Meade lx65 8" (ACF) vs Celestron 8se

[polymath257]

Sorry to make this a book. There are a lot of variable and beginners make a lot of mistakes. If you can (and I know COVID may not allow this), find a star party and look through some scopes. That is the best way to find out what is possible and what you want to see.

Thank you for taking the time to write the book. I really do appreciate it.

I already understood some of what you wrote like how to calculate magnification. Even the part about to much magnification being a bad thing. What I don't understand is how that applies to real world viewing. For example what is too much for one of these scopes for different objects the moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and Andromeda?

As far as photography goes I have a decent FX format Nikon, but I was also looking at one of the Celestron 5MP imagers. I think they are limited to like a 30 second exposure though so I'm not sure which way I want to go yet.

I was also looking at one of the Celestron Eyepiece and filter kits. They run about $170 retail and come with:

32mm Plossl Eyepiece - 1.25”
17mm Plossl Eyepiece - 1.25”
13mm Plossl Eyepiece - 1.25”
8mm Plossl Eyepiece - 1.25”
6mm Plossl Eyepiece - 1.25”
2X Barlow Lens - 1.25”
#80A Blue Filter - 1.25”
#58 Green Filter - 1.25”
#56 Light Green Filter - 1.25”
#25 Red Filter - 1.25”
#21 Orange Filter - 1.25”
#12 Yellow Filter - 1.25”
Moon Filter - 1.25”

on top of the eyepieces that come with the telescopes. From what you said I'll probably want to upgrade later, but I'm hoping that will be enough to get us started.

For the moon and planets, the issue with magnification isn't the object you are looking at as much as the atmosphere of the Earth. It is rare that you can push above the 300-350x level and see anything. If the Earth's atmosphere allows it, though, go for it. Use the moon filter on the moon to reduce brightness: there is a LOT to see there and it changes from day to day as the terminator moves.

Galaxies are another thing. What they can tolerate depends on the specific galaxy (going above 200x for Andromeda is likely to be counter-productive). And, for example, M101 is *big*. But good luck finding it except on a dark night, especially if you have magnification too high. Some galaxies are actually easier with binoculars. By the way, have you considered a good pair of binocs? Fully multicoated, not too heavy; probably 7x50 or 10x50?

With a 2300mm focal length, that 6mm lens won't get much use. Furthermore, you can just use the 13mm and the Barlow lens and get just about the same result. You will *never* use the Barlow with the 6mm except to verify that you can't see anything. The same can be said for the 8mm; the 17mm and the Barlow will do just as well. So, if you can (and you may not be able to), I would drop those two lenses.

In their place, I would go for a 25mm and a 20mm. You will find that these will be your workhorses, along with the 17mm.

One of the joys of this hobby is learning what all this means in real world viewing.

Do you know the trick for checking how good the seeing is? Turn your scope on a nice, bright star. Focus on it until it is as close to a pinpoint as you can get. Then turn a bit out of focus. You will get a white disk of light, but on closer observation, you will see a series of rings in that disk. You will actually be able to see how good the atmosphere is by how sharp those diffraction lines are. The scopes you are looking at aren't subject to tube currents, but those show up as little swirls floating across those rings.

My experience with photography is rusty, so I don't have anything to say about your choices. I did most of mine with film (just to show how old I am).