You can probably manage an 8" Dobsonian on your budget. The Dob is the best way to get a lot of aperture at modest cost. It's also a much more stable mount that most small tripod mounts.
2007-04-28 16:30:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by injanier 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You don't actually see farther, you just collect more light.
The more aperture your telescope has, the more light it will collect and the more you will be able to see. If you want to see a lot of deep space objects, such as galaxies, you need a fairly large telescope.
The largest telescope you can get for your money would be a dobsonian. If you can manage $500 then you can buy a 10" Zhummell Dobsonian. This is a serious deep sky telescope and you will probably be very very happy with it.
The downside is, it's a dobsonian, so you won't be able to do astrophotography with it.
If you can't exceed $400 then the largest telescope you can buy would be an 8" Dobsonian. You will not be able to buy a large tripod mounted telescope for $400 though. At least not new.
If you are willing to buy used you may be able to find an old Celestron C8 or and 8" or 10" Meade Starfinder on a german equatorial mount.
Look around at these sites:
http://www.telescopes.com (where you can buy the Zhummell)
http://www.oriontelescopes.com
http://www.astromart.com (forums and classifieds)
2007-05-01 00:35:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by minuteblue 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Try www.scopetronix.com and look to the right and click on Starter Telescopes (under $400). The will show some of the higher end telescopes from Meade and Celestron. These are companies that have been around for more than 40 years.
2007-04-29 01:39:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anthony W 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
wow...You want a good telescope for under $400. Hmm...
I will suggest to you an 8 Inch reflector scope, used. You can
probably pick up one of these on EBay with a good package
of accessories for within $400 - $600.
'Try to stay with the largest mirror scope you can get your hands on. The mount will probably be the crummiest part of this package at the low cost figure. You can upgrade it later.
2007-04-28 22:20:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by zahbudar 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
you can't ever get a good tripod for $ 400. My advise to you is save about $3,000 and get yourself a decent scope. You say that you had a couple scopes before, and you will not see any difference in a scope for $400. I have a 8" Meade lx200gps sct, and I wish I got something a little bit bigger, but am glad that I didn't , because these scopes are heavy.
2007-04-29 06:06:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by paulbritmolly 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I own an Orion XT 8. This telescope is on a dobsonian mount and is therefor very stable and very easy to use. I do not know what the price is as I own mine for a few years already but I think it will be more or less in your price-range.
You can go to www.telescope.com/
2007-04-28 22:07:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To see stellar objects more clearly a Newtonian Refracting telescope is preferred over reflecting telescopes. Refracting scopes aren't plagued by abberations the reflecting scopes have and they have more light gathering capability. I like Celestron.
Try going to www.celestron.com
Lots of good info there.
2007-04-28 21:43:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Stratman 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hey you should email robin the astronomer! He is Astro here in yahoo answers and he helped me get a great one! I posted the same question justabout & he answered and so I emailed him at
asktheastronomer@gmail.com
and he is really cool! He is helping me find comets right now. And he told me what eyepieces to get and i'm really happy with my telescope!
Glad I bought one!! Stars are amazing to look at in it!
and paul is wrong about the tripod! the astronomer will tell you how to get one for $400 !!
2007-04-30 02:31:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Planet22 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sadly, you can't get much of a telescope for $400 or less. Your best bet would be a Dobson. They have no tracking but have fairly large mirrors. Take a look:
http://www.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?keywords=dobsonian&cat=17&brand=&display=&sort=&lp=&hp=
2007-04-28 22:58:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Michael da Man 6
·
0⤊
0⤋