Telescope Reviews: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD?

· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt

· Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

You are not logged in. [Login]

Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online
FAQ · Calendar

General Astronomy >> Beginners Forum

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)

Jon Isaacs
Postmaster

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: lamplight]
#5653888 - 01/31/13 09:23 AM Attachment (14 downloads)

Quote:

Jon the 4.7" range doesn't seem all that much bigger (??). The ones I'm looking at look really well built and everywhere I see good reviews of very low to no visible CA. I worry that if I went a triplet and stayed in the 100mm range (about same cost as these exceptionally good doublets) I would not get a noticeable upgrade in light gathering.

It all depends on what you are looking for in a telescope. In terms of light gathering, the difference between a 4 inch and a 120mm is not much if there is a 10 inch Newtonian sitting nearby.

The fact that it takes as much effort to setup the 120mm refractor as it does the 10 inch Newtonian is clue that maybe the 120mm is on the big side of easy to use and portable. Myself, I look to refractors to do the things smaller scopes do best, easily portable, compact, wide fields of view, with the ability to go to higher magnifications, remembering that there is a limit to what scopes this size can do.

When small is good, bigger is not necessarily better.

For the things I use a refractor for, an 80mm is a better choice than a 120mm and a fast 4 inch is about ideal. In terms of fast 4 inch refractors for visual use, the NP-101 is about as good as it gets.

Jon

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

lamplight
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/18/12

Loc: west central MA, U.S.

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Jon Isaacs]
#5654074 - 01/31/13 10:53 AM

( is that a vixen head on your TV? nice !)

thanks.. well if it will be smaller than what i have but only a bit heavier with bit more light and less CA it seems a no brainer for my needs. except cost which is contrary to practical. "but..."

this has been SO educational thanks! this hobby is a continuation of not knowing what i didnt know.. how many times is this going to keep happening? sheesh.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

CJK
professor emeritus

Reged: 12/05/12

Loc: Scenic SE TN

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Jon Isaacs]
#5654148 - 01/31/13 11:29 AM

Re: your photo -- Who knew Home Depot sold telescope mounts?

-- Chris

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

kenrenard
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 12/13/12

Loc: Dunmore, PA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Jon Isaacs]
#5654260 - 01/31/13 12:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have owned a couple of 120mm refractors. I prefer a 4 inch, preferably faster, shorter.

And I will repeat my previous question. As you move up in the aperture leagues, what's wrong with a 6-inch reflector? More portable than a 120-mm refractor, much cheaper, and closely comparable light gathering and image quality.

Tony:

Indeed... over the years, the traditional 6 inch F/8 Newtonian gained the reputation as an "apo-killer." The classic Criterion RV-6 (last built about 1978) has a light weight phenolic tube, a small secondary and a simple clean aluminum mirror cell. The optical tube assembly weighs 8 lbs and these are very capable performers as planetary and double star telescopes.

Jon

Tony or Jon,
I have a question. Would a 6 inch reflector f/8 be better for planets than say a 8 inch f/6 or does the aperture cancel the longer focal length out? I have see quite a few ads for planet killer refractors f/11 or more. I have read how some people love these but the FOV is very limited. So would the a longer focal length help with planets or double stars on reflectors as well? I understand this would make them less portable. I am trying to understand the trade offs over wide field or better planet viewing. From what I am understanding it sound like only a select few refractors like the NP-101 does both things well.

Ken

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Mike4242
professor emeritus

Reged: 11/02/11

Loc: Memphis, TN

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: kenrenard]
#5654405 - 01/31/13 02:12 PM

The main benefit of a longer focal length is that you get a higher magnification with a given eyepiece; however, this also restricts your maximum field of view.

Focal length also comes into play with achromatic refractors because longer focal lengths reduce the amount of chromatic aberration.

In the case of reflectors collimation is more forgiving with a longer focal length.

An 8" f/6 should give better planetary views than a 6" f/8 if both scopes are cooled, properly collimated, and the seeing conditions permit. The 8" will be more affected by atmospheric seeing than the 6".

I'm probably missing some points here, but I'm sure Jon and/or Tony will chime in.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Mike4242
professor emeritus

Reged: 11/02/11

Loc: Memphis, TN

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Mike4242]
#5654409 - 01/31/13 02:14 PM

Here's a good article I just remembered about the pros and cons of short and long focal lengths:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/telescope_focal_length.htm

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

kenrenard
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 12/13/12

Loc: Dunmore, PA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Mike4242]
#5654420 - 01/31/13 02:26 PM

Thanks Mike,
Good article. When I put the different focal lengths comparing say a XT8 f/5.9 and XT6 f/8 in an eyepiece calculator they have the same magnification. So in essence looks like a wash? At least thats the way I'm understanding things.

Ken

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Mike4242
professor emeritus

Reged: 11/02/11

Loc: Memphis, TN

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: kenrenard]
#5654426 - 01/31/13 02:29 PM

You have to look at the actual focal length value instead of the ratio for magnification. Since the F ratio is the focal length divided by the aperture, a larger aperture will have a lower/faster F ratio with the same focal length.

But, yes, it is essentially a wash. The collimation tolerance of the 8" will be tighter, but the 8" should give better views if atmospheric seeing permits.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

kenrenard
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 12/13/12

Loc: Dunmore, PA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Mike4242]
#5654444 - 01/31/13 02:37 PM

OK I understand. Thanks for clearing it up. I found a few other old post explaining why we don't have long focal length reflectors. Size and weight seem to be the biggest answer. As well as better mirrors today.

Ken

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Jon Isaacs
Postmaster

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: kenrenard]
#5654468 - 01/31/13 02:51 PM

Quote:

Thanks Mike,
Good article. When I put the different focal lengths comparing say a XT8 f/5.9 and XT6 f/8 in an eyepiece calculator they have the same magnification. So in essence looks like a wash? At least thats the way I'm understanding things.

Ken

Ken:

The article was comparing telescopes of the same aperture and is not really applicable in this situation because the question here is involves two scopes of the same focal length but different apertures. It is also rather dated so many of the comments about eye relief and eyepieces are no longer valid.

This is a favorite saying:

"The best 6 inch F/8 is an 8 inch F/6."

In terms of viewing the planets, the benefit of the larger aperture is greater resolution, increased planetary contrast and a brighter, potentially more colorful view. The resolution and contrast are proportional to the aperture, so assumming the seeing (atmospheric stability) is not the limiting factor, the expectation is that an 8 inch F/6 Newtonian will provide noticeably better planetary views than a 6 inch F/8 Newtonian.

This is very consistent with my experience. I do have the classic 6 inch F/8 but if want the good planetary views, it's not the 4 inch apo nor the 6 inch F/8 Newtonian but rather the 10 inch F/5 or something even larger.

Jon

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

kenrenard
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 12/13/12

Loc: Dunmore, PA

Re: Hypothetical 4" budget APO choices.. WWJD? new

new

[Re: Jon Isaacs]
#5654557 - 01/31/13 03:36 PM

Thanks Jon,
As always you are a wealth of information.

Ken

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)

Extra information

19 registered and 46 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Dave Mitsky, panhard, WaterMaster

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 2412

Jump to

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics