Would you rather have a Reflector that is 114mm or Refractor that is 130mm?

Question

Would you rather have a REFLECTOR that is 114mm (4.5) or REFRACTOR that is 130mm (5.1)

They cost the same and I need to choose one.

re comment "For non-earthly viewing, a reflector is much better to use"

Please let me know why the reflector would be better to use than the refractor. The benefits and cons of each are still so hard to understand for me.

Thanks

The Reflector is a Meade DS-2114ATSA 4.5 ~ Autostar and the

Refractor is a Meade DS-2130AT goto telescope (127mm) 5"

for comparison purposes

and they are the same price because the Refractor may have a small scratch or dent on it.

Answer 1

Low cost refractors have a problem with chromatic aberration. This means that at high power you will see a haze of unfocused purple light over and around any bright object. Also, a refractor requires a heavier mount than a reflector. Because the eyepiece in a reflector is at the top end of the tube, it can be mounted closer to the ground, and it's easier to make such a mount sturdy. A cheap refractor is likely to have a spindly, shaky mount that will make the telescope very difficult to use.

Not knowing anything about the specific telescopes you're looking at, I can't say if either of them is a good choice, but I'm suspicious of a refractor that costs no more than a larger reflector. Based on that, I'd go for the reflector.

Answer 2

I can't find a refractor version of the Meade DS-2130AT, all of them I can find are reflectors. Reflectors use mirrors in the back instead of lenses in the front.

In the event that for some reason there IS Meade DS-2130AT refractor then whether or not I chose it over the 114mm reflector depends on one thing.

How bad is the chromatic aberration in the refractor?

You see lenses work by bending light but different colors bend to different degrees. White light is made of all the different colors and when it goes through a prism, all the colors bend to different degrees and so when the light comes out the other end you see a rainbow. A lens does a similar thing. Not all the colors focus to the same point and in an uncorrected refractor, you start to see this in the form of color distortions at certain magnifications.

If this refractor has any type of correction for this it will be minimal. It will be an achromatic refractor (as opposed to a fully corrected apochromatic refractor). If the chromatic aberration wasn't severe, and the lens produced little distortion, I would probably be more inclined to choose the Meade DS-2130AT over the 114 mm because not only is is larger and will collect more light, which is my personal concern.

In the event that both are reflectors, I'd still choose the larger one of course.

Now that being said, if either of these telescopes were around $300 I wouldn't buy either of them because if I saved up a little more money I'd be able to get a brand new 10" Dobsonian and do some intense galaxy viewing, or a used 8" Schmidt Cassegrain and do some intense deep space astrophotography along with some nice viewing.

There is a website here that explains a little about telescopes...it has pictures.

http://hometown.aol.com/siriusbc/telescopes.htm

Answer 3

In general, assuming the quality of the instruments is the same, the larger the front lens or mirror on a scope, the better. But it also depends on what you are going to use it for. If you intend to primarily look at planets, the refractor would be better. It is really hard to say without more specific information about the scopes and your intended use.

For a general purpose scope, I prefer a mix of the two - the Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain scope. It has both a lens and a mirror and is a compromise between the two, and is much smaller physically than either a reflector or refractor, which makes it very convenient to use.

But going purely on what info you've given, I'd probably go with the reflector. My reasoning is a good 5.1" refractor should typically cost much more than a good 4.5" reflector, so I suspect the refractor might not be very good. It is much easier ( and cheaper) to make good mirrors than it is to make good lenses.

In my personal opinion, if it costs less than $300, don't buy it. Save your money until you can afford a good one. Cheap telescopes are never worth it.

Answer 4

If they were both good 'scopes I'd go for the refractor. Unfortunately, good refractors are very expensive, so I doubt that it's any good if it's priced the same as a 4.5" reflector. But then the reflector's a bit on the small side, so maybe neither is a good buy.

In general, refractors give sharper images for the same aperture, but cost far more. They tend to be used for looking at things which are bright enough not to need a lot of aperture but do need sharp optics i.e. the moon and planets. Reflectors can be made bigger and cheaper, so they're more popular for looking at the faint fuzzies - galaxies and nebulae.

Answer 5

Definitely depends on your use. For viewing earthly objects, you have to have a refractor, or everything will be upside down in the view. For non-earthly viewing, a reflector is much better to use and should have positioning adjustments. But even more important than magnification is the resolution- or how CLEAR an image appears. Greater magnification with lesser resolution, gives you a bigger, but blurrier image. And vice versa.

Answer 6

I would go for the larger refractor. It has a larger aperature and usually offers crisper views than the reflector. Reflectors loose their alignment after a while of use, and need to be collimated.

Answer 7

a reflector which is 114mm(4.5) is better reason being that it is more economical