2307 replies to this topic

[John R.]

 

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!

 

 

I always figured spotting scopes were made primarily for land viewing, thus the fixed 45 degree prism. But should make a good low powered rich field scope, as long as you don't try too high an elevation, that would be a neck breaker for sure. 

I see you have the SOI 70mm f10. How do you like it? With how good my SOI 60mm f8.3 and 70mm f5.9 have been I have been tempted, but have held off. Definitely DO NOT need another refractor. 

That said, if USPS comes through on Monday I will have a Galileoscope in hand.  

[Maranatha]

Just looked at Jupiter and M42 with the XP @60x mag, very nice! And, as always this is from indoors.

 

Jupiter, using the mask, could see the main bands and a moon. No mask, was a CA mess.

 

M42, no mask, nice gaseous area as expected. 4 main stars also!

And to the point on being awkward, yes somewhat. A higher tripod would solve this. I was using the tabletop tripod. Im very happy with this unit.

 

I always figured spotting scopes were made primarily for land viewing, thus the fixed 45 degree prism. But should make a good low powered rich field scope, as long as you don't try too high an elevation, that would be a neck breaker for sure. 

I see you have the SOI 70mm f10. How do you like it? With how good my SOI 60mm f8.3 and 70mm f5.9 have been I have been tempted, but have held off. Definitely DO NOT need another refractor. 

That said, if USPS comes through on Monday I will have a Galileoscope in hand.  

[Maranatha]

Just picked up a Carson 70/400 for $20 on ebay. Nice little end table scope. I really wanted the style of tripod it comes with, perfect for my use case. Turns out the scope is ok!

 

The diagonal was the problem on this one. Once I popped in a simple 90* mirror the views were very nice. That 45* diag was junk. The kellner EPs are also quite nice.

 

Clear skies!

[Polyphemos]

The present “King of Unusually Inexpensive Refractors” has to be the SV510 for $14.95. I’ve been playing with a couple of SV510s these past few weeks and here’s what I’ve learned:

 

The optics are sharp, the solar filter is so-so.

 

While the view through the attached solar filter isn’t bad, the filter and not the optics is the weak link when it comes to resolution. When I removed the attached filter from one SV510 using an X-Acto knife and substituted a Herschel wedge prism the resulting views were very good within the constraints of its 53mm effective aperture diameter.

 

Viewing objects in the night sky during hazy and windy conditions last night I could observe the four dominant stars in the Trapezium and brighter stars in general show beautifully formed airy disks. The facility with which this scope shows airy disks was a surprise to me. I’m still waiting for a decent night of seeing and transparency to test the limits of this scope, but I’m optimistic for good results.

 

It’s easy and inexpensive to improve.

 

I added a red dot finder for $12, thereby more than doubling the cost of the scope, but it’s worth it for the convenience of easily acquiring targets. A free and useful modification is to move the attached dovetail back towards the focuser to improve balance. I used the existing rear most dovetail mount hole and drilled an additional hole closer to the focuser. You can see where I covered the original forward hole with a dot of self adhesive flocking paper. If you do this to your own scope you may have to notch the focuser mounting flange a bit to clear the rear nut; I had to do this to one of my two SV510s but not the other.

 

 

 

Even the flimsy included mount can be significantly improved for a few cents worth of damping grease.

 

The biggest problem with the mount and tripod is that in addition to being flimsy the mount suffers from a large amount of stiction. Between the one and the other the mount is basically unusable. You can’t in any reasonable fashion do anything to reduce its flimsiness, but by disassembling it and lubricating the rotating contact surfaces with Nye PG-44A damping grease the stiction can be reduced to a degree that the mount actually works, kind of. If you use a lighter grease than Nye PG-44A I don’t know that you’ll have the same results, but it’s basically free to try out.

 

 

 

[John R.]

I have two of the SV501P (60/400) that the solar is based on. Picked them up when Svbony’s ebay store had them for $24 each. On one I robbed the focusing to refurbish an old 60/700 ‘hobby killer’ picked up from a Goodwill about 35 years ago. 
They have an extra long draw tubes that clip the light cone so on the one left intact shortened the tube about 3 inches, it helped. 
These inexpensive refractors just beg to be tinkered with. 
 

I don’t attempt to use the included tripods or 45 degree diagonal or finder. Also remove the finder studs on mine, with a low powered eyepiece it is a finder. 

Edited by John R., 22 March 2025 - 07:46 PM.

[Polyphemos]

…
They have an extra long draw tubes that clip the light cone so on the one left intact shortened the tube about 3 inches, it helped. 
…

It seems that the draw tube clips the light that enters it was well with its own internal baffle. I knock that baffle out of the draw tubes of all of my scopes but I haven’t looked at shortening the draw tube yet.

Edited by Polyphemos, 22 March 2025 - 08:00 PM.

[SporadicGazer]

The present “King of Unusually Inexpensive Refractors” has to be the SV510 for $14.95. I’ve been playing with a couple of SV510s these past few weeks and here’s what I’ve learned...

I have two of the SV501P (60/400) that the solar is based on. ...

OK, John pretty much beat me, but back when they were closed out (though they seem to have come back), there was extensive discussion of the SV501P scopes.  Many of us thought it was pretty good, even outstanding at a close out price, but Artik has used his extensively as its price, size, weight fit really well with one of his use cases.  A search might turn up discussions you'd find interesting!

[John R.]

OK, John pretty much beat me, but back when they were closed out (though they seem to have come back), there was extensive discussion of the SV501P scopes.  Many of us thought it was pretty good, even outstanding at a close out price, but Artik has used his extensively as its price, size, weight fit really well with one of his use cases.  A search might turn up discussions you'd find interesting!

Yes, I followed Artik’s experience with the 60mm 501P. Found it very interesting he could get a fairly stable platform out of the included tripod. 
For some weird reason I just never clicked with it, perhaps because I was so happy with my Spectrum 60/500. I have been toying with the idea of making a binocular out of them since I have two. 

[RichA]

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

Could set the bar at $99 or less for any scope categorized as unusually inexpensive.  But good thing;  that doesn't preclude cheap, used scopes which opens up the field quite a bit.

[RichA]

 

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

 

Surprised they haven't started using acrylics (plexiglass) for the crown element in some of these.  From what I understand, they can be produced good enough to form reasonable images.  But then maybe it's now become cheaper or nearly as cheap to machine-grind glass than spend $50,000 on a mold for the plastics?

[RichA]

Currently, cheapest scope I've seen:  Oh, and the tariffs have hit.  It's $39 U.S. or $49.00 Can, but if it were without U.S. tariffs, it would be $29.00 U.S.

 

https://www.temu.com..._cache_id=fo4r7

Edited by RichA, 06 April 2025 - 03:03 PM.

[John R.]

High Point Scientific has a Tasco Novice 60/700 "Novelty" Telescope in stock for $39.97. They say the focuser is 1.25 but the pictures look like a .965 focuser with a hybrid diagonal, .965 nose piece and 1.25 in. eyepiece end. The included tripod looks like it weighs about a pound. A genuine 'hobby killer' if there ever was one. Comes with 3 eyepieces, 25mm 12.5mm and 4mm, 2.3X barlow and 1.25 in moon filter. 

Includes a microscope kit.  

 

I have no idea what shipping would be. 

[RichA]

High Point Scientific has a Tasco Novice 60/700 "Novelty" Telescope in stock for $39.97. They say the focuser is 1.25 but the pictures look like a .965 focuser with a hybrid diagonal, .965 nose piece and 1.25 in. eyepiece end. The included tripod looks like it weighs about a pound. A genuine 'hobby killer' if there ever was one. Comes with 3 eyepieces, 25mm 12.5mm and 4mm, 2.3X barlow and 1.25 in moon filter. 

Includes a microscope kit.  

 

I have no idea what shipping would be. 

The type of trash people thoughtlessly give younger children on holidays/birthdays.  National Geographic, Tasco, Edu-Science.  Plenty of slimy companies more than happy to provide this landfill fodder.

[John R.]

The type of trash people thoughtlessly give younger children on holidays/birthdays.  National Geographic, Tasco, Edu-Science.  Plenty of slimy companies more than happy to provide this landfill fodder.

As I said, ‘hobby killer’. I would not inflict it on anyone except possibly myself. 
Just to see what could be done with it. (I love to tinker.) 

 

Over a year ago a friend brought me the 50mm version of this Tasco scope. After a bit of rework, ( and the original tripod, .965 eyepieces, and .965 diagonal all went in the bin) it turned in a very credible image. The only thing retained was the original objective, tube, and R&P focusing, which I ‘fixed’ with masking tape. 
He did have to buy a $11 hybrid diagonal, but the rest of the bits either I made, or had laying about. 

 

Edit: Just to be clear. There is no point to tinkering with these low cost refractors, I just enjoy the process itself. Tinkerers gotta tinker. 
 

Edited by John R., 07 April 2025 - 10:33 AM.

[SporadicGazer]

The type of trash people thoughtlessly give younger children on holidays/birthdays.  National Geographic, Tasco, Edu-Science.  Plenty of slimy companies more than happy to provide this landfill fodder.

Often the optics are pretty good, the tubes are tubes, and the focusers can be salvaged.  The EPs are often OK, just offered for scopes at f-ratios they were never intended for and can't handle well.  It's the necessary accessories that are typically inadequate, or mismatched, and make the packages unsuitable and frustrating for astronomy for newbies.

 

If you have some decent accessories, especially an adequate mount and a decent diagonal, these can be surprising performers and fun to work on and play with.  Sort of the point of (much of) this thread.

[Jon Isaacs]

The type of trash people thoughtlessly give younger children on holidays/birthdays.  National Geographic, Tasco, Edu-Science.  Plenty of slimy companies more than happy to provide this landfill fodder.

 

I am fortunate there was no Internet when I started out. There was no one to discourage me in my beginner's optimism. I started with a worn out 60 mm with one two element eyepiece and no finder. It was lashed to a department store tripod..  I had $10 invested.

 

It's not the telescope that is important, it's the spirit and soul of the beginner...

 

Jon

[bobhen]

I am fortunate there was no Internet when I started out. There was no one to discourage me in my beginner's optimism. I started with a worn out 60 mm with one two element eyepiece and no finder. It was lashed to a department store tripod..  I had $10 invested.

 

It's not the telescope that is important, it's the spirit and soul of the beginner...

 

Jon

Like so many other passions in life, one either has the fire in the belly or not.

 

Sure, I have a few telescopes but I also have a lot of astronomy and space-related books and over 4 decades of S & T magazine and CDs and watch TV shows and dive into space and astronomy news. As a kid, I watched every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo launch and got hooked on all things space-related. I even have Hubble image posters and Mars, Moon and Earth globes. 

 

Here on CN it can sometimes appear as if it's all about the latest piece of equipment when in reality, it's really about a driving curiosity about the "great out there". 

 

Bob

[John R.]

Re. Jon and Bob’s comments. That interest and this thread really go hand in hand. For whatever reasons, many folks, of all ages, because of circumstances, have to start out with an inexpensive telescope as their first. Learning how to get all you can out of that telescope is all part of our journey. 
It’s odd, but it is easier to answer a friend who is asking about what telescope to recommend and can only spend $200 than a someone who says their budget is $5000. 
I just don’t travel in that orbit, and by far, most of my friends and acquaintances don’t either. 
Just musing about this the last few months I came up with a list of items to recommend for starting out in stargazing. It goes like this;

1. Lightweight folding/reclining aluminum lawn chair. 
2. A 16inch Planisphere (Or free sky map app for your phone?) 

3. A red lens flashlight (Even if using an app, you still need it to find that dropped eyepiece.) 

4. A <$100, 7X50 binoculars (or alternatively a 70/400 RFT for about the same price.) 

5. Don’t forget, some warm clothes, layers preferably. 
 

If I had included a sturdy tripod the basic cost would surely exceed a $200 budget and to be honest, those $30 folding lawn chairs are now about $60-$100. This is where scrounging and adapting comes in. 

[artik]

Yes, I followed Artik’s experience with the 60mm 501P. Found it very interesting he could get a fairly stable platform out of the included tripod. 
 

Not exactly.

 

While I found that included tripod with some tweaks (rubber based counterbalance) may be used as very lightweight travel scope (since it is still better than handhold binoculars) - I can't say it is a stable platform.

 

I'm willing to pay a stability price for an ability to put it into any bag, suitcase or even backpack. It is a different story.

[RichA]

Often the optics are pretty good, the tubes are tubes, and the focusers can be salvaged.  The EPs are often OK, just offered for scopes at f-ratios they were never intended for and can't handle well.  It's the necessary accessories that are typically inadequate, or mismatched, and make the packages unsuitable and frustrating for astronomy for newbies.

 

If you have some decent accessories, especially an adequate mount and a decent diagonal, these can be surprising performers and fun to work on and play with.  Sort of the point of (much of) this thread.

Yes, that kind if initiative is for us, but not for some novice who knows nothing about scopes, which is ironically, the target audience.  As long as the optic is good and the tube is aluminum, there is hope.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

 

Re. Jon and Bob’s comments. That interest and this thread really go hand in hand. For whatever reasons, many folks, of all ages, because of circumstances, have to start out with an inexpensive telescope as their first. Learning how to get all you can out of that telescope is all part of our journey.
It’s odd, but it is easier to answer a friend who is asking about what telescope to recommend and can only spend $200 than a someone who says their budget is $5000.
I just don’t travel in that orbit, and by far, most of my friends and acquaintances don’t either.

 

 

I liked Bob's way of putting it: "Fire in the belly.". In my case it was naive curiosity and opportunity. Stumbling upon the great nebula in Orion, a mere speck of nebulosity was a spark that became a passion.

 

As one can see, I do travel travel in the orbit of expensive telescopes. But if someone says I have $5000 to spend, what should I buy?, it does not bode well.. if you are spending $5000 on a telescope, you should have enough experience to know what you want and why. The wrong $5000 telescope can more limiting than a $200 beginners scope. 

 

When some asks me about a scope, I like to talk to them a while, maybe even show them some views. And if they're strapped for cash, I like to be able to say; "I just happen to have one of these that's needing a new home" or "I could loan this for a while."

 

For me, the fire in the belly is still that first naive curiosity, the wonder of the universe as seen through an eyepiece. Zen masters call it Beginners Mind, I call it; "Being in the Zone."

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 08 April 2025 - 04:13 PM.

[John R.]

Yes, that kind if initiative is for us, but not for some novice who knows nothing about scopes, which is ironically, the target audience.  As long as the optic is good and the tube is aluminum, there is hope.

More than once, in his reviews of inexpensive refractors, Ed Ting has noted that ironically these types of products are better suited for experienced customers who can, (possibly at more extra expense than they are worth) work around their failings. 
When I have bought these refractors it was always with the understanding that the only useable part is the basic OTA. The included accessories, well, very often I agree with RichA’s assessment, ‘landfill fodder’. 

[Jon Isaacs]

More than once, in his reviews of inexpensive refractors, Ed Ting has noted that ironically these types of products are better suited for experienced customers who can, (possibly at more extra expense than they are worth) work around their failings. 
When I have bought these refractors it was always with the understanding that the only useable part is the basic OTA. The included accessories, well, very often I agree with RichA’s assessment, ‘landfill fodder’. 

 

20 years ago, I purchased a Meade 60mm x 700mm refractor during the christmas rush at Walmart for $50.. I bought it to review and I wrote a review that Uncle Rod published in his Ezine, SkyWatch and it was later republished in Amateur Astronomy.  I reviewed the scope two ways, with the stock accessories and with better eyepieces and a diagonal.

 

The scope was "workable" in both configurations.  The mount was far from steady but it wasn't so horrible that it could not be used by an enthusiastic beginner.  It was definitely better than what I started with. 

 

Short focal length refractors, 60mm etc often come with flimsy photo tripods.., I just took a batch to the Goodwill.  With a 60mm F/7 Svbony, I would again say "workable" but I would never inflict that on someone I was giving a scope to... 

 

Jon 

[npbarker]

They have an extra long draw tubes that clip the light cone so on the one left intact shortened the tube about 3 inches, it helped. 
These inexpensive refractors just beg to be tinkered with. 

Forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I didn't find it in a search of this or related threads: I just did an effective aperture flashlight test of the 60mm 501p and found it's effective aperture to be 37mm. 

 

I picked up the 501p as a knock around scope for my four year-old, but of course I started tinkering and experimenting with replacing the focuser with a one of the cheap (but metal) units available on ebay. I used an acryclic tube as an adapter, pressure fit everything and tested on the moon last night. Compared to views with the stock focuser, things looked *bad*. Haze, terrible contrast, and very soft images, esp on the outer third of the FOV. I made some adjustments to ensure all the elements are properly lined up. I'm sure it wasn't perfect, but I do lots of hand tool woodworking and I have both the tools and the experience for the fine work of making things square, plumb and flat. Star tests looked pretty well collimated. So I think I got things close. 

 

Reading here I suspected the stock focuser is clipping light and acting as an aperture mask, improving the scope's optical quality vs with the new focuser, which has a wider, shorter drawtube. Tonight I ran the test again, with the same results. That's when I looked in the stock focuser drawtube and discovered the fairly large baffle inside, about a third of the way from the objective-end of the drawtube. The flashlight test confirmed 37mm effective aperture with the stock focuser. 

 

I'm no expert on these matters, and mostly know what I've absorbed here over the past couple years, but it appears to me that the 501p is perhaps a 37mm f10.8. What do others here think of this assessment?

 

If that's the case, it's still a fun little scope to experiment with that produces pleasing and surprisingly sharp views of the moon, bright double stars, the Jovian system and a few other objects (and on a basic photo tripod it's great for a 4 year-old). I've got an SV510 on order because I couldn't resist more opportunities to tinker for $20. 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by npbarker, 08 April 2025 - 08:45 PM.

[John R.]

Jon makes a good point about ‘the conversation’ one must have with those seeking advice for their first telescope. Too often of course, they have already bought a telescope, and upon first use are wondering why they can’t see the wonderful swirling galaxies and detailed planetary views depicted on the box. Or, wondering why they can’t seem to see anything at all. 

Then, hopefully we can gently, so very gently, bring them back to reality, and show them that what they can see, with a little patience and dark adapted eyes, and don’t forget averted vision, are the sights of our beautiful address in our galaxy. 

Edited by John R., 09 April 2025 - 11:57 AM.