Which one of this telescopes is better? Does the price match the quality?

Question

I want to buy a telescope to view the sky, moon, planets, galaxies, etc... I want it for terrestrial observation too. I found 6 telescopes that I like. Now i don't know which of these it's better. If you have better suggestions don't hesitate to tell.

here are the links:

http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/skywatcher/refractors/skywatcher-120-600mm-az-3
http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/skywatcher/refractors/skywatcher-102-1000-eq-3-2
http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/vixen/refractors/fraunhofer-achromats/porta-a80mf
http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/vixen/refractors/fraunhofer-achromats/porta-a80m
http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/vixen/refractors/fraunhofer-achromats/porta-a70lf
http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/skywatcher/refractors/skywatcher-120-1000mm-eq-5

I hope you can help me :D

Answer 1

Hello D...

The telescopes you showed links to are all Refractors which use a glass lense at the end to collect light which is magnified by an eyepiece to deliver views to the observer (you). The largest lense you mentioned in your selections was 120 mm which for observation of the planets and stars would be the best "in most normal discussions." This was link number 6, the last one (120/1000mm).

Also, if we throw lightness of the assembly out of our discussion, what is most important besides the view itself, is the ability to "use" the view provided by the telescope. You cannot use the view from a telescope which has a shakey mount when you are observing at 100X, 150X, 200X levels of magnification. You will be most unhappy with the jiggling view.
So, of the six links shown, the last one has the BEST Mount.

I am not familiar with the Euro currency and cannot translate that into US Dollars. However, observation of the stars and planets requires the collection of a huge amount of light. So, you need the largest objective lens, and longest focal length that you can possibly afford.

In refractor telescopes, quality optics become extremely expensive once the objective lens reaches five inches in diameter and larger. Around six inches they become quite high in cost. Reflector telescopes, on the other hand, allow you to continue going larger and larger up to around 14 or 16 inches before the cost just gets astronomical. In short, what I am saying is that if you do some serious research, you can get a reflector telescope with a six or eight inch mirror for about the same cost, and it will capture much more light than a 70, 80, 102, or 120mm refractor telescope. Dobsinian reflector telescopes have a fairly good mount made of wood or laminates which is not to heavy to transport here and there. They are not to practical for terrestrial viewing however. To blend the two missions into one telescope that does a great job in both cases will be very difficult in the lower cost ranges.

I urge you to join a local Astronomy Club in your area prior to purchasing a NEW telescope so that you may gain information and experience from the club members, and even look through some of their telescopes prior to your purchase to make sure you get the right thing when you buy.

The last thing that I offer in the way of information is that telescopes have two basic parts beside the tube that holds everything together...They are the Light Collecting Lens or Mirror and the Eyepiece. Most low cost beginner telescopes are furnished with simple low cost eyepieces that have a value of maybe $25 to $40. A really good eyepiece may cost up to $600 each. So, good optics cost lots of money. There are no ways to circumvent this basic truth.

My own set up is a used Meade 6 Inch Refractor with Televue Nagler Eyepieces and an LDX-75 GO-TO Mount. The Mount is quite heavy to lug around. The telescope is large and cumbersome, but the combination produces some breath taking views of the Moon and pretty good views of Mars and Jupiter (yet still not what I want). I have invested about $1700 US in the outfit. I am ready to move on up to a larger Schmidt Cassegrain folded light path design of telescope some time in the near future. These telescopes have 10 to 12 Inch mirrors in them and are not to heavy or cumbersome to lug around in the back of a car.

See:
www.meade.com
www.astromart.com
www.telescope.com
www.telescopes.com

Look for Dobsinian Reflector Telescopes to learn about what I have suggested. Please look into the idea of a used telescope first which you might find at your local Astronomy club.

If you want to look at some really neat telescopes that are very expensive, see

www.takahashiamerica.com

Spend a few minutes looking at their Galleries to see what a really fine optical instrument can provide in deep space views, and you will see why I referred you to this site. I am afraid that your star and planet views with the little telescopes you listed will turn out to be pin points of light and nothing more, unless the view jiggles all over the place...

regards, Zah
zahbudar at yahoo.com

Answer 2

For astronomy, aperture is the most important thing. The 120mm telescopes will show you three times as many stars as the 80mm ones. Vixen is a better quality brand than Skywatcher, but Skywatcher is still OK. These are all very small telescopes in astronomical terms.

I'd stay away from the 120mm f/6, because its chromatic aberration is going to be too much for serious lunar or planetary observation, and will be quite distracting for terrestrial use as well. The 120/1000 model will be a little better, and offers more aperture than the other choices, though the CA is still a bit much. A refractor of this size is getting to be a bit of a handful, too. You really ought to see a telescope in person before you buy, to be sure you're ok with the size and weight. The 102/1000 is probably the best overall performer. Unfortunately, both it and the 120/1000 are equatorially mounted, which is no good for terrestrial use.

An alternative to a refractor might be a cassegranian reflector, such as this Mak-Cass - http://www.astroshop.de/en/telescopes/orion/starmax/star-max-of-127-1540mm-eq-3
More compact than a refractor, and virtually no chromatic aberration. A little less useful for terrestrial because of limited low-power capability though. This is also equatorially mounted, but it should be probable to get any optical tube on a good alt-azimuth mount; talk to the dealer.

My main suggestion to you is to actually try some of these telescopes before making your decision. If at all possible, find an astronomy club, go to some star parties, and talk to people about their telescopes. You will learn more about telescopes in an evening at a star party than in a month on the internet.

Answer 3

It's really quite hard to find _one_ telescope which is good for both terrestrial and astronomical viewing, because the demands of the two are completely different. For terrestrial viewing you want an upright view and a wide field of view, but the amount of light gathered really doesn't matter much. Thus my wife is very happy with an 80mm refractor for watching birds at her bird feeder. For astronomy, you want the most aperture you can afford, and an upright image or wide field of view is secondary. Reflectors are king, because they give you the most aperture for your money, which means better resolution and more light gathering. So maybe you need to consider two telescopes: a small refractor for terrestrial, and a large reflector for astronomy.

I've owned or tested most of the SkyWatcher scopes on your list, strictly from an astronomical point of view; my favourites are the 102mmx1000mm and the 120mmx1000mm. However, neither of these would be much good for terrestrial viewing because both have a narrow field of view and are on equatorial mounts, which are really only designed for astronomical use. The same money would buy you a reflector twice as big with four times the light gathering power, and that is what I would choose, for astronomy. The Vixen scopes are slightly better quality than the SkyWatcher, but don't count on them being made in Japan. Vixen is outsourcing many of its scopes to China nowadays.

So my choice would be an 80mm ED refractor for terrestrial viewing, and an 8 or 10 inch Dobsonian reflector for astronomy.

Answer 4

Apples and oranges: two totally different packages. The Zhumell will outperform the Celestron optically in every way, but the Celestron is more compact and has GoTo and tracking. Both are extremely useful telescopes. [Edit] Celestron is being slightly devious in saying the NexStar 8SE is good for photography. While decent photographs _can_ be made with it, it really is unsuitable for several reasons. The one-arm mount allows for vibration. The motor drive is through a spur gear rather than a worm, so has a lot of backlash, making guiding for long exposures a nightmare. I would rank this as an excellent _visual_ scope, but if your interests lean to astrophotography, look instead at the CPC800 or one of the German equatorial mounts.

Answer 5

For a given amount of money a reflector telescope gets you more. I would not waste my money on any of these.