Re: Newbie with a twist
- From: "Yogi" <artw.no.spam.at.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:39:06 -0600
"David Sleeter" <d.sleeter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t5idncwhpuYWjSbenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Yogi" <artw.no.spam.at.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:6s0uf.237566$0l5.140029@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<original post snipped>
> First off, as a "newbie", I THINK you've incorrectly described the scope
> that I would recommend, and that's the 114 mm. Meade scope. As far as I
> know, the 114 mm. diameter Meade scopes are all Newtonian reflectors.
> Therefore they do NOT use a "lens" to form the image. They use a "mirror".
No doubt you're right there. I just pulled the description word for word
from the rewards catalog.
>
> As a general rule you get alot more telescope for your dollar with a
> simple Newtonian reflector (a mirror-based telescope) than you get with a
> refractor (a lens-based telescope). And the reason is that, for any given
> aperature (i.e. lens or mirror diameter) it's a lot cheaper to make a
> mirror than it is to make a lens. Therefore, when you describe the 114 mm.
> Meade scope with the 1,000 mm. focal length, I THINK what you're
> describing is actually a small Newtonian reflector with a 114 mm. dia.
> mirror with an f-8.8 focal ratio, and a computer-controlled mount. And
> THAT sounds pretty good.
>
Going to Meade's sight and finding the closest matching description brought
me to the DS2114, which seems to fit you're description well.
> If this is what you're talking about, then this is the one I'd recommend
> WITH ONE MAJOR CAVEAT. In any given telescope, half the quality of the
> image is generated by the lens or the mirror, and the other half by the
> eyepiece, which is actually a small, low-power microscope used to examine
> the image created by the lens or the mirror. To save money, the
> manufacturers of these inexpensive telescopes will often give you the
> CHEAPEST eyepieces they can get away with. The little Japanese eyepieces
> labeled "H" for (Huygens) are the worst. The view through these eyepieces
> is absolutely TERRIBLE, and ALL amateur astronomers consider them
> worthless. The Meade "MA" eyepieces are noticeably better, but still
> disappointing compared to a standard "Plossl"-type eyepiece.
>
Super advice, this will be very helpful.
> For my own use I consider the "Plossl"-type eyepiece as the
> modestly-priced standard against which I measure all others. A Plossl
> eyepiece is more complicated and expensive to make, but the view is
> good-to-excellent, and some of these inexpensive scopes come with one good
> Plossl eyepiece (normally a 1-1/4" dia. eyepiece with a 25mm. focal
> length). If the 114 mm. Meade Newtonian reflector you're considering comes
> with at least one good Plossl eyepiece, then you're home-free. If the
> eyepiece or eyepieces are the "MA" or "H" type, I'd advise you to replace
> them, so over-and-above your purchase, you'll have to buy at least one
> good Plossl eyepiece.
>
> If you buy the 114 mm. Meade scope you describe, I'd advise a 1-1/4" dia.
> 25mm. focal length Plossl eyepiece as described above. You'll see MANY
> being sold on eBay both new and used. For a new eyepiece, the name-brands
> like Meade and Celestron are excellent, and they cost around $60. But as
> telescope-officianados will tell you, their lenses are made in China, and
> the NON-brand-name companies sell Plossl eyepieces with THE SAME lenses
> for half the price (about $30). The only difference is cosmetic. The
> name-brand eyepieces have chrome-plated steel barrels, and the no-name
> eyepieces barrels' are typically made of aluminum. The view through either
> is THE SAME! If you want to save about $30, buy the no-name Plossl.
> Actually they're not a true "no-name". They're sold by numerous telescope
> dealers on the Internet who typically market them under their own brand. A
> good and honest dealer that I've dealt with for several years is Mark
> Estes of digitecoptical.com. Gary Hand of Hands-on-Optics is also a
> reputable dealer, and the prices quoted by both these dealers are typical
> and reasonable.
>
> A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. About 5 years ago my next-door neighbor bought one
> of the 114 mm. Meade scopes that was made at the time. Though it lacked
> the computer-controlled mount, the optics were probably identical to the
> ones described above. Disappointed with the view, he asked my advice. When
> I saw that the scope came with Meade's cheaper "MA" eyepieces, I loaned
> him one of my 25 mm. Plossls, and the difference was STARTLING. As it
> turned out, his little Meade 114 mm. scope had a good mirror, and as I
> describe above, the problem was the cheap eyepieces. Per-my-advice, he
> bought a 12 mm. Plossl, and a 25mm. Plossl. He bought them "used" on eBay,
> and his total cost was about $50. The 25mm. eyepiece gave him a
> magnification of 40 power, and the 12 mm. eyepiece gave him a
> magnification of about 80 power. From that point on, he LOVED his
> telescope.
>
> The bottom line was that the 114 mm. Meade mirror was fine. All the scope
> needed to make it a good-one was a good pair of Plossl eyepieces.
>
I think that's how I'll go.
> Regarding the Bushnell scope, my impression is that just about everything
> made by Bushnell today is of questionable quality. Hope this helps,
>
I've heard that from more than 1 person. Yes, this helps immensely, thank
you.
Yogi
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." - Yogi Berra
.
- References:
- Newbie with a twist
- From: Yogi
- Re: Newbie with a twist
- From: David Sleeter
- Newbie with a twist
- Prev by Date: Re: Aftermarket v's Factory supplied mirrors
- Next by Date: Re: Aftermarket v's Factory supplied mirrors
- Previous by thread: Re: Newbie with a twist
- Next by thread: Re: Newbie with a twist - Thanks to all
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
