optic difference in design.

Guest · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: optic difference in design.

could you enlighten me about the difference between maksutovs and a refractor in spotting scopes? secondly in the $100 range what is considered the best zoom scope in terms of optics and power? i will need a quantity of 12-15 pieces for our boy scout troop, and we do not want to buy sub par performance. i understand you get what you pay for, especially in optics. the general use will be for nighttime terrestrial viewing and daytime birding. a 45 degree angled eyepiece seems to be prefered.

Guest · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: Re: optic difference in design.

dga · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 20 Location: michigan

now that im registered, the above post are from me. newbie and all.

I guess that would be astronomical viewing at night. wow talk about a newbie.[/quote]

BobY · Guest

My personal opinion is that there aren't really any good spotting scopes in the $100 range that are of much use for astronomy, they just don't have the magnification, not even for the moon.

It's going to depend on what your priority is, birding or astronomy.

A Mak is a particular approach to a reflector telescope. By reflecting the image from back to front to eyepiece, a reflector can have a much shorter body for a given focal length compared to a refractor, giving you higher magnification in a smaller package. Reflectors are also normally brighter than refractors as they typically have a larger aperture and the mirrors do a better job of gathering and concentrating light as compared to simply passing light through a lens, which tends to attenuate the light.

If you don't mind spending at your limit, the Lomo Astele 60 Mak would be a good choice. It meets your criteria--it can be used as a spotting scope and an astronomical scope and it has a zoom eyepiece at 45 degrees. It also comes with a carrying pouch. Best of all, it uses interchangable eyepieces, so you can optimize it for particular uses.

If you don't want to spend that much and want a smaller, lighter package, the Celestron C65/Konus Konuspot 90 Maks are under $60 and come with a mini tripod and carrying case. They are not very sharp, but they are fine for basic astronomy and I've used ours for watching critters. They are weather proof and their plastic tube stands up to abuse.

If your primary interest is birding, there are better choices than either of the Maks, but I wouldn't find them of much use for planets and the like.

Guest · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:18 am Post subject:

i think we are considering the celestron ultima 65 for our purchase. to "DM". any person willing to buy trash optics under $100?? dear sir, these are for our troop that just needs simple observation optics on a very tight budget. mostly the troop leaders, but the boys all expressed interest in pitching in. i posted this looking for facts, not a ridiculous opinion.

opticsplanet.com · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject:

The previous post by Donny has been deleted for offense language and a personal attack. I am not comfortable in the role of censor, but I will not allow abusive comments on my forum. Please keep things civil
_________________
----------------------
Your personal optics expert
Joanie (Jne) K
http://www.OpticsPlanet.com
Phone: (888) 263-0356
Fax: (847) 574-6820

BobY · Guest

The Ultima 65 is probably a good choice for your needs. I didn't realize you were willing to go that far above $100 (that's $525 extra if you end up purchasing 15 of them as you earlier indicated).

Despite what my deleted "detractor" might say, magnification *is* important for astronomy. I'm not referring to the wildly unrealistic magnification that many low-cost scopes advertise, but I can tell you from experience that with children and only casually interested adults, looking at the moon through 10x-25x is good for about a minute or two of interest. Looking at anything else in the sky is of practically no interest. It just doesn't look that much different than with the naked eye--it doesn't matter how sharp it is. We recently spent over 20 minutes on a cold night looking at the Moon's terminator using the C65 at 90X. It was fun and interesting (even my wife was impressed and just getting her to go out in the cold was a major achievement).

If magnification was not important in astronomy, then why would virtually all astronomical scopes have significantly higher magnification than the vast majority of spotting scopes? They are intended for different purposes and finding a good compromise isn't easy. The 55X and 65mm aperture of the Ultima 65 should produce some interesting views of the moon for you and it is undoubtedly a better spotting scope, but I wasn't willing to spend that much on something that wasn't as well suited to astronomy since nature viewing was of only secondary interest. Aside from the Moon, we have seen the crescent of Venus and are planning to try for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. I'm sure the Lomo would produce better results, but the C65 was a "trial balloon" to see how interested we were in pursuing astronomy and, as such, was well worth it. I wanted something small, light, inexpensive and easy to store, set up, take down and transport.