Best beginner telescope for under $500

Northoceanbeach · Aug 20, 2014

Hello. I'm going on a sailboat trip, well, I've been on a sailboat trip, but I'm breaking at family's house for a couple weeks. I've been to sme really nice locations far from light pollution and would like to get a telescope to learn how to find things in the sky, enjoy relaxed viewing and see if I want to further pursue astronomy and take astrophotography.

i have sony nex 7 mirrorless camera. Is it possible to get a telescope for under $500? It doesn't have to be the highest quality optics to start. But something pretty good so I don't get turned off. It does have to be portable. I have limited space on my boat. Not truly limited like if I was backpacking, but some telescopes can barely fit in cars, so some degree of portability is required. Plus I have a dinghy I will have to take it to shore with, and well...you get the idea.

what do you have to do to hook you camera up to take pictures? I'm assuming it's an adapter based on filter thread size. I have four lenses. Three 49mm and a ultra wide at 61mm. Are the attachments for cameras expensive?

Reflecter, refracter? Something else?

This may sound stupid, but some telescopes, the smaller ones, advertise as being for terrestrial viewing as well, does that mean with the camera attached I can use it as a super, super zoom? Maybe to take a picture of a boat at sea miles away?

rtrski · Aug 20, 2014

Northoceanbeach said:
Hello. I'm going on a sailboat trip, well, I've been on a sailboat trip, but I'm breaking at family's house for a couple weeks. I've been to sme really nice locations far from light pollution and would like to get a telescope to learn how to find things in the sky, enjoy relaxed viewing and see if I want to further pursue astronomy and take astrophotography.

i have sony nex 7 mirrorless camera. Is it possible to get a telescope for under $500? It doesn't have to be the highest quality optics to start. But something pretty good so I don't get turned off. It does have to be portable. I have limited space on my boat. Not truly limited like if I was backpacking, but some telescopes can barely fit in cars, so some degree of portability is required. Plus I have a dinghy I will have to take it to shore with, and well...you get the idea.

what do you have to do to hook you camera up to take pictures? I'm assuming it's an adapter based on filter thread size. I have four lenses. Three 49mm and a ultra wide at 61mm. Are the attachments for cameras expensive?

Reflecter, refracter? Something else?

This may sound stupid, but some telescopes, the smaller ones, advertise as being for terrestrial viewing as well, does that mean with the camera attached I can use it as a super, super zoom? Maybe to take a picture of a boat at sea miles away?

Tyson5n · Aug 20, 2014

As a beginner with already a sub $500 telescope and a Sony 5n, I agree with this advice. theres also a TON of extra accessories that you will end up needing to just mount and USE your NEX 7 to any telescope.

The trick is more in the mount, than the "telescope". you really should just get a good mount and a photography tripod is not enough. you need something that can track the earths rotation.

and a goto mount is extremely helpful for a beginner, because its something i really wish i had as well. but for my OTA (optical tube assembly, aka telescope) i need to spend about $800 for a good mount to carry the load. since you already have a camera with lenses and not looking to spend a lot of money, you can get a lower end mount meant just for cameras.

you can JUST get the the iOptron SKYGUIDER for about $500, learn how to use setting circles (chart or app to give you up to date coordinates), good polar alignment and you should be fine. but you might be able to get away with the iOptron Skytracker which is very compact and just a motorized mount.

theres also the Astrotrac. very lightweight and portable and can be used with a good photography tripod and manfrotto 410 geared head.

I highly recommend for beginners to get a pair of good binoculars. i find it really handy to find objects in space matching star patterns with what i see in the live view. otherwise theres really no way to tell where the camera is pointed other than a general direction and thats not good enough when zoomed in. i really like my celestron 15x70 for $60. plus you can see a lot with just binoculars on a good night.

also your 3 "49mm" lenses should be identified by the focal length and F number. 49mm just refers to the filter thread size. but im guessing you have the 18-55mm kit lens, 55-210 zoom and not sure what else. i like my 55-210 for moon pics, its what got me started. its quite portable and light, and with a good mount, should still be very useful for night sky viewing.

--
Sony NEX-5n (noob)

apochromaticon · Aug 20, 2014

Hey there,

rtrski and Tyson5n make some good points.

My 2 cents worth:

Check this tracking mount out. IMO its a better than the Astrotrac for little more $$.

http://www.losmandy.com/starlapse.html

But first, get yourself some good 7x50 binoculars and some star charts. This is what I did to learn whats out there and how to find them.

As was said some great pics can be taken and stacked from a static tripod w/exp times that fall just short of trailing the stars for the given focal length used.

But a tracking mount gets you longer exposures depending on how well the mount's rotation is parallel to the polar axis.

For a first scope I'd recommend a refractor as the lesser learning curve which is free of the sometimes maddening collimation issues with short fast reflectors used for AP. Though you could learn it no sweat. EG the Astro-Tech 6" f/4 imaging reflector seems a great deal at $300 but definitely, like any scope, WILL REQUIRE a tracking mount.

So for refractors any of the 66, 71, 80, or 90mm ED, semi-apo or apo scopes will be good candidates. I like the William Optics 71mm ED doublet seen on eBay for $4-500 depending if it comes with the focal reducer/flattener or not.

I use a Losmandy GM-8 with a Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 and get these kind of preliminary results by stacking sub-exposures w/the Deep Sky Stacker software. Though an old hand in photo and telescope gear, only recently have I tried tracked astrophotography.

BTW, I do what's known as ccd drift alignment, so fyi;

http://jimbo.net/astro/2008/08/04/ccd-polar-alignment/

OTOH, as one can see here on DPR, many beautiful shots can be had from stacking subs from a static tripod as well, but tracking really expands the possibilities.

FWIW some people are converting standard wind up cooking timers by adding a tripod screw to track lightweight digital cameras with. For less than $10 it could be suitable and pocketable solution for you.

Hope I added......

M31 12mins of combined sub exposures w/Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 equals 114mm f/3.5 in telescope terms

bidule5 · Aug 20, 2014

As other said, forget about a telescope for beginner astrophoto.

Just use a wide lens on a tripod, or a small tracker (Vixen, Ioptron) for long exposure with longer lenses.

Northoceanbeach said:
This may sound stupid, but some telescopes, the smaller ones, advertise as being for terrestrial viewing as well, does that mean with the camera attached I can use it as a super, super zoom? Maybe to take a picture of a boat at sea miles away?

From a boat ? At 2 meters over the sea, the horizon is 5 kilometers away.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon)

btw small telescopes have, like some super zooms, FL around 1000mm.

swimswithtrout · Aug 20, 2014

rtrski said:
rtrski wrote:For $250ish you can get a basic lightweight tracker for the camera itself to mount on a tripod, and with your 16mm take up to 2-3 minute long exposures of the Milky Way, but you can also take almost 30-sec long exposures without one. That tracker (iOpteron, Vixen Polarie are two options) would also support up to a 200mm lens or so (some stretch it to 300mm). I've managed to use mine with a 180mm macro and get a few longer exposure (30-60 seconds) shots of the nebula in Orion for example, but it's still pretty small in the frame.

I don't know of anyplace that sells the iOptron SkyTracker, the cheapest camera tracking platform out there, for less than $350 . The Polarie is over $200 MORE than that, once you include the "optional" but absolutely mandatory polar alignment scope.

rtrski · Aug 21, 2014

swimswithtrout said:
swimswithtrout said:

rtrski wrote:For $250ish you can get a basic lightweight tracker for the camera itself to mount on a tripod, and with your 16mm take up to 2-3 minute long exposures of the Milky Way, but you can also take almost 30-sec long exposures without one. That tracker (iOpteron, Vixen Polarie are two options) would also support up to a 200mm lens or so (some stretch it to 300mm). I've managed to use mine with a 180mm macro and get a few longer exposure (30-60 seconds) shots of the nebula in Orion for example, but it's still pretty small in the frame.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyplace that sells the iOptron SkyTracker, the cheapest camera tracking platform out there, for less than $350 . The Polarie is over $200 MORE than that, once you include the "optional" but absolutely mandatory polar alignment scope.

You're correct, typo on my part. Which just underscores that a $500 beginner telescope for astrophotography isn't going to cut it...

W5JCK · Aug 21, 2014

You attach a telescope to your camera via a t-mount. A telescope will attach directly to your camera where the lenses attach, that is, to the lens mount. You remove any lens from the camera, attach a t-mount, and attach the telescope. Not all telescopes, especially the cheap one ($500 or less) can be mounted to cameras, so be sure to get one that can be mounted to a camera. There are also some good spotting scopes in that price range that might work. However, the optical quality and usability of any scopes in that price range are going to be poor.

Better solution is good camera lenses. I suggest using a WA or UWA lens for star fields like the Milky Way. A good 14mm lens, or thereabouts, will work fine. If you want to zoom in closer, then use a telephoto lens. Make do with what you have or get a 200mm or bigger lens.

Yes a tracker is nice, but you really don't need one. I suggest that since you are new to astrophotography that you keep things simple and just use a camera, camera lenses, and a tripod. After all, you will be in very dark skies where light pollution is not much of an issue. Use manual mode on you camera. Set the lens aperture wide open (the smallest f number it has), set the shutter as slow as you can so that stars don't elongate (see below), then adjust the ISO to get the exposure you want.

Shutter length varies by camera, lens, and circumstances. But a general rule of thumb I use with my Sony a6000 (APS-C sensor) is 300 divided by lens focal length (FL). If I want to take a wide angle shot with my 12mm lens, then I use 300 / 12 = 25 sec. If I want to take a zoomed telephoto shot with my 200mm lens, then I use 300 / 200 = 1.5 sec. This formula is just an approximation to get you close. Try it, take some sample photos, and adjust as necessary. If the stars are too elongated, then shorten the shutter length time.

Probably the most difficult thing will be achieving a good focus. The Infinity mark on your lens is not always infinity, but it is a good place to start. Set your lens and/or camera to use manual focus. Turn on the Liveview mode. Turn on the camera's focus magnifier to magnify what you are focusing on. Choose a very bright star and point the camera at it. SLOWLY turn the focus ring on the lens until you see the star as the tiniest point of light you can get. Take some sample photos and adjust as necessary. Some people tape down the lens focus ring after achieving focus to keep it from being accidentally changed. That works on some manual lenses, but not so much with native Sony E mount lenses.

Most importantly, have fun!

--
An astrophotography hobbyist and amateur radio instructor and examiner. Sony a7, Sony a6000, and Canon Powershot G1 X. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackswinden/

W5JCK · Aug 21, 2014

I forgot to mention that if your NEX 7 has a scene mode for night sky, you can try using it. It probably won't be nearly as good as using manual settings, but if all else fails give it a try.

I also suggest shooting in RAW format as this will allow you to do much more post processing than you can with JPEG format. I usually shoot RAW + JPEG. Post processing is very important. With PP you can turn a poor out of the camera image into a keeper when it comes to star fields.

bludhemn · Aug 21, 2014

I have a question on EQ mounts.

If you attach a camera to the EQ mount, does the mount need motor drives to do the tracking? Or can you manually track using RA and still take the photograph?

RustierOne · Aug 21, 2014

bludhemn said:
I have a question on EQ mounts.

If you attach a camera to the EQ mount, does the mount need motor drives to do the tracking? Or can you manually track using RA and still take the photograph?

It is possible to manually track but not recommended. You would need some means to monitor a star using manual controls to keep the star centered on crosshairs. Even with a motor driven EQ mount, all will show some tracking error due to mechanical tolerances, polar alignment error, atmospheric refraction and other factors. It only takes a tiny tracking error to smear the stars, potentially ruining your exposure.

So tracking is just the mount's attempt to counteract the effects of the Earth's rotation. Guiding is the process (manual or computer aided) where corrections are made to the mount's tracking to compensate for inevitable errors. Guiding needs either a separate guide-scope or an off-axis guider. The latter uses a small mirror to pick off a star on the edge of your telescope's field of view to monitor for guiding.

Tyson5n · Aug 22, 2014

I agree with what Russ is saying.

But there is a benefit of a scope or camera on a non motorized EQ mount that once you get your object in your frame, its very easy to keep up with it with just a manual turn. The benefit really stops there tho. For visual (non photographic) use, its great. For the purpose of long exposure and high mag for small deep space objects, its useless. For planets and moon, its acceptable since they are high brightness and you want/require fast shutter speeds anyway.

If you stick with widefield 16-24mm or less photography then you dont need an eq mount anyway. but thats not what the OP seemed to be asking since he was looking for a "telescope".

apochromaticon · Aug 23, 2014

Hey NOB

You may find this tracker comparison review helpful;

http://www.astrosurf.com/comolli/strum56.htm

Also consider that some Pentax DSLRS have available an astro-tracer function accessory whereby the sensor tracks the stars, supposedly good for longer exp than static alone would get you.

Might be under the $500 used and get you started with widefield, but I think you wanted a scope.

Some of the small light refractors I mentioned are good starting places that you can easily attach your camera to day or night. But then you aren't going to get much without tracking in some fashion for anything but the shortest of exposures without trailed stars.

A small light quality refractor you can use as a telephoto and day or night telescope is more likely something you'll more readily pack along and actually use. Shoot for a ED doublet at worst and an apo triplet, quad or quintuplet to minimize or eliminate chromatic aberration.

Also check out Ed Ting's scopereviews.com and cloudynights.com for more info

As a past sailboat owner myself, what and where are you sailing?

regards,

A

David Pavlich · Aug 23, 2014

Starting with something like an Astro Trac is a good start since you have the camera. It'll let you know if you like to stay up late and become a mosquito banquet.

I'm just the opposite of most here. I've been doing astrophotography fairly seriously for quite a while now and just decided to get serious about terrestrial imaging.

I'm using an SBIG CCD camera on a 10" imaging Newtonian on an MI250 German Equatorial Mount. But prior to moving onto CCD cameras, I used modified DSLRs. The modification, a Baader I/R cut filter, allows more red to collect on the chip. The standard DSLR filter doesn't allow as much of the red. Red is a dominant color in space which is hydrogen/alpha gas. Here's an image of the Rosette Nebula taken with a modified Canon 40D through an f2.8 imaging Newt. It's in gray scale because it was taken with a 12 nanometer hydrogen alpha clip in filter that's snapped into place in front of the chip.

Once the images are stacked in pre processing I usually take 16 or more exposures of 8 minutes or so, the RAW image taken into Photoshop is red. Because the filter only allows the hydrogen alpha band to hit the chip, only the red part of the chip collects photons, so the image comes out red. In post processing, the stacked image is then turned into gray scale and then stretched to bring out the detail. Here's the image:

Rosette Nebula taken with a Canon 40D and an f2.8 imaging Newtonian.

Astrophotography is WAY different. I have a small roll off roof observatory in my backyard. Once I get the imaging sequence started, the computer takes over. I have a guide camera that's on a separate scope that keeps the mount pointed properly. What's nice about a CCD camera is that the chip is cooled. It reduces the noise. A DSLR chip heats up as it is exposing creating a lot of noise.

To combat this, dark frames are taken and added into pre processing. For a DSLR, 25 darks are good, more is better. I also take flat frames to take care of vignetting and dust moats. Processing is a whole different ball game as well.

Anyway, I joined a few weeks ago and just noticed this section today. It feels like home.

And if you want to really get involved with some very good astrophotographers, I suggest that you check out Cloudy Nights. It's the largest astronomy forum on the 'net. I'm an admin there, so look me up if you join.

David

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand."
-- Kurt Vonnegut,

apochromaticon · Aug 24, 2014

Nice work & equipment David!

Is that Newt a Tak @ F/2.8 per chance?

"So it goes"

David Pavlich · Aug 24, 2014

The Newt used for the Rosette was a Boren/Simon 8" Powernewt. You probably know the story behind the PN since you know about the Tak, but it's a regular f4 Newt with a reducer/corrector in the focuser to give it that f ratio and a flat field. Tak uses parabolic mirrors for the primary and secondary to get to f2.8 AND the flat field without a corrector. I've been praying to the imaging gawds that Tak would come out with a 10" version, although, it would be pretty spendy.

I'm looking forward to summer ending. Me being at 26' above sea level and the haze and humidity of the Gulf south, it's not the best for deep sky imaging. I just had the MI250 in my living room giving it a good cleaning and relubing....my wife was out of town.

I need to get out and do a fresh polar alignment, but it's too darn hot and sticky to sit out there for 2 hours and fine tune it.

David

apochromaticon · Aug 25, 2014

Hi David,

Not really, but I had heard/read the name Boren/Simon before...... & yup Taks are spendy indeed.

I feel ya. Been a crappy summer for me too what with god knows what in these skies these days and those squadrons of little flying bloodsuckers here on the sofla E coast.

Found a really dark strip of FL real estate an hour or so away from me on the light pollution map here,

Jupiter Clear Sky Chart

that runs from the western side of Lake O, north to west of Yeehaw Junction, but have not gone and investigated any possible imaging spots yet.

Waaaay back in the early 80's I was driving from here to G-Ville going to school hauling the mail on us441 w/my little Escort fuzzbuster, and during a side of the road natures call stop once up that way found the sky was absolutely gorgeous. Back then I lived further south in Pompano, now I'm east of Lake O.

I did make it to the Keys WSP once before Andrew hit us, but after only a Fri night's observing w/my spanking new 1 yr wait Traveler I had to depart the very next morning for a family emergency and never got to look thru any of the sale tables, big dobs or other scopes. Boy was I po'd. Sky was dark but not like I'd remembered from the above spot.

One other dark place I remember was about halfway across Alligator Alley coming back from Naples w/the ex around midnight, also in the 80's.

An irony for me is that I bought one of Ed Byers 812 GEMs that I also waited almost a yr for while in school and just never got the opp to have a permanent pier installed anywhere, so its sat for literally decades unused, and now aged [me], use the GM8 now instead.

Wish I could find a spot to leave the 812 set up securely somewhere. B/c with that one dialed in to the pole I'm sure it'd run rings around the GM8 for unguided subs.

regards,

A

David Pavlich · Aug 26, 2014

There's a reason that the big research telescopes are on mountains...a LOT less atmosphere to image through. I'd love to live at about 6000' in Arizona or New Mexico. Great transparency and little interaction with the Jet Stream. The Jet keeps that atmosphere stirred up and makes seeing tough.

Even for visual astronomy, going from a backyard like mine to a nice dark site is like adding two inches of aperture to your scope. It's fun, but frustrating at the same time.

I've been to the Mid South Star Gaze and the Deep South Regional Star Party a few times. Loads of fun! Geek heaven for sure.

Your Byers is a thing of legend! That's a mechanical masterpiece and needs to be in an observatory. You could get a nice program to run the thing from Sidereal Technologies (SiTech). I converted my MI250 from Gemini 1 to SiTech 1. A world of difference in operating the mount.

David

apochromaticon · Aug 27, 2014

Hey David,

I think I unintentionally told a big fib last post. The BEST skies I ever saw were on top of Mauna Kea. Got there in a rented old school Toyota Landcruiser. The ride was scary both ways but even worse on the way back down. Like driving on rice crispies.

Once I got to the summit and parked, I grabbed my camera and walked around snapping pics as the sun set and almost passed out, it was literally breath-taking, old smoker me. Well not anymore.

Edit: the tour guide didn't know much, showed us the CFH, etc, and we ended up with me running the 24" Bruce Cass so we all could view Omega Centauri - now that was a sight I can tell you.

Agreed on the Byers. I saw the 812 Caveman rehabbed on A-Mart in hammertone grey. Did a very nice job imo and sold it iirc. Forgot how much but it wasn't as high as I'd hoped to see haha.

He and I share another item we both have, the Nippon Kogaku 5CM refractor on undriven GEM. Think he's got the 6.5CM too.

Other than my Traveler I have 4 Coulter/Novak diy scopes done in the 80's; an 8"/f7, 6"/f4, 12.5"/f6 & Lensless Schmidt camera 8"f2 in a canoe-like strip-planked mahogany and fiberglassed tube I tried put a webcam at focus with. Only the 6" can be currently used - I usually sit crossed legged and just cradle it - and the rest are in various stages of reconfigs never completed. Long stories.

The 12.5 is in a 12 sided foamcore tube with 1/4" plywd end rings and with optics all up weighs 30#. Had it in a dob config plywd & Teflon mount; but decided to put the axes on ball bearings for Mel Bartels stepper driven soft & hardware that never made completion. Thinking a Poncet may have been the wiser choice. I also have a pair of plywd rings spaced by six alum tubes I was going to hold the tube with for rotating rings mounting on the 812. It sits.

I'd be interested in your mention of upgrading the 812 Tho. I know it's been fitted with belt driven encoders before but since the RA is but a sector I wasn't aware of any other drive options but am eager to hear about any if they are. I have a drive corrector for the RA only. I have the 12v Hurst synchro DEC motor and bracket not installed, but it has a knob for dec corrections w/o motor. The DEC is tangent arm too, eg not geared. I have considered sinking a 6x12 cedar post I have here but....

I'm surprised you missed my KV "so it goes" reference? I read Sirens & Monkey House, probably others [part of Rosewater @ the USO], back in the 70's. Haha.

A

NancyP · Aug 27, 2014

Use them! Binocular observation is a great way to start familiarizing yourself with the cosmos. After all, you have to be able to locate constellations, then stars within constellation in order to point your telescope at the right object. Or, of course, you could do it the new-fangled, no-work, no-thought way and let a GPS guider aim the telescope for you.

Best beginner telescope for under $500

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts