Do you rather use Reflector or Refractors and why?

So I'm currently on the verge of buying a new Telescope budget isn't very hight at about 1000 - 1500 dollars.

I've been very unsure about which one would suit me better.
I currently have a WO Z61 with a fieldflattener at 360mm and a very cheap 1000mm f5 8" newtonian which looses collimation completely when just doing a meridian flip. it's a lot of hustle with that thing but it does allow me to shoot Galaxys which I'm more and more drawn to.

So my options are bascially to go with a Refractor with less focal lenght and also a worse F ratio but it is pretty hustle free and nothing to worry about and maybe even sharper?
On the other side I could go for something like a Skywatcher Quattro 200 or similar with much more focal lenght and a better F ratio but a lot more hustle with collimation and focus and maybe even some DYI work that needs to be done with which I need to get comfortable when buying a Reflector.

Since I already have a scope with 360mm with a decent sharpness I kind of want something that gives me a different field of view, something new to discover in the night sky that isn't possible with 360mm.

What side are you on and why? what are your key point why you chose the optics that you did?

In my time, meany seasons ago, you wouldn't even think about refractors. The good (APOs) ones you would need to sell both kidneys to buy one and the bad ones where just bad or just too cumberson and small in aperture to be of any worth (to my observing style). So I got a catadioptric, a Mak and that was it. further down the line the issue didn't change that much, if you wanted aperture and FL you would go the reflector (or cat) way unless your back account had the depth of the Marianna Trench. Today the choice in refractors is much more varied and the price tag much more affordable that it has ever been but I still cannot bear the though of spending money on a puny refractor while the same amount of money would buy me a (relatively) huge reflector and a lot faster too. If I need to go short i'll grab a camera lens and I'm good (which I can and will use in daytime too).

Now, as for everything in life, you get what you pay for. So, if you want repeateable bullet-proof mechanics from a Newtonian then do not expect to pay what you are asked for for Quattro or a PDS. It just doesn't happen. I have newtons that have been knocked down for the mount and would retain collimation like nothing ever happened. In fact, in one particular sample I collimated it once in 10 years (ok, its a slow one at f/6.3 but still a lot of jolting in and out).

Bottom line, pay a bit more from a reputable manufacturer, and you'll be set for good.

I owned both types.

I started astrophotography in February 2022 with a small refractor suffering from light chromatic aberration in the blue. Starting with that and with an OSC camera makes learning much easier. It was enough to get familiar with ASCOM, the mount, software for imaging, processing, post-processing etc. However, after 4 months, the need for better quality image started. The need for aperture started. I also have the chance to have a rooftop terrasse, where an EQ6r Pro and a larger scope can stay all the time under a cover.

Understanding that aperture rules, but refusing selling a kidney , I went for a quality but second hand newtonian reflector. on an EQ6r Pro. For the best : about 500 hours of data later, I do not look back.

https://www.astrobin.com/users/patrice_so/

CS

I have 2 rigs in my observatory https://www.astrobin.com/full/k38ufd/0/ My 12” f5 DBA Certified Newt and my Esprit100. I’ve always been an aperture guy even when I was doing more visual work way back in the early 90’s. I am a newt guy for sure owning & shooting with 6” - 12” newts.
I have my 12” that I have tweaked over the years and it’s a monster on my mount that holds collimation very well. I only collimate it maybe 2 times a year if that. This particular newt wasn’t cheap though, it’s a fully customized newt with completely upgraded optics all the way around so to buy something like this new would be easily double the price tag your budgeting with. That said you can get a very nice 8” and or 10” on the used market I’m sure however you may end up doing some modifications to it as you see fit after you use it a few times. Some people don’t like the defraction spikes in there images. I’m one that actually like them so for me its not an issue.

My refractor is a great little setup for wider field work (or at least wider than my 12”) and it’s pretty much a full proof setup. I like it for larger nebula complex’s and if your into galaxy imaging its a nice setup for imaging large galaxy clusters like Markarians Chain for example and even larger star clusters.

If I had to have just 1 rig in my observatory hands down I’d have my 12 newt.

Good luck on your decision!

Dale

I voted for a reflector, but then again i am biased since that's all i ever imaged with.

Most factory standard newtonians require quite a bit of work to get up to astrophotography standards, but when you do get it up to speed you get a large aperture fast scope that will outresolve most refractors, at least when compared toe to toe in terms of the price you pay for one.

My 8'' newtonian was once an OOUK VX8 which was riddled with the same issues you mention here: collimation going off by just looking at the scope, or so it seems. At first i replaced the stock focuser for a better one (Baader diamond steeltrack - not a premium focuser but rock solid compared to the stock one). Then went the stock secondary spider because it was too flimsy to reliably hold collimation. But the main issue with that scope was the tube itself, a very thin aluminium one that just cant hold collimation because it buckles under gravity in different orientations. At first i fixed that by attaching 2 AC tube clamps tightly around the tube, greatly increasing stability.

But in the end i purchased a carbon fiber tube from Claus Helmerichs and proper CNC tube rings, which made the scope a proper astrograph in terms of stability.

The total cost of the scope + fixes is i think around 2100€ without a coma corrector, so still quite "cheap" when compared to proper Apochromat refractors at a much smaller aperture. TS sells their ONTC 8'' newtonians at comparable prices, so somewhere around that price range is where you will land in trying to fix the scope.

Good question….. plastic or paper-I have to make decision

I started with 6" Newtonian, later I got smaller Newtonian baby 130 mm… I love Newtonians, great aperture, easy to collimate (a regular collimation is a MUST from my experience), low costs (in comparison with big APO and catadioptric scopes). But with the time passed I decided to switch to refractor APO and did not regret a second. Fast cooling time (a half-hour), portable and easy to transport in the own case, no collimation needed…. Of course, you get that you paid for…. Prepare yourself for minimum $1500-2000 bill for a decent APO (80-100 mm aperture) with a good flattener (a flattener is again a MUST thing there). If you want to concentrate on NB mono camera imaging - your WO Z61 with a fieldflattener at 360mm is fine, just buy a good mono camera (ZWO offer few good choices within your budget limit). As to planetary viewing and imaging I would recommend catadioptric (Celestron, Meade etc.), the price tag starts with $1100-1200 and up (depending of your aperture). Camera is a priority - this is my main point. Good luck and clear skies!
P.S. I have 80 mm Meade APO, 8" Meade ACF, Meade DS Coronado PST - I do not work for or advertise Meade (but I like their products - for sure), MAK 90 mm, small Orion 80 mm refractor, still working 6" Newtonian…. So I am not bias-I like all types of scopes and all manufacturers

I am a little biased since I currently use a reflector. However, I do love my refractors. They are just easy to use and you don't have to worry about things such as collimation.

My current remote setup is a tandem rig with a TEC140 refractor and a Takahashi Epsilon 160ED. My refractors do not get anywhere near the pinpoint stars that the Epsilon 160ED can produce. So far a widefield setup, I think my Epsilon is king. Setting up the Epsilon however was a pain. I had to deal with tilt with such a fast scope (f/3.3) and then deal with collimation. Precise back spacing is needed for such a fast scope as well.

However, for more focal length, I love my refractor. It is slow enough (f/7) that tilt is easily managed (if even needed). Back focus is not near as critical (think on the micron scale instead of tenths of mm scale) and is easier to adjust and dial in. The problem with refractors is focal length versus cost. If you want to image small targets (planetary nebulae and galaxies) you may want to look at reflectors since they can easily get the longer focal length. The TEC140 is roughly 1000mm focal length and I can image many of the midsize galaxies.

When I started out, I only had a refractor and I never liked the diffraction spikes that a good number of reflectors cause. However, I have grown to really like the diffraction spikes and the only way I would willingly stop using my Epsilon 160 would be if I found a unicorn and have my name called in the Astro-Physics 110GTX lottery. Even then, I think I would still image with the Epsilon (that would be a killer tandem setup).

Refractors, because I'm lazy. You get a lot more bang for the buck with reflectors but they require some TLC. Some more than others. I just can't be bothered anymore. The problem is you can't get around reflectors for longer focal lengths unless you have the money and space to set up a big, heavy refractor.

Both. One or the other just will not do everything a serious imager needs to do. This is especially true if you have stable dark skies.

If I had budget issues that only allowed one, I would choose refractor but recognize choosing just one is always going to be less than ideal.

Jens:
On the other side I could go for something like a Skywatcher Quattro 200 or similar with much more focal lenght and a better F ratio but a lot more hustle with collimation and focus and maybe even some DYI work that needs to be done with which I need to get comfortable when buying a Reflector.

If it is galaxies you are after, 1500 USD pretty much limits you to a reflector. You are not going to find a good refractor with the required focal length at that price.

Jens:
What side are you on and why? what are your key point why you chose the optics that you did?

You pick the tool for the job. You also pick the tools you can afford. The answers you get here will be coming from people who think $10,000 is an okay price for a telescope, and people who think $2,000 dollars is way too much for a telescope.

I am in the "$3000 is getting kinda crazy" category for telescopes. So for someone like myself, if I wanted around 400mm of focal length there are plenty of good quality refractors out there that can accomplish that. If I want 1000+mm then it looks like I am getting a reflector.

In addition, lets say you want to shoot at 135mm of focal length; good luck finding a reflector to do that.

Skywatcher type Newtonians are excellent scopes as long as you don't move them. So if you have a fixed location I would go for the reflector. However, if you assemble/disassemble the setup every time you risk throwing it away in the third session. Another consideration to make concerns the sensor you use: on my 200 f4 I have a 1600mm asi, therefore a fairly small sensor, and I have not had tilt problems. However, the focuser couldn't handle the load, and I replaced it with Primalucelab's Esatto robotic focuser (yes, it costs about 2 times the newton). I know some have managed to use these scopes with the APS-C format but for me it's too much work. Final analysis: you must take into consideration that to best set up the instrument you must spend approximately its value on optional extras: spider for secondary mirror, , mask for the primary, focuser, dew shield.

My ZS73II (very similar to yours, actually):
+ no light leaks
+ no collimation needed, ever
+ high quality focuser
+ excellent balancing
+ very lightweight
+ very compact
+ wide field
- small aperture (not so tight stars, not so good resolving power)
- kind of washed out/greenish colours
- needs a flattener which introduces complexity and issues
- will dew up about 10% of the year

My 6" f/5 photon:
+ fully apochromatic
+ very large aperture (a similar refractor would cost 10X as much and weigh 3X)
+ fast
+ diffraction spikes (I like them, especially in big stars)
+ okay field (not too wide, not too narrow)
+ scope is essentially a large dew shield, primary impossible to dew up, secondary almost impossible, like 99% guarantee
- crappy focuser
- light leaks
- collimation (not the primary but the secondary and the spider vanes which is mostly self inflicted)
- heavy (impossible to carry the gear assembled)
- difficult to balance in DEC
- needs a coma corrector which introduces complexity and issues

If I had a permanent setup and someone to do all the collimation, I think I would prefer a high quality reflector like a TS ONTC. Or spending about 600 euros to turn my Photon into one.

As things stand, between the two, I prefer the frac.

Cheers,
D.

I voted for refractors.

Most of my imaging has been with refractors. I recently started using reflectors and I like it too.
Given the budget and galaxy target, I’d incline towards refractors where you’ll have some choices of 115mm-125 mm refractors. Around 800-900 FL. Which is more practical than getting a reflector and make it work with felt, focuser upgrades and correctors.

crappy focuser
- light leaks
- collimation (not the primary but the secondary and the spider vanes which is mostly self inflicted)
- heavy (impossible to carry the gear assembled)
- difficult to balance in DEC

Wondering why I have such a different experience with the Photon (150mm f/4):

1. Focuser is ok (not great but ok) and I can't find any sloppiness to it but I have only 1.6 kg on it so maybe heavier loads would test it.
2. Never had light leaks.
3. Collimation or rather holding it for extended periods is a sore point but it is entirely due to the crappy primary cell which should never ever have made its way into a telescope, period. Secondary holds rather well for months at times. I'm sure we have the same spider.
4. I'm sure mine isn't much lighter than yours and at 5.5 kg is really a featherweight. Even fully assembled with everything on is still just 8 kg.
5. Never had such an issue although balancing across the meridian is tricky (but not impossible).

You have almost same or similar gear to me, i started with ST80 then next year i followed it with a cheap discontinued 200mm[8"] f5 newtonian and Skywatcher 180 Mak, the newtonian isn't bad, only needs some modifications, sometimes i feel like if i spent more to a newt that is better, but at the end i found out that even better one sometimes needs another modifications itself, so why not doing it with the cheapest one, and i am almost done there and you can also, i can guide you so you don't give up your cheap 200/1000mm newt.

I don't know which model brand you have, but believe me they are almost the same if they are Chinese made only difference with accessories being used like a better focuser or better tube or better collimation tools and such, once they are equal you can't see the difference.

Also s a refractor, you have similar to mine, i have two 60mm ED doublets [one is Sky Rover 60 and the other is Apertura 60], and both using the same exact 0.8x reducer, one is connected to QHY163M which is the Apertura to match the blue color, and the other red is with ASI1600MM, i have them both with full filters of LRGBSHO.

Advantages of Hydrogen Bomb

More powerful than atomic bombs – Hydrogen bombs pack a bigger punch than atomic bombs. They have far greater destructive capacity, making them more potent in warfare.
Can generate nuclear power – These bombs can also be used to generate nuclear power. This energy can be harnessed to provide electricity for cities and towns.
Advanced scientific research potential – They offer potential for advanced scientific research. Studies related to these bombs can lead to breakthroughs in nuclear physics and other scientific fields.
Potentially fuels space exploration – Hydrogen bombs could potentially fuel space exploration. The energy they produce might be used to propel spacecrafts to distant planets or galaxies.
Promotes technological innovation – These bombs promote technological innovation. Their development and maintenance require cutting-edge technology, encouraging advancements in various technical fields.

Disadvantages of Hydrogen Bomb

Causes massive destruction – Hydrogen bombs can cause huge amounts of damage, wiping out entire cities and killing millions of people.
Harmful radiation exposure – The explosion of a hydrogen bomb releases harmful radiation, which can cause serious health problems like cancer.
Environmental pollution – The detonation of these bombs can also lead to environmental pollution, damaging ecosystems and wildlife.
Threat to global peace – They pose a significant threat to global peace because their use could provoke retaliation and escalate conflicts.
Difficult and expensive to produce – Making hydrogen bombs is a challenging and costly process, requiring a lot of resources, time, and expertise.

That’s it.

I have a Danubia Orion 200.
That's what I first thought too, let's modify that cheap scope. But the money you put into modifying it you can basically buy a new one or build one from scratch.

I have a very old hand made reflector, most likely a 1000mm f5 as well. The mirror is handground and the tube is most likely handmade and really stirdy and thick.
I'm really playing with the idea of turning it into a astrograph. It also takes a ton of work because it is literally just a tube now. It doesn't even have mounting rings.
I just have a huge fear of breaking it, since it's such a old and beautiful scope.

I feel like the refractor is the safe option but the reflector seems more interesting to me. I just have to hope that I won't get to frustrated with it if i were to go for that option.

I haven't thought of hydrogen bombs to be honest but thay might be an option as well 🤔

I think trying to lump all reflectors into one category and refractors in another is too generalized. I think the experience you can have with an SCT, vs a Newtonian vs an RC or a Dall-Kirkham are so sufficiently different that they just can't be generalized into one category.

That being said, if you want to capture smaller galaxies, you just need longer focal length with larger aperture to keep your focal ratio fast enough for your own sanity. You can't get around that, and at around $1000-$1500 you won't find many (if any) refractors that will get you there.

I was in your shoes and I chose to purchase a second hand standard C11 last year from Cloudynights for $1100. Keep your eye out and you might find a good one in your price range. I then paired it with a Starizona LF 0.7x reducer and an external Baader Diamond Steeltrack focuser. So final cost after taking into consideration accessories was about $2000. I found the C11 easy to collimate (only have to worry about your secondary mirror), holds collimation well, and the fact that the imaging train is on the back of the OTA like a refractor makes it easy to balance and setup.

Now the real hidden cost is going to be the mount. If you don't have a mount that can support longer focal lengths, you will have a tough time no matter what you chose.

There is no one fruit for all, i bought refractors and also reflectors, i know each will have their own roles, also each has own pros and cons, mostly the pros of refractors are the cons of reflectors and vise versa, so i will user each for their own pros ignoring their cons and live with that.

I think the modification at this point is cheaper than buying one ready all have done modded, because i think they are becoming more expensive now, and also if you know what to modify then you will really save good money for something else, i don't think your scope is completely a trash, but you need to add few things and it will be nice, for example my cheap 8" f5 never lose collimation from the original stock status when i bought, so with modification i made the collimation easier, and later it will be even better collimated and solving another issues, in fact even with Skywatcher Newt they needs little modifications as well so what is the point i pay more for another scope to modify it also a bit.

I've bought a NEQ6 for a 100 bucks which opened up my world to bigger scopes.
the C11 would actually be quite interesting. There are some really good deals out there sometimes. And yes that's true, you can't put them into one category necessarily. A cassegrain, i can imagine, is probably less of a hustle than a newt.

i think the interesting range is about 800mm to 1500mm for me

Jens:
I've bought a NEQ6 for a 100 bucks which opened up my world to bigger scopes.
the C11 would actually be quite interesting. There are some really good deals out there sometimes. And yes that's true, you can't put them into one category necessarily. A cassegrain, i can imagine, is probably less of a hustle than a newt.

i think the interesting range is about 800mm to 1500mm for me

A standard C9.25 combined with a 0.63x reducer / corrector will get you just a hair under 1500mm, and will be even easier to manage than the C11. At f/6.3 it is not the fastest, but it will get the job done.

Jens:
I haven't thought of hydrogen bombs to be honest but thay might be an option as well 🤔

Only good for one target and then you need to buy another, however. They also annoy the neighbors (if incinerating counts as "annoying").

I find these types of questions fascinating. Mainly because I wonder how, based on the varying responses that are all valid but reflective of vastly different requirements, imaging conditions, and targets, the person asking the question can reasonably expect to make a decision

I have both. I've taken images that I am happy with using both. I started with a refractor because it was "bullet proof". I had a lot of fun with it, but got tired of widefield, and ultimately found the aperture limiting. I find the aperture of a Newtonian something that cannot be reasonably matched using a refractor. Collimation seems mysterious, until you master it. Then it becomes a trivial task - a small bit of effort that yield excellent results.

I think that because an 8 inch, 1000mm newt could image at 750mm, F/3.7 when paired with a Nexus, makes it unbeatable. Imagine the Orion 10 inch F/3.9 reflector paired with the Nexus: It would be 750mm at F/2.9.

Even the RASA 11 does not have that much reach, and a Cassegrain does not have that speed, yeah, you could add a HyperStar, but then the focal length is gonna go down a lot.

Which kind of telescopes do you rather use?