Celestron Travel Scope 50 - Project in the making.

[AEAJR]

I was cruising an auction site and found a Celestron Travel Scope 50, new in box, for $9 (US) plus $9 shipping. Well, what the heck. So I put a $12 limit on a bid and don't you know I won.

I am looking for any user experience with this scope. Appreciate your insights.

I had previously seen this review, which was pretty poor, but which suggested modifications to do to greatly improve it. So, I think this is going to turn into a little project.
http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/CelestronTravelscope50.htm

For what I paid for it I can afford to play with it, and do things to it and not worry about ruining it. And maybe I will turn it into a good little scope to have out at my star parties or perhaps to give to someone's child to get them started

So, what can you tell me? :question:

[AEAJR]

I took about 30 minutes over lunch to take the 50 out into the bright and beautiful day.

Well, it works. Tripod is nothing to write home about but if you leave it collapsed it is not too bad as a table top. The alt/az is typical of my photo tripods I own. Hard to position accurately but the scope weighs nothing so the tripod is not carrying much. It was windy but I did not have a lot of trouble targeting it. Sometimes it was easier to rotate the tripod on the table than to use the releases to rotate it on the tripod. In any case it is steadier than I am with my binoculars.


I was targeted on house tops, phone poles and such that were about 600 feet away. The eyepieces came into focus fine. The 20 mm works OK, about 18X. The 8 mm, about 45X, is sharp enough fine but the image is quite dim. FOV of both is fairly narrow. I later compared to Plossls of similar, though not exactly the same FL. Clearly the Plossls had a wider FOV and are brighter.

The 3X barlow is worthless. I could not get it to come to focus in the 50 or in my ETX 80 with ether of the Hygens or my plossl eyepieces. Not even close. :4 It has a very small opening in a baffle about half way down the barrel. I have no idea if that could be the problem.

Can someone explain to me why all the baffles in this scope, the draw tube and the barlow? What is the supposed value of these baffles?

Using my Daytson 3X barlow I had no problem bringing the Hygens or the Plossls to focus in the 50 so it is the barlow, not the scope or the eyepieces.

I will try to get it out for a little while tonight if it is clear. Then I will start to plan the cutting and drilling. :flame:

I don't know how much value this would have as a target/spotting scope. If you are not going to move it much it might be OK.

With the 20 mm eyepiece it would be OK as a nature spotting scope but with a fairly narrow view. Maybe watching a bird's nest from a very stable location.

The 8 mm seems to be pushing the aperture even in the bright sun. Or, as suggested by Roger Vine in his review, the problem is all the unnecessary baffles. Well, I am going to remove them one by one and see what impact it has.

[AEAJR]

OK, had it out tonight. A bit of a haze but bright moon and Jupiter.

Well, if you didn't know any better, or for a very young child, you could probably live with it, but overall it is pretty bad.


This is really a table top tripod for anyone over about 7 years old. From a height point of view it might work for daytime use.

To look at the moon at about 15 degrees I was seated pretty low in my Denver chair, but I could do it.

To look at Jupiter at about 40 degrees, even on my knees I had trouble getting an angle on it where I could look through the eyepiece with the tripod fully extended on the ground. If it had a 90 degree angle it would be better.

The 45 degree angle does not hold steady. It rotates around on you. Very annoying.

I had the Hygens and comparable Plossls to compare. The FOV of the Hygens was narrow but other than that they were not too bad. The Plossls were better but I could live with the Hygens if I didn't have something else.

The 20 mm Hygens did a good job on the moon. The 10 mm was noticeably darker but the image was not too bad on this bright target. On Jupiter the 10 mm was so poor and dim that I could not even see the moons. The 9.7 mm Plossl was not much better. Too much light loss in the tube or not enough aperture.

So now it is time to start the modifications. I am going to take those baffles out one at a time. And I am going to move it over to a camera tripod and see if that works better.

[OzStarGazer]

I have its big brother http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/celestron-70mm-travel-scope-review-r2486, which I also won at an auction for a good price.
I think the review on Cloudy Nights describes it well (it also includes photos).
It is really for travelling, but I have also used it for example when there was the sun eclipse (not visible from my balcony) and it was not bad at all, except that after 5 seconds the clouds spoiled the eclipse.
I have also tried to spot birds in gardens or ships at the beach etc. It can really be carried anywhere. All in all it is more for use during the day or for the moon. I haven't even tried it with planets.
Obviously it is not a super scope, but I don't regret buying it. I mainly bought it for situations when I cannot use my other scopes.

[AEAJR]

I have read many good reports on the 70. The 50 is not the same, but I am going to see if it can be saved.