I would like to know if a reflector telescope or a refractor telescope is best for star and planet viewing?

Answer 1

A refractor is generally better for viewing stars and planets in our local neighborhood. A reflector is best for viewing other galaxies.

Answer 2

If you just want to view planets and brighter star cluster then a apochromatic refractor of sufficiently large aperture will do nicely. You should get one no smaller than 80mm and even with this size you may have difficulty seeing detail on the planets. An 80mm will run you around $500. The problem with refractors is that good ones are expensive. They're far more expensive to make than reflectors or catadioptrics so large aperture telescopes are typically not refractors.

For someone who doesn't have one already, I think a better choice would generally be a reflector or catadioptric between 6" and 8" or larger if you wish and if you want to avoid diffraction spikes on stars, then a catadioptric instead of a reflector. The reason is the larger aperture will allow you to use higher magnification eyepieces if the weather conditions permit, to see a lot of planetary detail and it will also allow you to see fainter objects like galaxies and some dimmer star clusters.

Price Wars:
New telescopes are expensive and I generally avoid them. If you buy used and shop around you can find an 80mm apo for $400 not including mount and tripod, you can also find older Celestron C8's for around $400 and newer used Schmidt Cassegrains for anywhere between $400 and $1000

You can find 10" Schmidt Cassegrains between $1100 and $2000, some with accesssories.

You can find 10" Meade Starfinders on GEM's for around $300-$400 though some people ask $600 and simple 10" Dobsonians four $600 with larger ones built by places like Obsession for around $1000-$2000 used.

You can find used telescopes on www.astromart.com and www.cloudynights.com

You can also find shops that sell used telescopes for very reasonable prices.

Answer 3

Typically, a refractor is used for planetary viewing due to better contrast. The reason being that there is no central obstruction in the light path unlike reflectors like catadioptrics , maksutov, etc.

Another thing to be aware of with refractors is that unless they're APO, there is chromatic abberation (false coloring). This is caused by the fact that different wavelengths of light focus at slightly different places when passing through a lens. Reflectors don't suffer from this, though some designs may be prone to coma and light spikes.

Reflectors are used for deep space viewing, where it is more about sheer light gathering power than contrast.

There are some newer reflectors that are known as off-axis reflectors, the use aspherical mirrors and have no central obstruction. These are expensive though.

In the end though, it comes down to aperature. The more aperature you have, the more light the scope collects and the more you can "see".

Cost-wise, reflectors give the better deal per inch of aperature as lenses for refractors (especially APO lenses) are expensive to make.

But as a previous poster pointed out, you're not going to find a good scope at a retailer. A good scope will probably run you around $1000 or so. Really high end scopes can run into 10-20000 range.

~X~

Answer 4

A refractor telescope is heavy. A reflector telescope is less expensive.

Answer 5

X gave you a pretty good summary, though he's a little pessimistic on price. There are some pretty decent dobs (altazimuth mounted Newtonian reflectors) starting at under $300. As with everything else, though, more money will get you better performance.

Answer 6

Unless you're willing to spend about a grand it doesn't matter. Jupiter for example will be blurred through a refrator as it will through a reflector. If you're going to nail me for a decision though I would say a refactor - don't forget the metetor shower tonight at 04.45. Naked eye stuff yay!!