2307 replies to this topic

[Celerondon]

Follow up on the $19.95 SvBony SV510 solar scope:

The scope/solar filter/20mm eyepiece combination works surprisingly well. Not Baader AstroSolar film or Herschel prism well, but it’s certainly serviceable and quite a bit better than I had expected it would be. I purchased the scope with the intention of gifting it to a youngster interested in astronomy, if it was good enough he’d learn something from it, and it’s certainly more than good enough for that, so off it goes to it’s next owner.

 

As for the mount, it’s complete garbage useful only as a means to hold the scope on display. Fortunately my young friend has a mount for the Omni AZ 102 that will work perfectly for the solar scope.

 

In summary, if you or someone you know could use a solar scope and you or they have a suitable light duty mount, it’s well worth the less than $20 cost.

 

Convenience link: https://www.amazon.c..._fed_asin_title

These solar scopes certainly qualify as unusually inexpensive refractors, don’t they?  The shipping for the sale that supposedly ends today is also unusually inexpensive and unusually quick.  I say that because the SV510 kits that I ordered from Aliexpress on 12/12 and 12/13 had free shipping and arrived on 12/14.  I’m impressed.   
 

Don

 

[TareqPhoto]

These solar scopes certainly qualify as unusually inexpensive refractors, don’t they?  The shipping for the sale that supposedly ends today is also unusually inexpensive and unusually quick.  I say that because the SV510 kits that I ordered from Aliexpress on 12/12 and 12/13 had free shipping and arrived on 12/14.  I’m impressed.   
 

Don

 

I will be more impressed if those inexpensive refractors will yield amazing nice sharp results say for solar for example, i want to see to believe.

[edsmx5]

I will be more impressed if those inexpensive refractors will yield amazing nice sharp results say for solar for example, i want to see to believe.

Amazing enough to me; I'd have never considered looking at the sun, were it not for this little scope.
Dedicated solar Astronomers are NOT the market for this, but it's a nice introduction to that part of the hobby.

[TareqPhoto]

Amazing enough to me; I'd have never considered looking at the sun, were it not for this little scope.
Dedicated solar Astronomers are NOT the market for this, but it's a nice introduction to that part of the hobby.

I still keep thinking who is buying the inexpensive refractors if it is not dedicated astronomers, let's not mention solar or DSO, because if i won't use those inexpensive refractors for solar or for DSO then i will use it for what? Visual? Nah, a reflector such as a dob will be WAY better even the least expensive one which is more than refractor, i mean 4"-6" dobs are so cheap enough really, and a mirror beats achromatic optics.

[John R.]

I still keep thinking who is buying the inexpensive refractors if it is not dedicated astronomers, let's not mention solar or DSO, because if i won't use those inexpensive refractors for solar or for DSO then i will use it for what? Visual? Nah, a reflector such as a dob will be WAY better even the least expensive one which is more than refractor, i mean 4"-6" dobs are so cheap enough really, and a mirror beats achromatic optics.

I am not sure of the meaning of "..not dedicated astronomers,". This hobby is a pretty big tent. There is room for many avenues of exploration. And, for nearly all (all?) income levels. Just learning the night sky in the different seasons is an achievement, and one I freely admit I am only a beginner at. For a large number of us, clear nights are rare, and you will often find us outside every-chance-we-get, even with our not perfect, inexpensive refractors. Ergonomically I find dob mounted newtonians hard to aim, something I do not find with my refractors, even long focal length samples. Just pop in a 25mm plossl, point it, and there you are. Haven't used a finder on any of my refractors, with the lowest power eyepiece they are the finder. 

[Jon Isaacs]

I still keep thinking who is buying the inexpensive refractors if it is not dedicated astronomers, let's not mention solar or DSO, because if i won't use those inexpensive refractors for solar or for DSO then i will use it for what? Visual? Nah, a reflector such as a dob will be WAY better even the least expensive one which is more than refractor, i mean 4"-6" dobs are so cheap enough really, and a mirror beats achromatic optics.

 

They make very good terrestrial scopes. I had a 60 mm F/7 Svbony, it had decent optics and minimal chromatic aberration, the chromatic ratio is 3.0.  

 

 

Personally I find Dob's easier to point than a refractor of similar focal length. I use finders and I view seated. I'm also looking mostly at objects that cannot be seen naked eye or in a finder. 

 

The difference is that the finders and eyepieces are at the "sky end" of the scope so I avoid getting down and dirty to view near the zenith.

 

These are full sized Dob's. Shorties can present problems.. Too short.

 

Jon

[John R.]

 

They make very good terrestrial scopes. I had a 60 mm F/7 Svbony, it had decent optics and minimal chromatic aberration, the chromatic ratio is 3.0.  

 

 

 

Personally I find Dob's easier to point than a refractor of similar focal length. I use finders and I view seated. I'm also looking mostly at objects that cannot be seen naked eye or in a finder. 

 

The difference is that the finders and eyepieces are at the "sky end" of the scope so I avoid getting down and dirty to view near the zenith.

 

These are full sized Dob's. Shorties can present problems.. Too short.

 

Jon

 

I also only observe seated and agree the eyepiece position on a dob is much more convenient than a refractor. But I for some reason find looking at the top and sideways harder to find things. I forgot to add that only things I can see with my eyes are easy to point a refractor to. As a for instance, I have not spotted M31 naked-eye from my back yard, either too much light pollution or my 75 YO dim eyesight, not sure which. I know about where it is relative to Cassiopeia and with a 25mm in my ST80 for 16x it is usually only a short search. But M42 is so bright I just point the refractor and often find it in a low power EP on the first try.   

[RichA]

The glad cry of the inveterate tinkerer. And I agree. And at that price I will get one for the rare times the sun appears in a Pacific Northwest winter. 
 

For decades now I have a 2x4 inch filter picked up at a welding supplier. The view through it is a pale green and completely safe if I just want to take a peek with my eyes. 
Edit; Just watched the video. Surprised he didn’t know it is a 60mm Svbony 501P with a cheap solar film under the lens cell retaining ring. You can see in the video the three foil tabs for the air spaced 400mm objective. 

Welder's glass gives a double-image in telescopes. Lack of plane-parallelism.

[RichA]

Well, yes, ideally it had a better mount. But it is what it is...

 

Scope is optically decent. Mount/tripod isn't great, but the controller alone is usually worth more than what these scopes sell for. And I've been using it manually just fine so far. Not perfect and a little shaky, but I've used worse.

 

And at the right price, the mount could burst into flames, and you'll still be ahead. Just something to keep an eye out for on the used markets, for folks into that sort of thing. If cheap enough and the goto breaks, so be it... just use it manually.

If they can be used manually.  I had an iOptron cube and it couldn't be used manually in azimuth and the altitude lock was a joke.  I hate to say it, but incorporating goto made "X" priced mounts more expensive than if they'd been simple, but more robust alt-az mounts without goto.  Goto on the low-end is really a gimmick.

[Celerondon]

I will be more impressed if those inexpensive refractors will yield amazing nice sharp results say for solar for example, i want to see to believe.

What is it that you are anticipating for $20? Is it reasonable to expect amazement from a telescope that costs less than the included diagonal and eyepiece are worth?

 

I just took an SV510 outside for a first look at the sun.  The view is not Tak sharp.  In fact, it doesn't rival the view through my TV Pronto and Baader AstroSolar film.  But I saw plenty of detail with the supplied (Kellner?) eyepiece and a 6mm TV Radian yielded even more.

 

Don

 

 

 

 

[edsmx5]

What is it that you are anticipating for $20? Is it reasonable to expect amazement from a telescope that costs less than the included diagonal and eyepiece are worth?

I just took an SV510 outside for a first look at the sun. The view is not Tak sharp. In fact, it doesn't rival the view through my TV Pronto and Baader AstroSolar film. But I saw plenty of detail with the supplied (Kellner?) eyepiece and a 6mm TV Radian yielded even more.

Don

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that is confused ( unless it's inexpensive refractors in general that the comments are about/for)

That little $20 scope has piqued my interest in Solar a bit. Not sure if I'll scratch that itch or not, we'll see . . .


Ed

[TareqPhoto]

I am not sure of the meaning of "..not dedicated astronomers,". This hobby is a pretty big tent. There is room for many avenues of exploration. And, for nearly all (all?) income levels. Just learning the night sky in the different seasons is an achievement, and one I freely admit I am only a beginner at. For a large number of us, clear nights are rare, and you will often find us outside every-chance-we-get, even with our not perfect, inexpensive refractors. Ergonomically I find dob mounted newtonians hard to aim, something I do not find with my refractors, even long focal length samples. Just pop in a 25mm plossl, point it, and there you are. Haven't used a finder on any of my refractors, with the lowest power eyepiece they are the finder. 

That is great to know, there are always places for inexpensive refractors or scopes, and now there are those smart telescopes such as Seestar and DWARF, but they are mainly a full package rather than just a visual scope, and they aren't $50-200, so i don't know if all people are really starting with inexpensive refractors, because even in another threads or in many places i always see people recommending dobsonians for beginners or starting out for visual, so that i was asking for whom is this inexpensive refractor really, and how inexpensive is acceptable.

[TareqPhoto]

 

They make very good terrestrial scopes. I had a 60 mm F/7 Svbony, it had decent optics and minimal chromatic aberration, the chromatic ratio is 3.0.  

 

 

 

Personally I find Dob's easier to point than a refractor of similar focal length. I use finders and I view seated. I'm also looking mostly at objects that cannot be seen naked eye or in a finder. 

 

The difference is that the finders and eyepieces are at the "sky end" of the scope so I avoid getting down and dirty to view near the zenith.

 

These are full sized Dob's. Shorties can present problems.. Too short.

 

Jon

 

And why getting this inexpensive refractor instead of for example an inexpensive binocular? When i started back in 2017 the first thing i used was Binocular that i still have to date, then later not long i followed it by inexpensive refactor which is Skywatcher ST80 as a package [including a finder, a Barlow 2x and two eyepieces] which is a fun to learn with, i saw things with my bino that helped me to learn with the scope, i mean i studied the sky visually by the bino and i tried to image by the scope.

[TareqPhoto]

What is it that you are anticipating for $20? Is it reasonable to expect amazement from a telescope that costs less than the included diagonal and eyepiece are worth?

 

I just took an SV510 outside for a first look at the sun.  The view is not Tak sharp.  In fact, it doesn't rival the view through my TV Pronto and Baader AstroSolar film.  But I saw plenty of detail with the supplied (Kellner?) eyepiece and a 6mm TV Radian yielded even more.

 

Don

 

 

Ok, so that what you call it as "inexpensive" then, i mean i bought my ST80 in the past as full package including accessories for almost $140, is this cheap or inexpensive? And the view was nice really, i mean i started with this instead of 3rd party not popular brand name less than $100, only Bino was that cheap and amazing, but i was lucky to catch another ST80 which is technically discontinued for just $99 [Orion], and i don't remember how much i bought my Bresser 90mm for, in fact even my Meade 8" f/5 Newt i bought it for $200 brand new but left unused stocked stored by someone, is it considered inexpensive?

[edsmx5]

Ok, so that what you call it as "inexpensive" then, i mean i bought my ST80 in the past as full package including accessories for almost $140, is this cheap or inexpensive? And the view was nice really, i mean i started with this instead of 3rd party not popular brand name less than $100, only Bino was that cheap and amazing, but i was lucky to catch another ST80 which is technically discontinued for just $99 [Orion], and i don't remember how much i bought my Bresser 90mm for, in fact even my Meade 8" f/5 Newt i bought it for $200 brand new but left unused stocked stored by someone, is it considered inexpensive?

For what it's worth, my first sv48p 90mm was a gift, that fit into this thread. I passed that to my Grandson, and purchased another, new, at around $225usd.
I don't believe that my second one fits the tone of this thread.
The solar scope that we're referring, at $20usd, certainly fits: at its list price of $99, probably not.

It depends upon the scope, but the spirit of this thread seems to center upon " yard sale" finds, Goodwill purchases, and scopes that just came at an amazingly low price for what it was. ( " hey, I found this 60mm Tasco in the dunpster" " I got this 102mm achro for 25 bucks on Craigslist" that sort of thing)

Ed

[TareqPhoto]

For what it's worth, my first sv48p 90mm was a gift, that fit into this thread. I passed that to my Grandson, and purchased another, new, at around $225usd.
I don't believe that my second one fits the tone of this thread.
The solar scope that we're referring, at $20usd, certainly fits: at its list price of $99, probably not.

It depends upon the scope, but the spirit of this thread seems to center upon " yard sale" finds, Goodwill purchases, and scopes that just came at an amazingly low price for what it was. ( " hey, I found this 60mm Tasco in the dunpster" " I got this 102mm achro for 25 bucks on Craigslist" that sort of thing)

Ed

Understandable, it is a fun also to have those scopes laying around since long time or getting them as offers online, but i am not brave enough to go that much inexpensive really, i mean i saw many $25-80 scopes as offers all over the places online, i was thinking to get some either to use as visual or imaging or gifting it to family who is interested, but i still feel like they are more like toys than real scopes, i even bought something as a refractor when i started in 2017 only to return it back next day when people on forum told me that it is ok for visual but not good for imaging, and it wasn't inexpensive to be honest.

[Celerondon]

And why getting this inexpensive refractor instead of for example an inexpensive binocular? When i started back in 2017 the first thing i used was Binocular that i still have to date, then later not long i followed it by inexpensive refactor which is Skywatcher ST80 as a package [including a finder, a Barlow 2x and two eyepieces] which is a fun to learn with, i saw things with my bino that helped me to learn with the scope, i mean i studied the sky visually by the bino and i tried to image by the scope.

Okay, this I understand.  I began my adult astronomy experience with binoculars as well.  For several years, my Celestron 10X50 Nova binoculars did it all, not just astronomy.  Although they were a bit bulky, the extra weight was justified at sporting events because of the wide field of view and high magnification.  With practice, I could hold them steady at nature preserves or sporting events and they had a tripod adapter for solid nighttime mounting. My Celestron binoculars provided great views of comets and other solar system objects, especially the moon and Jupiter.  They also did well with selected deep sky objects like M31, M42, and M45. 

 

But you know what?  Although regular binoculars are a good tool for learning about the sky, they are not nearly as versatile as a simple telescope.  We can hold endless debates about the merits of one telescope design versus another but there is no contest between a simple telescope like an ST80 or even the 60mm f7 Svbony refractor that Jon mentioned and my cherished Celestron 10X50 binoculars.  Standard telescope features like finders, star diagonals, filters, removable visual backs, mounting shoes, and interchangeable eyepieces give telescope users a universe of possibilities that are difficult, if not impossible to achieve with binoculars like mine. 

 

So, when someone asks for a telescope or is ready to use one, providing them with a pair of binoculars can disappoint them and hamper their enjoyment of the hobby.  In fact, I didn't truly start out with binoculars in the beginning.  Back about the time that John Glenn orbited the earth in the Friendship 7 capsule, my grandparents got me a Gilbert reflector for my birthday.  I was stoked!  That little spherical reflector was a real telescope, and it worked!  Stanley, my neighbor from across the street, had a tiny Sears refractor that produced beautiful views but we both marveled at the light grasp of my massive reflector.  We spent many evenings gazing at planets and the craters of the moon.  Stanley and I never got tired of looking at M31 and closer targets in our galaxy.  I am sure our experiences with those "toy" telescopes were enhanced by the balmy California evenings, but trust me TareqPhoto, binoculars would not have done it for either of us!

 

Don

[TareqPhoto]

Okay, this I understand.  I began my adult astronomy experience with binoculars as well.  For several years, my Celestron 10X50 Nova binoculars did it all, not just astronomy.  Although they were a bit bulky, the extra weight was justified at sporting events because of the wide field of view and high magnification.  With practice, I could hold them steady at nature preserves or sporting events and they had a tripod adapter for solid nighttime mounting. My Celestron binoculars provided great views of comets and other solar system objects, especially the moon and Jupiter.  They also did well with selected deep sky objects like M31, M42, and M45. 

 

But you know what?  Although regular binoculars are a good tool for learning about the sky, they are not nearly as versatile as a simple telescope.  We can hold endless debates about the merits of one telescope design versus another but there is no contest between a simple telescope like an ST80 or even the 60mm f7 Svbony refractor that Jon mentioned and my cherished Celestron 10X50 binoculars.  Standard telescope features like finders, star diagonals, filters, removable visual backs, mounting shoes, and interchangeable eyepieces give telescope users a universe of possibilities that are difficult, if not impossible to achieve with binoculars like mine. 

 

So, when someone asks for a telescope or is ready to use one, providing them with a pair of binoculars can disappoint them and hamper their enjoyment of the hobby.  In fact, I didn't truly start out with binoculars in the beginning.  Back about the time that John Glenn orbited the earth in the Friendship 7 capsule, my grandparents got me a Gilbert reflector for my birthday.  I was stoked!  That little spherical reflector was a real telescope, and it worked!  Stanley, my neighbor from across the street, had a tiny Sears refractor that produced beautiful views but we both marveled at the light grasp of my massive reflector.  We spent many evenings gazing at planets and the craters of the moon.  Stanley and I never got tired of looking at M31 and closer targets in our galaxy.  I am sure our experiences with those "toy" telescopes were enhanced by the balmy California evenings, but trust me TareqPhoto, binoculars would not have done it for either of us!

 

Don

I agree, i just pointed out that if someone is starting and not fancy about exploring or seeing more of the sky then a bino could do the job, in fact even me when i started out and asked people many of them recommended me a bino rather than a scope whatever, but as you mentioned, i couldn't wait longer and i bought a scope and never looked back, if the time returned back i could start with a scope really, but the last time i went to a dark sky in a group done by astronomy  academy i carried a bino with me and not any scope, and that bino served me again, even someone people there asked me polity to try that bino despite that the academy already put like 3 different scopes for visual [two SCTs and one refractor].

[Jon Isaacs]

I also only observe seated and agree the eyepiece position on a dob is much more convenient than a refractor. But I for some reason find looking at the top and sideways harder to find things. I forgot to add that only things I can see with my eyes are easy to point a refractor to. As a for instance, I have not spotted M31 naked-eye from my back yard, either too much light pollution or my 75 YO dim eyesight, not sure which. I know about where it is relative to Cassiopeia and with a 25mm in my ST80 for 16x it is usually only a short search. But M42 is so bright I just point the refractor and often find it in a low power EP on the first try.   

 

A finder(s) is a definite must with a Dob, particularly with a short Dob. I once had a Bushnell Voyager which was an Astroscan clone but with a spherical mirror.

 

I couldn't find anything with that scope, nothing.. 

 

Jon

[Jon Isaacs]

And why getting this inexpensive refractor instead of for example an inexpensive binocular? When i started back in 2017 the first thing i used was Binocular that i still have to date, then later not long i followed it by inexpensive refactor which is Skywatcher ST80 as a package [including a finder, a Barlow 2x and two eyepieces] which is a fun to learn with, i saw things with my bino that helped me to learn with the scope, i mean i studied the sky visually by the bino and i tried to image by the scope.

 

My point is that a scope like the 60 mm F/7 is an effective terrestrial scope. It does the things a telescope does. It can be mounted so the image is steady. One can look at a distant bird at 50x and see an image that would be sharper and more detailed than in a very expensive handheld binoculars. 

 

They do not replace binoculars nor do binoculars replace them. 

 

Jon

[AstroPhotog]

As John R said, and several others echoed in this thread - "Ain't cheap scopes fun!"

 

Long live the UIR!   

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah everyone! And for those who are neither - Happy Holidays.

Edited by AstroPhotog, 16 December 2024 - 03:00 AM.

[Gonariu]

I agree with edsmx5 that many "unusually cheap refractors" are found in flea markets and therefore certainly used, but it must be said that they do their job. I use the Konus Vista 80 a lot (achromatic 80/400, bought used at the end of May 2020), it is very easy to carry everywhere and I can see a bit of everything. Lately I ordered a used achromatic 50/600, equipped with a table tripod, I paid 30 euros (shipping costs not included) and I am waiting for it to arrive. I find the table tripod very convenient and I am intrigued by the 1.25" zoom eyepiece supplied which gives magnifications from 6X to 28X. The use I would like to make of it is at school to show my students the sun by projection (I teach physics in Nuoro, a town in central Sardinia). For me it is much more convenient to take a desk at school on which to put this small refractor than to drag my photographic tripod.

[John R.]

Just thought I would look in to our old 'Inexpensive refractor' thread. 

So, at 5:15 it was plenty dark enough to start with Jupiter. 

Tonight I had a chance to observe with an especially steady sky. I decided to start out with Goldilocks. (Now sold as the Spectrum TourStar 60.)

Jupiter was beautiful at 91x with an AT5.5mmPF eyepiece. Could see an amazing amount of detail for a humble 60mm obtained for $31. (They are now $51 with their on site discount.) 

There were the two major equatorial belts with a hint of detail along with two faint polar belts. Next swung over to Mars. 

Gosh, Mars really is red, although small at 91x. There were hints of a darker aera and the polar cap was visible as a tiny white smudge. I turned away from Mars to check out A few star fields, then back to Mars to confirm my observation, yep.... still there. 

Switch to a 25mm and onward to M42, averted vision is my friend. I also zoomed in with the 5.5mm, the four brightest stars in the trap plainly visible. Then high overhead to M45, very pretty with the 25mm.

 

A short break. 

 

Went back outside with my AT70ED. Due to the shorter FL the 5.5mm yields 76x so for planets I pop in a shorty 2X for 152x. The night was steady enough to handle that but really, there was only slight improvement in planetary detail over the 60mm, despite the extra aperture and magnification. Might have been better to just screw the 2X optical cell directly into the eyepiece for about 115x. 

 

Another short break, to warm up.

 

Thought well, I should give some time to my other inexpensive Spectrum refractor, A short tube 70mm x 400mm (Currently sold as the TourStar70.) 

Didn't spend too much time with this last one. Amazing how fast fog was forming. The trap showed three stars easily buy the fourth waivered in and out at 71x with the 5.5mm. Managed to get a view of Mars at about 105x with the 5.5 + 2X component screwed directly into it. Fog getting thicker by the minute. Going to have a freeze tonight.  

 

Time to come in.     

[Gonariu]

At the end of December-beginning of January I managed to make some interesting observations on Mars with my 80/400 (the Konus Vista), I must say that I did not hope for it given that the opposition of this month is aphelic. With better instruments in the past months (November and a good part of December) I got very little out of it!

[Maranatha]

Ok, likely committing sacrilege by posting this but it IS a refractor.

 

I just bought, and have daytime tested, a Creative XP 20-60x80 spotting scope. Bought this for 56.03 (sellers idea, not mine), free shipping on ebay. I may buy more for gifts.

 

This has quality glass. The secret to making this, and any other achro for that matter, usable at higher mag is masking. At 20x its all good. But as you step up mag the CA takes away some  sharpness. I was able to get this unit to equal my 70mm f10 in sharpness at 60x on a cell tower I use for testing views.

 

Just so there is no misunderstanding I am posting a pic. I was fortunate there were two lens covers in the box. Allowing me to make one into a mask. I used a 1 1/8 hole saw.

 

 

 

Clear skies!