is this a good telescope? click on link?

Question

this telescope is looks really nice but i am woried about the price why is it so cheap. it could be on sale but it doesn't say. it is $150 and the list price is $500. please tell me if it is good or not.


Thanks,
Sam Tietjen

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes/meadetelestards2114atstcgototelescope.cfm

Answer 1

On first glance, it offers a lot of bang for the buck, but I think I'd do more shopping.

The Meade spec sheet for it indicates it has an F4.5 mirror, but it's an F8 scope. This means it's got a built in barlow that's a permanent part of the scope to make the focal length longer.

Much of the mount is plastic.

Here's an alternative that doesn't have the goto feature - and that may be important to you, but it should have better optics and the mount is metal:

< http://www.astronomics.com/main/product.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_name/TFH8XLXFNNPN8P2366E55MFXS2/product_id/K114 >

If you want a shorter tube, there's this one:

< http://www.astronomics.com/main/product.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_name/TFH8XLXFNNPN8P2366E55MFXS2/product_id/K114SE >

But I'd still head to an astronomical society before buying anything.

Answer 2

The list price is $500 because new telescopes are overpriced, and the sale price is $150 because the one arm electronic mount has been a source of frustration for many. Apparently it's useless without electricity and it isn't very stable.

Would I buy this telescope? For $150, sure, I might, just for the hell of it. It has enough aperture to see a few things. But know what to expect of it.

If you want a great telescope and $150 is a lot of money for you to spend, I recommend saving your money until you have enough for something better.

Answer 3

Yes, that is a good telescope. $549 would be over priced for that telescope, but $150 seems like a good deal to me. The highest useful magnification will be maybe about 200, and I suspect you will not like the views you get at anything much over 100 with a telescope of that size. For 350 power you really need a much bigger telescope. Still, you can see a lot at 100x, like the rings of Saturn, craters on the Moon, cloud belts on Jupiter, polar ice caps on Mars, and lots of star clusters and nebulae and galaxies. On the nebulae and galaxies you probably want even lower power anyway, like 50x or so. Contrary to popular belief, nebulae and galaxies are not hard to see because they are small, they are hard to see because they are dim. More important than magnification is a really dark sky when looking at nebulae and galaxies. I mean REALLY dark, where the Milky Way (that cannot even be seen at all in the bright night sky of a typical city) is annoyingly bright and you cannot believe how many stars you see in the sky.

Answer 4

I wouldn't recommend this scope. The "short tube" design has a lot of serious optical faults, and won't be useful for looking at much that requires magnification. The reason why it appears cheap is an inflated list price...its actual selling price is about what I'd expect. As I indicated in my answer to another question you posted, I'd recommend the Orion StarBlast as the ONLY good telescope in this price range. Stay away from the Konus telescopes someone else recommended, they're junk like this one. And to the person who says "Meade is a good brand," yes it is, but Meade sells a lot more junk scopes than their good ones, so you can't rely on them as a brand name. Even on their expensive scopes, quality control is terrible.

Answer 5

Notice that says "pre-order" means not in stock YET. Sometimes things can be worth waiting for.

You will want a power pack or stock in the energizer company. Battery packs with these do not last a whole evening.

It does mention Atl-Az tripod with go-to.

I have an older NexSar 114mm goto and I would rate overall as fair. I paid $150 used.

I would much rather look at the views in my 120mm refractor than this reflector.

This would be a good first scope for someone.

Answer 6

It's not bad, but they are exaggerating the maximum magnification it's closer to 225 not 350

Also I didn't see tripod legs mentioned, you might want to make sure it has a tripod (which is probably does).