collimation is still as good as the day it arrived. The scope is built like a tank - what other manufactured suggests that you use the finderscope as a lifting handle.

Cheers

Now that folks, IS a scope! I have a Tak 180 Epsilon and concur that Tak gear is the best, as quality has its price and Tak's along with AP, Officina Stellare, Zeiss, to name few, get my vote.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by loc46south

The scope is built like a tank - what other manufactured suggests that you use the finderscope as a lifting handle.

Cheers

Well I have to admit that is extremely impressive !!!!

The only thing that may come close to being on par with it is the instructions on my waterproof Fujinon 7X50 Binoculars for cleaning them. They say to hold the binoculars under a tap and turn the water on.
Regards,
Renato

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by Star Hunter

Now that folks, IS a scope! I have a Tak 180 Epsilon and concur that Tak gear is the best, as quality has its price and Tak's along with AP, Officina Stellare, Zeiss, to name few, get my vote.

You named all the best!

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Star Hunter

Jokes aside, my first 4" reflector was a scope that pulled out with four struts from the main steel tube that locked into place. Same principle as the SW Flexidobs. While its collimation was always up the spout, once fixed the images were superlative.

I still have my first K-mart Focal 114mm 900mm fl reflector. It took me 10 years to finally collimate it after reading an article in Astronomy magazine, and making up a tool with a camera film tube. Fantastic images ever since. I watched the great Comet Crash on Jupiter in it because it gave better images than my C8 - which was Halley's Comet vintage, and pretty hopeless on planets till Roger Davis fixed it.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

My worst one was the Aldi table-top Dob – before I fixed it. Out of the box it was plain not working. The secondary mirror was only partly underneath the focuser and the screws in the secondary cell weren't long enough to put the mirror in the right spot. A few screws and a spacer later the little scope actually worked ok, surprisingly so considering it only cost $50.

Cheers
Steffen.

That's a nice happy ending. They don't happen too often with telescopes.
Cheers,
Renato

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Undeniably by far the worst telescope I have ever used and owned was a Bausch and Lomb (= Criterion) 4000.

This little four inch Schmidt-Cassegrain was essentially unable to show anything on the planets but the two major belts of Jupiter. I doubt if it could even split Cassini's division on Saturn.

Paradoxically, on account of its small size and very light weight, it was still a very very useful scope for carting around on holidays, as I am not much of a planetary observer, and the deep sky views were significantly better than they had been through a 3 inch unitron refractor that I owned.
I used it with a small and lightweight altaz mount, and took it overseas, giving me my first views of far northern deep sky objects (from the Mohave Desert.)

Light transmission seemed to be good on my model, and the fuzzy planetary views did not bother madbadgalaxyman, who tends to ignore planets.

All of which is to say that even optically poor 4-5 inch SCs do have their uses, as they are small and light to move around.

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by -George-

The one I got right now... 'none'. Doesn't show me anything extra above what my eyes see. Every night I go out, I feel irritated that I don't have a better one than this because I can not see planets any larger than pin points. Can't wait to replace this junk scope within the next 2 weeks (hopefully) with a GSO 12" which should be pretty good.

I have done quite a bit of travelling in the outback and under really dark skys the widefield veiws through mine are spectacular......though sometimes I wish I had room for the scope to get a closer look.

Rick