# Planning to buy a first telescope?

by turbo
Tags: planning, telescope
PF Patron
P: 10,394
 Quote by DaveC426913 You will fail. Exoplanets are very far away. Much too far to transit in front of a streetlight. Spoiler : biggrin :
Unless it's planet Mothra.
 P: 14 Hey ya'll. I just ordered up this telescope and am waiting for it to come in the mail now. http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/...335/p/9024.uts What do you guys think? Any good? I thought 90mm was pretty big for a refractor. What do you think i'll be able to see best with this?
PF Patron
P: 7,345
 Quote by CowedbyWisdom Hey ya'll. I just ordered up this telescope and am waiting for it to come in the mail now. http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Refractor-Telescopes/Refracto thatr-Telescopes-with-Equatorial-Mounts/Orion-AstroView-90mm-Equatorial-Refractor-Telescope/pc/1/c/10/sc/335/p/9024.uts What do you guys think? Any good? I thought 90mm was pretty big for a refractor. What do you think i'll be able tback o see best with this?
90 mm is OK if the optics are good. My finder scope is 90 mm and my main scope is 150 mm. I'll take the 90 mm Vernonscope out on the deck from time to time. In these dark skies, you can pick up a lot of faint objects with 90 mm.

I should mention that the mount illustrated in the ad is very light. If the wind is very light or non-existent, you can probably squeak by, but you might have to stiffen that mount somehow. Good luck.
 P: 14 Thanks I appreciate the advice! What would you suggest I do to stiffen up the legs? Do you think velcro ankle weights would do the trick?
 Mentor P: 21,663 For a first scope that's a good choice. My first was the standard 60mm x 900mm. With your larger lens, you'll get brighter and higher resolution images. Manual equatorial is also a good choice, but make sure you really put in the effort required to learn to use it properly. It makes observing a lot easier and you'll also learn about the sky more. Regarding stiffening the legs, I don't consider that a priority. Yes, it may help but you've got a lot of other fish to fry before that becomes a significant issue for you. Heck, my rig weighs 150 lb and I still find the best way to keep it steady is simply not to touch it when looking through it.
 PF Patron HW Helper Sci Advisor P: 3,720 Turbo is right about the mount being very light for that scope. My son's C4 (Celestron 102mm f9.4) refractor sits on a CG-4 very stably. That is likely the best inexpensive mount for your scope. You can modify the legs of your CG-2 as was described here if you want to try that first. It is a great modification to replace those aluminum legs with wooden ones and it requires very little in the way of tools. (drill, sandpaper, rasp or jigsaw, adjustable wrenches) It's not necessary to replace the round stainless steel legs that come with the new CG-4 mount. You may find that the view bounces around in a light breeze and blame the legs for that. What I have found with lightweight mounts and long tube scopes is that the backlash on the RA is the biggest culprit and that can't be addressed by stiffening the legs. You can help it a bit by tightening the mesh on the pinion/RA gear and eliminating as much as possible the pinion axis play (thrust-type play). Diagnose the play by placing your fingers on the pinion axis and slightly tap the OTA. You will definitely feel the play. 90 mm is a pretty nice apeture for grab and go and the 1000mm focal length is the sweet spot for pretty good magnification and moderately wide field. You should be able to have great lunar and planetary views as well as globular clusters and double stars. With wide angle eyepieces like the Meade SWA 28 or 34mm (used) you will have fantastic views of globulars, larger nebula like M-42 and most of the open clusters like the Pleiades or the Double Cluster. You might find that there is a little purple color at high magnification for bright objects but that can largely be eliminated with a minus violet filter or the Baader Contrast Booster which is also a fine Mars filter.
 P: 14 Thanks for all the great advice everyone! I have gotten pretty good at finding stuff with the telescope. So far I have seen Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Pleiades, Luna (can't wait for the harvest moon), Vega, Deneb, Altair, Aldebaran, Polaris (obviously), and a few others I don't know the names of yet. I just ordered a 3x Barlow and a Nebula Filter from Orion. I'm hoping that these will allow me to see Andromeda Galaxy. Does anyone have any advice for spotting Andromeda Galaxy? Also I believe I can see some smudges on the screen of the star diagonal. Anyone have any tips on cleaning that bit? Also could ya'll give me some advice on which one of these Orthoscopics is better? http://agenaastro.com/kokusai-kohki-...piece-7mm.html http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...----Kasai.html All your advice is appreciated! -Jack
PF Patron
HW Helper
P: 3,720
 Quote by CowedbyWisdom Thanks for all the great advice everyone! I have gotten pretty good at finding stuff with the telescope. So far I have seen Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Pleiades, Luna (can't wait for the harvest moon), Vega, Deneb, Altair, Aldebaran, Polaris (obviously), and a few others I don't know the names of yet. I just ordered a 3x Barlow and a Nebula Filter from Orion. I'm hoping that these will allow me to see Andromeda Galaxy. Does anyone have any advice for spotting Andromeda Galaxy? Also I believe I can see some smudges on the screen of the star diagonal. Anyone have any tips on cleaning that bit? Also could ya'll give me some advice on which one of these Orthoscopics is better? http://agenaastro.com/kokusai-kohki-...piece-7mm.html http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...----Kasai.html All your advice is appreciated! -Jack
The Andromeda Galaxy is huge. Much larger than the full moon but the outer edges are probably going to be difficult to see. You don't need any magnification to see it at all. The best view with your scope will be at 25 mm to 35 mm with as wide a field of view as you can get. The nebula filter won't work on the Andromeda Galaxy but it will work on planetary nebula like M27 or emission nebula like M42 in Orion. You really don't need one IMO.
 PF Patron Sci Advisor P: 8,897 I agree, aside from perhaps a moon filter, they are a waste of money for the vast majority of amateurs. The money is better spent on accessories like dielectric diagonals.
PF Patron
P: 10,394
 Quote by Chronos I agree, aside from perhaps a moon filter, they are a waste of money for the vast majority of amateurs. The money is better spent on accessories like dielectric diagonals.
Hmm. I need a spectrograph!
PF Patron
P: 1,958
 Quote by CowedbyWisdom ..........Does anyone have any advice for spotting Andromeda Galaxy? ............ All your advice is appreciated! -Jack
as chemisttree commented ... Andromeda galaxy is huge
you need a dark sky site ... that really helps. its easily visible naked eye
using a star map of the Pegasus and Andromeda constellations area you will easily find it doing some star hopping. I suggest using even low power binoculars say 7 x 50 before using the telescope

Once you find that, then you can move a bit into the Triangulum constellation
and have a look at M33 another large spiral galaxy. This one is face on to us and has
quite a low surface brightness but again a dark site and binoculars should be enough
to initially pick it out

cheers
Dave
 P: 31 I posed this question in a thread in the GD forum because I had not yet seen this thread and, wretched creature that I am, I neglected the search tool. Anyway, regarding beginner telescopes, I thought some of you might be able to provide some insight. I read that a good beginner range is a 60-80 mm refracting telescope. How far and how clearly would an 80 mm be able to see? For example, how clearly would I be able to see Saturn (assuming good atmospheric conditions) with an 80 mm? Would I be able to see Titan as well? I define the word "novice" when it comes to telescopes and any help would be much appreciated.
 PF Patron HW Helper Sci Advisor P: 3,720 The smallest refractor you should get is a 70mm with a focal length greater than 700mm, IMO. The 60mm scopes available nowadays have truly horrible mounts and will really frustrate you. The 80mm scopes are a real step up in quality both in optics and the mount, so that is the one I would choose in the range you suggest. A decent 80 to 90mm achromatic refractor telescope (Celestron, Meade, Orion, Skywatcher, Explore Scientific, AstroMaster, etc...) will cost you from $150 to$500 depending on quality and the mount you choose. Those scopes will let you see Saturn fairly clearly but it (Saturn) will be small and you might not be able to make out some fine details. These scopes come with low cost diagonals and eyepieces which can affect the quality of the image you see. For nearly the same money (~$300), you could get a much higher quality 6" dob that would give you much better images, IMO. P: 31  Quote by chemisttree The smallest refractor you should get is a 70mm with a focal length greater than 700mm, IMO. The 60mm scopes available nowadays have truly horrible mounts and will really frustrate you. The 80mm scopes are a real step up in quality both in optics and the mount, so that is the one I would choose in the range you suggest. A decent 80 to 90mm achromatic refractor telescope (Celestron, Meade, Orion, Skywatcher, Explore Scientific, AstroMaster, etc...) will cost you from$150 to $500 depending on quality and the mount you choose. Those scopes will let you see Saturn fairly clearly but it (Saturn) will be small and you might not be able to make out some fine details. These scopes come with low cost diagonals and eyepieces which can affect the quality of the image you see. For nearly the same money (~$300), you could get a much higher quality 6" dob that would give you much better images, IMO.
Thanks! I think you started typing your answer before I temporarily took my question down to search the thread. I got my answer, but I re-posted my question anyway to avoid confusion. My sights are currently set on the Orion XT8. There is a payment plan available for $120/month that seems like a really good deal. Again, thanks for for your help.  P: 31 I've reconsidered and I think I'm going to go with binoculars to start my amateur astronomy journey. How do these look? http://www.telescope.com/Binoculars/.../72/p/9327.uts PF Patron P: 10,394  Quote by FreeMitya I've reconsidered and I think I'm going to go with binoculars to start my amateur astronomy journey. How do these look? http://www.telescope.com/Binoculars/.../72/p/9327.uts Those are good, but you're going to need a tripod to hold them, as 15x magnification is practically impossible to hold steady with just your hands. Binoculars are good for starters, as they generally have a wide field of view and don't require collimation or adjustments. P: 31  Quote by Drakkith Those are good, but you're going to need a tripod to hold them, as 15x magnification is practically impossible to hold steady with just your hands. Binoculars are good for starters, as they generally have a wide field of view and don't require collimation or adjustments. The tripod shouldn't be a problem. P: 244 For a beginning telescope, how does this look? http://www.telescope.com/Shop-by-Bra...tValueIds=4519  Quote by chemisttree For nearly the same money (~$300), you could get a much higher quality 6" dob that would give you much better images, IMO.
At least where I'm looking, I don't seem to be finding anything like what you're describing. Would you mind linking me somewhere?

 Related Discussions Current Events 0 Academic Guidance 8 Introductory Physics Homework 0