Meade Telescope Ngc-70tc 70mm Lens Altazimuth Refractor

21 Comments

1. zonitayate schweek says:

   March 2, 2010 at 1:22 am

   CANON USA WL-37 WL37 WIDE CONVERTER LENS is $62.99 at
2. arnos says:

   March 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm

   Sigma 24-70MM f/2.8 EX DG NIKON FIT – Bournemouth: Lenses – BOXED
3. bunnett naldner says:

   March 4, 2010 at 5:56 pm

   Hot Deal – Sony's SAL1118 DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Zoom Lens for α (alpha) Digital SLR Cameras
4. dugaig says:

   March 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm

   haha yes he does a bit
5. rutt says:

   March 5, 2010 at 7:19 pm

   rt #scifichat Moon stations would be 4 research, telescope arrays, launch pad. My novel THOSE OF MY BLOOD is vampires on moon
6. schmana beationi says:

   March 12, 2010 at 9:30 pm

   thank you =)
7. badden mcmullyn says:

   March 14, 2010 at 3:01 pm

   Human vision is what we call binocular. Each eye captures an image with some overlapping and the brain combines them into one. I guess Nature (Or God, depending on who you talk to) made the first functional version of Photoshop LOL.
   A very good explanation of this concept can be found on Wikipedia, search for Binocular Vision.
   Cheers,
   Ravi
8. dingloie casse says:

   March 17, 2010 at 6:33 pm

   Imaging is probably the most expensive aspect of the hobby of astronomy, so what you're looking for probably doesn't exist.

   For taking pictures of the Moon and Planets, you could get by with something like a Celestron Neximage camera with a laptop and a dobsonian telescope. Orion sells Dobsonians that are reasonably well made, at reasonable prices. The Starblast sells for about $200. You'd be better off with a somewhat larger one that includes a 2" focuser.

   You could add a white light solar filter to the front of a dobsonian and take pictures of sun spots.

   If you want to take photos showing solar prominences, and the granularity of the Sun, the "cheap way" to go is to buy something like a Coronado PST for about $500. You'll need a tripod for it. That scope is only useful for observing the Sun.

   If you want to take photos of deep sky objects, you'll need a telescope that uses an equatorial mount. Inexpensive equatorial mounts are not stable enough for imaging.

   Avoid any telescope that comes in a box that tells you how much power it has. If it says 300 POWER! and you can lift it, it's a toy that will be frustrating to use.

   You'll probably need to spend at least $1,000 to get a suitable mount with a newtonian reflector designed for imaging. Then you'll need a different camera than you need for planets.

   Most people I know who take astronomical images have spent at least $5,000 on their equipment. People who are serious about it often spend several times that.

   My advice is find an astronomical society or club, and attend some meetings, and see what their members have. You might also try attending some "star parties" – these are gatherings of people who are very serious about the hobby, and it's not uncommon to find at least one person at a star party who is imaging.

   Here is a link to some of my images: < >

   This is a link to a photo of Saturn a friend and I took with my equipment: < >

   If you happen to be within a reasonable distance of south western CT you could visit my astronomical society. < >

   Good luck.
9. frang hamatsukel says:

   March 20, 2010 at 6:40 am

   There is no 24-107 mm, I think you meant 24-105 mm.

   Anyway, that one is newer. What do you mean by coding? EOS lenses "talk" to the camera electronically.
10. kidahlinge says:

    March 23, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    TheLadders – Fort Meade, MD – Duties and Responsibilities: Performing multi-source research to identify SCADA system manufacturers, their products’ specifications, and their customers. Performing multi-source research, analysis, and documentation of – $100000 per year
11. arnwellin says:

    March 24, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I presume by "600mm" you mean the focal length, because a scope with 600mm aperture would be one of the largest refractors in the world. Without knowing the scope's aperture, it's not possible to recommend eyepieces.

    [edit] OK, now I see that you're the person who was asking about observing Jupiter with an Orion 120mm f/5 refractor. The Orion 120mm f/8.3 refractor is quite a good instrument, and capable of observing the Moon and planets at up to around 240x, using a minus violet filter. I tested two different SkyWatcher 120mm f/5 refractors (identical to yours) and found that both suffered not only from chromatic aberration, as I expected, but also severe spherical aberration. As a result, they were unusable on Jupiter at anything more than about 80x to 100x, which is too low a magnification to see significant detail. I really wouldn't recommend spending a lot of money on a planetary eyepiece for this scope. If you want to experiment, you might buy a Barlow lens; the Orion 2x Shorty Plus is a really good one. This will double the magnification of your existing eyepieces. Sorry, but your scope really isn't suited to planetary observing. Too bad you didn't buy the f/8.3 version.
12. lexa says:

    March 27, 2010 at 7:30 am

    It is worth no more than $99.00 USD, you can probably get it for less if you shop around.

    This is a middle schooler's telescope.
13. grand says:

    March 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    2009 Bowman Chrome ORANGE REFRACTOR Robert Stock /25 #2009 #collectibles
14. pine born says:

    April 1, 2010 at 8:43 am

    A barlow simply increases the magnification made to an image. It will simply increase the magnification. I prefer to use a shorter mm eyepiece.

    Your telescope is relatively small, so do not expect to see great detail like you would on the moon. The scope is just to small to clearly resolve a high magnification.

    The average "market standard" size telescope is 8 inches.
15. aki bell says:

    April 3, 2010 at 12:45 am

    Hmm…I was going to reccommend Meg Cabot, but I see you've already read her stuff. Have you read all of her series? Many people read just the Princess Diaries books, and they're missing out!! I love the "Mediator" series, the "1-800" series, and the "Boy" series…check out her website:
    http://www.megcabot.com
    Also maybe "Girl at Sea" by Maureen Johnson?
    Annd…some of my favorites are the "Bloody Jack" books by L.A. Meyer…and yes, i know it's a weird title, but these books are totally good! There is some romance and a lot of action… And there are a lot of books in the series, with more to come! The initial premise is that of a girl who disguises herself as a boy in order to gain a station as a ship's boy in the British Royal Navy (early 1800s) …Of course, she ends up falling for one of the sailors, but again, much more action than romance, and a really fun read. These books are:
    1. Bloody Jack
    2. The Curse of the Blue Tattoo
    3. Under the Jolly Roger
    4. In the Belly of the Bloodhound
    5. Mississippi Jack
    6. My Bonny Light Horseman
    7. Rapture of the Deep (out in september)

    Happy reading!!
16. fratura goug says:

    April 4, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    i don't have synthetic lenses(i presume you had cataracts and you had surgery?)
    my eyes hurt very much from the sun, snow,oncoming cars,gosh a lot of stuff hurts my eyes.
    Buy a good comfy sunglasses and wear them all the time !
    what you and i have in common is called photo-sensitivity.
17. overse toten says:

    April 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    Score! Two tickets to The Wall in majestically splendiferous 70mm at The Virginia Theatre at 2010 Ebertfest!