kevenh
Free Member
The reflectors (mirrors) are usually said to be cheaper to make then refractors (glass lens).The only point I would add to 'Kevenh' post above is the secondary mirror of the reflector blocks some of the light coming into the tube which reduces the effective aperture. In telescopes with 5” or less aperture the refractor is typically considered to have about a 1-inch advantage. This means that a 5” reflector and a 4” refractor would be considered about equal in light gathering ability, a key measure of the power of a telescope.
That means when compared together by cost you are matching larger reflectors to the similar priced refractors. That's from the comparison links in the earlier post.
I didn't go that route for my change in telescope so can only say that the above summary is generalised.
For ~20yr I had a Celestron Firstscope 80 EQ refractor. It's a 900mm tube on a bulky Equatorial Mount. I enjoy looking at sunspots & the moon. Anything else in my backyard is optimistic.
I got a blury views of the Mars solar caps once.
But it stays in the garage too much.
Last year I used some of a work bonus to get a new scope I would get out of the garage more often and would be more portable for use on motor home trips A Celestron nexstar SE 8.
It is easier to get out of the garage to use. The weather has been pants though. And trips in the motorhome to use it have been zero.
Maybe I got up sold though. The a Celestron nexstar SE 6 would be a little smaller & OK in my backyard.