Terrestrial Viewing with a Telescope: Comparison test

astro.ecuadors.net /terrestrial-viewing-with-a-telescope/
I often read forum posts of people asking whether they can use a telescope for terrestrial viewing instead
of a spotting-scope and also about a recommendation for such a telescope.
The usual answer is yes you can use most telescopes with the addition of an image erecting diagonal
and also go with a Maksutov type. While I agree that most telescopes are usable for terrestrial viewing, I
should warn that each type, including Maksutovs, has advantages and disadvantages. First, I will list the
various kinds of telescopes and discuss their suitability as well as any advantages/disadvantages. Note
that most astronomical telescopes are paired with equatorial mounts, which are good for tracking the
stars, but for terrestrial viewing you have to go for a simpler and actually cheaper, alt-azimuth mount.

Long-Tube Achromatic Refractors

The simplest achromatic refractors are relatively
inexpensive instruments. Their design suffers
from the inability to focus all colors at the same
plane, something called chromatic aberration
and is easy to see at the edges of bright objects.
One simple solution to reduce this effect is to
increase the focal length of the refractor, so
refractors at around f/9-f/10 (focal ratio = focal
length / objective lens diameter) dont show much
of an effect. But they are of course long (a
refractors focal length is pretty much the length of
its tube) and a little on the heavy side, plus they
dont offer a wide field of view they are made for
relatively high magnification.
Advantages:
Relatively inexpensive.
Decent quality views, comfortable highmagnification.
Good contrast and not much chromatic
aberration compared to short refractors.

Skywatcher Evostar 90

Disadvantages:
Very long tubes, relatively heavy. Not very portable.
No wide-field views.

Short-Tube Achromatic Refractors

Same principle as the long-tube achromatic refractors, the short ones (f/6 or less) give you wide fields of
view, more portability, but have more pronounced chromatic aberration. Some people are more annoyed
by this than others and the effect also depends on what you are observing (sharp edges between bright &
dark objects are more affected), but it cannot easily be fixed in post-processing, so bear that in mind if you
are considering photography.
Advantages:

Relatively inexpensive and portable.

Good contrast, wide-angle views.
Disadvantages:
Possibly significant chromatic aberration.
For high-magnification you would need barlows
and/or expensive eyepieces.

Apochromatic Refractors
More complex and expensive refractors that virtually
eliminate chromatic aberration. Depending on whether
you want wide-angle views or high magnification you
could find short/low f-ratio models or longer ones
respectively (losing portability). They will give you the
best possible image visually and photographically, but
they come at a high (or very high) price.
Advantages:
Best possible image quality.
Can be portable & wide-field if you want.

Skywatcher StarTravel 102

Disadvantages:
Can be very expensive.
For high-magnification you would need
barlows and/or expensive eyepieces.

Catadioptric Reflectors (Maksutov)

When we are talking about catadioptric reflectors
for terrestrial viewing, we mainly refer to
Maksutovs (the big SCTs also, in general principle,
behave a bit similar for our purposes but they
are mostly non-portable instruments). In fact, there
are many Maksutov spotting scopes, which are
pretty much the same optics as the astronomical
ones. Their main advantage is that they are very
compact compared to their focal length (i.e. can
give you great magnifications in a short tube) and
Skywatcher 80ED
that they do not suffer from chromatic aberration.
However, they do have significantly less contrast
than refractors, which is something to take into consideration. It would probably not be a problem if you are
doing photography (you shoot in RAW and adjust contrast later), but it might be worse than chromatic
aberration for viewing. Also, the focuser which moves the primary mirror is harder to fine-focus compared
to a good refractor focuser. Finally, if you are after wide-angle views, forget Maksutovs.
Advantages:
Very short/portable.
Good for high-magnification.
No chromatic aberration.
Disadvantages:
No wide-angle views.

Low contrast.

Newtonian Reflectors
While these are the cheapest and probably most
popular telescopes, they are the least suited for
terrestrial viewing. Apart from the low-contrast
views, even the position of the eyepiece makes it
very awkward to use them in daytime with an erect
diagonal. Also, many models do not have enough
back-focus to attach a camera if you are interested
in photography. Listed here just for the sake of
having a complete list, if you want a telescope that
you might use for terrestrial viewing one day, you
dont want a Newtonian (which includes the
popular dobsonian telescopes)
Advantages:
Cheap.

Celestron C90 Mak

Disadvantages:
Low contrast.
Position of eyepiece very awkward.
May not be easy to attach camera.

Performance Comparison
All this low contrast, chromatic aberration etc talk sounds very theoretical and for someone that has no
experience with telescopes might not mean anything, which makes most of our discussion so far less
helpful. So how about seeing through various kinds of telescopes to get an idea of how they perform and
what exactly I have been talking about. I will post photographs at default settings unprocessed as much as
possible (apart from resize) to demonstrate what I see through the eyepiece. The photos are of
smokestacks about 100m from my back yard. There are some cables between me and the smokestacks if
you are wondering what those blurry shadows are.
1. Apochromatic Refractor
I start off with a popular and not very expensive 80mm Apochromatic Refractor, the Skywatcher 80ED.
Although it is not one of the expensive triplet Apochromatic Refractors, it should still give us a superb
image which should be the benchmark for other kinds of telescopes:
Indeed it is pretty great, you can see good detail, nice colors given that it was an overcast day.
2. Maksutov-Cassegrain
Moving on to a 127mm Celestron Maksutov, the view is quite different. I would call it washed out, while
low contrast is the more accurate term:
Now, this is a resized photo and the Mak gives you in general a more close-up view (more magnification),
so given also the larger front lens compared to the 80ED refractor you could pick up more fine detail, but
the contrast does not help you for visual usage. If you are taking photos though, just doing an autocontrast would give you something like this:

So, if you dont want to be impressed with spectacular high contrast views but dont mind post-processing
photos to bring out detail and colors, you can save quite some money going with a Mak.
3. Short-tube Achromatic Refractor
But what about the less expensive achromatic refractors, what is the chromatic aberration we talked
about? Here is a photo from a tiny (70mm) and dirt-cheap (40) short-tube (f/5.7) achromatic refractor
(sorry, the only achromatic I have at hand):
Dont mind much the less clear details, which is more a matter of small objective lens and low quality
optics. But do notice the color tinge (mostly purple) at the sharp edges around bright areas (e.g. the holes
in the smokestack). This type of image issue might be less annoying than low contrast (depending the

Skywatcher 80ED Doublet Refractor

observer), especially if you are not looking at scenes where there are bright objects, however it cannot be
removed from photographs (at least without significant effort). A filter can be used to reduce the effect, but
it will throw off the color balance. The longer tube of the achromatic refractor (greater focal length) the less
of this effect (and the less portable the instrument becomes).
Update April 2015:
4. Long-tube Achromatic Refractor
I just got a bigger / long-tube achromatic refractor (Skywatcher Evostar 90 f/9.1 under 100 without a
mount). It is not very long tube like the f/11-f/12 achromatic refractors that manage chromatic aberration
well (the longer the refractor, the less CA), but it is easier to carry at less than 1m length, and has a bit
wider field, so it is a more useful instrument. In any case, when someone asks me about an inexpensive
telescope for daytime visual use with 100x magnification or perhaps more, this is the scope I always

recommended (at less than 140 with an AZ3 mount/tripod). I found a good deal for just the tube, so I got
it myself and thought I would get it into the same test. So this is the result, taken at about similar
conditions, at a later date (hence the differences, probably due to bird activity:
As you can see, this is a big improvement over the small 70mm refractor. In fact, the Evostar 90 has more
light-gathering power than the 80ED, so it will give you a bit brighter image at high magnifications.
However, you definitely lose sharpness compared to the apochromatic and you can easily see the color
fringes (e.g. around the holes) so dont count on photography awards. Still, for the budget conscious,
this is a great scope and a lot of people will actually prefer looking through it than a more expensive Mak
as the higher contrast more than compensates for the color fringes and slightly less detail.

Magnification
People who are not familiar with telescopes are under the impression that the best judge of an optical

Celestron 127SLT Maksutov

instrument is its magnification power, or how many times closer does it bring the subject?. But it does not
exactly work like that. A telescope can theoretically give you any magnification you want by using the
appropriate eyepiece and perhaps barlow lens. Whether you can actually use that magnification is another
matter altogether.
Firstly, there is a theoretical maximum usable magnification for each scope that depends mostly on the
size of its aperture and its type. You might have heard this as the 50x per inch of aperture rule. Well, it
sort of works for up to 5-6 inches of aperture the value is probably more than 50x for refractors, but less
than that for reflectors. However it assumes that the atmospheric conditions are excellent so there is no
turbulence. For terrestrial viewing, especially in hot summer days, the conditions are far less than
excellent. Furthermore, the higher the magnification you use, the sturdier your mount and tripod have to

be, otherwise the slightest touch will give you big vibrations making even focusing a difficult task. In any
case, even with good conditions and a steady mount, the greater the magnification, the dimmer the view,
which means that from a point on you will prefer to have less magnification for a brighter view. In general I
would say you should expect to use up to 100x-150x if you use at least a 80mm apochromatic/90-100mm
achromatic/127mm Mak. Even with a really big and good quality telescope (or any optical instrument) and
expensive/solid mount do not expect to be able to use more than around 250-300x the atmosphere will
not allow you to see any more detail.
To calculate what magnification an eyepiece will give you, divide your telescopes focal length by the focal
length of the eyepiece. E.g. a 25mm eyepiece will give you 1000/25=40x on a 1000mm focal length
telescope. You cant use an arbitrarily small focal-length eyepiece from one point on they become
uncomfortable to look through (you have to stick your eye on them tightly). Cheap eyepieces are

Celestron 127SLT Mak Contrast corrected

comfortable down to around 10mm, like the 10mm MA type (modified achromatic) that is included with
many Skywatcher, Celestron, Meade etc telescopes. For a little more you can get a UWA (ultra-wide
angle) eyepiece that is comfortable down to around 6mm. If you need more magnification, instead of a
smaller focal length eyepiece, you will need a barlow lens, that works as a multiplier (2x, 2.5x, 3x etc are
available), although it might lower the quality of your view (not so much at night, but in my experience
barlows introduce reflections during the day). If you want to use over 100x, a short-tube refractor (less than
600mm focal length) will not be a good idea.

Recommendations
I assume you will have figured out that many telescopes can be used for terrestrial viewing in general, but
if you have a particular application in mind, not all of those are suitable or optimal. If you are looking for a
telescope to use in daytime, I will try to make a few recommendations. They will mostly refer to the

European market, otherwise you will have to figure out the equivalents (you can post a comment if you
need help with that).
Mount:
Sometimes telescopes are sold as a package of the mount/tripod along the actual tube called
optical tube assembly (OTA). If you have to get a mount/tripod separately, a common low-cost
option is the Skywatcher AZ3 (available at FLO among others), or the more heavy duty
Skywatcher AZ4 (at Amazon.co.uk with aluminum or steel tripod). If you would like astronomical
usage as well, you can go for the computerized/goto Skywatcher Synscan AZ (at Amazon).
However, it will be much cheaper if you get a telescope package that includes a mount, so try for
that first. Also, for very small scopes, like a 80mm short-tube, a heavy duty photographic tripod
might be all you need.
Eyepieces/Diagonals/Barlow:

Celestron Travel Scope 70 short tube achromatic refractor

This is a very long discussion. Usually telescope packages contain at least a 25mm and a 10mm
eyepiece to get you started, and those should be good enough at first. One thing you will definitely
need is an image erecting diagonal otherwise you will be seeing things upside down. So, if it is
not included you have to get one like this. Finally, if you think you want more magnification, after
trying the included eyepieces and making sure that they give you a bright and clear image that
could use a magnifier, you can try out a 2x barlow like this.
Finderscope:
You will be disappointed to find out than when you buy a typical (astronomical) telescope and it
comes with a finderscope, it will most likely give you an upside down view. So, if it is not included
but needed, you will have to get an erect image finderscope. For course, for wide-field, low power
use, e.g. a short tube with a large focal length eyepiece, you will not need a finderscope at all.

Telescope:
I will break it down by specific usage senarios. You will note that I list mostly Skywatcher models.
This is because for many categories of telescopes they are the best-priced offerings available in
Europe. Note that Skywatcher, Celestron, Orion (and I forget who else) are all the same
manufacturer (Synta), so expect similar quality with the Skywatcher models sometimes lacking a
little finish to lower the price.
Best possible image quality, visual or photographic, not limited by budget.
You should go for an apochromatic refractor, from around 60mm to 120mm objective lens diameter,
depending how big (thus less portable) it has to be and how much you want to spend. A very
popular, relatively portable and relatively low cost choice is the Skywatcher 80ED. It would cost you
a little over 400 (e.g. Amazon, FLO) without mount/tripod and at f/7.5 (600mm focal length) it is a

Skywatcher Evo 90 achromatic refractor

good balance between wide-field and high magnification. If you can spend (1000) and carry more
(5+ kg), there is its big brother, the Skywatcher 120ED (FLO). Both can give you wider fields with a
reducer/corrector that costs around 150.
High magnification, low price, low portability.
A long-tube refractor will do all that. Currently, for less than 140 you can get the Skywatcher
Evostar 90 AZ, complete with the AZ3 mount, eyepieces, erect diagonal (e.g. Amazon, FLO).
Wide-field, low price, portability. Possibly high-magnification non-photographic use.
A short-tube refractor fits the bill. You will have to live with the discussed chromatic aberration, but if
you cant afford an apochromatic there is not much you can do. High-magnification is not the
recommended usage, but some people might prefer it for high-mag visual usage over a Mak for
reasons previously analyzed. A popular model is the Skywatcher StarTravel 102 packaged with
AZ3 mount/eyepieces diagonal for less than 200 at FLO. If you would like it for astronomical

usage as well, it comes with a Synscan computerized mount (around 300 at Amazon or FLO),
while the equivalent Celestron Nexstar 102 SLT is a bit more expensive ( Amazon). Now, if you
want something still bigger, the larger brother is the Skywatcher StarTravel 120 (250 complete
package at Amazon or FLO), while, on the other hand, for something smaller you can look at the
Skywatcher StarTravel 80 (120 package at Amazon).
High magnification, portable. Better for photography.
The Maksutovs disadvantages have been discussed. It will offer the least wide-angle views of all
types of telescopes and is better for photographs where you can adjust contrast/saturation than
visual use, but the advantages for price/aperture and portability are there. First of all you can get
one that is sold directly for terrestrial use (includes erect diagonal and finderscope) like the
Celestron C90 (around 150 from Amazon or FLO). Skywatcher has the Skymax 90 (Amazon),
102 (FLO), 127 (FLO) and 150 (FLO), which are cheap but dont include the erect prism. If you
would like astronomical use as well, you should go for the computerized models: Celestron
NexStar 90SLT (Amazon) or Celestron NexStar 127SLT (Amazon). Lastly, if you want something
really small, there is the cute little Celestron C70 (Amazon).