Getting your first telescope is a big moment in the life of any astronomer. Here I’ve tried to summarise my thoughts on how to tackle the selection process.
One of the questions I’m asked the most by beginners is “What telescope should I buy?”. This is a deceptively complex one to answer, and while I could give a generic recommendation of a beginner scope that I’ve used and been impressed with before, that doesn’t feel particularly satisfactory in my opinion. What’s more, as you’ll see in the ‘Getting started in stargazing‘ guide, I don’t believe a scope is absolutely necessary (or, indeed, always the best option) for someone just starting out anyway.
Part of the reason why it’s a tricky question, and why I prefer not to give generic recommendations, is that which scope is ‘right’ for any one beginner depends on many factors. And as you’ll see below, those are often highly interdependent and can vary greatly from person to person. The numerous designs, mounting arrangements (and even apertures) available can also have various advantages or disadvantages in different contexts.
Rather than try to detail all the pros and cons of every single kind of setup, I thought it might be more useful to put down some broader thoughts on how you might steer your decision-making process.
Below are a series of points that I think can be helpful to consider as you begin looking for your first scope. My main piece of advice in all of this would be to get really clear in your mind what your ideas are about each of these. Having a good grasp of them can, among other things, help you ‘future-proof’ your first setup and make the most of your budget.
From there, I’d recommend speaking to a reputable telescope dealer, as they should be able to give you their advice on specific designs & models that match the interests and requirements you’ve identified.
Have a look, and see what you think…
🔭 Who will actually use the telescope
Is it for you, a family member/friend or, perhaps, a child? In which case, consider how that might affect the size, complexity and object-suitability of the potential instrument. e.g. will a younger observer be able to manoeuvre/reach up to a large scope safely and without frustration?
🔭 If there are particular celestial objects you want to observe
This will often quite dramatically influence your choice. There are designs that work well across a range of targets, but if you have a clear idea of what you want to look at it can direct you more efficiently to specific designs and models (and also use your budget more effectively!) For example, if you’re really keen on just visual observing then that’ll almost always push you towards simple scopes with larger apertures and everything that entails.
🔭 Where you think your interest might take you in a few years
This, in my opinion, is one of the more important points here and a good example of how most of these factors are extremely interdependent. Have a think about where you see your interest taking you in the future. Is this scope going to be part of your observing kit in years to come? How might it fit into such a collection? Can it be adapted, upgraded or put to use as part of an imaging rig, or a more advanced visual setup?
🔭 Whether you want to do astrophotography (now, or in the future)
If you choose your first scope carefully, it might be able to be incorporated into an astrophotography setup later on, if you develop an interest in taking images. Maybe you want to take astrophotos from the outset, in which case you’re going to want to look at both the scope’s suitability for imaging (including everything from its connectors to optical characteristics – for example, in deep-sky imaging, how ‘flat’ and evenly-illuminated the field is with your camera) as well as the mount’s capabilities e.g. its motorisation, auto-guiding ports, polar alignment scope/reticule etc. Think about what you want to image too, as there’s a big difference between a setup optimised for lunar and planetary imaging and one for deep-sky astrophotography.
🔭 Your mobility
Large-aperture instruments and their mounts tend to be bulky and extremely heavy. Will you be able to handle and move the scope around safely? And if you need to travel to an observing site, think about the logistics of how that will work with the specific kit you’re considering.
🔭 The location where you’ll typically be observing
This is an important thing to consider in terms of accessibility and safety, but also because local light pollution levels could influence your selection, or at the very least the rough direction of your interest. Will the things you want to observe actually be visible from this location? Do you need to budget in visual observing filters to reduce the effects of light pollution and increase contrast? Would an imaging-orientated setup be more suitable? Are there targets which lend themselves more easily to observation/imaging from this location?
🔭 How much free time you have
If you don’t have a lot of free time, you’re probably not going to want kit that takes the best part of an hour to get ready for observing or imaging (not unusual in astrophotography). Here, you’ll want to particularly reflect on the mounting system that the scope sits on, as it’s often the size and complexity of the mount that determines setup time.
🔭 Your budget
How much you think you’ll spend can obviously affect what scope you go for, but note that it’s not always the most expensive setup that is the better one for a particular person…
🔭 What your knowledge of the night sky is like
If you’re already a fairly confident stargazer who knows your way around the night sky, you might not necessarily need kit with an advanced electronic pointing system. Does a simpler push-to arrangement or one with manual controls suit you better? That’s not to say that if you aren’t familiar with celestial navigation that you should always opt for ‘go-to’ systems either. Think about what such electronics bring to a setup and how you’d use them.
While the list above doesn’t quite cover everything, if you can pin down as many of them as possible I think you’ll stand a much better chance of selecting a piece of kit that’s right for you.
As you navigate which scope to go for, keep in mind some of these other important things:
I’ve used the word ‘aperture’ here several times. This just means the diameter of the main (or ‘primary’) mirror or lens in the scope. For example, this would be the first, front lens on the ‘refractor’ telescope in the animation on the right, or the large mirror at the bottom of the tube in the ‘reflector’ below it.
[Left] A sketch of three galaxies made at the eyepiece of a 203mm (8-inch) aperture scope, which would typically be considered a medium aperture instrument.
Generally speaking, the larger the aperture the better a telescope is for astronomical observing. That’s because larger apertures can gather more light than smaller ones, which means that faint things like galaxies and nebulae become easier to see. Larger aperture scopes also enable you to view finer details on objects like the Moon and planets.
What’s the difference between a refractor & reflector telescope?
A refractor telescope uses a system of glass lenses to gather celestial light and direct it to the eyepiece (represented by the black cylinder in these animations).
The light path of a so-called ‘Newtonian’ reflector. Reflectors use mirrors to collect & focus light from astronomical objects.
The two kinds of telescope mount you’ll commonly encounter: Alt-Az & equatorial.
An alt-azimuth or ‘Alt-Az’ telescope mount following a celestial target by turning on its azimuth axis as well as its altitude axis.
An ‘equatorial’ mount following the sky by turning on a single axis (since the mount itself is ‘polar’ aligned so one axis is parallel to the Earth’s axis of rotation).
As I touched on in the list above, it’s not just the optical system of a setup that you need to put some thought to when choosing a first scope. The mount and tripod arrangement that the telescope is carried on are hugely important components too – I really can’t emphasise this enough.
There is nothing more frustrating when observing at the eyepiece than a mount that flexes or isn’t sturdy – it’s worse than cloudy skies, believe me! Pointing the scope accurately will be hard if the mount isn’t up to scratch and, worse, the view through the eyepiece will slop around, which gets really annoying very quickly. Good mounts are rock solid with controls that move smoothly with precision.
Finally, do think about how much you’ll really need any of the electronic gadgetry that’s occasionally built into basic telescopes.
Modern so-called ‘go-to’ technology – which typically aligns, calibrates and points the scope, often automatically – is brilliant, don’t get me wrong, and it can often speed up finding and locating celestial objects, if it works well. But its inclusion in a basic setup can add a substantial amount to the cost of a rig. That’s money that has the potential to get you a scope with a much larger aperture, if it was included in the budget for a system with a simpler mounting arrangement.