46 replies to this topic

[Starman1]

I haven't been able to make it to one of my club's outreach events in a long time, but I've thought when I can make one, in addition to one of my better scopes it would be a good idea to bring my Celestron Travelscope 70 with the stock eyepiece and diagonal so that people can get a better expectation of what they're going to get from the type of scope they're most likely going to invest in to start. Sure, there will be bigger, better scopes there to look through. But I think giving someone the opportunity to look through something that's going to cost them in the neighborhood of $100 allows them to see that they don't have to buy that $300 scope when they're probably going to spend most of their time looking at the moon anyway. I think it would also probably make them be able to ask more informed questions if they do have an interest in getting into the hobby.

 

That's my thoughts. But hey, I've been wrong before.

I've looked through the Celestron Travelscope.

In daylight, it vignetted badly and had an immense amount of scattered light in the field.

At night, the optics proved very astigmatic and provided a very soft focus on the Moon.

I would not recommend the scope to anyone.

Perhaps my sample was bad, and perhaps it would have performed better with a better diagonal and eyepiece, 

but I think Celestron should be embarrassed for selling that one.

 

Only a little more gets you a much better scope:

https://www.explores...ts/fl-ar80640tn

[Keith Rivich]

I disagree with the OP's assertion that beginners are advised to buy outside their means. I read most of the "what should I get" questions and the replies always lean towards inexpensive equipment when starting out.

 

The only time things start getting expensive is when AP is brought into the discussion. 

[havasman]

When I ran our club's outreach program I liked to carry either an Orion XT10i with ES100 9mm or an AWB OneSky with ES68 24mm and 13/5T6's. The worse observing conditions were (usually lack of darkness) the more likely I'd take the OneSky because of how much fun it was to answer the most common question with "$200" and watch the looks on their faces. I would usually go on to tell them that the eyepiece(s) we were using cost multiples of that and that the ones that came with the scope worked nicely.

 

If a guest observer asked a question I tried to answer it honestly and in such a way that it prompted a next question. But I was never so presumptuous as to make assumptions about somebody else's ability to pay. I was always honest about the costs too when asked and would explain that, as with other hobbies, the cost of gear ranged across a wide potential. If we have any obligation in that part of the matter, I think that discharges it fairly.

[csrlice12]

At some time you will find yourself old, retired, with the motivation of a sloth, and what doesn't hurt today will tomorrow.   This is when you'll find having some half decent gear and sitting outside either in your yard or at a dark site is just about your speed.  You'll also find that grabngo scope to be quite useful.

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

The problem with the 'buy the premium stuff' in the beginning so you don't have to upgrade later approach is that a lot of beginners end up simply not buying anything at all... and those that do buy the premium stuff and leave the hobby can't speak later about it .. so we only have those that bought the premium stuff in the beginning, and managed to stay in the hobby and talk about it ... greatly distorting the actual picture of what the most sensible approach for a newcomer may be (statistically speaking).

If circumstances permit a good conversation with the beginner, and if that person seems interested and knowledgeable about different kinds of telescopes, I sometimes recommend something along the lines of "Buy your second telescope first," that is, get something relatively inexpensive as a starter telescope, but pick one that will likely be a keeper as a grab-and-go instrument in the future.

 

 

I haven't been able to make it to one of my club's outreach events in a long time, but I've thought when I can make one, in addition to one of my better scopes it would be a good idea to bring my Celestron Travelscope 70 with the stock eyepiece and diagonal so that people can get a better expectation of what they're going to get from the type of scope they're most likely going to invest in to start. Sure, there will be bigger, better scopes there to look through. But I think giving someone the opportunity to look through something that's going to cost them in the neighborhood of $100 allows them to see that they don't have to buy that $300 scope when they're probably going to spend most of their time looking at the moon anyway. I think it would also probably make them be able to ask more informed questions if they do have an interest in getting into the hobby.

 

That's my thoughts. But hey, I've been wrong before.

I also usually bring something small to outreach events, and explain to viewers that I am providing views through the kind of telescope they might end up buying if they become more seriously interested. Furthermore, many of the outreach events I attend are held in cities, at locations where local seeing is terrible, which means that a short look through a small telescope at the moon, a planet or a double star may well be more satisfying than a similar look through a larger instrument: The larger instrument will typically be more affected by seeing than the smaller one, and though it may well give a better view if the observer waits for a moment when the seeing steadies, viewers lined up at the eyepiece won't have enough time for that to be likely to happen.

 

Clear sky ...

[NinePlanets]

...I sometimes recommend something along the lines of "Buy your second telescope first," that is, get something relatively inexpensive as a starter telescope, but pick one that will likely be a keeper as a grab-and-go instrument in the future.

..

I like that! That's good advice! 
 

[Airship]

I enjoy having a conversation with guests at our outreach events about how to get started and what to buy. I rarely make specific suggestions, but rather encourage someone to take their time, do a little research, and to start at the beginning by simply stepping outside and enjoying the sky. The gist of it is that The Sky is a Very Big Place with something to offer every budget, every skill level, and any kind of equipment, or even no equipment at all! This hobby can offer a lifetime of enjoyment, so there’s no need to rush out and spend a lot of money. I am in my 63rd year as an active amateur astronomer and I still enjoy the little things and I see something new almost every time that I observe. If they really want to buy some gear I encourage them to hit the websites that offer advice for beginners and to spend some time with our local club to get a feel for what may be right for them.

 

There is no one size fits all answer.

 

Fun stuff.

[Jon Isaacs]

My two cents:

 

I try to keep the original poster in my mind. 

 

I ask questions so I have an idea of where they're coming from. My goal is not to recommend a scope but to provide information and share experiences so they

can make an educated decision as to what would fit their needs and preferences.

 

I loan scopes and give scopes away to beginners and others who need a competent scope but cannot afford one.  

 

Over the years, I've owned just about every type of scope out there. I have strong preferences but rather than sharing my personal preferences, I try to share my experiences with these various scopes along with what I see as their capabilities and limitations..

 

Everyone is different. Everyone deserves individual attention and not one size fits all.

 

Jon

[Mark Lovik]

Things are changing in the marketplace. Just to inject some heresy into this discussion ... (be prepared).

 

If we all lived in great dark skies and weather was clear substantial days in the year some of the traditional suggestions are really great.  A dob (push to for a beginner?) provides an introductory telescope that can see the moon, planets, double stars, and deep sky objects.  Even a smaller (5-6") tabletop Dob has incredible reach in these skies.

 

--------------

 

We have a modern population that lives in light polluted skies.  There are unlikely to be a huge number of clear transparent nights if you are not in desert skies.  For these skies we can look at open clusters, double stars, moon, and planets (when they are up).  Galaxies and many deep sky objects ... not really compelling in these suburban urban skies.  Star hopping ... more difficult in these suburban/urban skies.  M31 is a showpiece object ... in my moderately light polluted B5 skies ... boring.

 

Getting many younger budding astronomers interested in the traditional Dob recommendation seems to be counterproductive.  Instant gratification and video games does not translate well to traditional visual viewing ... in particular in these urban skies.

 

I am seeing some real excitement with new (and sometimes experienced users) using the new little smart scopes (starting with the Seestar 30, 50 types of scopes ... and scaling up).    Laughing in the night and real excitement to find out what is the next object you can explore in the night sky.

• Fits the digital first generation
• A large number of deep sky objects are easy to view in light polluted skies.  These object views are impressive to the instant gratification and video game generation.
• The number of objects can be pushed as a transition to better viewing and processing of these images.
• Cost of entry can be very low (think what can be done with traditional scopes at the Seestar 30 price point).  A few yeoman eyepieces can easily cost as much as these bitty scopes ... and we still are missing a scope and mount.
• Fast and quick to setup (almost anywhere) for the opportunities when you finally have clear skies.
• Able to see a number of different objects in a single night of observing.
• It's like training wheels to quickly get in the night sky.  It is successful and works for the masses.
• It can be the start of new budding users going down the deep end of their choice ... it's just a way to get easy success starting out.
• It already looks like a very effective tool for outreach events.  Point out what you can see ... and how little it can cost.

These can be the entryway tools to get budding astronomers excited.  Worried about the aging Amateur Astronomy crowd ... this is a new opportunity to consider.

 

Is this for everyone ... no.  Ask some questions, and you may find this is an introductory route for many new users.  It is an attractive route for many younger users.  It can't do everything (yet) but think about all the things you can easily see in the sky that are difficult in urban skies.  It almost is one of the cheapest entry points in modern Amateur Astronomy.

Edited by Mark Lovik, 18 June 2025 - 12:26 AM.

[BQ Octantis]

Things are changing in the marketplace. Just to inject some heresy into this discussion ... (be prepared).

In such a modern reality, the gateway drug is actually an augmented reality sky map. Like Stellarium on my phone. It's pretty amazing—you can see everything, to include stuff permanently below the horizon for the landlocked.

 

But those are pretty annoying in Bortle 1 conditions…

[weis14]

The first thing I try to do when interacting with beginners is to ask questions to understand what they want to do and what their motivations are.  I try to stay away from recommending specific gear, but if pushed I ask for a budget first so I can provide tailored recommendations.  

 

One thing I always recommend is to get a good neutral reference book.  I tend to recommend the Backyard Astronomer's Guide by Dickenson and Dyer as an entry level, but comprehensive, book about getting started in this hobby.  I also recommend this site and other online resources.  

 

For observers on a budget of $100 or less, I tend to recommend 10x50 binoculars and a copy of Binocular Highlights by Gary Seronik.  

[bobhen]

First telescope for a young adult (not a kid) or beginner.

 

I never recommend binoculars to someone who wants a telescope. Folks starting out want to look a Saturn and the moon and binoculars don’t cut it with those objects when compared to a telescope.

 

While Newtonians are fine telescopes, they have 2 problematic issues for beginners of any age: Collimation and Acclimation, both of which can hamper the views and the experience for first-timers who want more instant gratification.

 

A refractor acclimates quickly in cold weather, never needs collimation and is rugged. The crisp refractor views are perfect for the moon and planets, which most beginners start with. And if the sky is dark enough, a 102mm refractor will show plenty of deep sky objects. Long time Deep Sky Wonders author Walter Scott Houston used a 4" refractor for many of his deep sky observations. Ed Ting recommends the Celestron 102 F10 and I'm in his camp. Ken Fulton, author of the Lighthearted Astronomer also recommended a 4" refractor on an alt/az mount.

 

Many people here started their astronomy journey with an even smaller 60mm refractor and only wished that they could get a 4" refractor back then.

 

All depends on the person of course. Maybe many folks starting out today would love the techo-capable SeeStar smart telescope. But "generally" a 4", inexpensive, achromatic refractor on a simple to use alt/az mount is pretty bulletproof.

The combination of ease of use, no maintenance, sharp images, enough light gathering for the showpiece deep sky objects and even the ability to do solar observing is a combination that will nurture a budding interest.

 

For a beginner, ease of use and instant results are more important than aperture or expensive apo optics. Heck, many old-timers here have 4" refractors exactly because of those attributes. 

 

Bob

Edited by bobhen, 18 June 2025 - 12:50 PM.

[csrlice12]

I still have my Omni 102 XLT and CG4 mount....actually a really decent setup.

[SouthernSkys]

 

All depends on the person of course. Maybe many folks starting out today would love the techo-capable SeeStar smart telescope. But "generally" a 4", inexpensive, achromatic refractor on a simple to use alt/az mount is pretty bulletproof.

The combination of ease of use, no maintenance, sharp images, enough light gathering for the showpiece deep sky objects and even the ability to do solar observing is a combination that will nurture a budding interest.

 

Well, being such a beginner, I could not agree more. No maintenance and almost zero preparation are crucial factors for me. I live in Bortle 4 and I see piles of stuff with my 70/700 Sky-Watcher (and binoculars). I am into double starts and star clusters and Mars, for some reason.

 

When I showed the Moon in my telescope to my friend the scientist he was stunned. He looked through a telescope before on occasion in the past so I am not sure why he was so taken. Perhaps because the Moon was very crisp, big and I could show him where excel several ‘Luna’ crushed.  I think the charm of this hobby comes with the details which become apparent when one looks for long and then compares what he sees with a map etc. At least it is so for me.

 

Also Mars is very small in my telescope I like it immensely. I even began distinguishing the differences of colour, some areas etc. This is why I wish that refractors would be offered more frequently on CN as a good option for a beginner. They are great.

Edited by SouthernSkys, 19 June 2025 - 02:46 AM.

[Tony Flanders]

A refractor acclimates quickly in cold weather, never needs collimation and is rugged. The crisp refractor views are perfect for the moon and planets, which most beginners start with. And if the sky is dark enough, a 102mm refractor will show plenty of deep sky objects. Long time Deep Sky Wonders author Walter Scott Houston used a 4" refractor for many of his deep sky observations. Ed Ting recommends the Celestron 102 F10 and I'm in his camp. Ken Fulton, author of the Lighthearted Astronomer also recommended a 4" refractor on an alt/az mount.

I find most 100-mm refractors to be pretty clunky -- as cumbersome as Dobs but without the aperture. That's why I hardly ever use my 100-mm achromat. If I want light grasp, I use my Dob. If I want convenience, I use my 70-mm refractor. The 100-mm refractor offers neither.

 

I do think that many beginners would be best served by a small refractor, but I would recommend 70 or 80 mm rather than 100.

[Starman1]

I find most 100-mm refractors to be pretty clunky -- as cumbersome as Dobs but without the aperture. That's why I hardly ever use my 100-mm achromat. If I want light grasp, I use my Dob. If I want convenience, I use my 70-mm refractor. The 100-mm refractor offers neither.

 

I do think that many beginners would be best served by a small refractor, but I would recommend 70 or 80 mm rather than 100.

100mm IS a small refractor!

[Jon Isaacs]

 

 

All depends on the person of course. Maybe many folks starting out today would love the techo-capable SeeStar smart telescope. But "generally" a 4", inexpensive, achromatic refractor on a simple to use alt/az mount is pretty bulletproof.

The combination of ease of use, no maintenance, sharp images, enough light gathering for the showpiece deep sky objects and even the ability to do solar observing is a combination that will nurture a budding interest.

For a beginner, ease of use and instant results are more important than aperture or expensive apo optics. Heck, many old-timers here have 4" refractors exactly because of those attributes.

Bob

 

It really does depend on the individual. That's why I make no generic suggestions and try to help the beginner make an informed decision rather than recommend something.

 

That said, affordable, entry level 4 inch refractors generally have flaky mounts that are not so easy to use and are prone to vibration. 

 

Optically, you have to choose between a narrow Field with moderate chromatic aberration or a wide field with rather severe chromatic aberration that is not at all sharp at higher magnifications.

 

A 4 inch refractor does OK under dark skies on some objects, it's disappointing on others. Setting up next to an 8 inch Dob is not recommended.

 

I began with a long focal length 60 mm refractor with no finder, one two element eyepiece lashed to a photo tripod.

 

I own two 4 inch APO refractors, both bought used. Either one, bare bones, no mount, no diagonal cost more than an 8 inch Dob.  What you describe is not an entry level 4 inch refractor, it's morecsimilar to a quality APO/ED on an expensive mount that will still be outperformed by an 8 inch Dob.

 

I just have away a pair of 4 inch refractors, one is F/6.5, the other F/10. The mount was a bit undersized, a Twilight 1 but it was riding on a heavy duty tripod with 2 inch Stainless Steel legs. That's hardly a typical entry level 4 inch refractor but hopefully it will serve the new owner well.

 

A 6 inch F/8 Dob would show more, be easy to collimate and cool quickly but I didn't have one... 

 

I think this pair of 4 inch refractors is a good fit for this particular friend but he would appreciate just about anything. 

 

I can make a sales pitch for a 4 inch achromat but you did that. I wanted to add some balance.

 

For an 8 or 10 inch Dob, I don't see collimation and thermal acclimation as the most serious concerns, even out of collimation and not cooled down the views can be quite decent. These are concerns but doable for most.

 

I'm more concerned about the physical size, these are big scopes and for many may present difficulties just lifting the scope. Some years ago, I was loaning out my 10 inch Dob to a friend and the OTA was just too big and heavy for him..

 

Our role is not as salesman for our favorite scopes but as friends and mentors, teachers. Why are you interested, what do hope to see? How dark are your skies. Are you a hands in person or someone who prefers not to mess with gear? How strong are you? How big is your car? Etc, etc

 

Jon

[edwincjones]

At some time you will find yourself old, retired, with the motivation of a sloth, and what doesn't hurt today will tomorrow.   This is when you'll find having some half decent gear and sitting outside either in your yard or at a dark site is just about your speed.  You'll also find that grabngo scope to be quite useful.

 

That's me, except I have donated that stuff to a local state park/astro  club.

 

I remember the old wisdom

-learn the sky naked eye

-then binoculars, and only then telescope

few of us followed this, but it was wise.

 

edj

Edited by edwincjones, 19 June 2025 - 12:36 PM.

[WISDOC]

  As I consider myself to be still close to the beginner level, I usually recommend getting modest but decent equipment. ( Many of my recommendations come from reading the forum for a while before joining myself. A lot of members have what I feel are realistic, honest, helpful suggsetions for the novice stargazer.)

 

  That being said, I also boldly got told to disregaurd that "junk" and buy this instead. Unfortunately, *this instead* was so far beyond my stated budget I almost left the forum after a few too many similar suggestions. But I paid attention to cooler heads and am quite happy with my so-called CHEAP purchases.

 

  Being pretty new to the hobby again after a decades long hiatus I tend to suggest modest equipment to queries about a set. up from new members. I enjoy my modest equipment immensley and have fun trying to see how far I can push that equipment. I feel that when I do buy better gear I have a reasonable idea what to look for that will be a noticeable improvement over what I have. And hopefully what I upgrade to will not break the bank. Then I plan on giving my basic stuff to a new stargazer to hopefully have as much enjoyment out of as I did.

[geovermont]

It really does depend on the individual. That's why I make no generic suggestions and try to help the beginner make an informed decision rather than recommend something.

 

That said, affordable, entry level 4 inch refractors generally have flaky mounts that are not so easy to use and are prone to vibration. 

 

Optically, you have to choose between a narrow Field with moderate chromatic aberration or a wide field with rather severe chromatic aberration that is not at all sharp at higher magnifications.

 

A 4 inch refractor does OK under dark skies on some objects, it's disappointing on others. Setting up next to an 8 inch Dob is not recommended.

 

I began with a long focal length 60 mm refractor with no finder, one two element eyepiece lashed to a photo tripod.

 

I own two 4 inch APO refractors, both bought used. Either one, bare bones, no mount, no diagonal cost more than an 8 inch Dob.  What you describe is not an entry level 4 inch refractor, it's morecsimilar to a quality APO/ED on an expensive mount that will still be outperformed by an 8 inch Dob.

 

I just have away a pair of 4 inch refractors, one is F/6.5, the other F/10. The mount was a bit undersized, a Twilight 1 but it was riding on a heavy duty tripod with 2 inch Stainless Steel legs. That's hardly a typical entry level 4 inch refractor but hopefully it will serve the new owner well.

 

A 6 inch F/8 Dob would show more, be easy to collimate and cool quickly but I didn't have one... 

 

I think this pair of 4 inch refractors is a good fit for this particular friend but he would appreciate just about anything. 

 

I can make a sales pitch for a 4 inch achromat but you did that. I wanted to add some balance.

 

For an 8 or 10 inch Dob, I don't see collimation and thermal acclimation as the most serious concerns, even out of collimation and not cooled down the views can be quite decent. These are concerns but doable for most.

 

I'm more concerned about the physical size, these are big scopes and for many may present difficulties just lifting the scope. Some years ago, I was loaning out my 10 inch Dob to a friend and the OTA was just too big and heavy for him..

 

Our role is not as salesman for our favorite scopes but as friends and mentors, teachers. Why are you interested, what do hope to see? How dark are your skies. Are you a hands in person or someone who prefers not to mess with gear? How strong are you? How big is your car? Etc, etc

 

Jon

I like the last paragraph in Jon's post a lot. We come to astronomy from a wide range of "places" and are hoping to get to an equally wide ranges of astronomical destinations. Ken Fulton tried very hard to provide a sort of "guide for the perplexed" in his now very old "The Light-hearted Astronomer." I think he only partly succeeded, but he did successfully make the case that there are many sorts of amateur astronomer and many paths for them to take. He tried very hard to let the beginner know that they should take their time before they purchased anything, to view all ads with intense skepticism, and don't think that they need to spend boatloads of money for effective astro gear. 

 

This particular thread is very interesting. Taking what Jon said above, I think I'll say that I do not know what gear to recommend to a theoretical beginner because I have to get to know that particular beginner first. Perhaps after getting to know them I may have something to suggest.

[mountain monk]

Here's my process...

 

I given many copies of Nightwatch to those who express an interest in astronomy, because i thinks it's important to learn the night sky first. It answers the question "What is up there?" If they are still interested, I suggest Guide to the Stars and binoculars--which everyone I know has. They need to learn the major constellations and how to find their way around the sky. Still interested? Then suggest The Backyard Astronomers Guide--a basic introduction to gear and much more. What next? I always suggest a 80mm refractor and a couple of eyepieces. Mine is an AT 80mm ED and I'm happy to loan it out. (It will eventually go to my grandkids so they will grow up with a scope.) Then they are on their way. I never felt an affinity for Turn Left at Orion.

 

Jack

[TacoBuddy]

There can be some intimidating equipment setup at outreach starparties. When people ask about getting a first telescope I am very quick to recommend anything with Starsense Explorer and mention the wide price points $-$$$. Talk about a game changer for beginners! I also mention that great low priced telescopes can ocassionally be found at Goodwill and possibly garage sales. Binoculars are also a cost effective way to get started. In my experience, it is mostly parents asking about getting something for their kids vs adults looking at getting into the hobby. Either way I say Stasense Explorer is a rea$onable way to get started, just set it up and start exploring the skies in minutes.