If the reflector is f8 or more it will be harder to find objects and to observe the bigger deep-sky objects. If your goal is to observe very large nebulae, open clusters and star fields, then I would advise the refractor.įor planets, deep sky objects including planetary nebulae, globular clusters, all the small-medium sized deep sky objects and larger nebulae and galaxies (if the reflector is f6 or lower). Some find the chromatic aberration a problem, and some don't. Most refractor telescopes are quite light and small, which makes them suitable for movement. Reflector telescopes are better for observing faint objects like nebulae and galaxies, meanwhile. Another variation on the Newtonian reflector theme is the SchmidtCassegrain, in which a thin lens is placed over the front of the telescope tube. Reflectors and refractors are best used for different purposes. Cassegrain reflecting telescopes have all the same advantages as a Newtonian reflector, plus they’re much more compact. A catadioptric telescopes moving parts are more complex than those found in refractor or reflector telescope. They may require more frequent optical alignment when compared to refractors. The reflector will be equal to a 90-95m refractor.įast reflectors (low f number) will suffer from coma (f5 will be ok) and fast refractors suffer from chromatic aberration (at f5 this will be a problem for planets, the moon and brighter stars). Cassegrain telescopes can be half the length of Newtonians. Catadioptric telescopes become heavier rather quickly as they increase in aperture. The only downside of the reflector is collimation. For planets and small to medium (also larger with 2" eyepieces or just 1.25" eyepieces with a low magnification and big apparent field of view) sized DSOs (nebulae, galaxies and star clusters) the reflector will have an advantage due to its aperture. The refractor will be better for wide-field observing of starfields and big nebula and galaxies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |