Sorry I haven't seen you before and your letter went idle for awhile. But that can be changed:

Welcome to AC, a low-key young forum just smoothing out the ways. A friendly, easy-going haunt who enjoy conversation and educational outreach. We have quite a few very intelligent people, and love to help others find their way in the dark.

Now to your question -

Do you have an idea of the nature of celestrial-objects you'll be wishing to investigate? Nebulae, double-stars galaxies, stars? "Different telescopes excel at this sort of object, but not that." No one telescope-design does everthing the best. That's why many of us have more than one design of scope. And location, because of the differing levels of light-pollution(LP), is also very important to make a good decision. And you've given us that, thank you!

The first 2 telescopes you've referenced may well be coming from the same place - either Synta or GSO. Both are Chinese, with Synta being from the PRC, mainland China. And GSO on Taiwan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzhou_Synta_Optical_Technology

And Guan Sheng Optical:

http://www.gs-telescope.com/

The majority of telescopes comes from these two outfits. Orion slaps their logo on these, as well as Celestron, SkyWatcher, Zhummel, and so on. And your first 2 are almost identical. So I'd base my choice on the size (aperture) of the primary-mirror: 100mm or 114mm. The Meade line has a 130mm Lightbridge for about the same price - so I'd suggest this over 114mm. Now regards the Orion 80mm refractor -

This will give you the least for the most - most money that is. If we look at the cost in millimeters, that is. And this 80mm will hardly be able to look at the Moon with and have that "OH WOW!" moment people usually have when they first see the craters and mountains 'pop' into view in a more powerful instrument. I'd write this scope off for all but the ability to show more stars in the wide expanses of the starfields of Cygnus - and such. The reason I say this is because it has such a low focal-ration of F/4.3 - but this is getting too technical for this context. In essence, it simply can't easily get you enough magnification to see most of the things everyone has heard of and loves to view.

Do you have a set amount of money you can afford for a telescope? I ask you this as it should help get you sorted once you tell us what objects interest you (even if the answer is "everything!"). The more data you can give us, the better we can sift and find the best telescope for your wishes and budget. For now I'd be leaning toward the Meade, but your further info may well change the field entirely!

So for now, I'd write the 80mm off. And will be checking this thread back so as to get an educated suggestion for you.

Take care,

Dave

 

Your "Family Cottage" sounds like a great place to stargaze from - I doubt I'd ever leave. You're a very fortunate guy! I always do what can be done (within legal-boundaries ) to cut LP (Light-Pollution) and cite the work of the 'International Dark-Sky Association - IDSA:

http://darksky.org/

Okay, how about a little math to help you understand the "F/" , or Focal-Ratio (FR) of any telescope one is likely going to run into? It's deals with finding the magnification of an eyepiece when placed in the focuser fo a telescope -

Let's say your scope is F/8. And has a Focal-Length (FL) is 1,600mm. The aperture of the primary-mirror is 200mm - this means the F/8 is: 200 X 8 = 1.600FL. Now you place a 10mm eyepiece in the focuser, and to find out it's 'Power" or 'X' - it goes like this:

1,600mm ÷ 10mm = 160X. The 10mm eyepiece (EP) will give you 160X. The same equation is used for all telescopes.

And now to figure out how much magnification any given telescope is capable of. The old and true way is to take the aperture - 200mm or 8" - and multiplying by 50X or 60X per inch of the primary mirror, or lens in refractors:

8 X 60 = 480X

But before trying this with a telescope, check the 'seeing' of the sky. 'Seeing' means the sky may have wispy clouds or air turbulence at upper regions. Or it's a very humid night. Or rhe neighbor's have a blasted spotlight on. Little things like this means you should start with a low-power EP - say a 25mm eyepiece for 64X - and slowly increase the power by using shorter focal-length EP's. This way you'll know your limit for the sky and it's current 'seeing' conditions. It can look absolutely clear and still, and still the 'seeing' is poor due to heavy turbulence in the upper atmosphere. Sneaky, old sky! It will be a very rare sky that really is perfect - allowing you (or anyone) to approach that figure of 480X!

A common mistake is to get a new telescope and then start buying more eyepieces. Or, worse still, buying one of those offers of an 8-piece set of eyepieces in a padded case. You'd wind up with EP's you'll never use. When you get a telescope, use the one(s) it came with for awhile first. Learning to focus slow & smooth, and try what you have on as many outer-space denizens. You'll learn a great deal, and be able to judge for yourself regarding what you'd like to get more of. Upwards or downward in magnification. The real 'power' of the telescope isn't from multipying - power. It's the aperture that allows you to see things that are invisible to the eyes you have alone. Lower the magnitude. More sized primary = dimmer & dimmer objects.

So I'll leave off for now. My 'carpal-tunnel' is barking at me. But this is something to study on. It should help to make an educated decision regards to a choice in which telescope - or perhaps a different choice altogether. Who knows?

I'll be back! Have some fun -

Dave

 

Yes, Zigarro, I was thinking of that (similar offerings) and others on an EQ-mount. But I don't know if SMack is amenable to to a more complicated & heavier weight. What say you, SMack85?

Back to studying the back of my eyelids -

Dave

 

Yeah an EQ is more complicated than an Alt/Az but it will allow you to maintain a steady track on an object in your eyepiece by using just the RA knob rather than trying to track by turning the scope on two axes simultaneously. IMO, the main consideration in getting a 1st scope is to get one that will encourage you to pursue the hobby and that's where Dave's "Oh WOW! moment" is so important. I had a cheap refractor when I was young and became bored with how little I could see with it. Of course, there are high quality refractors but those usually cost way more than a 5" to 8" reflector. DOBs are great, but again, you have to manually move the tube to track anything you're observing. In the end, you have to go with your gut and later, you can always try another type scope like you said. Good luck!
P.S: Orion has excellent vids on youtube on setting up an EQ mount...

 

For ease of use and quick set-up, I'd stick to AltAz & Dobsonian mounts. With EQ-mounts you need to set-up and find alpha-Ursa Minoris (Polaris, the Pole-Star) each time and sight it to align the axis of the mount at your location. This must be done if you want the mount to properly track objects in your eyepiece in one, smooth movement. This is mandatory if engaging in Astro-Photography of deep-sky objects. But if hunting brighter objects like Jupiter or the Moon, you can get away with quick-shots in AltAz or Dob scopes.

So I don't often recommend EQ-mounts where not needed.

So Sharon - Allow me to roll-out another possibility for you? How about we push the envelope up a notch to $199.00 - in the name of increasing the aperture (size of primary-mirror) to 130mm and a more powerful F5 FR. And it's also a Dobsonian table-top Newtonian-Reflector:

http://agenaastro.com/meade-lightbridge-mini-130-203003.html

The F5 will allow you to boost the magnification upwards to where you'll be able to get those 'OH WOW!' views people so enjoy. As you see it's also a Meade Lightbridge-series telescope. I purposefully showed the ad from AgenaAstro for two good reasons: Knowledgable staff that supports the customer - well after the sale of the instrument - and free-shipping, on all articles. Not just expensive toys & gizmo's. And for these Lightbridge-scopes from Meade, you get 2 decent eyepieces to get you started out with. And it's always best to resist buying more EP's (or a Barlow) until you've learned by using these until you're well aquainted with them, and know what you'd like to do more of. All the while tossing your spare-change in a 'Eyepiece-Fund' jar. A Barlow should be considered also. These double the magnification of any eyepiece you're using - without costing as much as an eyepiece. I suggest a bit of research on these. But hold off on buying these for now - you'll get there. Then you'd, in effect, have 4 EP's.

Of all the telescopes out there in the world, most people start out with a 130mm Newtonian (factoring in folks in Europe and the UK). And for very good reason - they give very good views. And that minor-jump from 114mm or 100mm actually makes a big difference in light-gathering. Onwards to deeper and dimmer targets.

You'll also be avoiding the feeling of angst & wishing "I should'ave gone with the bigger..."

Well I'll let you chew this over for a bit. "It's always better to regret something you did - than regret something you didn't." - from a bad Punk Rock tune..." LOL!

Dave

 

Sharon,

Did you select a new telescope or are you still shopping?

 

Congratulations on your new telescope. Please feel free to post questions here. And we would love to hear about your observation sessions. the reports don't have to be formal or fancy, just let us know what you are seeing, if you are enjoying, and how we can help it be even more fun.

 

Indeed! Congratulations on the new addition to your family!

Questions are encouraged and answers we love finding!

Starry skies -

Dave

 

I am going to attach a quick start guide that may help you get off to a successful start with your new telescope. This is written for binocular users but you may find it helpful as well.

 

I am especially interested in your opinion of the SkyScanner 100. I have been doing research on this scope as one to recommend to friends.

 

Hey Ed -

I'm guessing you wrote that Pdf? It's excellent! Hope you don't mind that I tossed it into my file of materials to give to newcomers in astronomy and telescopes in general.

Great stuff! Thanks!

Dave