The Beginner's Telescope
Aperture is King - In this case, "double" aperture is King! Shown is the 22" Sayres Binoscope, taken from CSAC near Crowell, Texas, in 2005. The first objective in the hobby will always be to funnel more light into your eyes. This does a good job of that.
Purchasing a first telescope is a daunting task. There are just so many different types of scopes that do so many different types of things. Apos and Achros; SCTs and Maks; dobs and newts; RCs and CDKs...the choices can get overwhelming!
So instead of trying to explain to you what each type of scope does, I think it's important to outline several qualities that should be on your mind when searching for your first telescope. In fact, these qualities are relevant to both the beginner and the expert, and serve as general rules to the hobby. Those five qualities are listed here, somewhat, in descending order of importance. I'll talk a bit about each of the qualities and what it will mean to you. Plus, I'll give examples of scope designs that best meet those qualities. I'll also discuss some other factors that play into any purchase decision.
Finally, I will give recommendations based upon the kind of hobbyist you think you will be!
APERTURE
APERTURE size is important if you like deep sky objects (DSOs) like galaxies and globular clusters, or high resolution views of the planets. Likewise, aperture size is important for the fastest photographic speed and when trying to see faint stuff from light polluted skies.
In other words, unless you want your scopes portable, APERTURE is ALWAYS important.
To elaborate, bigger apertures gives a larger opening for collecting light, which is the first job of a telescope in the first place. Most objects in the night sky are rather large and would be seen by the naked eye if they were bright enough. Thus, the larger the aperture of the scope, the more likely you will be able to see these objects, even as very low magnifications.
Secondly, aperture serves to provide increased resolution, or detail in your views. While the quality of the atmospheric conditions, or "seeing," is the true limiting factor in this regard, most people will find that a good 10" scope will give great details for the majority of sky conditions. Only occasionally will larger aperture scopes perform at their theoretical resolutions, though make no mistake about it, they will certainly provide some exciting views during moments of excellent seeing! Of course, those living in good seeing areas, like on the coasts or in the mountains, will be able to make best use of the resolution granted by large aperture scopes due to the steady laminar flow coming off of the ocean.
But the fact that bigger scopes will accumulate more light makes them the best, and often only, choice for viewing faint DSOs, regardless of how good your seeing tends to be.
The most common large aperture scope among amateurs is the reflector (aka Newtonian), mostly because it costs the least per inch of aperture when compared to other designs. Most observers of all levels of experience purchase these on a Dobsonian mount - a simple alt-az design - because they give the most bang for the buck, sparing the customer the added cost of a good quality German equatorial mount. Even so, some people - like astrophotographers - will opt to put such tubes, also called optical tube assemblies (OTAs), on an equatorial mount. But this requires rather large and heavy (i.e. costly) mounts due to the size of the OTAs; hence, the Dobsonian mount has become the most popular choice for general, deep sky observing. The big negative when considering a Dobsonian mounted reflector is that you are generally limited in the accessories you can include, especially where photography is concerned. Electronic encoders are an additional expense and tracking platforms, especially the nice dual-axis ones, can add even more to the total.
There are several makers of quality Newtonian reflectors in sizes from 3" all the way up to 36"! Prices vary according to aperture, optics, quality, and features (especially for "truss" designs"). Top notch makers include Obsession, Starmaster, Starsplitter, Teleport, and Mag-One, to name but a few. Good quality reflectors most commonly purchased are those made by larger companies such as Meade, Celestron, Orion, and Skywatcher. These include budget options and a variety of performance packages. Reflectors with custom optics will demand the highest prices. If it comes with optics from the likes of Zambuto, Royce, or Pegasus then you can expect it to be a very nice telescope! But be prepared to spend money in the thousands of dollars for such quality.
Another alternative when considering a telescope with larger apertures are the Schmidt-Cassegrains (SCTs). These are excellent choices because they are more compact and portable for any given aperture, and often contain some wonderful electronic features such as automatic GOTO pointing, where you tell the scope where to go and it goes there all by itself. Thus, gadget "freaks" will certainly enjoy the ability to use their computers to control a large aperture scope. Of course, these added features come at an increase in price. Plus, they generally take a long cool-down time and are more susceptible to quality control issues because of the complexity of their electronics and mass-production techniques. Others will say that the large central obstruction is a negative to the SCT design because of the general loss of contrast; however, my experience has been that contrast seems to fluctuate among samples of these scopes because of a variance in optical quality and poor user collimation from sample to sample. I've seen certain SCTs that exhibit some impressive, nicely contrasted views despite being obstructed. In my opinion, these design trade-offs are minor negatives for a system that provides such great versatility and power.
Meade and Celestron are the main players here; Meade with their LX-series OTA (typically in 8", 10", 12" and 16" sizes) and Celestron with some iteration of the classical C-8, C-9.25, C-11, and C14 (the numbers are their aperture sizes in inches). Both companies have EQ and fork mounted varieties.
Finally, many of the world's best astrophotographers and professional observators will choose the Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain as their large aperture scope of choice. These scopes generally combine the best qualities of all the other scope designs. But this doesn't come cheap! Expect to pay at least a $1000 per inch of aperture for such scopes. Likewise, the classical Cassegrain and Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain are choices among large aperture designs, as well as BRC (Baker) and Mewlons from Takahashi. These are generally longer focal length designs and are still rather expensive. While these certainly aren't considered by beginner's from a budgetary standpoint, it's important to know of their existence, either to alleviate confusion or to allow you to start saving for one!
Regardless, when talking aperture, you will want at least 8" to 10" for visual observing of deep sky objects in dark skies. This is widely considered the point at which galaxy details begin to appear.
Most amateur astronomers will say that aperture size is the most important consideration when deciding on a scope. It's hard to disagree!
OPTICAL PERFORMANCE
Optics are typically the second consideration with a telescope, both in design and quality. From a design standpoint, the nature of the optics - mirror or lens, number of elements, focal length - determines the portability (size and weight) of a scope. Quality-wise, your choice of optics can mean sharpness of the view, fidelity of the color, and flatness of the field of view.
So instead of trying to explain to you what each type of scope does, I think it's important to outline several qualities that should be on your mind when searching for your first telescope. In fact, these qualities are relevant to both the beginner and the expert, and serve as general rules to the hobby. Those five qualities are listed here, somewhat, in descending order of importance. I'll talk a bit about each of the qualities and what it will mean to you. Plus, I'll give examples of scope designs that best meet those qualities. I'll also discuss some other factors that play into any purchase decision.
Finally, I will give recommendations based upon the kind of hobbyist you think you will be!
APERTURE
APERTURE size is important if you like deep sky objects (DSOs) like galaxies and globular clusters, or high resolution views of the planets. Likewise, aperture size is important for the fastest photographic speed and when trying to see faint stuff from light polluted skies.
In other words, unless you want your scopes portable, APERTURE is ALWAYS important.
To elaborate, bigger apertures gives a larger opening for collecting light, which is the first job of a telescope in the first place. Most objects in the night sky are rather large and would be seen by the naked eye if they were bright enough. Thus, the larger the aperture of the scope, the more likely you will be able to see these objects, even as very low magnifications.
Secondly, aperture serves to provide increased resolution, or detail in your views. While the quality of the atmospheric conditions, or "seeing," is the true limiting factor in this regard, most people will find that a good 10" scope will give great details for the majority of sky conditions. Only occasionally will larger aperture scopes perform at their theoretical resolutions, though make no mistake about it, they will certainly provide some exciting views during moments of excellent seeing! Of course, those living in good seeing areas, like on the coasts or in the mountains, will be able to make best use of the resolution granted by large aperture scopes due to the steady laminar flow coming off of the ocean.
But the fact that bigger scopes will accumulate more light makes them the best, and often only, choice for viewing faint DSOs, regardless of how good your seeing tends to be.
The most common large aperture scope among amateurs is the reflector (aka Newtonian), mostly because it costs the least per inch of aperture when compared to other designs. Most observers of all levels of experience purchase these on a Dobsonian mount - a simple alt-az design - because they give the most bang for the buck, sparing the customer the added cost of a good quality German equatorial mount. Even so, some people - like astrophotographers - will opt to put such tubes, also called optical tube assemblies (OTAs), on an equatorial mount. But this requires rather large and heavy (i.e. costly) mounts due to the size of the OTAs; hence, the Dobsonian mount has become the most popular choice for general, deep sky observing. The big negative when considering a Dobsonian mounted reflector is that you are generally limited in the accessories you can include, especially where photography is concerned. Electronic encoders are an additional expense and tracking platforms, especially the nice dual-axis ones, can add even more to the total.
There are several makers of quality Newtonian reflectors in sizes from 3" all the way up to 36"! Prices vary according to aperture, optics, quality, and features (especially for "truss" designs"). Top notch makers include Obsession, Starmaster, Starsplitter, Teleport, and Mag-One, to name but a few. Good quality reflectors most commonly purchased are those made by larger companies such as Meade, Celestron, Orion, and Skywatcher. These include budget options and a variety of performance packages. Reflectors with custom optics will demand the highest prices. If it comes with optics from the likes of Zambuto, Royce, or Pegasus then you can expect it to be a very nice telescope! But be prepared to spend money in the thousands of dollars for such quality.
Another alternative when considering a telescope with larger apertures are the Schmidt-Cassegrains (SCTs). These are excellent choices because they are more compact and portable for any given aperture, and often contain some wonderful electronic features such as automatic GOTO pointing, where you tell the scope where to go and it goes there all by itself. Thus, gadget "freaks" will certainly enjoy the ability to use their computers to control a large aperture scope. Of course, these added features come at an increase in price. Plus, they generally take a long cool-down time and are more susceptible to quality control issues because of the complexity of their electronics and mass-production techniques. Others will say that the large central obstruction is a negative to the SCT design because of the general loss of contrast; however, my experience has been that contrast seems to fluctuate among samples of these scopes because of a variance in optical quality and poor user collimation from sample to sample. I've seen certain SCTs that exhibit some impressive, nicely contrasted views despite being obstructed. In my opinion, these design trade-offs are minor negatives for a system that provides such great versatility and power.
Meade and Celestron are the main players here; Meade with their LX-series OTA (typically in 8", 10", 12" and 16" sizes) and Celestron with some iteration of the classical C-8, C-9.25, C-11, and C14 (the numbers are their aperture sizes in inches). Both companies have EQ and fork mounted varieties.
Finally, many of the world's best astrophotographers and professional observators will choose the Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain as their large aperture scope of choice. These scopes generally combine the best qualities of all the other scope designs. But this doesn't come cheap! Expect to pay at least a $1000 per inch of aperture for such scopes. Likewise, the classical Cassegrain and Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain are choices among large aperture designs, as well as BRC (Baker) and Mewlons from Takahashi. These are generally longer focal length designs and are still rather expensive. While these certainly aren't considered by beginner's from a budgetary standpoint, it's important to know of their existence, either to alleviate confusion or to allow you to start saving for one!
Regardless, when talking aperture, you will want at least 8" to 10" for visual observing of deep sky objects in dark skies. This is widely considered the point at which galaxy details begin to appear.
Most amateur astronomers will say that aperture size is the most important consideration when deciding on a scope. It's hard to disagree!
OPTICAL PERFORMANCE
Optics are typically the second consideration with a telescope, both in design and quality. From a design standpoint, the nature of the optics - mirror or lens, number of elements, focal length - determines the portability (size and weight) of a scope. Quality-wise, your choice of optics can mean sharpness of the view, fidelity of the color, and flatness of the field of view.
 "Triple Threat!" - Having fun with three 6" apos. Shown (from left to right) are a Takahashi TOA-150, Astro-Physics AP160 Starfire, and the Sky-Watcher Esprit 150. I was comparing the Tak and the Sky-Watcher for a Sky-Watcher advertisement using the same cameras simultaneously. The AP was the guidescope! Photo taken at CSAC (3RF) near Crowell, Texas. Buyer's might think that a scope costing twice the price will have twice the performance. Despite being half the price, the Esprit produces nearly equivalent results as the TOA. The difference in price is in construction and optical design, but those do not always lend themselves to overwhelming better performance.
While high quality optics are typically the domain of the astrophotographer or solar-system observer, it would be a mistake to think that great optics aren't a virtue for ANY telescope, regardless of the purpose or design. In fact, I tend to be very sensitive to the quality of the optics even with a larger visual scope like a Dobsonian reflector. It's day and night to me.
Great optical performance as a function of design are typically associated with refractors; Maksutkov Cassegrains (Maks), and high-quality newtonians. However, any design can have great optics in terms of quality. Particularly great are those refractors that are described as apochromatic (APO). These provide exquisite views with very good color correction, a problem with refractors in general. The only caveat is that APOs come at substantial cost per inch of aperture. For example, a 3" version will cost in the area of $500 to $2000, or more, and this only includes the OTA (optical tube assembly). As a rule of thumb, APO prices often double for each inch of aperture. For example, let's look at pricing for Sky-Watcher's lineup of their best refractor, the "Esprit" (see Apochromatic Refractor Pricing). Takahashi, Astro-physics, TMB, Stellarvue, Sky-Watcher, Vixen, TEC, Williams Optics, Explore Scientific, and Televue all offer a variety of apochromatic refractors at various different price-points. Be aware that not all similar sized APOs are treated equally. For example, the Sky-Watcher Esprit 150mm telescope has a price of $6000, which seems really expensive until you look at the price of Takahashi's TOA-150 of $12,970 for the same aperture size. I can confirm that the "Tak" is a great performer, but it's not twice the performer that the Sky-Watcher is. As somebody with lot of experience with both telescopes (see "Triplet Threat" at left), you can take my word for that. |
Apochromatic
Refractor Pricing 
Makers of quality APOs typically will have a price structure similar to those in the "Esprit" of Sky-Watcher refractors seen here:
3" (80mm) - $1499 4" (100mm) - $2299 5" (120mm) - $2900 6" (150mm) - $5999 Priced competitively in the smaller apertures, Sky-watcher is able to beat the "double your cost for each inch of aperture" rule of thumb. This puts really good sized APOs (3" or 4") into the hands of relatively newer hobbyists. |
Portable? Don't forget the mount! Shown is a Takahashi FS-78 on a Losmandy GM-8 mount, taken around 2002. APOS are immanently portable, but once you account for a good quality mount, especially for photography, you can get a bad back really fast...and of course, a mount doesn't fit in an airplane carry-on. In this case, the GM-8 is actually one of the more portable mounts you'll find. Quick tips...mailing you gear ahead of you OR checking them as baggage on your flight are good ways to have your imaging cake and eat it too.
Anything bigger than 6 or 7 inches in any refractor becomes extremely large, heavy, and expensive, especially if its an APO. I have experience with many larger APO refractors, including a TMB 203mm; and both the TEC 180FL and TEC 200FL fluorite refractors. The views through the TECs (which are air-spaced triplets) are some of the best views I've ever witnessed through a telescope. I also have regular access to a 15" f/12 doublet refractor with D&G optics (a 19 foot long refractor). Whereas the views aren't particular well color-corrected on bright objects, the 15" refractor at the Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus in Crowell, Texas (3RF) definitely makes globular clusters look like grains of fine sugar!
But not all high quality refractors are expensive. Many makers now produce exceptionally nice, small APOs in the 2" to 4" range that can be had for very reasonable amount of money, perhaps in the area of $500 to $1200.. Such models are highly recommended for the aspiring astrophotographer who is on a tight budget, or the informed beginner who is serious about "doing it right."
Most of us who own APOs settle for scopes in the 3" or 4" range because of price considerations and portability concerns. Of course, we eventually yearn for more. But apochromatic refractors, and to a lesser extent achromatic refractors (achros), have such high contrast due to their quality optics, lack of central obstruction, high color correction (not with an achros), anti-reflective coatings, and internal baffling that they tend to show objects in similar detail to that of scopes slightly larger in size. They even seem to have the ability to cut through nights of poor seeing to give steady views when you wouldn't be able to see anything otherwise, though this is perhaps more of a function of their smaller aperture sizes yielding less resolution.
Beyond refractors, large Newtonians reflectors (FYI, a Dobsonian is a type of Newtonian) with great optics will yield uncompromised views. Newtonians, as well as APO refractors, will have wide fields of view (in smaller focal ratios) providing the luxury of seeing more of the sky at once. But many will find that such large reflectors are too cumbersome when compared to the size/performance of a refractor. Plus, big reflectors are difficult to keep centered on planets unless they are equatorially mounted, configured with motors, or sit on a tracking platform. Thus, for pure planetary performance, I recommend the apochromatic refractor (if not the more capable planetary imaging scope, the SCT).
But don't think for one second that reflectors take second billing to refractors. A large newtonian with terrific optics tracking on a planet like Jupiter or Saturn is a mind blowing experience. If the atmospheric "seeing" is stable, then crank up the power (over 500x) and you might have the greatest eyepiece view of an object that you'll ever experience!
The aforementioned Maksukov-Cassegrains (Maks) are also good alternatives when looking for scopes of excellent optical performance. The legendary 3.5" Questar is the classic example, but most of the major telescope makers now produce some model of Mak-variant. Costing as much, or more, than APO refractors, the Questar is the prime example of how good these scopes can be, though it is an outlier from the standpoint of price - most are quite affordable by comparison. The Meade and Celestron series of Maks comprises the larger market-share, though Orion, Explore Scientific, and Sky-Watcher now produces them as well.
Maks are often overlooked, but they too have really nice optical performance chiefly because the design employs a smaller central-obstruction for higher contrast views. Moreover, these scopes often come packaged with fork mounts and the luxury of GOTO drives, just like the SCTs - albeit I feel that these features are often under-utilized in the smaller aperture sizes (a source of criticism among amateurs). After all, what good is an object-library of 40,000 items if your 3" scope will only show you a few hundred of them from your light polluted site?
Maks do have longer focal lengths than normal scopes (which is why the central obstruction is so small). This makes them excellent planetary scopes due to the fact that they are more powerful with any given eyepiece and, of course, due to their higher contrast views when compared to other obstructed designs.
Astrophotographers of deep-sky targets would say that Maks do not make good imaging scopes - though they are wonderful for bright targets like the moon and planets. I would concur with this opinion as a general statement, but being f/15 does not negate a Mak-design from taking great images IF you are matching the camera's pixel size to the focal length of the instrument. At that point, there is no performance disadvantage despite the "slower" speed. Many people will also say that the narrow fields of view are also a real negative to these Mak designs, but I'd tend to disagree. Wide-field eyepieces and focal reducers are available to give you wide enough views, if needed.
Lastly, I feel that the only remaining negative to these scopes would be their general quality, especially their enclosures, and the increased likelihood that the scope's electronics gives it more reasons to find its way into the repair shop.
PORTABILITY
The third consideration when looking to buy a scope is PORTABILITY. This could be considered the most important factor, especially if you need to travel to dark sky sites or desire quick setup observations (see this article on the importance of dark skies for viewing here). Likewise, many of us struggle with larger gear as we age!
Scopes bigger than 10" are very difficult to transport (SCTs due to the weight and reflectors due to the size), which is a big reason why many of these scopes never get used. So, this must be considered in any purchase decision. For example while being a great performer, a 16" Dobsonian (non-truss variety) cannot be carried in anything smaller than a cargo plane (a little exaggeration, but not far off). Likewise, my old 10" LX-200 SCT (yes, I still have it) weighs somewhere around 50 lbs., not including the huge, heavy tripod and wedge (optional). 8" in aperture is generally the largest scope among reflectors and SCTs that most would considered "portable." Of course, "portability," in the mind of most advanced astronomers, is determined by their passion. After all, it's amazing how "portable" something becomes when you are sufficiently motivated!
Otherwise, larger scopes are best when you can set them up permanently at home, either in your own observatory or rolled out from the garage. Of course, this would require reasonably dark skies to begin with, something that a growing majority of people no longer have. Because of this, it becomes necessary to consider scopes that can be toted easily to darker sky sites. Some examples are most Maks, smaller Dobsonian reflectors, and smaller refractors on alt-az or light-weight German equatorial mounts. These can be good first telescopes, especially considering their lower prices. A person who buys a scope that never gets used will probably leave the hobby prior to finding out how truly wonderful it is. Lack of portability is a major reason why.
Therefore, quite often the best scope for YOU is the scope you will use most often.
QUALITY
Another important concern, quality, usually scales inversely with portability - high quality often equates to heavier, well-built gear.
While we've already discussed the necessity of quality optics, the other components such as mounts, focusers, tubes, mirrors/lens, etc., can make or break your enjoyment of the hobby. Because many scopes are mass-produced, the potential for sub-par quality, or inconsistent quality controls, are always there. This could come in the form of poor optics, breakable plastic parts, and limited or inaccurate electronics, to name just a few. For this reason, there is a central truth to astronomy, "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR..." As with anything else in life, if you put money into it you'll be purchasing a certain amount of quality, and the more you pay, the more quality you get!
Scopes less than $300 have the potential to be real pieces of excrement, the exception being some smaller sized reflectors. Some makes like Tasco, Jason and Bushnell, along with the consumer-lines of Meade and Celestrons found at places like Wal-Mart, should be avoided at all costs. These classes of scopes might be suitable for people with low budgets, especially if their expectations of the scope match their budgets, but generally speaking, a good pair of binoculars will likely be the wiser purchase.
Few scopes have perfect track records where quality is concerned. For example, some of the "all-in-one" types of scopes suffer from poor workmanship in the form of mickey-mouse gears and plastic castings, even though the optics remain of good quality. And even some of the flagship models from these makers will still have plastic gears. User reports help the most when determining which scopes (and mounts) have the best quality.
You should understand that "quality" makes itself most evident in the mount. Remember this rule: A GOOD SCOPE WITH A BAD MOUNT BECOMES A BAD SCOPE. Shaky or undersized mounts should be avoided at all costs. As much time should be used in considering the mount as the scope itself, and if you are interested in astrophotography, the mount is by FAR the most important component in the system. If you are going to buy quality, make sure it comes in the mount!
But not all high quality refractors are expensive. Many makers now produce exceptionally nice, small APOs in the 2" to 4" range that can be had for very reasonable amount of money, perhaps in the area of $500 to $1200.. Such models are highly recommended for the aspiring astrophotographer who is on a tight budget, or the informed beginner who is serious about "doing it right."
Most of us who own APOs settle for scopes in the 3" or 4" range because of price considerations and portability concerns. Of course, we eventually yearn for more. But apochromatic refractors, and to a lesser extent achromatic refractors (achros), have such high contrast due to their quality optics, lack of central obstruction, high color correction (not with an achros), anti-reflective coatings, and internal baffling that they tend to show objects in similar detail to that of scopes slightly larger in size. They even seem to have the ability to cut through nights of poor seeing to give steady views when you wouldn't be able to see anything otherwise, though this is perhaps more of a function of their smaller aperture sizes yielding less resolution.
Beyond refractors, large Newtonians reflectors (FYI, a Dobsonian is a type of Newtonian) with great optics will yield uncompromised views. Newtonians, as well as APO refractors, will have wide fields of view (in smaller focal ratios) providing the luxury of seeing more of the sky at once. But many will find that such large reflectors are too cumbersome when compared to the size/performance of a refractor. Plus, big reflectors are difficult to keep centered on planets unless they are equatorially mounted, configured with motors, or sit on a tracking platform. Thus, for pure planetary performance, I recommend the apochromatic refractor (if not the more capable planetary imaging scope, the SCT).
But don't think for one second that reflectors take second billing to refractors. A large newtonian with terrific optics tracking on a planet like Jupiter or Saturn is a mind blowing experience. If the atmospheric "seeing" is stable, then crank up the power (over 500x) and you might have the greatest eyepiece view of an object that you'll ever experience!
The aforementioned Maksukov-Cassegrains (Maks) are also good alternatives when looking for scopes of excellent optical performance. The legendary 3.5" Questar is the classic example, but most of the major telescope makers now produce some model of Mak-variant. Costing as much, or more, than APO refractors, the Questar is the prime example of how good these scopes can be, though it is an outlier from the standpoint of price - most are quite affordable by comparison. The Meade and Celestron series of Maks comprises the larger market-share, though Orion, Explore Scientific, and Sky-Watcher now produces them as well.
Maks are often overlooked, but they too have really nice optical performance chiefly because the design employs a smaller central-obstruction for higher contrast views. Moreover, these scopes often come packaged with fork mounts and the luxury of GOTO drives, just like the SCTs - albeit I feel that these features are often under-utilized in the smaller aperture sizes (a source of criticism among amateurs). After all, what good is an object-library of 40,000 items if your 3" scope will only show you a few hundred of them from your light polluted site?
Maks do have longer focal lengths than normal scopes (which is why the central obstruction is so small). This makes them excellent planetary scopes due to the fact that they are more powerful with any given eyepiece and, of course, due to their higher contrast views when compared to other obstructed designs.
Astrophotographers of deep-sky targets would say that Maks do not make good imaging scopes - though they are wonderful for bright targets like the moon and planets. I would concur with this opinion as a general statement, but being f/15 does not negate a Mak-design from taking great images IF you are matching the camera's pixel size to the focal length of the instrument. At that point, there is no performance disadvantage despite the "slower" speed. Many people will also say that the narrow fields of view are also a real negative to these Mak designs, but I'd tend to disagree. Wide-field eyepieces and focal reducers are available to give you wide enough views, if needed.
Lastly, I feel that the only remaining negative to these scopes would be their general quality, especially their enclosures, and the increased likelihood that the scope's electronics gives it more reasons to find its way into the repair shop.
PORTABILITY
The third consideration when looking to buy a scope is PORTABILITY. This could be considered the most important factor, especially if you need to travel to dark sky sites or desire quick setup observations (see this article on the importance of dark skies for viewing here). Likewise, many of us struggle with larger gear as we age!
Scopes bigger than 10" are very difficult to transport (SCTs due to the weight and reflectors due to the size), which is a big reason why many of these scopes never get used. So, this must be considered in any purchase decision. For example while being a great performer, a 16" Dobsonian (non-truss variety) cannot be carried in anything smaller than a cargo plane (a little exaggeration, but not far off). Likewise, my old 10" LX-200 SCT (yes, I still have it) weighs somewhere around 50 lbs., not including the huge, heavy tripod and wedge (optional). 8" in aperture is generally the largest scope among reflectors and SCTs that most would considered "portable." Of course, "portability," in the mind of most advanced astronomers, is determined by their passion. After all, it's amazing how "portable" something becomes when you are sufficiently motivated!
Otherwise, larger scopes are best when you can set them up permanently at home, either in your own observatory or rolled out from the garage. Of course, this would require reasonably dark skies to begin with, something that a growing majority of people no longer have. Because of this, it becomes necessary to consider scopes that can be toted easily to darker sky sites. Some examples are most Maks, smaller Dobsonian reflectors, and smaller refractors on alt-az or light-weight German equatorial mounts. These can be good first telescopes, especially considering their lower prices. A person who buys a scope that never gets used will probably leave the hobby prior to finding out how truly wonderful it is. Lack of portability is a major reason why.
Therefore, quite often the best scope for YOU is the scope you will use most often.
QUALITY
Another important concern, quality, usually scales inversely with portability - high quality often equates to heavier, well-built gear.
While we've already discussed the necessity of quality optics, the other components such as mounts, focusers, tubes, mirrors/lens, etc., can make or break your enjoyment of the hobby. Because many scopes are mass-produced, the potential for sub-par quality, or inconsistent quality controls, are always there. This could come in the form of poor optics, breakable plastic parts, and limited or inaccurate electronics, to name just a few. For this reason, there is a central truth to astronomy, "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR..." As with anything else in life, if you put money into it you'll be purchasing a certain amount of quality, and the more you pay, the more quality you get!
Scopes less than $300 have the potential to be real pieces of excrement, the exception being some smaller sized reflectors. Some makes like Tasco, Jason and Bushnell, along with the consumer-lines of Meade and Celestrons found at places like Wal-Mart, should be avoided at all costs. These classes of scopes might be suitable for people with low budgets, especially if their expectations of the scope match their budgets, but generally speaking, a good pair of binoculars will likely be the wiser purchase.
Few scopes have perfect track records where quality is concerned. For example, some of the "all-in-one" types of scopes suffer from poor workmanship in the form of mickey-mouse gears and plastic castings, even though the optics remain of good quality. And even some of the flagship models from these makers will still have plastic gears. User reports help the most when determining which scopes (and mounts) have the best quality.
You should understand that "quality" makes itself most evident in the mount. Remember this rule: A GOOD SCOPE WITH A BAD MOUNT BECOMES A BAD SCOPE. Shaky or undersized mounts should be avoided at all costs. As much time should be used in considering the mount as the scope itself, and if you are interested in astrophotography, the mount is by FAR the most important component in the system. If you are going to buy quality, make sure it comes in the mount!
My First Telescope - In 1997, I purchased this 10" Meade LX-50 Schmidt-Cassegrain, or simply "SCT." Typically more expensive than a "first" telescope, they are the KING of flexibility, serving as excellent visual instruments, imagers, and even a tracking platform for piggybacked scopes or lenses. For the gear-head or tech-guy who fancies a mix of fun, the SCT is really hard to beat without totally breaking the bank.
FLEXIBILITY
You might need to consider FLEXIBILITY when considering your scope. You'll know more about this trait after you do your homework and you'll likely understand its importance after a year or two in the hobby. For example, if you decide that you want to do astrophotography, then you might want a scope that has the versatility of both a good visual and astropix platform. SCTs are the masters of versatility, designed to be accommodated with tons of options and enhancements that make these scopes extremely powerful in the hands of even the most casual of observers.
Be careful with some of the extras that come with computerized scopes. While GPS or auto-set capabilities are pretty much standard equipment today, they generally provide very little in the way of excess flexibility. After all, if you only use the scope at home, then GPS really only helps on the first night of observing.
Also, smaller scopes are great because they are highly portable, but you lose some flexibility because their aperture sizes make them less optimal scopes for a wide-variety of observing. So, you must strike a balance with other features you might feel are important.
Generally speaking, the more money you pay for a scope, the more versatile or flexible it becomes, until the point where gear becomes more specialized. This is especially true of astrophotography setups, where scopes and mounts are designed with only that in mind. For this reason, many amateurs will own more than one such scope, each of which has the purpose of doing something different, yet doing it exceptionally well! Thus, we would be more likely to purchase individual pieces to accomplish multiple tasks.
Most beginners desire to see a bit of everything, and do a bit of everything with their first telescopes, making FLEXIBILITY a higher priority than it probably should be. For example, despite the highly recommended 8" Dobsonian reflector being a really great purchase, there is a possibility that you'll be a little disappointed at how "plain" it is. It lacks a lot of the bells and whistles you'll find with other electronic scopes. It's also a poor choice for astrophotography. But that doesn't mean it's not the scope you should buy for your first instrument!
Likewise, those that purchase a small, rich-field refractor will be very disappointed with the views they get on planets. Rich-field refractors simply aren't designed for anything other than wide-field views of the Milky Way and star clusters from darker skies. So, do NOT over-prioritize flexibility in an instrument...you cannot expect a small investment to be good at a TON of things!
Therefore, as a beginner, you should probably temper your expectations a little bit and purchase a good telescope for visual use only, since the more versatile scopes are also more complex, not to mention more expensive. Allow yourself some time before you look for versatility in a scope...save such things for your second one!
You might need to consider FLEXIBILITY when considering your scope. You'll know more about this trait after you do your homework and you'll likely understand its importance after a year or two in the hobby. For example, if you decide that you want to do astrophotography, then you might want a scope that has the versatility of both a good visual and astropix platform. SCTs are the masters of versatility, designed to be accommodated with tons of options and enhancements that make these scopes extremely powerful in the hands of even the most casual of observers.
Be careful with some of the extras that come with computerized scopes. While GPS or auto-set capabilities are pretty much standard equipment today, they generally provide very little in the way of excess flexibility. After all, if you only use the scope at home, then GPS really only helps on the first night of observing.
Also, smaller scopes are great because they are highly portable, but you lose some flexibility because their aperture sizes make them less optimal scopes for a wide-variety of observing. So, you must strike a balance with other features you might feel are important.
Generally speaking, the more money you pay for a scope, the more versatile or flexible it becomes, until the point where gear becomes more specialized. This is especially true of astrophotography setups, where scopes and mounts are designed with only that in mind. For this reason, many amateurs will own more than one such scope, each of which has the purpose of doing something different, yet doing it exceptionally well! Thus, we would be more likely to purchase individual pieces to accomplish multiple tasks.
Most beginners desire to see a bit of everything, and do a bit of everything with their first telescopes, making FLEXIBILITY a higher priority than it probably should be. For example, despite the highly recommended 8" Dobsonian reflector being a really great purchase, there is a possibility that you'll be a little disappointed at how "plain" it is. It lacks a lot of the bells and whistles you'll find with other electronic scopes. It's also a poor choice for astrophotography. But that doesn't mean it's not the scope you should buy for your first instrument!
Likewise, those that purchase a small, rich-field refractor will be very disappointed with the views they get on planets. Rich-field refractors simply aren't designed for anything other than wide-field views of the Milky Way and star clusters from darker skies. So, do NOT over-prioritize flexibility in an instrument...you cannot expect a small investment to be good at a TON of things!
Therefore, as a beginner, you should probably temper your expectations a little bit and purchase a good telescope for visual use only, since the more versatile scopes are also more complex, not to mention more expensive. Allow yourself some time before you look for versatility in a scope...save such things for your second one!
Dobsonians, like this 10" Sky-Watcher, deliver the most visual performance for your money. You can't go wrong with an instrument like this and it will likely out-live you. This truss version (for a little more money), is even collapsible, increasing its portability.
OTHER FACTORS
After the "main five" qualities, there are several other aspects to consider before running out and purchasing that "beginner's scope." Whether its value, ease of use, resale value, or photographic capabilities, it's extra information that will make you feel good about your purchase.
"Bang for the Buck"
Want to know the number one reason why I'm fat? It's because I expect the MOST food for my money. Growing up, I heard my father always grade a restaurant by "how much do you get for your money." Now, I'm not sure if this is mostly an American trait, but it definitely impacts the way I look at food...and consequently having a huge effect on my health!
As consumers, everybody wants to know that our money is well-spent. While we definitely want a large "bang for the buck," we should understand that you have to spend a certain amount of money in order to get quality, reliable gear in our hobby. As a beginner, we should be very concerned about buying bad gear, since there is a lot of it out there. But, neither do we want to take a "buy once, cry once," philosophy. You don't HAVE to go crazy!
Thus, your overall budget should be moderately sufficient to acquire not only a capable telescope, but also the accessories you will need to operate it.
Because scopes of big aperture show you more things, then it stands to reason that the biggest "bang" will come from putting your money mostly into the aperture. This favors mirrors (reflectors) over lenses (refractors). And from the standpoint of cost, the cheapest way to deliver that aperture is often preferred. This is where the Dobsonian telescope has a large advantage. Placed into an easy-to-push "rocker box," whereas the light can bounce back up to the eyepiece, such scopes are the simplest way to deliver photons to your eyes.
Therefore, the secondary aspect to getting "good value" comes in avoiding spending money on electronics with a telescope, something that most people will add later, once they are more familiar with the hobby or they determined a specialized direction to go.
For these reasons, Dobsonian reflectors deliver the most visual performance for your money, by far. A 10" manual version, which is enough to last a life-time, can be had for under $500, including accessories. These scopes are perfect for learning the sky, are reliable since they have no electronics to breakdown, and they show you more of the sky than another comparative telescope.
When in doubt, get a Dob!
After the "main five" qualities, there are several other aspects to consider before running out and purchasing that "beginner's scope." Whether its value, ease of use, resale value, or photographic capabilities, it's extra information that will make you feel good about your purchase.
"Bang for the Buck"
Want to know the number one reason why I'm fat? It's because I expect the MOST food for my money. Growing up, I heard my father always grade a restaurant by "how much do you get for your money." Now, I'm not sure if this is mostly an American trait, but it definitely impacts the way I look at food...and consequently having a huge effect on my health!
As consumers, everybody wants to know that our money is well-spent. While we definitely want a large "bang for the buck," we should understand that you have to spend a certain amount of money in order to get quality, reliable gear in our hobby. As a beginner, we should be very concerned about buying bad gear, since there is a lot of it out there. But, neither do we want to take a "buy once, cry once," philosophy. You don't HAVE to go crazy!
Thus, your overall budget should be moderately sufficient to acquire not only a capable telescope, but also the accessories you will need to operate it.
Because scopes of big aperture show you more things, then it stands to reason that the biggest "bang" will come from putting your money mostly into the aperture. This favors mirrors (reflectors) over lenses (refractors). And from the standpoint of cost, the cheapest way to deliver that aperture is often preferred. This is where the Dobsonian telescope has a large advantage. Placed into an easy-to-push "rocker box," whereas the light can bounce back up to the eyepiece, such scopes are the simplest way to deliver photons to your eyes.
Therefore, the secondary aspect to getting "good value" comes in avoiding spending money on electronics with a telescope, something that most people will add later, once they are more familiar with the hobby or they determined a specialized direction to go.
For these reasons, Dobsonian reflectors deliver the most visual performance for your money, by far. A 10" manual version, which is enough to last a life-time, can be had for under $500, including accessories. These scopes are perfect for learning the sky, are reliable since they have no electronics to breakdown, and they show you more of the sky than another comparative telescope.
When in doubt, get a Dob!
Resale Value
Like most anything you buy, purchasing new comes with an immediate depreciation in value. Other than Astro-Physics refractors, nothing ever appreciates in this hobby. These are not "investments" in the financial sense of the word, even if they are an investment in your educational or developmental well-being!
Many telescopes (and gear) are purchased on the used market to avoid this initial hit, just as there is a large market for used or "pre-owned" cars. In many cases, a person can resell telescopes for the same price they paid for them...maybe even better.
For the beginner, however, I recommend you AVOID the used market. There's simply too much risk for those without experience and knowledge in this hobby.
While I feel that what you purchase should last a lifetime, most beginners, graduating to intermediate stages, will eventually trade-up to better, more capable, or more specialized equipment. If you feel that this is you, then equipment with good resale value should be a consideration.
A few tips here. Anything with electronics will typically show the largest depreciation. After all, technology becomes obsolete rapidly now-a-days. While mounts will typically perform for a LONG time just as they were when brand new, they don't necessarily carry good resale margins. Simply put, people tend to buy "new" on electronics. If you do resell electronics, then you will want to sell them sooner rather than later.
Cameras are the worse. They sell only for a fraction of their value over time...especially for equipment over a decade old. Now, this is good if you want to purchase a good astro CCD camera with "low mileage," but it's not good if you are the seller.
Optics without electronics, such as high-quality, high-performing APO refractors yield the best opportunity for resale. Such optics are always in demand, as people recognize that performance doesn't decrease dramatically (if at all) over time. Some manufacturers are better than others here, with Astro-Physics and Takahashi being the leaders.
Similarly, some designs are in higher demand than others. Petzval-based refractors and those with oil-spaced or fluorite lenses are very attractive. Also, mirrors from well-known custom makers (i.e. Zambuto) always carry a premium...and many people will pay almost new prices for used gear just to circumvent the build-time (often measured in years) for certain optics. An Astro-Physics refractor is the classic example of this principle, as their wait-list for current refractors is about 7 years long. Thus, people who want such instruments will often pay full retail price (or more) for used gear, saving 7 years of agonizing waiting!
Larger instruments are the most difficult to resell, obviously due to their size. Shipping is a pain...and costly. So, resale is often limited to local-only, where the demand will be much less. Thus, smaller instruments, especially portable optics like APO refractors, will be the easiest to move.
Like most anything you buy, purchasing new comes with an immediate depreciation in value. Other than Astro-Physics refractors, nothing ever appreciates in this hobby. These are not "investments" in the financial sense of the word, even if they are an investment in your educational or developmental well-being!
Many telescopes (and gear) are purchased on the used market to avoid this initial hit, just as there is a large market for used or "pre-owned" cars. In many cases, a person can resell telescopes for the same price they paid for them...maybe even better.
For the beginner, however, I recommend you AVOID the used market. There's simply too much risk for those without experience and knowledge in this hobby.
While I feel that what you purchase should last a lifetime, most beginners, graduating to intermediate stages, will eventually trade-up to better, more capable, or more specialized equipment. If you feel that this is you, then equipment with good resale value should be a consideration.
A few tips here. Anything with electronics will typically show the largest depreciation. After all, technology becomes obsolete rapidly now-a-days. While mounts will typically perform for a LONG time just as they were when brand new, they don't necessarily carry good resale margins. Simply put, people tend to buy "new" on electronics. If you do resell electronics, then you will want to sell them sooner rather than later.
Cameras are the worse. They sell only for a fraction of their value over time...especially for equipment over a decade old. Now, this is good if you want to purchase a good astro CCD camera with "low mileage," but it's not good if you are the seller.
Optics without electronics, such as high-quality, high-performing APO refractors yield the best opportunity for resale. Such optics are always in demand, as people recognize that performance doesn't decrease dramatically (if at all) over time. Some manufacturers are better than others here, with Astro-Physics and Takahashi being the leaders.
Similarly, some designs are in higher demand than others. Petzval-based refractors and those with oil-spaced or fluorite lenses are very attractive. Also, mirrors from well-known custom makers (i.e. Zambuto) always carry a premium...and many people will pay almost new prices for used gear just to circumvent the build-time (often measured in years) for certain optics. An Astro-Physics refractor is the classic example of this principle, as their wait-list for current refractors is about 7 years long. Thus, people who want such instruments will often pay full retail price (or more) for used gear, saving 7 years of agonizing waiting!
Larger instruments are the most difficult to resell, obviously due to their size. Shipping is a pain...and costly. So, resale is often limited to local-only, where the demand will be much less. Thus, smaller instruments, especially portable optics like APO refractors, will be the easiest to move.
Ease of Use
When you start adding electronics, as awesome as they are, you start raising the complexity of the instrument and, therefore, its learning curve. From a purely visual standpoint, learning the sky takes significant effort on its own, so adding electronics on top of that can make for a difficult hurdle to overcome, especially for the casual hobbyist who doesn't get out very often! So, the less you do it, the more you better choose equipment you KNOW you can use.
Some of us are motivated as much by the cool gear as we are the night skies themselves. That was certainly a driving force for me as I persistently spent night after night under the stars. In fact, astrophotography can become addictive, once you've overcome a difficult learning curve and have invested in some higher-quality equipment. Thus, I do not want to neglect that aspect, since many people might find motivation in such things.
But for the majority of beginners, you might find yourself quickly frustrated by your equipment, which is the leading cause for why people fail to stick to it!
Once again, Dobsonian reflectors are the leaders here. Coupled with their large apertures, ease of use is what makes us recommend Dobs so quickly to beginners seeking a "first telescope."
And as I said before, more money usually leads to more complexity, either in the purchase of electronics, or the necessity of purchasing electronic-based gear in order to get full use of their telescopes, such as good mounts and cameras for use with already expensive APO refractors!
Photographic Capabilities
Most beginners want a telescope to view the skies. It's only later that they realize that hooking up a camera is a natural evolution of the hobby, and a generally COOL thing to do. But not all forms of astroimaging are treated equally - different telescopes yield different results. This is why the camera industry has different lenses for your camera - and scopes work exactly like camera lenses in this regard.
But just in case photography is important in your first scope (i.e. you have a large budget than the typical beginner), then let's talk briefly about four different areas of imaging and how they affect your choice in telescopes...
Most beginners want a telescope to view the skies. It's only later that they realize that hooking up a camera is a natural evolution of the hobby, and a generally COOL thing to do. But not all forms of astroimaging are treated equally - different telescopes yield different results. This is why the camera industry has different lenses for your camera - and scopes work exactly like camera lenses in this regard.
But just in case photography is important in your first scope (i.e. you have a large budget than the typical beginner), then let's talk briefly about four different areas of imaging and how they affect your choice in telescopes...
 Lunar/Planetary
One of easier methods to get started in imaging is to hook a DSLR or video camera to your long-focal length scope, point at the moon or planets, and let 'er rip! With free software, you can produce mind blowing images with a little practice. SCTs are the preferred scopes here, though it's possible with Dobs if you have built-in tracking.
|
 DSO Imaging
DSO imaging is the most difficult form of astrophotography due to the long exposure times requiring a premium on instrument performance, learning curve, and cost. However, quality performance can be achieved with the right investment. I recommend longer focal length APOs, RCs, and SCTs for such attempts.
|
 Wide-Field
Wide-field (short focal length) imaging is highly recommended if you have the money to invest. In fact, you will see that the majority of the recommended setups later in the article focus on this aspect of imaging.
|
 Solar
To take a picture of the sun, you can purchase a white light solar filter for your telescope, any telescope, and shoot away. Thus, there is no specific requirements here...just be well informed and keep it safe. But there are dedicated instrument that ONLY image the sun. These h-alpha solar scopes go beyond the scope of this article. though you should look into a Coronado PST if you want to explore some great solar views for less than a grand.
|
SUMMING IT ALL UP
We have outlined several things to consider before purchasing a scope, categories that EVERYBODY looks at when evaluating which scope meets their needs. Of course, with a true beginner, seldom do you know what your needs are! This is why, after all, choosing a scope can be so difficult when you first start in this hobby.
Below I have ranked scope types according to each category on a 1-10 scale. 1 is "low" and 10 is "high."
We have outlined several things to consider before purchasing a scope, categories that EVERYBODY looks at when evaluating which scope meets their needs. Of course, with a true beginner, seldom do you know what your needs are! This is why, after all, choosing a scope can be so difficult when you first start in this hobby.
Below I have ranked scope types according to each category on a 1-10 scale. 1 is "low" and 10 is "high."
Dobs |
SCTs |
Maks |
APOs |
RC/CDK/Cass |
Achros |
Newts |
Fast Astrographs |
Category Summary |
|
Aperture |
10 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
8 |
3 |
9 |
7 |
Dobs are the only way to have massive aperture outside of a permanent enclosure (observatory), where catadioptrics rule. |
Optical Performance |
5 |
5 |
6 |
10 |
9 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
The least obstructed design combined with the best quality in optics makes APOs the easy winner. |
Portability |
5 |
4 |
10 |
8 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
5 |
Maks for all-around portability; small APOS for airline travel; larger refractors are not as portable as one might think; Dobs are portable for their aperture size. |
Quality |
7 |
5 |
4 |
9 |
10 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
The imaging catadioptric designs (RC, CDK, BRC, Casses, Mewlons) must be high quality to perform. There is some variance with APOs, but generally solid. Larger custom-dobs can be special. |
Flexibility |
3 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
SCTs are the jack-of-all-trades scope; APOs are versatile for quality of visuals, planetary-use, and imaging. |
Bang for the Buck |
10 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
Massive aperture for low cost is the Dob's trademark; SCTs are reasonably priced for their versatility |
DSO Imaging |
1 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
8 |
For single objects, imaging "CATs" win the day; for wide-fields, nothing beats an APO refractor short of a fast astrograph like a Celestron RASA or Tak Epsilon. |
Lunar/Planetary Imaging |
7 |
9 |
9 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
8 |
3 |
The world's greatest amateur planetary images are taken with an SCT...say no more. |
Resale Value |
4 |
3 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
APOS return most of their value upon resale, especially if you purchase used in the first place. |
Wide Field imaging |
1 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
Bigger astrographs can't go exceptionally wide like an APO can, but they are amazing for wide-fields. Epsilons are tricky. APOS are the overwhelming, majority choice here. |
Cost |
5 |
6 |
3 |
9 |
10 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
Scopes built for imaging or those with custom optics (especially with multi-elements) are the most expensive. |
Ease of Use |
8 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Dobs are the easiest to use, by far. Other scopes typically come with electronics that can raise the learning curve. Same with EQ mounts. |
For the Techie Guy - Celestron's Nexstar Evolution 8" with Starsense is a lot of scope for the money. $2300 isn't cheap, but this wifi-equipped scope not only can be controlled via your phone, it sets itself up completely. While I always advocate learning the sky the old fashioned way, it's hard to argue with a scope like this that takes a ton of frustration out of the learning process. Buy the scope...bring binoculars to learn where they are.
HOW TO CHOOSE?
As I said, true beginners are at a disadvantage. But you can start by asking yourself what it is you'd like to do and how much you are willing to pay for it? The former should be an easy to answer question, as you should avoid being too ambitious with a first telescope. So, keep it simple; get a visual instrument. The latter is typically the issue for a beginner, as nobody wants to pay large sums of money for something they might not like!
So, let's see if one of the following people describes you?
THE BEGINNING VISUAL OBSERVER - Many people wake up one day and realize that they never really paid attention to the night sky. Some come to the realization of this after a vacation out in the middle of nowhere. Others perhaps always had an infatuation with "space" but never really did anything with it. For the Beginning Visual Observer, it's likely just a question of buying a telescope that will provide good value, be easy to use, and provide some good views of the stars, moon, planets, and other deep space objects.
For this person, budget is important, but it's not a huge constraint. It's likely that you are willing to budget $500 or so because you realize that, ultimately, you get what you pay for.
As such, you should look no further than a 8" to 10" Dobsonian Reflector. Among experienced amateurs, this will be the number one recommended telescope for the vast majority of people willing to spend a modest amount of money. It packs huge bang-for-the-buck, delivering the most total amounts of "eye candy" at the most reasonable price. Granted, it's not a photographic instrument - although holding an iPhone to the eyepiece can still be really cool - but this shouldn't matter right now, especially since you'd done enough research on your own to know that any telescope that allows for decent photography will cost more than you want at this time!
The Buying-a-Scope-for-my-Kid Parent - This is the one that frustrates most of us. When this person asks us the question, we realize that we want the kid to have a good, easy-to-use, fun telescope that packs a large potential for learning, only we know the next line will typically be, "But I don't want to spend too much on it."
Here's the thing...if you aren't willing to spend $300 or more on a telescope, then just buy a nice pair of binoculars instead.
But here's what $300 will get you... a 4.5" to 6" Dobsonian reflector with a couple of eyepieces that can let your child learn the sky and see an enormous number of exciting objects in the night sky!
But what about the cheaper telescopes you see at the department store? That's what you are really asking about, right? Well, again, you get what you pay for...and you would be paying for low quality, frustrating junk. Most of this is because of the tripod/mount that comes with these cheap scopes. If it's low quality and lightweight (as they all are), then the scope will NEVER get used. That is a promise.
So, when the Buying-a-Scope-for-my-Kid Parent asks this question, I cringe a bit...because if you are like everybody else in this group, you'll likely find my recommendation a little off-putting.
THE TECHIE GUY - I am a guy. I like toys. Those two traits are not mutually exclusive. If you are anything like me, you probably came across this really cool looking telescope when you were walking past the "nature store" at the mall. Or maybe you visited a local star party one night and saw somebody's electronic telescope racing across the sky at the push of a button? Or perhaps you like the thought of hooking telescopes to computers and robotically controlling your observations?
There is no better time than NOW to get into the hobby for "The Techie Guy." The way advanced amateurs do astronomy today has been transformed over the last two decades by the technology that is available to us "off the shelf" - technology that is actually quite reasonably priced.
For this type of person then, it's really hard to beat a Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope (SCT) in the 8" to 11" aperture size. Not only can these instruments do just about everything you can imagine, they can be driven by PC software, they easily accommodate a camera, and they provide GOTO slews to thousands of targets in the night sky to be viewed through either an eyepiece, recorded on video, or snapped with a DSLR. At a $2000 to $5000 price point, depending on size, it's nothing to sneeze at! But then again, you recently dropped three-grand on a gaming PC, so why the heck not!!!
THE BEGINNING ASTROIMAGER - A true beginner typically does not buy a telescope specifically to take pictures; however, a "beginning astroimager" is also full of questions regarding what gear they should buy.
To help with these crucial decisions, you should know one principal, first and foremost...the longer the focal length of your scope/lenses, the more difficult it is. And it's not a linear relationship either; the difficulty goes up exponentially with focal length. This puts a strong premium on the mount, which in turn puts a strong demand on your pocketbook!
Over the years, at some point, I have recommended SCTs (especially with small refractors and lenses piggybacked atop) and EQ-based Newtonians for beginners. Then, I decided that smaller apochromatic refractors with mid-range EQ mounts was probably the best bet.
Any of these would be good advice, especially any purchase that includes a solid EQ mount.
Today, I have concluded that there is no single best choice. Instead, I have three...
THREE IMAGING RECOMMENDATIONS
 SCTs
Many might be surprised that I'd choose an SCT for a good many people. They are reasonable priced and versatile... and it's this latter point that makes it so great.
SCTs are absolutely the best system for imaging the planets and the moon. But most importantly, they are highly capable of "piggyback" photography - using camera lenses (or small scopes) while using the SCT as a tracking platform is my #1 method for getting people started with imaging, especially with DSLRs. And notice that I haven't even talked about using it for "prime focus" (through the scope itself) shots of deep sky objects. It is less capable here than other setups (long focal length and imprecision in tracking makes it a formidable (but still possible) task. Even so, I had my first successes this way...and that was with film! |
 The APO on a Tak Mount
The most difficult aspect of imaging is getting good tracking and precision that can "freeze" the stars in your picture. This means that you must be able to align the mount properly...and you need a mount refined enough to not "wobble" as the shutter is open.
Unlike any other "German Equatorial Mount," Takahashi has you covered in spades. Alignment is easy with their very accurate polar alignment scopes, meaning you can be imaging within 30 minutes of pulling up your car. And the gears are very refined, meaning that when you decided to "auto-guide" an exposure, you will have the greatest amount of success. Mate this with any APO scope of your choice (especially short ones) and your DSLR and you have a ready-made imaging setup capable of 3 to 5 minutes of UNGUIDED exposures right out of the box! You pay a nice price for this setup ($5000 or more), but it guarantees the greatest successes on traditionally difficult, long-exposure astro-images. |
 The RASA
Not a cheap option, but a powerful one, is the 11" Celestron RASA telescope. A special design based on the SCT, this scope puts the camera at exactly where it's shown in the picture. This shortens the focal length dramatically while funneling a tremendous amount of light onto the focal plane - f/2.2 for you focal-ratio-minded people.
What this means for you is that when you place this 620mm focal length system on a well-aligned, reasonably accurate EQ mount, you swallow up photons very quickly. With a DSLR, this means images less than a minute. 620mm means you'll likely want to "guide" the image just to keep it honest, but unguided images are very much possible if you pay some attention to the mount. The shorter exposures are especially beneficial for use with DSLRs, since you avoid excessive heat build-up (thermal noise) that can come with a typical 3 to 5 minutes image in other systems. |
THE MONEY-IS-NO-OBJECT DUDE - Sure, you have the money and you want to do it the "right way." I get that. I respect that.
Now, do yourself a favor...put down the credit card and read through the other people I've described here. Pick one, and then follow those recommendations.
Sure, you have the green! Certainly, you want the coolest thing around! I get it.
But here's the thing...the "coolest" thing around is pushing six figures. (!) Remember that bass-boat you bought last year? Well, you only THOUGHT that was a lot of money!
You can certainly spend less and get an amazing setup. Budgeting $10,000 to $20,000 yields a nice APO refractor, bullet-proof EQ mount, and nice DSLR or astro CCD camera. But here's the thing...this is the kind of gear that people "upgrade" to, after many years of practice, research, and learning.
It's okay to buy it if you are fully-prepared to learn to use it, which is why I recommend similar setups above.
But I have been around many people just like you, Mr. Moneybags - don't just buy it because "you can." Trust me when I say that you have to work up to this level of gear. Unless you are determined, you need to pay your dues first, or you might just find this thing collecting dust in your closet. Just remember that more money always means more complexity, so keep that in mind, even if it does look good hanging out next to your bass-boat!
THE HOBBY ENTHUSIAST - You are one of my favorite types of people. You really like space, hangout at star parties, and probably even got to spend some time on a variety of nice instruments. More than likely, you've always loved photography; and you look at images like those I've shot in my gallery page and you can't wait to give it a try!
You understand the concepts of paying your dues, finding dark skies, and being patient with your learning. You already have your observing charts, object lists, and a telrad to mount on your new scope. For you, the sky (or your budget) is the limit.
I would have no problem recommending telescopes for you, as I know you would likely end up having several scopes to do so many different types of things anyway, from visual observing to imaging, from solar work to actual science.
The nice part is that I probably don't need to recommend anything for you. You already know this stuff...even if you'd never actually owned it or used it. I wish all people were like you, in fact. You'll likely win many people to the hobby in the near future, and I greatly appreciate your zeal!
If I do have a recommendation, it would be to find a role-model and a mentor; people who do what you WANT to do and people who can help you achieve it.
CONCLUSION
So, my advice is to understand as much as you can about this hobby before making any purchase. Don't rely on one person's opinion, but definitely make sure that any advice you get comes from people with "skin's on the wall."
In your search for a scope, be certain to do your homework and if possible seek out a "star party" close to you. The best way to know what scope is best for you is to actually look through them and ask the owner tons of questions. You will discover that most all amateur astronomers are more than happy to share their equipment, and talk endlessly about it!
But if you are like most of us, you need all the crucial points written down, summarized for easy access...and I sincerely hope you find this article a large help in that regard!
Now, do yourself a favor...put down the credit card and read through the other people I've described here. Pick one, and then follow those recommendations.
Sure, you have the green! Certainly, you want the coolest thing around! I get it.
But here's the thing...the "coolest" thing around is pushing six figures. (!) Remember that bass-boat you bought last year? Well, you only THOUGHT that was a lot of money!
You can certainly spend less and get an amazing setup. Budgeting $10,000 to $20,000 yields a nice APO refractor, bullet-proof EQ mount, and nice DSLR or astro CCD camera. But here's the thing...this is the kind of gear that people "upgrade" to, after many years of practice, research, and learning.
It's okay to buy it if you are fully-prepared to learn to use it, which is why I recommend similar setups above.
But I have been around many people just like you, Mr. Moneybags - don't just buy it because "you can." Trust me when I say that you have to work up to this level of gear. Unless you are determined, you need to pay your dues first, or you might just find this thing collecting dust in your closet. Just remember that more money always means more complexity, so keep that in mind, even if it does look good hanging out next to your bass-boat!
THE HOBBY ENTHUSIAST - You are one of my favorite types of people. You really like space, hangout at star parties, and probably even got to spend some time on a variety of nice instruments. More than likely, you've always loved photography; and you look at images like those I've shot in my gallery page and you can't wait to give it a try!
You understand the concepts of paying your dues, finding dark skies, and being patient with your learning. You already have your observing charts, object lists, and a telrad to mount on your new scope. For you, the sky (or your budget) is the limit.
I would have no problem recommending telescopes for you, as I know you would likely end up having several scopes to do so many different types of things anyway, from visual observing to imaging, from solar work to actual science.
The nice part is that I probably don't need to recommend anything for you. You already know this stuff...even if you'd never actually owned it or used it. I wish all people were like you, in fact. You'll likely win many people to the hobby in the near future, and I greatly appreciate your zeal!
If I do have a recommendation, it would be to find a role-model and a mentor; people who do what you WANT to do and people who can help you achieve it.
CONCLUSION
So, my advice is to understand as much as you can about this hobby before making any purchase. Don't rely on one person's opinion, but definitely make sure that any advice you get comes from people with "skin's on the wall."
In your search for a scope, be certain to do your homework and if possible seek out a "star party" close to you. The best way to know what scope is best for you is to actually look through them and ask the owner tons of questions. You will discover that most all amateur astronomers are more than happy to share their equipment, and talk endlessly about it!
But if you are like most of us, you need all the crucial points written down, summarized for easy access...and I sincerely hope you find this article a large help in that regard!
