| Which kind of telescopes do you rather use? | |
|---|---|
| Reflectors | |
| Refractors | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
2.94
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I think that because an 8 inch, 1000mm newt could image at 750mm, F/3.7 when paired with a Nexus, makes it unbeatable. Imagine the Orion 10 inch F/3.9 reflector paired with the Nexus: It would be 750mm at F/2.9. That is why i didn't buy the RASA or any SCT for Hyperstar, i do have my lens 300mm at 2.8 and also 70-200 2.8 and 135mm f2.8, to me i feel like SCT has own issues and so do lenses, then i didn't bother to deal with new issues of Cass, and i buy only brand new, for me it will cost me more with big cass and Hyperstar or having like two different RASAs, no way, and still not long enough, while i can use my 8" or 6" with Nexus to have them fast enough and long enough, i even can add 12" f4 cheaper than having RASA or Hyperstar for long FL. |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Voted for both, because each has its own purpose in my kit. I use shorter focal length refractors and long focal length reflectors, but nothing larger than 8 inches. The reason is size and convenience. Don't have an observatory, I am 100% mobile. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I started with refractors but just purchased a Teleskop Express TS-6” F5 UNC Newtonian to get my feet wet….definitely look at their UNC and ONTC Newtonians |
3.61
#...
·
|
|---|
I started with refractors but just purchased a Teleskop Express TS-6” F5 UNC Newtonian to get my feet wet….definitely look at their UNC and ONTC Newtonians I am indeed using a 8'' TS-optic f4 200/800 UNC carbon. This is a great scope producing sharp images and easy to collimate. I can nothning be recommand those. ONTC is more expensible, but the quality is apparently even one step better. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I use an TS Optics UNC2008 8" f/4 Carbon Fiber Newtonian Astrograph about 90% of the time. I also have an Askar FRA400, a Petzval design refractor. I do like the fact that the Newt is a light bucket compared to the refractor, so that's the main benefit IMHO. But, if there is any breeze, the refractor is much better, and gets excellent tracking due to it's small footprint. |
 #...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
A dilemma as old as the universe it self. Refractor vs reflector  )I am one of those weird outliers that uses an 8 inch refractor so I don't know if I can give you unbiased advice. But I can say I've seen excellent results with both type of instruments and the common denominator was quality of the gear. So in my view you should choose the best quality you can afford be it refractor or reflector. |
11.91
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Was neck and neck for a while, but seems like refractors are slowly pulling ahead. Come on reflector users, we can do this! Can't let the competition win!!! |
6.89
#...
·
|
|---|
andrea tasselli:crappy focuser Hi Andrea, I was comparing the two scopes. The Photon isn't that bad objectively. But light leaks were a real problem. In the end I had to flock everything in order to be able to achieve proper flat calibration. I guess I have too much light pollution. Cheers, D. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| In thirty years as an amateur astronomer i have tried everything, in the last 10 years i only use apochromatic refractors. They are unparalleled machines for imaging quality. I consider the Newtons, only for EAA, much better performing and brighter. Refractors in the wide field are number one. I created a website dedicated to apochromatic refractors: www.rifrattoreapo.it |
|
2.94
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Add planetary imaging and let's see how this will go. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Reflector all the way! The best part is no part and reflectors are dirt simple compared with refractors. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| I enjoy the reflector life. You get a lot of performance for the cost vs a refractor, but it does require quite a bit of work to get it there. But that's the enjoyable part of the hobby, and it also makes your images more unique to how you take them. |
|
2.94
#...
·
|
|---|
Bryan: I agree, when you do some kind of efforts to make it work then you will always feel how worthy it was and how fun it is, kind of your foot/finger print is all over it, rather than just "Plug & Play", if it is just the easy way to do it then why bother with a refractor and just buy data from remote observatories which they make everything perfect and ready, but i know where and when to use the refractor and the reflector, i don't try to make each one competing each other to win, i have both so many enough to know both, and one day if i can have kind of a permanent spot and observatory then issues with both types will be less mainly reflectors collimations. |
8.78
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Started out with a reflector. My 8" newtonian always had something going on with it. Tube currents causing wonky stars, temperature fluxuations due to large temperature swings, collimation issues... tilt issues...light leaks.... secondary mirror constantly dewing up and lets not forget, any time a subtle breeze picked up... I was done. Let me just say, newts CAN be great, and price per pound they are an amazing bet for those on a budget constraint. I did get some really sharp details but I was very much seeing limited. After about a year, I picked up an Esprit 100 refractor. Right from the start, it was plug and play. No issues. The little 4 inch scope was producing the same level of detail that my 8" newtonian produced thanks to my local seeing conditions. At times somewhat better because it was easier to guide inside my image scale. After just a couple months I bought another Esprit 100. So now i'm running dual Esprits on seperate mounts. The best part? I've never had to collimate them, they don't care if it's a little windy. They've just worked, they've never complained. I've even taken them fully apart for cleaning, slapped em back together and I didn't have to recollimate. They're easier to mount and guide... their wider image scale makes it more forgiving. They just work, and that's what I wanted. I was tired of tweaking, adjusting, waiting for mirrors to cool down, having to create wind breaks so I could get a decent image. Did I spend more on the Esprits? You bet. Did I regret? Not at all. Will I ever go back to a reflector? Maybe, but only if I have an observatory with the seeing to support a much bigger scope, maybe a 14 or 16". |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
A good refractor (Tak/Vixen/Televue/Pentax) is absolutely worth the money they cost. Its a real shame, because spending $5~8k AUD on a used telescope HURTS! but when you use something like an FSQ-106/FSQ-85 or the Pentax 100mm EDPH, you will never want to use ANYTHING else. However, you can spend $2000 (AUD) on a brand new sharpstar 130mm f/2.8 newt and BLOW refractors away as far as light gathering capability... I had a Tak FSQ85 years ago, and right now I have a 65PHQ (65mm f/6.4, 416mm F/L) and a Sharpstar 13028HNT (130mm f/2.8, 364mm F/L) The 65PHQ is SIMPLE to use. No messing about, no collimation, easy to keep dew off it, easy to balance... Just point and shoot. The 130mm newt is a pain to collimate because its f/2.8, its harder to balance because once you add a camera and autofocus, its quite front heavy, and the focuser has to point outward from the RA axis, adding to the offset of the weight distribution... Its not a simple scope to set up and use. BUT! They have a similar field of view, and due to the difference in focal ratio, if I capture 1 hour of data with the newt, I need 13 hours with the refractor to match the signal to noise ratio... If I shoot 5hrs with the newt, even a fast refractor will need 20+ hours to match that SNR... So. The questions you need to ask yourself are these. Do you like wide fields, or longer focal length? Do you like to tinker with your gear and figure out how to make it work perfectly for you? How much time can you dedicate to a target? How much money are you willing to part with? I would say, 100% of the time, I would pick a fast newtonian over a refractor if I liked wider fields (which I do) and don't mind messing about a little to make the rig work perfectly. I also don't get a lot of nights that Im not busy or busy the next morning, and where there are no clouds. I need to get the most data out of every night of imaging... As far as image quality is concerned, I feel that dollar for dollar, you'll get better optics in a reflector than a refractor, but once you're spending over a certain amount on a telescope, they are all fantastic optically. My 65PHQ has very little downsides compared to the FSQ85 I used to have, and it was 1/7 the price. |
|
2.94
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Again, it is like all about visual or DSO imaging, while for planetary i feel like it is a reflector game then, we can do planetary with refractors, but the best strongest planets images i can see is from reflectors, or say from Cass if we can call them as reflectors too, so it is like you all choose DSO and making refractors stronger choice due to ease of use, but if we talk only about focal length and ratio things then it is like difficult to put the refractors as a competitor, for planetary including the moon and planets i will always choose the reflectors, period, while for example the solar imaging then refractors are better choice, visually i could manage to use frontal ERF with reflector to have close up, but i don't see many solar images compared to DSO and planetary anyway. I bought RC, truss design, this is also another reflector type to talk about, i never enjoyed the images of distant galaxies and some clusters over what has been done with RCs/CDKs, and spikes on those targets are like nice touch for me, looking at Hubble and JW they are both as mirrors design, i can't imagine they can send like 2 meter aperture refractor to the space so it won't need collimation and not prone for wind maybe, but on earth refractors became much popular choice due to ease of use and most are living under bad conditions, i live under nice excellent weather conditions, only light pollution is the main issue which is affecting any type of scopes anyway. |
2.15
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Fascinating thread! I have an 8" Newt which, with its coma corrector operates at 760mm f/3.9. Normally it works great.....normally. When it doesn't it drives me to despair as I've wasted a very rare clear night. Something keeps drawing me to a Vixen SD115 (I already have the flattener and reducer as I have a Vixen SD81 already) with its similar focal length(s). Of course, it's f/6 once reduced and has far less aperture...but it's still tempting as it will always just work. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
They each have their places. I prefer reflectors as I like the larger aperture scopes. I use a 6" newt and a 9.25" Celestron with reducer most of all. The TOA130 refractor stays in the basement a majority of the year. It's heavy, bulky, and just a large scope with only a 5" aperture. A lot depends on your budget, mount, and how important portability is. Sometimes I don't feel like setting anything up and a small refractor on a lightweight mount is what gets me under the sky that night. Other times I want to do an exoplanet transit and aperture is king in that domain, so the 16" RC gets a workout. They all take pictures of the sky and there are objects suitable for any telescope. PS: If your newton's optics become misaligned from a meridian flip your hardware is loose or something else is extremely wrong. This is not normal. |
16.18
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Great question, great replies. My take: Hammer or spanner? Depends whether you have nails or nuts. Same with scopes - although cost is a little higher. Since I want to image both nails and nuts, I have both. I have a Nikon 200mm f2 lens [which I think of as a 100mm refractor and an RC12. For me the big issue was Newt v RC]. I chose the RC for ease of operation [collimation, balance and access]. A factor of 10 in focal length difference, and a factor 10 in collecting area. So the Area*Field-of-view product [a crude measure of information content] is the same. So anything that requires more than 1deg f.o.v., I use the refractor. Anything less it is the reflector. I love both, and both are easy to use. I image with both every clear night I can, outside bright of moon. And never forget the old adage, the best tool, telescope [or anything] is the one you will use the most often. Good luck in your decision and CS! Brian |
1.43
#...
·
|
|---|
|
What mount do you have? CS & GB! |
4.21
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I owned and used both - a 10" Lacerta Newton with very good parts (Fused Silica mirrors etc) , a RASA11 and a Hypergraph 6 (=Sharpstar). The advantages (IMO) of a refractor are an easier handling, basically no re-alignment (if treated properly) and an easy balancing. I used to have an Explore Scientific APO127/952FCD and the 61ED from TS. I sold both because of their relatively low aperture. In these days, at least at my location in Lower Austria, clear nights are rare and I would like to collect as many photons as possible during that time. With my RASA at f/2.2 I am at least 4, if not 8 times faster than most refractors and the Hypergraph has f/2.8 and the Newton is the slowest with f/4.5. Well - if you go for a refractor with 1250mm focal length and f/4.5, I think you can sell your home to pay for the bill. And if you like a refractor with 1600 or even 2000mm focal length at a reasonable aperture, say 6,8, then you should think about robbing a bank... just unaffordable. Besides that - those monsters need monster rigs to work with them... well, you could rent yourself into an observatory of a university... you see, refractors have limitations, severe ones - as soon as you want a bit longer focal lengths. I would say, up to 400 or 500mm, you can get decent refractors, if you can live with f/5 or so - but for longer focal lengths - only reflectors. Yes the reflectors need a bit more care and need to be dedusted at least once a year, sometimes they need a bit of a service, and they are maybe not as easy to balance as a refractor, but overall their advantages outperform all drawbacks. But again - this is just my personal opinion... |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
To me, two things are important: 1) No diffraction spikes 2) Mobility (I need to rig and tear down for each session) Then I get whatever my budget allows for, new or used. I have a lens and a refractor for general widefield duty, and a C8EHD for galaxies and (eventually) planets. I am considering a Hyperstar for my C8EHD, though, as a means to negate lack of enough clear skies, thus possibly sacrificing #1). Versatility-wise I think the C8 EHD is hard to beat. |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I agree with most of what has been said. I have one each of the basic telescope types, a 9.25” sct a 3.5” refractor and a 7” mak-newt. Sct is best for planets and galaxies, mak-newt for messier targets, and the refractor for wide field targets. The Mak-newt which is made by orion or skywatcher is an interesting compromise and one of my favorites for imaging. F5 1000mm, very solid, holds collimation well. No tinkering required. Flat field. So there are many variations on designs you can research. Big advantage of newts are speed and aperture. Refractors are easier to use and easier to transport and smaller and still provide great images. So you cant really go wrong if you get a quality scope of any design. It just takes most of us a while to learn what design works best for us. And most of the time you benefit from having more than one type. Each has its own strengths. |
5.96
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
It's a bit of an apples and pears conversation. Both reflectors and refractors can be excellent for visual and astrophotography. Optical quality depends on the lens or mirror material and design and other mechanical and thermal considerations. The specific use case and budget as well as size and weight impacts on whether a refractor or reflector is more preferable. I have an SCT and two refractors and they are all excellent for photography and visual at different fields of view. |
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
| After falling in love with reflectors, then you will forget refractors. The only things left with refractors are expensive and slow. With reflectors, aperture is the king. |
