Astoundingly bad Popular Science article: "The best telescopes for astrophotography" - Forums

In case anyone happens to be browsing this who is brand new to the hobby, I thought I would share this amazingly bad list of recommendations I saw pop up in my news feed:

https://www.popsci.com/gear/best-telescopes-for-astrophotography/

Do not buy any of these for astrophotography, especially not their "top" recommendation. These are visual telescopes, and are not even good beginner recommendations for that. You will be wasting your time and money buying any of these.

Wow, misinformation at it’s best from Pop Sci. But then that publication has seen better days and they were long ago…

A doublet refractor has the following comment:

”If you know what you’re doing and you’re serious enough in astrophotography to know the difference between good and great optical quality, this is a portable telescope that will not disappoint.”

wow. It really is true that you can’t believe what you read on the internet.

Well, maybe these would have been good options 25-30 years ago, so better late than never I suppose…

The article reads like AI/ChatGPT slop.

Seems like a combination of AI slop and a paid advertisement by Sky-watcher and Celestron.

“Stars can move at 500,000 (units redacted) per hour”

“A smaller focal ratio, those below f/5, indicates a faster telescope in that it gathers light at a faster rate than a model with a slower focal rate. These models are fast and have a wider field of view, making them more suited to deep-sky photography. They have shorter focal lengths (the distance between the eyepiece and the lens), which also makes them lighter and easier to carry.”

Tell this to the RASA 14.

Almost certainly AI slop.

I have't had such a good time reading an article since a long time. 🤣

It looks to me like a collection of "perles du Bac" (those funny, clumsy wordings made sometimes by students at exams).

At least I was right about one thing: the big "winner" is exactly the OTA I took my first astrophoto with. I still have it and it seems its value has just increased 😂

Is this a serious website usually? (sorry, I didn't know it)

No doubt that’s it’s written by AI. It just has that ring to it…

If I look at the author's background, I would question why they think they have the competence to make recommendations on subjects they have no experience in:

"Stacey Nash researches, tests, and writes about all things home goods and fitness. She’s always looking for the best products, devices, and apps to make life easier so her readers can spend more time enjoying the activities and people they love. But she always makes time for a good workout and maintains her personal trainer certification so she can also provide readers with accurate, scientifically-based fitness tips."

Tony Gondola · Dec 4, 2025, 04:36 PM
No doubt that’s it’s written by AI. It just has that ring to it…

LOL! Like the ring of a lead pipe… Donk.

And they wonder why magazine sales are so bad?

Early December and conveniently some of the most commonly sold cheap telescopes are “the best”. Typical christmas season marketing slop, not much else going on here.

Will say that i have read many articles exactly like this before, even pre AI so its not a new issue. One thing that always makes me physically cringe is the Astromaster being recommended for, well, anything. At least they mentioned that it feels cheap so there is at least a molecule of honesty in that write up.

What would be a hoot is if pop Sci allowed comments on the article. it would be “eh hem” illuminating to read the comments from people that actually do know something about the best OTA and telescopes for visual or astrophotography pursuits.

“We’re camera nerds and into telescopes, so we know a thing or two about the “photography” part of “astrophotography.” We looked at critical reviews and user recommendations and conducted heavy research to ensure we got the “astro” part down.”

This gave me a good chuckle lol

I’m almost positive their definition of “heavy research” doesn’t meet most of our definitions of it lol

This is by far the worst ‘'Best Telescopes’' article that I’ve seen so far. wow

CVZ_Astro · Dec 5, 2025, 07:28 AM
This is by far the worst ‘'Best Telescopes’' article that I’ve seen so far. wow

Now that a lot of people are using AI for this sort of throw away writing, expect more of it.

Actually, it’s so bad I can’t imagine it even being AI. Lol

Lol, yeah. My favorite lines:

“Stars move at 500,000 an hour”

And

“Cons: you cannot take photos with this scope”(the 114LCM) and then right beneath it,

”you can attach an astrophotography camera to take pictures ”.

Also the refractors being either “APO” or”semi-APO” made me laugh!

Although I must admit, that as a 13-year-old buying his first meade f/20 reflector with slow motion controls, my desire to know more and go deeper was sparked by having cheap stuff. It also made me want to take cheap stuff and engineer it into working equipment.

So maybe not all bad, haha!

Tom

Nothing wrong with cheap stuff if you know it’s cheap stuff…

Yea, verily. Especially if it produces decent images. But I am talking specifically about my primary mirror and not refractors…I don't think I could ever get my old Meade refractor to produce much.