Jump to content

help me to choose the correct telescope


Recommended Posts

hello everybody,

 

i would like to use a telescope for observation of landscape and observation of celestial objects. i have several scopes on my mind and i would like to have your opinion - because i would like to have one telescope for all my needs (i am not so demanding user, so i think it is possible).

 

i was thinking about these two refractors:

 

1) BRESSER Taurus 90/900 NG

https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Taurus-90-900-NG-Refractor-with-Smartphone-Camera-Adapter.html

i like this scope, because it is all-in-one package, the only downside i found is that objective is 9 cm.

 

2) Meade Infinity 102mm AZ Refractor

https://www.meade.com/infinitytm-102mm-refracting-telescope.html

this one i found interesting because of it's objective lens (10cm), and its length - allowing me larger field of view for landscape observations

 

i was thinking about this reflector as well:

 

3) BRESSER Telescope Spica 130/650 EQ3

https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Telescope-Spica-130-650-EQ3-parabolic-Reflector-with-Smartphone-Camera-Adapter.html

i am aware that this one is on eq mount, and that it's not for landscape observations - but i could buy eyepiece that will modify the image for landscape use, and this eq mount could be very useful for gazing into the sky. for this one i would by collimator, and this eyepiece, and i would have the complete amateur package, and for any of the refractors i could by maybe some better 6mm eyepiece, and solar / moon filter.

 

thanks for your time and interest, any suggestion is welcome

: )

vlad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vlad, welcome to the forum.

 

I would avoid the Taurus as the tripod looks very flimsy. The heavier and more solid the tripod the better.

 

The Meade Infinity would be easier to use for starters but I don't know what the image quality is like.

 

The Spica will give slightly brighter image I think but you will have to learn how to collimate a newtonian, not too bad one you know what you are doing.

 

It's also worth having a look at secondhand telescopes for sale near you, there might be something a lot better available for similar price.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the Taurus, although at f/10 there would be less chromatic aberration than the Meade Infinity. It will be long and have a smaller field of view. The Newtonian won't necessarily show a corrected image even with an erecting eyepiece. 

 

pM5vKGym.jpg

 

A Newtonian can be rotated in its tube rings and the image won't be mirror-reversed but it won't always be upright depending on how the optical tube assembly is rotated. So I wouldn't recommend a Newtonian for terrestrial viewing.

 

Vk35tJxm.jpg

 

Personally, out of the three, I'd go with the Meade. I think it is supplied with an Amici prism diagonal to give corrected views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello, and thank you very much for interest!


yes chromatic aberration is likely to be the issue with meade due to its length.. that also crossed my mind a few days ago..


if you have other ideas, please post - although i am not sure what can i get here.. skywatcher i can get for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA can be ameliorated with a yellow filter. Although I doubt it would be much of a problem for daylight viewing or deep sky objects. A Wratten #8 or fringe killer/minus-cyan filter is a longpass filter blocking visible wavelengths below 465 nm. Blue light is between 450-495 nm and cyan light is between 490-520 nm. Yellow light is between 570-590 nm and light produced from low pressure sodium lamps is around 589 nm (589.0 ~ 589.3 nm) on average. Light pollution, Moon & Skyglow and basic contrast filters are designed to attenuate sodium light skyglow. 

 

fms6KwVm.jpg

 

A Wratten #8 will attenuate or block blue/cyan light below 465 nm and a contrast filter stacked behind it will further attenuate the 589 nm length of sodium light. The effect the stacked contrast filter has is to reintroduce a very slight blue tint to the image effectively slightly naturalising it.

 

1FNOL9km.jpg

 

It's not too different to the more expensive stacked Baader Fringe Killer/Neodymium filter.

 

FDgiBSOm.jpg

 

Although you'd probably only really use it for high lunar/planetary magnifications. It depends on how often you intend to use the telescope for astronomy and what you intend to observe with it. 

 

Qk0WCtVl.jpg

 

If you're concerned about excessive CA you could go for a 72ED DS Pro.

 

 

Edited by Nightspore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello and thank you all once again for your time and energy.

i would like to have something up to 500 eur

i have idea to use it on a balcony of my house - and i have view on the hills and a factory in the front.

since i am in a town, light pollution i would categorize as medium (side lights / street lights i have to deal with as well)

i have no particular intention of moving the thing to better watching spots (at least i think like that for now). i've used to watch the land and the sky from the same balcony using the monocular 8x42 for a long time.

i would not categorize myself as a star/sky gazer, rather somebody who would like to enjoy the place he lives by observation.

vlad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nightspore said:

There's always a Maksutov Cassegrain.

 

CxzChGcl.jpg

hehe - for sure, although i am not aware of the robustness of these devices and the maintenance / is there need for collimation etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vlnikolic said:

hehe - for sure, although i am not aware of the robustness of these devices and the maintenance / is there need for collimation etc..

 

jo1u8Wgl.jpg

 

They're robust enough, I believe they were originally designed for the Russian military.

 

ivSaYu3l.jpg

 

They need little maintenance and unlike SCT's don't need to be collimated.

 

dXL7uMwl.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nightspore said:

 

jo1u8Wgl.jpg

 

They're robust enough, I believe they were originally designed for the Russian military.

 

ivSaYu3l.jpg

 

They need little maintenance and unlike SCT's don't need to be collimated.

 

dXL7uMwl.jpg

hehe - thanks..

judging by your images - even just watching the scopes seems to be interesting

hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...