Semi-beginner semi-first scope advice

[venerium (Vi)]

First of all, hi all! I’m an almost-postgrad astronomy student, hence the semi-beginner. Of course amateur astronomy is completely different to staring at spectra all day, so perhaps that’s more a hindrance than anything. Aside from a $100 dept. store Newtonian (oh the shame ...), I’ve never owned a “real” telescope.

I've been thinking about buying a telescope for too long now, and my budget is at around $3500-4000 (not necessarily looking to spend it all, but if it means a telescope I’ll use for a lifetime I’m more than willing).

I’ve been mainly looking at short-tube apo refractors, although I’m open to any suggestions otherwise. My main considerations are portability and wide field views (the wider the better). I regularly go camping in remote areas and I’d essentially like a grab and go that I can take with me to browse the skies. I’m not really interested in imaging for now. I’d like enough aperture so as to not *completely* miss out on DSOs (around 4"?).

I have a list of telescopes I’m considering, but I’m interested to see what others suggest without the bias of knowing what I’m leaning towards for now ...

- Vi

[allan gould]

I would suggest a good ED80mm scope. There are some very good and reasonably priced scopes on the market ATM and when you get aperture fever (which you will) it will double as a guide scope. Make sure you test it out first for optical errors and CA and you should be happy with it for a lifetime.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

There are a number of factors that I would consider. When you say you are looking at taking it camping in remote areas, are you planning on carrying it any distance or will it be in a vehicle?
A 4" refractor is a fairly heavy beast and needs a decent mounting to use and would be very hard to transport on foot.

[Poita (Peter)]

A short 4" refractor is only heavy if you are trekking to your camp site. If you are parking nearby then it is a piece of cake.
As is something like a C8 that gives you so much more aperture and reach and is just as portable. A C8 would give much better views of planets, comets and smaller galaxies, and still allow widefield via a f6.3 reducer.

If I had to carry it a long distance though, then get an ED80 or similar and a GSTAR EX video camera and a small 7" or similar screen.
You will get lovely views of DSOs in realtime that you could never see without a really large aperture scope, and get colour on things like orion etc. Video astronomy gets the best of both worlds, real time viewing just like visual, but detail and colour that is more towards CCD photography, but without the hassle it is the best of both worlds.
If the battery goes flat then just use the scope visually.

Whatever you choose, get a great pair of binoculars for true widefield work.

[venerium (Vi)]

Thanks for all the suggestions! Video astronomy is something I actually hadn't considered at all and a really cool idea, however I think I have a bit of a bias towards purely visual work. A lot of my enjoyment of amateur astronomy comes from being able to remove the layer of abstraction that a camera/screen brings (I get a fair dose of that every day after all ).

Although trekking is occasionally involved, it's rarely more than a few ks and I don't have many qualms about carrying ~20kg worth of a backpack/tripod. There will usually be other people with me that can help split the load as well.

Would something like the TV NP101 at 4.5kg be able to be supported by a reasonably sturdy camera tripod and say something like the UniStar? I realise high magnification work might be pushing it, but for just wide field/medium magnification viewing would that sort of setup be adequate? (I haven't found that many sturdy telescope tripods have the ability to collapse down to sub-metre lengths like most camera tripods ...)

[John K]

Looks like you have a great budget and will have lots of options!

I think in my mind the key consideration for you will be if you want tracking in the telecope and to do astrophotography in the future. Do you want to do deep sky stuff from dark sky sites but also some planetary stuff from the city?

In my mind aperture always rules. With your budget you can always simply get a small portable instrument to hike with if you are keen on this (e.g. 80mm -100mm short focus refractor on a tripod). But having hiked for over 20 years, I think you will find that if you want to do astronomy stuff in the bush you are better off camping next to you car and have a bigger telescope that you can simply take out of the car. Then you can do your hiking from there without carrying everything.

My thoughts are you should go no smaller than an 8" telescope, so that means a fast reflector or a good quality SCT. If you go visual, a good quality 8" or 10" dobsonian will give you lifetime views. If you want tracking and in the future do some astrophotography (even pickyback - e.g. this year we will have some nice comets visible) go for a short focus reflector or a good quality 8" SCT.

Refractors are great, but visually an 8" dobsonian will kill even a very good quality 4" refractor in terms of brightness of objects, the colour you will see and the no. of objects (sorry to the refractor lovers out there) and you will soon be wanting more aperture.

But that's just my 2 cents of opiniated views and as always everyone will have different views based on their own journey.

Good luck with your choice and enjoy your astronomy journey!

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Hello, Vi,

there is some good Telescope advice from some experienced astronomers, in the thread "Recommendations for a beginner telescope" in this forum.

It is a balanced discussion, in that it somewhat curtails the inevitable desire to get a huge telescope, by means of a discussion of the practicalities of various sizes and designs; the useability and practicality of various telescope sizes and designs is discussed in this thread, enabling the beginner to make an appraisal of whether or not a telescope of a particular size is actually going to be used frequently instead of becoming a "white elephant" gathering dust in the garage ( this does happen, surprisingly often!!!)

cheers, Robert

[Satchmo]

You can get an 8" F6 Dobsonian from a Sydney supplier for $399. they are pretty compact - when i used one I at first thought it was a 6" due to its size. Use it in Sydney and take it camping . Try both places and put an off axis 100mm cardboard stop over the aperture to compare views , and then decide whether it would make much sense to have $3000 invested in a that kind of aperture A 32mm 2" ep will allow you to get down to X38 which gives you a few degrees of sky. At least you will learn a lot for a little outlay. You will see next to nothing exciting in Sydney skies with a 4" telescope but the Moon and planets.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

I absolutely agree with Mark that a 4 inch refractor is hardly a mainstream recommendation for beginners these days, when you can get a compact 8 inch Dobsonian for very little money.

Look, there are a handful of "refractor fanatics around", and all of us like to have a refractor handy for quickly throwing out onto the verandah for a "quick look-see", but deep sky performance of even a 5 inch refractor is so modest that one soon tires of the instrument.

Mark is absolutely right that light pollution renders a four inch, even a super-high-quality four inch, completely useless for everything except viewing a small number of very bright objects.

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

You can get an 8" F6 Dobsonian from a Sydney supplier for $399. they are pretty compact - when i used one I at first thought it was a 6" due to its size. Use it in Sydney and take it camping . Try both places and put an off axis 100mm cardboard stop over the aperture to compare views , and then decide whether it would make much sense to have $3000 invested in a that kind of aperture A 32mm 2" ep will allow you to get down to X38 which gives you a few degrees of sky. At least you will learn a lot for a little outlay. You will see next to nothing exciting in Sydney skies with a 4" telescope but the Moon and planets.

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

I absolutely agree with Mark that a 4 inch refractor is hardly a mainstream recommendation for beginners these days, when you can get a compact 8 inch Dobsonian for very little money.

Look, there are a handful of "refractor fanatics around", and all of us like to have a refractor handy for quickly throwing out onto the verandah for a "quick look-see", but deep sky performance of even a 5 inch refractor is so modest that one soon tires of the instrument.

Mark is absolutely right that light pollution renders a four inch, even a super-high-quality four inch, completely useless for everything except viewing a small number of very bright objects.

Personally, I would not want to lug an 8" Newtonian on a Dobsonian mount 200 metres let alone a few kms!

As Allan initially suggested go the ED80mm scope. Performance and portability. If you've got a couple of mates to help you lug it in to your dark site up the aperture, you'll be thankful later. Just don't go expecting to carry a Dob a few kms ANYWHERE!

Whack out a chunk of the rest of your cash on some good Tele Vue eps. They last forever and hold their resale value.

[venerium (Vi)]

At least you will learn a lot for a little outlay. You will see next to nothing exciting in Sydney skies with a 4" telescope but the Moon and planets.

I definitely realise this, but I'd be mostly observing from dark sky sites - I travel out of Sydney regularly just to stargaze already!

One of the biggest issues I had with my (admittedly horrible) first 6" reflector was it almost always required serious recollimation after a bumpy ride down a dirt road. I got sick of it pretty quickly - after a big drive it was the last thing I'd want to be doing!

I guess I'll have to admit too that I seem to have caught the "refractor bug". The ones I've had the chance to look through at public observing nights have always taken my breath away, I don't think that sort of view is something I'd personally tire of despite the obvious lack of deep sky performance. (perhaps I'm just a beginner with some strange tastes )

As Allan initially suggested go the ED80mm scope. Performance and portability. If you've got a couple of mates to help you lug it in to your dark site up the aperture, you'll be thankful later. Just don't go expecting to carry a Dob a few kms ANYWHERE!

Yeah, 80/90mm seems to be the way to go. However I recently noticed the WO FLT98 and it seems to be a reasonable compromise between aperture and portability. The only downside is I can't seem to find many reviews. Does anyone have any opinions on it?

(PS cheers everyone, thanks for all your responses! )

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Hi Vi
I'm a refractorholic too. Where I live has a lot of light pollution, but I find the extra contrast of an apo allows me to see quite a lot of DSOs. I agree with John(Varangian)-get a refractor and spend money on Televue eyepieces. I have all Naglers and they are superb!

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by venerium

I guess I'll have to admit too that I seem to have caught the "refractor bug". The ones I've had the chance to look through at public observing nights have always taken my breath away, I don't think that sort of view is something I'd personally tire of despite the obvious lack of deep sky performance. (perhaps I'm just a beginner with some strange tastes )

Yeah, 80/90mm seems to be the way to go. However I recently noticed the WO FLT98 and it seems to be a reasonable compromise between aperture and portability. The only downside is I can't seem to find many reviews. Does anyone have any opinions on it?

)

By all means get a refractor, but the you will spend all of your Deep Sky viewing looking at only a handful of objects:
Omega Centauri, The Orion Nebula, The Tarantula Nebula, The Eta Carinae Nebula, the Lagoon Nebula, and open star clusters.
This is the VERY SHORT list of all the deep sky objects that can be reasonably brightly seen in a three or four inch refractor.
Furthermore, nearly all galaxies look like indistinct blobs in apertures under 5 inches!!

In contrast, an 8 inch Dobsonian is quite portable, and it can show hundreds (or even thousands) of deep sky objects if used in a dark sky.

For most of us, a refractor is a nice scope which we enjoy, but it gets boring very quickly due to the lack of objects that it can show reasonably well.

Me(madbadgalaxyman) and Satchmo (Mark) have some credibility on this issue; we have both observed with and compared numerous telescopes of various apertures, and our observing careers are over 30 years each.
Mark is an optician who has produced many professional-standard telescopes and he has owned and built large numbers of different instruments.
I have owned , in my lifetime, the following telescopes:
20x80 binoculars
20x100 binoculars
a 50mm refractor
a 60mm refractor
a 3 inch Unitron Refractor on alt-az mount
a 4 inch Apochromatic Refractor
a 5 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
an 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
an 8 inch F6 Newtonian (on german equatorial mount)
a 10 inch F4 Newtonian on a heavy German Equatorial Mount
a 10 inch F6 Newtonian on a german equatorial mount
a 12 inch Dobsonian

If you don't want to listen to the voice of experience, then don't listen.....
For most people, a three or four inch refractor gets boring quite soon.

Look, I like the "image' of a refractor, too. I like seeing my 4 inch Apo refractor sitting out on the patio, every day, as it looks like the 'real' telescopes which we see in cartoons and hollywood movies; but I wouldn't recommend a three or four inch refractor as a primary instrument for an adult.

[venerium (Vi)]

Robert - you're right, and I've been perhaps unfairly not looking at medium-size reflectors as a possibility. I'll definitely do some more research and widen my considerations a bit - I'm not in any rush to buy. I didn't mean to come off as disregarding your opinion - sorry if it seemed that way!

Just to shed some light on why I'm being a bit picky about size: camping aside, most of the year I live at university in a very small room - so small that even an 8" dob would be a bit of a pain to have taking up space if I can't just fit it under my bed. That said, could you suggest any decent small-ish reflectors I could consider?

-- EDIT --
Sorry, didn't notice the last part of your post!

Look, I like the "image' of a refractor, too. I like seeing my 4 inch Apo refractor sitting out on the patio, every day, as it looks like the 'real' telescopes which we see in cartoons and hollywood movies; but I wouldn't recommend a three or four inch refractor as a primary instrument for an adult.

It certainly wouldn't be my primary instrument for too long! I'm planning to buy a nice big reflector once my living circumstances are more stable, but that may not be for several years and I've been waiting too long to get involved in amateur astronomy already .

[simmo]

Hi Vi and ,

Sounds like you have some unique things that make this a little more complicated than usual.

Something helped me when purchasing my first scope was that we have here in Perth a telescope shop that atually allows you to try a scope before you buy it (usually Thursday nights). It gives you an idea of what the scope can do and there is something about actually having it in your hands that allows you to understand it better and how it may fit with your own circumstances.

I'm not sure if Sydney has something like this but maybe it would be worth checking out.

If this is a non event then maybe joining a local astro club might be an option. They usually have loaner scopes that you can try for a modest fee. A great way to see if that scope you have in mind will work. Not only that I'm sure that they'd love to have a budding astronomer like yourself come along and join in! It's remarkable what can happen when you get to know the right people too.

Hope it goes well
Simmo

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Originally Posted by venerium

It certainly wouldn't be my primary instrument for too long! I'm planning to buy a nice big reflector once my living circumstances are more stable, but that may not be for several years and I've been waiting too long to get involved in amateur astronomy already .

Based on this comment and on the known fact that most astronomers will develop and change their preferences and interests as time passes I would suggest sticking with your original idea of a decent APO, 80 or 100. Long term when circumstances change you will buy something with a bigger aperture and the APO will be used possibly in a photographic role or just grab & go for those hiking adventures.
What some of these guys seem to forget is that they have probably gone through a number of different options as they have developed their preferences astronomically and most will have several scopes of both reflector and refractor as I do. I won't suggest brand names or suppliers but there are several good packages around that will fit inside your budget with room for a few extras and still slide under your bed for storage for the time being.
Keep us posted and keep asking questions.

Good luck.

Brent

[venerium (Vi)]

Something helped me when purchasing my first scope was that we have here in Perth a telescope shop that atually allows you to try a scope before you buy it (usually Thursday nights). It gives you an idea of what the scope can do and there is something about actually having it in your hands that allows you to understand it better and how it may fit with your own circumstances.

This is a great idea, I'll look around and see if there's any similar shops here. If anyone knows of one in Sydney or Melbourne, please let me know!

As for the astro club, I was somewhat involved in ASNSW a year ago (before university got in the way) but never heard anything about loaner scopes! Perhaps it's time to get back into it before I settle on a telescope (or time to take a trip to Perth) .

It's remarkable what can happen when you get to know the right people too.

Interesting you should say that - it was actually through ASNSW that I managed to land the astronomy internship that's funding this purchase!

Again, thanks everyone for the input. Looks like I've got a bit more thinking to do and perhaps finding somewhere I can try before I buy. I'll keep you all posted if I have any more questions .

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Hello, Vi,

I honestly don't know anyone, apart from a few very odd people, who would recommend a 3 inch refractor as a primary instrument for an adult. These telescopes are either recommended as a children's telescope, or as a second telescope for ease of use and a "fun and quick look-see". I used a three inch refractor when I was a teenager, and I persisted with it, though a lot of adults would have probably stashed it in the attic very quickly.

The idea that a three inch telescope can show rich planetary detail and show deep sky objects well.....is totally incorrect and bizarre.

I do like a refractor as much as the next man, but the smaller ones, particularly 70mm to 100 mm aperture, have very limited Light Gathering power for nebulae, galaxies, globulars etc.........
A 3 inch (75mm or 80mm) refractor cannot really resolve globular clusters, for instance. Furthermore, even in a dark sky, a four inch refractor shows virtually all galaxies as indistinct blobs without any individuality.
A four inch can (but only in excellent conditions) be OK for viewing nebulae, both bright and dark, but (apart from the Eta Carinae & Orion & Tarantula & Lagoon nebulae), a small aperture like this requires a very dark and very transparent sky to see nebulae well in a four inch.

The slightest light pollution when viewing with a four inch, and you find yourself limited to viewing about two dozen deep sky objects!

Also, even the highest quality 3inch / 80mm refractor can show only very modest detail on the planets, as the best angular resolution that can be achieved is around 1.5 arcseconds. This is quite easy to see, numerically, when we consider that the angular diameter of Jupiter is only 50 arcseconds at best, and the disk of Jupiter is usually larger than that of the other planets, when viewed in the telescope. Thus, the number of resolution elements stretching across a planetary disk is too small for seeing substantial detail when using a three inch (75/80 mm) refractor.

You can't even split a lot of the famous double stars with a three inch! (a three inch refractor is a crazy recommendation as a primary instrument for an adult)

A four inch is substantially better for planetary viewing than a three inch, as it has a nominal Best Angular Resolution of 1 arcsecond. It is probably necessary to put about 60 resolution elements across the disk of Jupiter in order to see a lot of planetary detail, so you need 1 arcsecond resolution, or preferably somewhat better to see substantial planetary detail. A three inch doesn't get anywhere near the angular resolution necessary! Therefore, somewhere within the aperture range 4-6 inches, telescopes begin to show rich and intricate planetary detail. A 5 inch (or preferably a 6 inch) can get below 1 arcsecond resolution, and this is what is necessary to glimpse that fine planetary detail when the seeing is good.

(( In defense of refractors, I would day that Short-tube apochromatic refractors of 4 or 5 inches in aperture are a convenient instrument to use, and can give extremely high contrast images, without the necessity of collimating a reflector; the main reason that some Newtonians have a bad reputation is usually the fact that the owner does not know how to collimate the telescope properly.))

cheers, madbadgalaxyman

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by venerium

Thanks for all the suggestions! Video astronomy is something I actually hadn't considered at all and a really cool idea, however I think I have a bit of a bias towards purely visual work. A lot of my enjoyment of amateur astronomy comes from being able to remove the layer of abstraction that a camera/screen brings (I get a fair dose of that every day after all ).

Although trekking is occasionally involved, it's rarely more than a few ks and I don't have many qualms about carrying ~20kg worth of a backpack/tripod. There will usually be other people with me that can help split the load as well.

Would something like the TV NP101 at 4.5kg be able to be supported by a reasonably sturdy camera tripod and say something like the UniStar? I realise high magnification work might be pushing it, but for just wide field/medium magnification viewing would that sort of setup be adequate? (I haven't found that many sturdy telescope tripods have the ability to collapse down to sub-metre lengths like most camera tripods ...)

That's all well and good Robert and I agree wholeheartedly with your post but I don't think you've read the OPs original posts nor understood his requirements. Treking back to Vi's original posts he states that he is after someting portable as he sometimes treks a few ks to his dark site. I got the impression that this scope was a bit of a fun scope for him at his dark site until his living arrangements changed. I can't think of another scope that could be walked in a few ks other than a 3 or 4 inch refractor or a tabletop 5 inch dob.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Relative Light Gathering Power of small telescopes, which essentially correlates very well with the performance on deep sky objects:

3 inch ; relative LGP is 9 (LGP is proportional to 9)

4 inch ; relative LGP is 16

5 inch ; LGP is 25

6 inch ; LGP is 36

These figures are estimates which ignore complexities such as relative contrast, relative optical quality, and relative light transmission, but it is surprising how well these figures represent the relative performance of various apertures on deep sky objects

In practise, I have used a lot of different telescopes (mainly refractors and Schmidt-Cassegrains) in the aperture range 3-6 inches, and I would say, from the comparative deep sky performance of these instruments, that 4 inches is absolutely minimal and requires excellent conditions, but 5 or 6 inches of aperture is a whole lot better!

P.S.
I do use a short-tube four inch Apo refractor, from a light polluted site, and I do enjoy it. But it is mainly 'just for fun'. For real observing, I greatly prefer either my Celestron C8 (Schmidt-Cassegrain) or my 12 inch Dob.
If I wanted a portable main instrument, I would settle for a 5 or 6 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain or a 5 inch short-tube Apochromatic refractor perhaps on a Synta AZ-4 mount.