Someone with knowledge on telescopes?

Question

Can you tell me which is better: a refractor telescope or a reflector telescope and why? It would be a first telescope for an eight year old child.

Answer 1

Hi there. There is excellant advice from all answers and I love the analogy of SUV and sports car. Refractors are more portable and initial cost less. Binoculars are better for the beginner...period. 10x50s are suggested. Sky and telescope subscription also suggested. They have a monthly star chart and a brief idea of the sky for that month.
I have been an amatuer astronomer since mid sixties, my first scope was a jason 60 mm with 700mm focal length. About 100 bucks. Walmart has a nice one for buck and a half. Stay small till the interest is solid. Email me anytime.

Answer 2

reflector is way better but a good one will be a pretty big investment. a refractor is much cheaper and usually better for a child who just wants to have a "telescope" and might end up breaking it.

However dollar for dollar your best bet would be a good set of binoculars. They will have better optics than a refractor you would buy at a department store, cheaper than a reflector, and far far more versatile.
Also buy a tripod to put them on and invest in a subscription to a an astronomy magazine such as sky and telescope.

Being only 8 you really don't need a fancy telescope, and please stay away from those cheap department store scopes, they are worthless.

With the binocs you can easily observe the planets and the moon, and track the orbits of the moons of jupiter. The magazine will tell you where to look, and they have monthly calanders. there is not alot else that you can easily observe from a city.
The main problem is that the sky in or near cities makes it very hard to see things, you really need to get out of town to get a dark area to get a good look

probably the best thing you can do is to find your local astronomy club, There should be a "dark site" nearby where people with telescopes get together to star gaze. Take your child to a few of these meetings as he will be able to look through some very powerful telescopes and see things he would not with the smaller scopes. These meetings are free and the people there will be very friendly and knowledgable, and more than happy to show your child some great objects in the sky.

most of all have fun

Answer 3

The people who are suggesting reflectors are suggesting them because they gather more light (for a given cost). That gives you better ability to see dim nebulae and galaxies, which many people want to do. But that's a pretty subtle pleasure to be of much interest to an 8 year old. The images are still pretty dim.

A refractor is much easier to operate and much more sturdy. And it does fine on the bright objects that are likely to be of interest; moon, planets, star clusters. For an 8 year old it's a no brainer. Refractor. If he likes it and gets used to operating it, you can consider a reflector as his next telescope. Especially if you know he's looking at dim objects (the refractor can do that, just not as well).

If you're not willing to spend at least $200, I'd agree with the people who suggest binoculars. Below that cheap telescopes don't give clear images, and are so shaky they are frustrating to operate. Pretty much guarantees he'll not like it.

Here's my idea of a first telescope (and it's by no means lavish, Orion is the Kia of telescopes, decent and inexpensive) :

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=106597&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=13&iProductID=106597

Above all else, do not buy a telescope that emphasizes high power (600 power!!!!). Usually on the box or in an ad. It's a sure sign of junk. There is no way that an inexpensive telescope will give a good image at much more than 100 power. 600 (or even 300) would just be a blur. 50 would be a more usual power used for sharp views. Buying from a department store or even a "science shop" is nowhere near as good as buying from a serious telescope store, where you can get good advice.

Answer 4

It depends on the application. In this case for an 8yr old, a simple yet sturdy refractor is probably the way to go, as they are easier to use (You look straight through it at whatever you point it at).

The most important things for a beginning telescope is a sturdy mount and clear optics, otherwise the beginner will lose interest rather quickly.

Magnification has little to no consideration for a beginning telescope (actually any telescope) as it is a function of the eyepiece used with the telescope (magnification is the focal length of the telescope divided by the focal length of the eyepiece).

Here is my advice on the subject... unless there is a parent who is familiar with the night sky (location of major constellations, planets and stars) then a pair of binoculars is probably the best best for someone with no knowledge of astronomy. Amatuers lose interest in astronomy because they don't know how to find things, the things they find are not as intersting as the pictures in books, and a mediocre scope is more frustrating than helfpful. A mediocre scope is hard to keep centered on the object, its optics make the object fuzzy, plus the tripod is so flimsy that the object dances in the eyepiece with a slight breeze.

If you want to learn more about buying a telescope I recommend Orion Telescopes website as it is very informative and geared for all level of users. www.telescope.com

I also always recommend the book TURN LEFT AT ORION as a good beginners book for learning astronomy with a small scope (or binoculars)

Answer 5

Generally, reflectors are better first telescopes because you get more aperture for your money. However, they are somewhat more fragile than refractors and require occasional adjustment to keep the optics aligned. So unless the telescope is going to be used with adult help and supervision, I'd go with a small refractor for an eight year old.

In the US, Orion (http://www.telescope.com/) is a good place for beginner telescopes.

Answer 6

The first telescope for an 8 year old is usually a 60mm refractor.
If they really get into it, you can shell out a few more bucks for a 4-6"motorized reflector. Serious amatures usually use Scmidt Cassegrain types.

Answer 7

Reflectors are better because there is less edge distortion. Even at the age of only 8, it's important to get the child a nice one. Meade and Celestron are very good for the price. The more powerful the telescope is, the more hours he or she will spend looking at the planets and the moon.

Answer 8

This is like asking if an SUV is better than a sports car. The answer depends on what you can afford and what you want to do with it.

Refractors use a primary lens to collect light. Lenses work by collecting light over a large area and "bending" it to focus it all to a little bright image. The problem is, different wavelengths (colors) of light bend to different degrees when encountering the lens and so not all of the colors focus perfectly. This is called chromatic abberation. In some refractors this is partially corrected for (achromatic refractors) and in others this is almost completely eliminated (apochromatic refractors) by using not one lens, but a system of mulitple lenses. Also, it's difficult to make large, flawless lenses. Because of all of this, refractors are the most expensive telescopes per inch of aperture and there are only a few around which are suitable for deep space observing such as galaxies. Those that do exist for this purpose are incredibly heavy, needing very expensive mounts, many feet in length, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. So, refractors are typically reserved for planetary, star cluster, and lunar observing and can offer very crisp, clear images if they're apochromatic and you're using a good eyepeice.

Reflectors, on the other hand, use a large mirror to collect light and focus it to a bright image. They do not suffer from chromatic abberation. They can suffer from other defects such as coma but if you buy "diffraction limited" optics, this usually isn't a problem. Large mirrors are lighter than lenses and easier to make so refractirs are the most cost effective per inch of aperture. Because they can be made with large apertures, they're ideal for deep space observing, and can produce nice views of planets and other local objects as well.

The optical system in reflectors is somewhat like a satellite dish. The large mirror is somewhat concave shapes, collects the light, and bounces it to a secondary mirror, which bounces it to the eyepeice. This secondary mirror is mounted in the middle of the telescope tube near the front, and here is where all the controversy over reflectors and refractors come in.

When people say "refractors are better" what they're usually thinking of is the fact that in reflectors, the secondary mirror is an obstruction, blocking some of the light from entering the tube. This means though a telescope may have an aperture of 4.5", the effective aperture may be a little smaller in the reflector. In a refractor, there is no secondary mirror so a 4.5" refractor, aside from being thousands of dollars, will collect slightly more light than a 4.5" reflector. Also, the secondary obstruction in reflectors also causes what's called diffraction spikes, when you look at stars. This is basically the somewhat cross shape you see most stars drawn as and doesn't bother most people.

Of course, when you want to do deep space viewing, this becomes irrelevant because you around going to find an apochromatic refractor under $10,000 dollars that can see what a 10" or even an 8" reflector can.

So quality refractors are usually made very well and offer clear, crips images of planets, star cluster, and near by things but are unsuitable for most deep space viewing.

Decent sized quality reflectors will offer decent images of planets, star clusters, and local things plus you will be able to see some galaxies, faint nebulas, and depending on the size, even some distant comets.

For your 8 year old's first telescope I'd buy a reflector or catadioptric such as a schmidt cassegrain because the kid is going to care the most about the quantity of things he can see and how bright the image looks. I"d get nothing smaller than a 4.5" on a german equatorial mount but a really great one for you both would be a used, motorized 8" schmidt cassegrain as you can advance to astrophotography and see a lot. These run about $400-$900 used depending on a lot of things.

You can also get a used 10" Dobsonian somewhere in that pricerange. This will allow you to see a lot more with your eyes as opposed to an 8" but you won't be able to do astrophotography.

Don't buy anything from a department store. Avoid brands like Bushnell and Tascop.
Reputable brands are Celestron, Meade, and Orion.

You can pay half as much for a good used telescope so look around in the classifieds on www.astromart.com

Clear Skies.

P.S. I would not get him a modest refractor because losts of kids tend to find them letdowns and abandon astronomy because of it.

Answer 9

Until he learns more about astronomy and use of a telescope, a modest refractor would be your best purchase. A reflector is great, but it requires more maintenance and initial purchase is more expensive.

p.s. If he's really avid about astronomy, get him a subscription to "Sky and Telescope".

Answer 10

A reflector is certainly better but I'd start the kid on a refractor.

Kid's not going to go for crazy difficult observations. For the easier ones, e.g. Jupiter's moons, Venus phases, etc., a good, cheaper refractror is fine (+ is't better for spying on neighbours etc.). It's also more intuitive to use.

Also, search on astronomy with binoculars - there's an amazing amout of stuff you can see by using a low magnification / broad field scope. E.g. novas are much esier to spot that way, and you can find your way around the main planets of the solar system.