From: utzoo!decvax!pur-ee!rdu
Newsgroups: net.space
Title: neophyte seeks telescopic expertise
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.388
Posted: Thu Jul  1 19:58:20 1982
Received: Fri Jul  2 01:11:10 1982

In the course of my unschooled browsing for a first telescope I have
encountered a curiosity: two telescopes whose specifications seem roughly
equivalent and yet whose prices are disparate.

The two are the Celestron C90 and the Questar 3 1/2.  According to their
brochures they have the same design (Maksutov-Cassegrain), aperture (3.5
inches) and approximate resolution (1.0 arc seconds for the Questar vs. 1.3
for the C90).  The C90 even achieves a higher "maximum useful" power (210x
vs. 130x) and yet the Questar costs about four times as much.  Why?

I would be interested in others' knowledge or opinions on what makes a
good amateur telescope, because apparently my original intuitions (light-
gathering, resolution, power) are inadequate.  How do different designs
compare?  (Here I would consider actual experience more telling than
theory.)  How important are special lens coatings?  How real are
qualitative considerations like sturdiness and workmanship?

			Sign me
				 In the Dark
				 in Indiana

[ Mark Raabe  (pur-ee!rdu)  Purdue Library Systems ]