Refractor or reflector

Here ya go

 

Generally speaking, for a fixed amount of money, a reflector is going to be larger and better than a refractor. That is true for two main reasons:

Light passing through a refractor lens has to pass through the lens: the glass has to have no defects all the way through. Light in a reflector does not: only surface defects are relevant.

The lens, especially in larger telescopes, is the heaviest part of the telescope. For a refractor the lens is at the end of the telescope pointed up toward the stars, for a reflector, it is at the other end and so is lower. The support of a refractor has to be much heavier and more stable than for a reflector.

 

If you're just starting out, I highly recommend a refractor, it's much easier to use. To me personally, a reflector takes a lot more time to set up and use, which would make me not feel like using it as much... but if you want the largest possible telescope and willing to put in the time to set up then a reflector might be better.

 

No huge difference, perhaps, but I have a 6" Astro-Physics Apo refractor and a 90mm Vernonscope Apo refractor (as a finder/guidescope). I have a very massive AP mount with no setting circles or any other type of aiming aid but by sighting along the tube, and star-hopping with a decent set of charts, I have no trouble finding even very faint objects. You can learn to use Newtonians this way, too, but it's tougher to eyeball and star-hop with short-tube cats. Tube flexure is not a real problem with refractors of modest aperture like mine, nor does the weight of the glass cause problems in a well-designed objective cell.

Of course, the OP is not going to jump into the hobby with a 6" Apo, so the point is moot. There is a very well-known astrophotographer from Austria who photographs with a folded-tube 9" TMB APO with world-class results. This design takes a lot of the potential flexure out of the picture, even with a massive objective cell, and makes the OTA mountable in a reasonable-sized observatory.

Here is Diet's web-site:
http://www.stargazer-observatory.com/

 

Just remember the one rule of telescope shopping:

Magnification is nothing. Aperature is everything.

Do NOT get fooled by claims of large magnifications. What you want is the biggest aperature your money can buy.

 

For larger telescopes, refractors have more aberration let alone weights and other things.

 

Schmidt Cassegrains are an economical compromise. Their big advantage is portability. They are much smaller and lighter than either a refractor or reflector of like aperature. This is a major advantage if you don't have an observatory.

 

Yes, as Russ and Borek point out, so will I concur:

1] The challenge with astronomy is not about seeing small things, it's about seeing dim things.

2] A telescope that brags a 36x-675x mag uses what's called a Barlow lens. The actual mag of the scope might be only 135, but a 5x Barlow is simply a tube of plastic they throw into the box that moves the focal point 5x father away. It also means everything is 5x dimmer and 5x blurrier - and that's not even counting the ultra-crappy plastic lens they provide. Except under specific circumstances, Barlow lenses are arguably worse than nothing at all.


As for which is better, IMO, you can get a bigger reflector scope than refractor for the same money. Again, go for aperature.