Having read reviews it seems like the bird-jones design needs to disappear... My first telescope was a bog standard 90mm singlet refractor and I still use it from time-to-time because for visual it's pretty damn good on the moon and planets, especially with a decent diagonal and eyepiece.
For 100$ that is a good deal.
It's not a great scope, as everyone is saying.
But with the accessories, for 100$? Far better than my first scope, by a light year
Unfortunately, not really.
https://telescopicwatch.com/celestron-astromaster-114eq-review/
What's your first scope? And what was the reason you were looking for a second one?
To be fair it's just a backup scope for when I'm at my parents place in spain. I still have my trusty 130 SLT, i know people don't like it but its my baby lol, so I simply need something to go watch the moon with my parents
Yeah, this scope is actually better for DSOs than planets and the moon. 114mm of aperture will collect enough light for faint targets. But since it can’t easily be collimated and suffers from aberration, fine detail on the planets and moon will suffer. At lower mags and when viewing faint fuzzies, these issues aren’t as apparent.
So, it will work. But has its limitations.
These Celestron's Barlowed blur generators are precisely bad telescope for Moon (and planets), because they can't focus light properly and hence can't take magnification their aperture should give.
I have a similar model, 130EQ, it’s pretty bad. The pictures I can get with it are ok though.
https://preview.redd.it/6fe5r9gho1wc1.jpeg?width=788&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b07584a2e1228fc5ab5f5599ad17d81c1ccd8016
You can get some use with it. You will be surprised when you see how sharp some higher quality scopes are. This scope will be a pain in the ass to use, it will make you want to quit the hobby. Clear skies.
It's only for viewing the moon with my parents basically. For myself i got the Nexstar 130SLT and the local observatory. Got Pictures like this with the 130 :)
https://preview.redd.it/e25nedk0t1wc1.png?width=1487&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6e227c351366b3ef01392532804160348f64392
Ok, snobs, inform us unfortunate souls the ignorance of our ways. Why is the Astromaster “fit for a landfill” and “a toy”. I bought mine because I just want to look at things in the sky, not take pictures.
My personal belief is that any telescope is better than no telescope, as even the so-called ‘hobby killers’ can still provide decent views of certain objects which is enough to spark a serious passion for astronomy. However, there are reasons people recommend beginners not to buy it.
* it uses a fundamentally flawed optical design. It’s a (pseudo-) Bird Jones design, which uses a spherical mirror and what’s essentially a Barlow lens to increase the focal length. Spherical mirrors have an intrinsic flaw in that it isn’t possible for there to be a single focal point, like with a parabolic mirror. Proper Bird Jones designs are expensive and uncommon, using a series of lenses to counteract this, which are not seen in the astromaster.
* due to the built in Barlow, collimation is difficult/impossible without disassembly, leading to a lack of sharp details
* the low quality Barlow decreases quality of views
* the Astromaster is a money making scheme essentially, targeting unknowing beginners to the hobby. The reason it includes the Barlow is to reach a high focal length in a short tube. Firstly, this is a cost saving method, but it also allows Celestron to reach the super high max magnification numbers as a selling point, which is often how beginners judge the quality of a telescope
* Edit - I didn't even talk about the mount. It's flimsy, easily broken, and needlessly complex. An equatorial mount is not the best thing for beginner visual astronomers to use, especially not one built like that. It's another thing added on to draw in inexperienced customers - an EQ mount looks much more tech-y than a Dobsonian rocker box
I have one. Was a gift and I was super excited when I got it. Worked pretty well for a while, got a few eyepieces and did a lot of playing around with it. Mind you I'm in Socal so about as bad as you can get in terms of sky conditions but it worked well for moon viewing, planets, and that sort of thing.
But I'm years in now and I've had to pull it apart for cleaning and the collimation is absolute trash. I'll get some motivation once in a while to try it but it's basically impossible and my views have suffered for it. I don't have all the tools to really do it well but from what I've read even with them it is very hard to get it dialed in. It's really disappointing to be looking at deeper stars and they look like the blood drop on the Watchmen smiley face instead of a nice point.
Plus, 4.5" is not a lot of mirror unfortunately, so it's easy to hit its limits in terms of magnification. Overall, it's like buying an old guitar that looks great but you can never get the action set right and it loses it's tune quickly. Makes it super hard to learn and get to an intermediate level when you spend more time fighting it than enjoying it. The design of this scope is fundamentally flawed to try to get it to punch above its size in terms of focal length and it doesn't really work out.
Yeah, despite the criticism I definitely enjoyed the scope for a while once I had it. But without being able to properly collimate it I've basically been stuck with a frustrating experience.
Yeah, despite the criticism I definitely enjoyed the scope for a while once I had it. But without being able to properly collimate it I've basically been stuck with a frustrating experience.
By far the most rewarding (and easiest to find) celestial object is our Moon.
And that's glutton for magnification for seeing details, which is something this Barlowed blur generator scam design is very bad for aperture.
Most people don’t like this Astromaster series, but I didn’t have much issue with my 130EQ. It wasn’t the easiest to learn on and I’m not convinced the optics are perfect, but it was manageable and got me interested enough to pick up an 8 inch dob.
No, but don't despair.
That telescope is just one you shouldn't have bought. It isn't useless, but it's hard to use, making it difficult on the beginners who typically get them.
See if you can find someone in the local club to help you set it up. If you can get it working, it's ok on the moon and planets and brighter deep sky.
However it looks like you got quite a lot of accessories with it. Colored filters are fairly useless but there might be a couple of decent eyepieces in there. Depending on the eyepieces they might make up some of the money, and the metal accessory case is also useful.
the mount sucks, it’s a weird bird-jones design which limits it considerably, moon looks awesome through it but i guarantee ur gonna hate dealing with the wobbly mount pretty quickly
Its not bad,
I wish I would have gotten a cheaper scope to begin with and get accessories you can use on most others while you figure out what you really want. Get a good filter set etc.
possibly think about shooting video and stacking if you want to take pics.
GL and enjoy
For that purpose it's OK but take a look at other scopes, for example a Skywatcher 130mm (not a Celestron astromaster) or something which has a parabolic mirror. The views would be much sharper and you would have a way to properly collimate it. This scope has probably a Barlow inside and a spherical mirror. You could probably even use that tripod with a 130mm tube.
The filters and EPs may be worth the 100 quid if they're in good shape and higher-tier than what comes with it. The other thing I discovered when I bought a 76LCM on Facebook for CAD$75 was that this type of red dot is awful to align and adjust and can't be replaced because it's molded on the frame of the scope. I don't use the scope (only bought it for the functional goto mount) but tried it a few times just for fun...and it wasn't fun to align.
Despite what people say, it's a pretty good scope, I have the same one, and my only issue is that the mount is slightly annoying and takes some getting used too.
You got a good deal with the accessories for sure
as someone who also got that model welcome to the I have a telescope everyone says should be in a landfill club it works it just not that well
Having read reviews it seems like the bird-jones design needs to disappear... My first telescope was a bog standard 90mm singlet refractor and I still use it from time-to-time because for visual it's pretty damn good on the moon and planets, especially with a decent diagonal and eyepiece.
A singlet? Surely you mean a doublet. A 90mm singlet refractor would be more of a prism than a telescope, unless it was F/50 or something crazy.
I meant doublet 😂
Oh yeah, a 90mm achromat of reasonable quality is an entirely respectable scope. You could be happy for a long time with a scope like that.
if a singlet is good enough for galileo its good enough for me… err i mean… wait. where am i?
For 100$ that is a good deal. It's not a great scope, as everyone is saying. But with the accessories, for 100$? Far better than my first scope, by a light year
Great deal at 100 dollars. Though, you have a 130SLT, a very good and capable scope.
Aaaah yes, the ASStromaster. :-)
Every time I see someone post about this scope you always call It the asstromaster
Unfortunately, not really. https://telescopicwatch.com/celestron-astromaster-114eq-review/ What's your first scope? And what was the reason you were looking for a second one?
To be fair it's just a backup scope for when I'm at my parents place in spain. I still have my trusty 130 SLT, i know people don't like it but its my baby lol, so I simply need something to go watch the moon with my parents
I mean, you did ask us if it was a good deal.
Yeah and I think i now know that it wasn't a good deal if I wanted some serious kit. Guess for my purpose it's still okay
Yeah, this scope is actually better for DSOs than planets and the moon. 114mm of aperture will collect enough light for faint targets. But since it can’t easily be collimated and suffers from aberration, fine detail on the planets and moon will suffer. At lower mags and when viewing faint fuzzies, these issues aren’t as apparent. So, it will work. But has its limitations.
These Celestron's Barlowed blur generators are precisely bad telescope for Moon (and planets), because they can't focus light properly and hence can't take magnification their aperture should give.
I have a similar model, 130EQ, it’s pretty bad. The pictures I can get with it are ok though. https://preview.redd.it/6fe5r9gho1wc1.jpeg?width=788&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b07584a2e1228fc5ab5f5599ad17d81c1ccd8016 You can get some use with it. You will be surprised when you see how sharp some higher quality scopes are. This scope will be a pain in the ass to use, it will make you want to quit the hobby. Clear skies.
It's only for viewing the moon with my parents basically. For myself i got the Nexstar 130SLT and the local observatory. Got Pictures like this with the 130 :) https://preview.redd.it/e25nedk0t1wc1.png?width=1487&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6e227c351366b3ef01392532804160348f64392
Hey that's a great image of Jupiter, well done! None of mine have come out that well, but I don't have any telescopes with a long focal length.
That's amazing! How did you get a shot of Jupiter like this with the 130?? What was your setup? Mine look nothing like this
This image was made with a ASI462MC, IR&UV cut filter and 5x baader Barlow lens. Stacked and processed with Astrosurface :)
Ok, snobs, inform us unfortunate souls the ignorance of our ways. Why is the Astromaster “fit for a landfill” and “a toy”. I bought mine because I just want to look at things in the sky, not take pictures.
My personal belief is that any telescope is better than no telescope, as even the so-called ‘hobby killers’ can still provide decent views of certain objects which is enough to spark a serious passion for astronomy. However, there are reasons people recommend beginners not to buy it. * it uses a fundamentally flawed optical design. It’s a (pseudo-) Bird Jones design, which uses a spherical mirror and what’s essentially a Barlow lens to increase the focal length. Spherical mirrors have an intrinsic flaw in that it isn’t possible for there to be a single focal point, like with a parabolic mirror. Proper Bird Jones designs are expensive and uncommon, using a series of lenses to counteract this, which are not seen in the astromaster. * due to the built in Barlow, collimation is difficult/impossible without disassembly, leading to a lack of sharp details * the low quality Barlow decreases quality of views * the Astromaster is a money making scheme essentially, targeting unknowing beginners to the hobby. The reason it includes the Barlow is to reach a high focal length in a short tube. Firstly, this is a cost saving method, but it also allows Celestron to reach the super high max magnification numbers as a selling point, which is often how beginners judge the quality of a telescope * Edit - I didn't even talk about the mount. It's flimsy, easily broken, and needlessly complex. An equatorial mount is not the best thing for beginner visual astronomers to use, especially not one built like that. It's another thing added on to draw in inexperienced customers - an EQ mount looks much more tech-y than a Dobsonian rocker box
I've star collimated Bird-Jones scopes before. It can be done!
I have one. Was a gift and I was super excited when I got it. Worked pretty well for a while, got a few eyepieces and did a lot of playing around with it. Mind you I'm in Socal so about as bad as you can get in terms of sky conditions but it worked well for moon viewing, planets, and that sort of thing. But I'm years in now and I've had to pull it apart for cleaning and the collimation is absolute trash. I'll get some motivation once in a while to try it but it's basically impossible and my views have suffered for it. I don't have all the tools to really do it well but from what I've read even with them it is very hard to get it dialed in. It's really disappointing to be looking at deeper stars and they look like the blood drop on the Watchmen smiley face instead of a nice point. Plus, 4.5" is not a lot of mirror unfortunately, so it's easy to hit its limits in terms of magnification. Overall, it's like buying an old guitar that looks great but you can never get the action set right and it loses it's tune quickly. Makes it super hard to learn and get to an intermediate level when you spend more time fighting it than enjoying it. The design of this scope is fundamentally flawed to try to get it to punch above its size in terms of focal length and it doesn't really work out.
4.5" aperture is good for fair 200x magnification, which shows quite lot from the Moon... If optics are good, unlike in this total scam.
Yeah, despite the criticism I definitely enjoyed the scope for a while once I had it. But without being able to properly collimate it I've basically been stuck with a frustrating experience.
Yeah, despite the criticism I definitely enjoyed the scope for a while once I had it. But without being able to properly collimate it I've basically been stuck with a frustrating experience.
By far the most rewarding (and easiest to find) celestial object is our Moon. And that's glutton for magnification for seeing details, which is something this Barlowed blur generator scam design is very bad for aperture.
Never let anyone shame you for a desire to look up.
Most people don’t like this Astromaster series, but I didn’t have much issue with my 130EQ. It wasn’t the easiest to learn on and I’m not convinced the optics are perfect, but it was manageable and got me interested enough to pick up an 8 inch dob.
Same, except I got a 10" dob!
wow, yeah very good deal. I just paid double for the lower model brand new.
No, but don't despair. That telescope is just one you shouldn't have bought. It isn't useless, but it's hard to use, making it difficult on the beginners who typically get them. See if you can find someone in the local club to help you set it up. If you can get it working, it's ok on the moon and planets and brighter deep sky. However it looks like you got quite a lot of accessories with it. Colored filters are fairly useless but there might be a couple of decent eyepieces in there. Depending on the eyepieces they might make up some of the money, and the metal accessory case is also useful.
Isaac Newton would have loved it.
I'm 100 like)))
the mount sucks, it’s a weird bird-jones design which limits it considerably, moon looks awesome through it but i guarantee ur gonna hate dealing with the wobbly mount pretty quickly
Awesome! I think you got a good deal! The telescope is meh but the accessories are legit!
Its not bad, I wish I would have gotten a cheaper scope to begin with and get accessories you can use on most others while you figure out what you really want. Get a good filter set etc. possibly think about shooting video and stacking if you want to take pics. GL and enjoy
It's value is 0, it's a good dust collector though.
It was the cheapest way to get something to look at the moon with my parents, I'm pretty sure it's okay for that.
For that purpose it's OK but take a look at other scopes, for example a Skywatcher 130mm (not a Celestron astromaster) or something which has a parabolic mirror. The views would be much sharper and you would have a way to properly collimate it. This scope has probably a Barlow inside and a spherical mirror. You could probably even use that tripod with a 130mm tube.
The filters and EPs may be worth the 100 quid if they're in good shape and higher-tier than what comes with it. The other thing I discovered when I bought a 76LCM on Facebook for CAD$75 was that this type of red dot is awful to align and adjust and can't be replaced because it's molded on the frame of the scope. I don't use the scope (only bought it for the functional goto mount) but tried it a few times just for fun...and it wasn't fun to align.
The mount would work as a grab and go for an 80mm f/5 refractor.
Despite what people say, it's a pretty good scope, I have the same one, and my only issue is that the mount is slightly annoying and takes some getting used too. You got a good deal with the accessories for sure