What's the best refractor telescope for less than $1,200?\nrefractor telescope for \nunder $1,000?
79551
Personally I don't know, but Sky and Telescope magazine reguarly reviews products like this  The reviews are very complete, and very honest.  Your local public library probably has a subscription, and will have back issues in the shelves.
805037
I'm no expert, but I'd go for the Oberwerk binos.  If you plan on using them for astronomy, I'd also highly recommend a decent tripod so your neck and shoulders aren't in pain after a night of viewing.  It will also give you steady images.\n\nThere are many favorable reviews for Oberwerk 15x70s on www.cloudynights.com.
24803
Any telescope with a very accurate tracking mount which affords the ability to handle field rotation effects will work. Fork mounted SCT's are popular but you will have to address field rotation or enjoy lots of pretty "streaks" as a result of long exposure times. Accurate GEM (GermanEquatorialMounts) address this by design.\n\nYou will need a matching T-ring adaptor or at least a "universal" type adaptor that will clamp onto your eyepiece so that the field lens of your camera will be aligned and spaced accordingly to the eye lens of the eyepiece.\n\nBe prepared to also invest in some software (Photoshop, Maxim DL, Meade Autostar Suite etc, etc. that corresponds to your setup and how much processing you want to do.\nIf you are influenced by the photos you might see in Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazines I warn people that you can figure on spending around $2-3000.00 more than just what you spend on your telescope and visual use eyepieces to acheive those kinds of results.\n\nAlthough I own Dobsonian reflectors, refractors, and an SCT (Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope). I consider the Meade/Orion/Celestron SCT's as the "most bang for buck/least compromise/ most aperture combination/ easily portable " design of the bunch.\n\nGood luck \n\nBTW: you didn't mention whether your Canon is a traditional film type or the digital model with or without the IR filter. The IR filter makes a difference with respect to the cameras usage for AstroPhotography.\nAlso... you could just skip the telescope and mount your camera on a good GEM mount "piggyback" style or piggyback the camera onto a GEM mounted telescope instead of imaging through the eyepiece on the telescope.
874618
I came up with a magnification of about 16\n\nThis interactive website will calculate what you need ==>http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html
901312
b) is the correct answer, as others have said. You know, telescopes are a lot easier to understand if you look at a diagram.\n\nYou can find some here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_telescope
1074276
Yep, check out the Meade Telescope site.  Great new stuff in astronomy.
834983
Perhaps you mean "novice" as in beginner?\n\nThere are many resources out there for building a telescope. One place you might check is on www.atmsite.org\n\nThere are also many books on the matter under "Telescope Making"
840527
Of the three you mentioned, I'd favor the Meade, but there may  be better choices depending on your husband's level of interest and knowledge. A couple of good places to shop for telescopes: http://www.telescope.com/ and http://www.first-telescope.com/. \n\nYou can discuss your options  and learn more about telescopes online at the yahoo telescopes group or the cloudynights.com forums.
709999
Surefire's are amazing.  The entry level is worth every penny ($33) the others I am not so sure about.  I have seen SF mounts with light for $250 and I know I could fabricate something for much less.    Do you have a rail that you can mount to?  If not, you need to solve that first.  The second problem should be elementary, finding or fabricating a mount with an appropriately sized opening for the light should be pretty easy.
9814
Contact him at KIRBY ALGUIRE (kirbyandlora@btinternet.com)\n\nThe Hennigar Reflector\nIn 1932, London Centre member Donald M. Hennigar built two Newtonian reflectors, a 6" and 8". Mr. Hennigar showed these telescopes at the RASC London Centre meeting on November 11, 1932, and the telescopes were also set up for a star night at the Higgins' farm on September 14, 1934. Saturn and Mizar were targets that night.\n\nMr. Hennigar served as London Centre vice-president in 1936, 1937 and 1938. He and his wife attended many meetings from 1931 until his death in 1951. When Mrs. Hennigar passed away a few years later, the two reflectors and a 4" refractor that he also built were in the hands of their daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Pollard. The Pollards never used the telescopes, but stored them carefully for decades. When Mrs. Pollard, the daughter of D.M. Hennigar, passed away in 1996, Mr. Pollard decided that the telescopes should be given to someone with an interest in astronomy, and found KIRBY ALGUIRE, the son of a friend.\n\nThe 8" telescope looks very similar to the 6" version shown above. Of course, some work needs to be done to restore the Hennigar reflector to its former glory. Current London Centre President Dave McCarter cleaned the mirror and put it on the Foucault tester. It is nearly f/8, shows severe astigmatism and is not well-corrected, with a central depression and a slightly turned edge. The turned edge is almost normal considering the way that mirrors were parabolized at the time. The edge is hidden by the ring mount. London Centre member Dave Rubenhagen reports that the mount, a tapered steel pedestal with an interesting worm gear movement, can be fixed up. The tube is made of rolled sheet metal and can also be rejuvenated. Before too long, the Hennigar reflector will once again be gathering starlight.\n\nLook their pictures in this site\nhttp://www.astro.uwo.ca/~rasc/Hennigar.html\nhttp://www.weasner.com/etx/astrophotography/2005/nikon.html
1105433
You could, but it would be huge overkill. The telescope's objective (lens or mirror) limits the resolution of the image in the focal plane. So you'd be using a microscope to examine (at huge magnification) that resolution-limited image. You'd see nothing but a lot of fuzz, even when in focus; and it would be dim fuzz at that, because you'd only be capturing a tiny fraction of the available light.\n\nI'd stick to standard eyepieces.
1089369
I think an 8" dob is an excellent choice. I haven't seen this particular model, but from what I've heard I think it's a good one. Orion Telescope and Binoculars (www.telescope.com) is another good source for this type of scope. The Yahoo telescopes group, and the Cloudy Nights forums are a couple of good places to go for more information and opinions.\n\nI think these scopes usually come with a 25mm eyepiece. A 10 or 12mm eyepiece would be a good next eyepiece. Or buy a 2x Barlow lens; that will double the power of any eyepiece. Eventually, you might also want to get a wide-angle eyepiece around 30mm in 2" size. These are great for panoramic views of the Milky way, and also handy for finding things.\n\nHere's wishing you clear skies!
776490
'good' and 'affordable' are both relative terms, but you might give Edmuns Scientific a try, they are having holiday sales, are reputable, and i never got any duds from them. Once you look there, you may totally luck out and find one you get the specs for on ebay.
798548
That price range is difficult...You're honestly better off buying a pair of astronomical binoculars at that price.  If you're willing to go to $230, though, you should check out the Orion XT4.5....or $260 to get the Orion XT6.\n\nWhatever you do, *don't* buy a telescope based on magnification. If a telescope brags on the case it can go "up to 500X!", it's most likely junk with poorly made optics.\n\nIf you really do want to get a telescope, a lot also depends on how manual or automatic you want it to be.  On the manual side, if you're willing to learn the sky and adjust the telescope's optics (known as "collimating"...not as hard as it sounds, really), you should go with a dobsonian, which is essentially just a big light bucket you push around.  On the automatic side, if you want to just align on a couple stars and type in an object to make the telescope move there itself, there are the "go-to" mounts, such as the Meade ETX-60 (runs about $240).\n\nDobsonians ("dobs") such as the Orion XT4.5 do require you to manually know where to point the scope, and objects will slowly drift across the image due to the Earth's rotation.  The Meade ETX's will track so objects don't drift...but all this automatic stuff comes at a price - the main mirror on the ETX is only half the size as the one on the XT4.5, meaning your resolution is only half as good and your light grasp (the dimmest object you'll see) is only one-quarter as good.  So while Saturn's rings should be visible in the ETX60, they'll look a whole lot better in the XT4.5.\n\n Also, you'll need to buy a separate tripod for the ETX...the dob just sits on the ground in all its bucketness.\n\nYou might also want to set aside some cash for a good eyepiece and a barlow ($80 or so), or upgrade over time.  The eyepieces that come with most scopes are not so great, and the barlow will come in handy to double or triple the magnification on nice still nights.
984480
buy two convex lens, both should have different focal lengths and it is advisable that you should buy lenses of high focal lengths. and a tube is also required.the length of the tube should be equal to the sum of the focal lengths of the two lenses.\nNow, make the bigger lens as the eyepiece and the smaller one as objective. your telescope is ready to wander through the universe.
965276
Newtonian telescopes are especially easy to collimate, since there is only one curved mirror and an eyepiece.  Basically, you need to get the eyepiece centered in the image formed by the mirror, you have to get it pointed in the right direction, and you have to get it focussed.
409995
There are two basic kinds, refracting telescopes and refleting telescopes. Refracting telescopes depend on light bending through transparent materials (glass). Have you ever put a pencil in a glass of water? Try it. See how it seems to bend? That's because the light travels at a different (slower) speed through the water, which makes it bend. \n\nA telescope lens is circular, so that all the light rays refract in the same direction, focusing to a point, and the image appears larger (closer.)\n\nThe reflecting telescope works differently. It has a curved mirror to reflect all the light rays to a point. So more light is gathered, across the area of the mirror. You see an image that is larger (closer.)