Advise on new scope

AB.. · #1 16-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Hi all, I need some help with advising my neighbour on which type of scope to buy. His initial budget was $300 but I have convinced him to go to $500.

He wants to use it primarily for viewing the night sky but also for terrestrial viewing of the bay across from his holiday house.
He has no interest in getting into astrophotography and just wants something that is very easy to operate and to move around.

Any suggestions on type and size of scope would be appreciated also the reason why would help.

Thanks for any help,
AB..

vindictive666 (John) · #2 16-02-2006, 02:00 PM

hello

have a look here

http://www.andrewscom.com.au/site-section-10.htm

https://www.bintelshop.com.au/welcome.htm

the biggest aperture for the buck

this should give a reasonable idea on whats available for around $500

ving (David) · #3 16-02-2006, 02:03 PM

www.andrewscom.com.au or www.bintel.com.au

pick up a 6 or 8 inch dob....
alternatively aoe.com.au and pick up on eof their refractors.

they'd be your best bet

6" dob $299
http://www.andrewscom.com.au/images/...nian/gs580.jpg

8" dob $399
http://www.andrewscom.com.au/images/...nian/gs680.jpg

90mm f6.6 refractor from aoe $299
http://www.aoe.com.au/AOE90SFSLarge.jpg

davidpretorius · #4 16-02-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB..

primarily for viewing the night sky but also for terrestrial viewing

just remember, the relectors will be upside down. i managed to view a humpback whale frolicing off the east coast of tasmania through my 10" reflector which was cool, but upside down!!

rochler · #5 16-02-2006, 04:14 PM

if you want to use it primarily for night sky viewing then a 6" to 8" Dob. as suggested by Ving would be exceptionally good value for money (great choice). However, as Davidpretorius correctly points out - being a reflector it would give you an upside down image when used for terrestrial viewing.

But you could overcome that problem with a 45 deg. diagonal mirror in front of the eyepiece? With a refractor you wouldn't have the upside-down image problem, but you get a lot less aperture for the $$$.

I guess you'd have to run the options past your neighbour & he/she can decide based on the most likely usage & preference.

Both types would be very easy to use, transport & setup.

Cheers, Fred...

OneOfOne (Trevor) · #6 17-02-2006, 10:25 AM

I would suggest a refractor, and as some have indicated, you will get a pretty decent one for the budget. If you get a 45 or 90 degree prism to correct the image, you may find you don't get enough "in focus travel" and things will be just about in focus, but you just can't go far enough. I need about 10 mm more...on mine at least.

Also, a dob will be pretty low to the ground when you are viewing something terrestrial, like a tree or the neighbours

and that could be hard on the back.

On a lighter side, you will also find that other people can never work out where to look in a reflector because they just "don't look like telescopes" or what people expect a telescope should look like. It is pretty funny to see people either look through the finder or go to the end of the tube and try to look...

rmcpb (Rob) · #7 17-02-2006, 11:21 AM

For those combined uses I would probably recommend one of the short focal length refractors readily available from the usual suppliers. Light and easy to set up, virtually no cooling down time, image the correct way up for the terrestrial viewing and still good for wide angle views of the heavens.

mickoking · #8 17-02-2006, 05:13 PM

That 90mm Refractor Ving reccomended looks like the go

ving (David) · #9 17-02-2006, 06:01 PM

thats what i am thinking micko, but we havent heard back yet from him

janoskiss (Steve H) · #10 17-02-2006, 07:50 PM

AB, a 4" Maksutov on an alt-az (AZ3) mount might squeeze in the budget. Myastroshop have the 102mm Skywatcher Mak, which should be a decent scope. I'm sure they could swing a deal with an AZ3. The advantage of this scope is that it would do higher magnifications than the achromatic refractor without image breakdown, i.e., better view of planets, super-close nature/bird watching. The advantage of the short refractor (for astronomy) is very wide views are possible. But more often you want to get close rather than wide. The Mak will still frame just about all deep sky objects comfortably.

Starkler (Geoff) · #11 17-02-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB..

Hi all, I need some help with advising my neighbour on which type of scope to buy. His initial budget was $300 but I have convinced him to go to $500.

He wants to use it primarily for viewing the night sky but also for terrestrial viewing of the bay across from his holiday house.

I must say that the $500 will buy a scope that will be very capable for the night sky, but useless for terrestial. On the other hand a small refractor will do the terrestial, but will be miles behind the dob in night sky capability, IMO a bare step up from a pair of binoculars.

What your friend needs to consider is how important each of the competing demands are.

Plan C , a pair of binos and a dob also ?

Miaplacidus (Brian) · #12 17-02-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

Plan C , a pair of binos and a dob also ?

Yeah, that's what I was just about to suggest.

Brian.

AB.. · #13 17-02-2006, 10:10 PM

Thanks for all your replies, the guy already has a pair of binos so Iam thinking a 90 or maybe even 102 mm f9 on a AZ3 mount. What do you all think??

janoskiss (Steve H) · #14 17-02-2006, 10:40 PM

102 f9 achromatic refractor would get my vote, but on the AZ3 it would be too wobbly with its long tube. So, 90mm f6.6 on AZ3 would be a better choice.

g__day (Matthew) · #15 18-02-2006, 09:55 AM

I'd advise spend $239 at Andrews for a pair of the 20 * 80 binoculars and put them on decent tripod and get an adjustable bar stool from office works ~ about his $500 budget, but this way he gets wield field of view, comfortable vision without squinting, dead easy set-up, perfect day/night use, expanding familarity of the night sky and above all without a sore back!

Nothing kills astronomy faster than fatigue or lack of comfort when you want to do prolonged viewing, so first make it comfortable and stress free and it'll last alot longer and be far more enjoyable.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #16 18-02-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g__day

I'd advise spend $239 at Andrews for a pair of the 20 * 80 binoculars and put them on decent tripod and get an adjustable bar stool ... all without a sore back!

Sore neck though, when viewing at 60+ degrees above the horizon.

I think we've been through all the options now, within the $500 budget, AB. Except the camera shop, electronics/department store and ebay junk scopes, which are a nono!