Few questions about refractors

I bought a used 60mm Tasco refractor for really cheap a little about 2 weeks ago, and I just now got around to trying it out. I was able to see cars in detail from about 1-1/2 to 2 miles away, and was able to see really tiny views of people out at the airport which is about 5-6 miles away which totally amazed me. Then I tried it on the moon but it barley took up the view on the 12.5 eye piece, which surprised me. I remember looking at the moon on a Jason Model 303 (can't remember the specs but it was a department store scope from the early 80's) and getting a much better and larger view, however it was a reflector. I have yet to try out the reflector I have now on the moon, and obviously on the one on the way; but I thought the views would be better. I understand there is a signifigant difference from the airport to the moon, but still. What made me think I would get better views was some shots I've seen from 90mm scopes which where much better on smaller planets, and really great on the moon.

So anyway this is getting really long. My question is are refractors or reflectors better for astromonmy? I understand the the views are "crisper" on refractors but have the ghost image (sorry can't remember what those colors seen on the edge are) then reflectors, but what other then that and the different types of mirror/lenses is the difference?

In any case I have added a 90-102mm(4"?) refractor to my ever growing want list.

I can't answer whether reflectors or refractors are better. But, I can definitely say that anything is better than a flea market Tasco. I've tried to "rescue" a number of 60mm Tasco refractors from various sources. There are a number of things that you can do - better eyepieces, a hybrid diagonal, improvements to the tripod, and a red dot finder. But, I also found that you probably need to take about an 1 inch off of the tube length so that you can focus properly. After awhile though, it seems like a lot of effort for very little return. I finally gave up and got rid of them.

Ultimately for $100 to $200, you are much better off getting something basically decent like an Orion Observer 60 or Observer 70 refractor or a Starblast reflector. 8) And if you can swing more and get more aperture, more is good...

>>So anyway this is getting really long. My question is are refractors or reflectors better for astromonmy?
=====

As others have pointed out, both are good for astronomy. My thinking is that a small relatively fast refractor and a larger reflector make good companions. They compliment each other and allow you, the observer to enjoy all facets of the night sky.

A couple of comments...

Both refractors and reflectors can provide "crisp views". Larger scopes require better seeing/atmospherics to get the best views because they show more, their greater resolution/light gathering not only shows the detail more clearly but it shows the atmospheric defects more clearly.

Newtonians, unlike other designs, are capable of providing nice images at F/5 and even F/4 but in doing so, they tax the eyepieces more severely, edge effects are the result of coma, which can be corrected, and eyepiece astigmatism, which makes some eyepieces more desireable than other...

I think a nice combo is a 10 inch F/5 DOB and an Orion ED-80...

Jon

It sounds like you're only comparing the scale of the images - which one gave a larger view of the moon and its features. But that's just a matter of magnification, which is easily changed with different eyepieces.

At any rate, don't let 20 year old memories of a reflector and current views through a used 60mm refractor be any basis for comparing reflectors and refractors! The similarities in the views between the types greatly outweight the differences.

Michael Baca said:
So anyway this is getting really long. My question is are refractors or reflectors better for astromonmy? I understand the the views are "crisper" on refractors but have the ghost image (sorry can't remember what those colors seen on the edge are) then reflectors, but what other then that and the different types of mirror/lenses is the difference?

As others have noted, this is often a contentious issue. In practice, it's a non-starter; optical performance is determined chiefly by aperture, and only secondarily by optical quality and design.

That being said, differences exist. The following are just my opinion, but of course I think my opinion is right. They are also not absolute--just because I say a design is better for something doesn't mean that the other designs can't do it also. Just not as well, I think.

Refractors and SCTs for astrophotography. Reflectors and apochromatic refractors for solar system work. SCTs and Dobsonian-mounted reflectors for portability. SCTs and reflectors for deep sky. Refractors and SCTs for ease of maintenance.

Now, before you all get started, let me say that I am already factoring in that large-aperture refractors tend to get bulky, or color-ridden, or expensive. You can't avoid all three. Aside from that, I've got reasons for saying what I do, but I don't want to make this a long essay...

Thanks everyone, again. My questions, and any that have arisen since my last post have been answered and then some. For now I am sticking with my original plan, and as time goes by I want to purchase something along the lines to the Apex 127. This way I get the best of both worlds. But this all depends on the evolution of amateur astronomy for myself and where I plan on taking.. Only time will tell.

In anycase my 130ST will be home this friday right on time for the weekend. I'm hoping for clear skys.

Michael Baca said:

My question is are refractors or reflectors better for astromonmy?

Reflectors!