PhotoNoob Loc: Innisfail, Canada

Hi, I am looking for some advice on purchasing a used telescope. This is the one I am looking at ...

Tasco Luminova Telescope

Here are 2 links for it, the first one is the Kijiji site and the 2nd is the manufacturers site ...

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-hobbies-craft/calgary/tasco-luminova-telescope/1066265836?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

http://www.tasco.com/products/index.aspx?ClassID=17&FamilyID=378&ProductID=1883

Is this a good beginner scope or should I keep looking, any and all advice is gratefully accepted and encouraged. My thanks in advance to all that respond, your advice is gratefully appreciated.

SPECIFICATIONS (FROM THE TASCO SITE (not the add))

Model: 40114675
Specifications: 800mm x 4.5" Reflector
Model: Equatorial
Finderscope: 6x24mm
Focal Ratio: F/8
Eyepieces: H25mm (36x), H 12.5mm(72x) and SR4mm(225x)
Tripod: Adjustable Aluminum
Weight (lbs./kg): 11/5
Accessories: Tasco Skywatch CD-ROM, 3x barlow lense, Moon Filter

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

You should also state what your expectations are for a telescope. The words "Tasco" and "Excellent Optics" are usually never heard in the same sentence.

If the intent is to look around at the night sky a bit, then this might be OK. But is not easy to find dim objects in the sky manually. This scope is very manual and contains no Go To provisions.

There are two eyepieces. The 25mm will give you 36x. The image should be very acceptable at that power. The 12.mm will give you 72x. Usually with a scope like this, the 72x will not be as nice of an image as the 36x view. And for the stated 225x using the 3x Barlow, this is a marketing gimmick. The rule of thumb is that with excellent viewing conditions, the most magnification you can have from a telescope is approximately 50x per inch of objective or mirror. This scope has a 4.5" mirror, and 50 x 4.5 = 225. Right at the limit. But most of the time, seeing conditions are no where near this good, and the actual number is much lower, maybe as low as 30x. And that is with really good optics. With lower quality optics, that number is even lower.

As a teenager, I had a small scope like that. I do recall almost all my viewing was done with the lower power eyepiece. The image quality went downhill in a hurry at the higher power and I actually could see less detail. And later, I got my second mirror scope. It was as step up from 3" to 4.5", but it suffered all the same problems.

Also, a scope like this would not be suitable for use with a camera for several reasons:

1) The tripod would not support the extra weight
2) The lower quality optics would be very noticeable in any image taken.
3) At 900mm, without tracking, you would be limited to about 1/3 of a sec exposures.

PhotoNoob Loc: Innisfail, Canada

thank you, I was thinking of moon shots with it, but if it can't support my T2i then it is useless.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I suspect that it would hold sufficient for moon shots. The shutter speed is fast and the tripod only needs to hold it in one spot long enough for the shot. I wouldn't consider dimmer objects with this setup.

I couldn't tell if it was using 1.25" eyepieces or the much smaller 0.917" (if I remember the size correctly). It is much smaller and when mounting a camera is likely to vignette badly.

dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca

A few comments:
1. The scope itself is probably OK. But if you want to take pictures of the moon through it, the eyepiece holder must be 1 1/4" It probably isn't strong enough to hold your camera....AND, you won't be able to reach focus anyway without re mounting the mirror forward maybe up to an inch...

2. The mount itself (gears and so fourth) are hardly even up to the task of holding the scope, to,say nothing of the added weight of a camera. It has been my experience with such scopes that there is a lot of backlash and wobble in the mount, making it pretty frustrating to use in any capacity.

Astro photography is difficult and requires pretty good equipment, but if you are mainly interested in visual (and maybe a few moon shots) and don't mind spending some time to learn the sky, then there are many "dobsonian" types of scopes that you could find that aren't much more in cost, and that would have larger mirrors as well. For any real observing with a reflector, I wouldn't get less than a 6" mirror....
Just my 2 cents worth.....

Tom--K4TTA Loc: Near Memphis. TN

I think you will be much more pleased with a Celestron or Orion scope - especially if you are spending that kind of $$. The stability of the tripod/mount is another critical factor. You can get a 6" Dobsonian for that kind of $$, and you can shoot Moon pics with a Dob. Good Luck.
Tom, K4TTA
Memphis Astronomical Society
www.memphisastro.org

Oknoder Loc: Western North Dakota

This is just my opinion but for the cost of that mount+optics, which both are probably subpar, you could find a decent used CG-5 which is now discontinued now that the AVX has replaced it. While this would only get you the mount, the mount is the most important factor in your equation. You should always build upon the most stable foundation you can afford.

Personally I am unsure of your monetary situation and if you are running on a strict budget, but if you are, and are willing to pay shipping I would be willing to donate a 6" Newtonian that came with my mount, as it is now it just collects dust. This would be a fairly good fit for the CG-5 or even a CG-3 or 4 for that matter. I could be wrong but the older models may not have go-to or even RA/Dec motors without having to aftermarket upgrade. Honestly though with an EQ mount you can use the equipment you currently have on hand, such as your camera and lenses.

Just something to mull over.
Good luck and hope to see you become a regular here,
Clear Skies
Matthew

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

This is very true what Matthew is saying. You can get outstanding images with a camera instead of a telescope. I find this very rewarding to do. I play around with a number of primes: 20mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm and 500mm. Each one has its own merits. When you mount one of these lenses on the drive and expose long enough, you begin to realize just how many stars are out there. Far, far more than you can see unaided. In fact, far more than you can see with binoculars.

I might add that I don't get as good of results with the less expensive zooms. But the higher quality zooms can do it quite well.

As for primes, the older, manual focus lenses are plentiful and can be purchased inexpensively. Most people don't want them. But these are what I seek out.

Focusing is real critical. I manually focus in Live View and have the focus magnifier at max power and very critically adjust stars for the very tiniest dot I can possibly adjust it to. And I pick a dimmer star since I don't want to be fooled by the blooming effect of a brighter star. If the focus is off, even a tiny bit, it will glare out at you in the captured image. Just turning the focus on the lens to infinity is not good enough.

Give it a try. Wide angle lenses allow you to expose for a longer time, perhaps 30 sec, without noticeable star trails without a equatorial drive. As you step up to longer focal lengths, you can't expose as long without the drive. For example, with a 300mm lens on a full frame body, I can expose for 1 to 1.5 sec without seeing star trails. But with the drive, the image can be breath taking when the exposure is much longer!