Televue Ranger 70: Is it a good first scope?
Todd Fiedler
I have been researching the purchase of a telescope for about a year now
and have come to the conclusion that I should buy a high quality first
scope, so that I can use it for a longer period of time.
I live in a relatively a location with a relatively dark sky, Iowa, and
want something fairly portable but of high quality. I have been leaning
towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user opinions first.
Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring? I am
thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
Thanks!
Todd A. Fiedler
tfie...@muscanet.com
Rich N.
A number of people frequently use Prontos and I'm sure
Rangers too. The Ranger is a fine telescope and one
you will be happy to keep even if you catch aperture
fever and get a larger telescope in the future.
If you need to wear eye glasses you will find some
short focal length eyepieces also have short eye relief.
You might consider getting a TV 32 mm plossl for very
wide fields of view and maybe making finding objects
easier.
I think the Ranger is a very good first telescope. It can
double as a spotting scope. With a good set of sky
charts and maybe a narrow band nebulae filter you will
be set for many fun filled hours of observing.
You might want to mount it on something like the Orion SkyView
EQ mount. You can leave the RA clutch set lightly so you
just give the scope a little nudge to track an object.
Rich
Todd Fiedler wrote in message <368BBED6...@muscanet.com>...
Tdcarls
>towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user opinions first.
I've had my Ranger now for about 7 months. Since I got it I've actually
observed more than I would have (I did have a 10" dob). It's portability is
the one thing that really appeals to me. I use my with the TV Upswing mounted
on a video camera tripod and on a GP mount. When it's on the tripod it can
easily be picked up and carried around the yard or outside just for a really
quick look.
The helical focuser is easy to get used to. I have an Orion EZ finder but
very rarely use it as the Ranger gives wide views at low power so it is pretty
easy to find things. I was really impressed at the images of Jupiter and
Saturn this year using the Ranger. Good sharp images. On planets I used 92x
and 130x. Deep sky objects are limited of course by the 70mm aperature. The
first night I had it in mag 6 skies I was amazed at the low power views.
Seeing the double-cluster in Perseus and having the surrounding area included
was different from the 10" dob and it's narrower field of view. After that
night I realized I didn't need the dob anymore. The images were not better
than the 10", but different in the sence that a larger area was seen. A wider
field of view definately made the object appear differently. You won't be
seeing images like you might expect, but you should still enjoy it. I have no
regrets using it as my only scope.
Todd
mik...@my-dejanews.com
Todd Fiedler <tfie...@muscanet.com> wrote:
> Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
> it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring? I am
> thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
> in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
Hi Todd,
I also use my Ranger as my primary 'scope. What it lacks in aperture it makes
up for with extreme portability and ease of use and I get out under the stars
much more often than with my dob or any other scope I've had.
I really do also recommend the 32mm Plossl, though. It gives incredible
binocular wide-field views under dark skies and turns the Ranger into its'
own finderscope. And spend a little bit of money for a good mounting - either
a telepod/panoramic mount or a good Bogen tripod setup.
Good luck!
mike mc
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Matthew and Sally Buynoski
> Hi,
>
> I have been researching the purchase of a telescope for about a year now
> and have come to the conclusion that I should buy a high quality first
> scope, so that I can use it for a longer period of time.
>
> I live in a relatively a location with a relatively dark sky, Iowa, and
> want something fairly portable but of high quality. I have been leaning
> towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user opinions first.
>
> Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
> it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring? I am
> thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
> in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
The Ranger (I have one) is a nice little scope, and tremendously portable.
You can pick it and its tripod up with one hand. The short focal length
gives nice wide views (up to about 3 degrees...not as wide as the Pronto,
of course, but still pretty respectable). It is also very nice for
terrestial use. Yet, as an astronomical scope it is pretty badly
handicapped by its small aperture. It can't equal my 8" SCT on anything.
The closest it comes is on planets (which are bright and thus aperture is
somewhat less important), and even there the bigger scope shows more
details.
Perhaps a Celestron C5 is a worthy contender for your stated objectives. It's
fairly small, but has considerably more aperture than the Ranger (127mm vs.
70mm).
Jim Mueller
>
> In article <368BBED6...@muscanet.com>,
> Todd Fiedler <tfie...@muscanet.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
> > it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring? I am
> > thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
> > in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
>
>
> I also use my Ranger as my primary 'scope. What it lacks in aperture it makes
> up for with extreme portability and ease of use and I get out under the stars
> much more often than with my dob or any other scope I've had.
>
> I really do also recommend the 32mm Plossl, though. It gives incredible
> binocular wide-field views under dark skies and turns the Ranger into its'
> own finderscope. And spend a little bit of money for a good mounting - either
> a telepod/panoramic mount or a good Bogen tripod setup.
>
> Good luck!
>
> mike mc
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
For the same price you can buy a G5, which is a C5 (5" SCT) on a
Celestron CG-3 mount. The CG-3 mount is nothing to brag about but
neither is a bogen tripod, which is typically used for a Ranger.
An Alternate Point Of View
Jim Mueller
--
Jim Mueller
Review Of The Celestron 102HD At:
http://www.globaldialog.com/~webnik/Tel.htm
Chuck Gulker
and a cute scope for sure. The optics were decent. Wide field views were
splendid. For quick backyard viewing on planets and the moon, however,I
found the color unacceptable. The images were so far below my Takahashi
FS78, that I ended up selling the telescope. For a small portable
refractor, I'd go for a Tak FS78, TV 85 or AP Traveler. I'd avoid buying a
new Ranger or Pronto if your interest is middle to high power double star,
planets or lunar observing. The views just didn't impress me and I became
quickly bored.
Chuck
Jeff1844 wrote in message <19981231215100...@ng141.aol.com>...
> I used to own an 8" SCT and now own a TV Pronto and use it exclusively.
The
>one thing it for sure excells at is wide fields--the Ranger gets an
incredible
>3.3 degree fov with the 32 plossl, and portability, ruggedness, ease of use
are
>very high too.
> The one thing I would add is get a 7 Nagler as soon as possible with it
for
>your medium power, and with a 2x barlow for high power--also get a telepod
or
>panoramic mount. Pocono has some nice packages that you might want to
check on
>too.
>
>Jeff Charles
Paul Rest
wouldn't have given up the 10" Dob! While a small aperture, wide field
refractor is undoubtlably a great scope, especially one made by TV,
nothing beats big aperture for DSO's. I think it would have been better
to use the Ranger as your primary, portable, quick-grab-and-go scope but
then keep the Dob for those times you really wanted to catch the as much
light as possible. Just my humble opinion, but I am a deep sky nut.
Clear skies.
-Paul
Tdcarls <tdc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I have been leaning towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user
> >opinions first.
>
Jeff1844
Jeff1844
You are partly right--for globular clusters certainly mediocre big optics win
out every time over very fine but small optics, but "deep space objects"
involve a lot more than faint fuzzies--thousands of double stars are in the
range of a Ranger and the scope cools quickly and is perfectly collimated and
has a wide fov to find them with.
Some variable stars requre wide fields of views--especially brighter ones
just below binocular range--there is a range of magnitudes that a Ranger would
handle better than larger scopes, although larger scopes can go after fainter
variables than a Ranger can--each scope is suited to a certain class of them.
The open clusters are dazzling in these scopes and there are dozens of them,
and a 3.3 degree field of a Ranger and 32 plossl can get some dramatic rich
field viewing in too.
Not to mention sunspots with full aperture filter and the moon with a good
atlas, etc., there is a lifetime of observing targets well suited to this
scope. The trick is not to take over someone's "big dob" target list--a scope
like the Ranger or Pronto that I have has unique characteristics and will be
optimal for different targets than larger scopes--but there are a lifetimes
worth of those targets.
Jeff1844
optics as the Ranger)--it can achieve the Dawes limit of 1.65"--did it exactly
on 1.66" Gamma Virginis last month--(Gamma is closing 0.012" per month so it
will become a more difficult target as time goes on as it closes). Had a tough
time on a couple of them--especially Theta Auriga, but these scopes are great
for the thousands of double stars that are in their range.
I also am getting an observing program going for AAVSO that is optimized for
binoculars and the Pronto and there are many hundreds of variables that fit the
bill here too--more than I will ever be able to keep track of.
What eyepiece did you use? I find the color in the Pronto hardly noticeable
with the TV eyepieces.
Your list of "better scopes" is probably right in a lot of ways...but what
price range are the scopes you listed to compare with--the Ranger starts at
$630 or so for a new OTA with diagonal and plossl eyepiece included--don't know
about the Tak 78, the TV-85 $1800 or so, the AP traveler I've heard quoted at
$2400 minus diagonal or eyepiece or anything--thats just the OTA.
The Ranger is either an ultra portable scope, combination
guidescope/finderscope for some folks, or is a "poor man's Televue" for lots of
folks, but I have no difficulty recommending it for people who are looking for
its qualities.
joey...@tcol.net
travel scope. I've got a 12.5" f4.8 and a Pronto. The 70mm refractor is
nice for low power views of large objects.... but as a first scope, I think
you will find a larger aperature would be a better choice. I've had my
Pronto about two years now and just moved up to a TV 101.
Todd Fiedler <tfie...@muscanet.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been researching the purchase of a telescope for about a year now
> and have come to the conclusion that I should buy a high quality first
> scope, so that I can use it for a longer period of time.
>
> I live in a relatively a location with a relatively dark sky, Iowa, and
> want something fairly portable but of high quality. I have been leaning
> towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user opinions first.
>
> Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
> it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring? I am
> thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
> in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
>
> Thanks!
> Todd A. Fiedler
> tfie...@muscanet.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Chuck Gulker
noticeable with the TV eyepieces. >>
TV Plossls, Pentax SMC Orthos, TV 1.8x Barlow. While surely not terrible by
any means, for me it was too much. I've been spoiled by the much better
color correction of my Tak FS78 and AP 5.1 EDT telescopes. I do not like
purple color fringing on the brighter stars, Jupiter, Venus, to an extend
Saturn, and for sure the limb of the moon. To some, this is not an issue.
I think it would become more of an issue, however, after a person views
through an effectively color-free refractor at high power. For some, the
scope would end up on AstroMart with "FS: Televue Pronto".
I also found the light grasp a tad short for the type of quick backyard
observing I enjoy. A minimum of a 3 inch seems to much better hit the small
aperture refractor 'sweet spot'.....again in my judgement.
Chuck
Tdcarls
really wanted to catch the as much light as possible. Just my humble opinion,
but I am a deep sky nut.
I sort of considered that but the fact my deep sky spots are at my outlaws
place which is 2 1/2 hours north of Toronto factored into getting rid of the
dob too. I figured that if I go up there 20 times of the year at least half
of those times are cloudy. Then half of those remaining times would have some
moon interference. So why keep the dob when I would be able to use it to it's
potential maybe only be a few times a year? Light pollution where I live is
heavy so it's not being used to its best where I live either. Plus I know
someone up there who has a 10" SCT who I go out with at least one night of the
weekend while I'm there. The two scopes then give us good different views of
things.
Todd
Todd Fiedler
thread and through personal messages, to my quest for a high-quality
beginner's scope.
While I am sure that the Ranger would be an excellent first -- and long term
scope for me, I have decided, based upon the opinions of many here, to look
at a 5" or 8" SCT from Meade or Celestron.
I will end up spending about twice as much money but I think I may end up
with much more viewable sky and a long usable lifespan. At least until I am
sufficiently skilled to convince myself that I should spend 5 or 6 grand on
that expensive refractor from Takahashi or Televue.
Once again, thanks!
Todd A. Fiedler
tfie...@muscanet.com
Chuck Gulker
own 5 telescopes with two more on the way, I would have probably kept the
telescope. You surely got an excellent condition/good optics Ranger and I
am glad you are enjoying it! The animal pictures you sent me were rather
amazing through it I must admit. I sent them on to a club friend who said
"splendid".
Next time you get to Columbus, give me a call or e-mail me. We'll set up a
bunch of scopes in my backyard and conduct a shootout.
PS: I'm about to e-mail you a squirrel picture taken by a friend here in
our club.
Take care and keep on observing.
Chuck
Chuck Gulker
suited for what you primarily bought it for.......that being terrestrial
viewing/photography (you are a photography professor) with an occasional
glimpse to the night sky. As I recall, you bought the Ranger mainly as a
camera telephoto lens substitute. A great match for your hobby. Again, I
am happy you are finding the Ranger good for astronomical viewing as well!
Chuck
William Schneider wrote in message ...
>Hi Chuck! I bought your Ranger from you last month, and have some
>observations about a Ranger from a first-time scope buyer's perspective.
William Schneider
observations about a Ranger from a first-time scope buyer's perspective.
I see the color that you mention, but for a first-time user like me it isn't
objectionable (yet). I don't mind if the moon has a subtle purple glow when
the rest of it takes my breath away. I don't notice the color at all on
Jupiter probably because I wasn't looking for it. And my wife saw Saturn's
rings and proclaimed that they looked "like a postcard".
A first time user is going to be so excited about what they CAN see that
they won't bother with the annoyances -- at least for a while. While I
admire first-class optics like those on your Takahashi, the expense for a
first-time user is overwhelming. The Ranger gives a first-time buyer time to
appreciate the sky while the appetite develops for other instruments.
Here are the reasons why I decided on a Ranger for my first scope (and ended
up buying yours):
1) the price was reasonable, especially used.
2) it is a fairly high-quality instrument for the money.
3) it makes a great spotting scope in the daytime. (The wife requested it
today to view squirrels in a nest).
4) it makes an inexpensive telephoto lens for daytime use. (You saw some of
the results).
5) it's small.
I think that the Ranger is a fine first scope.
Bill Schneider
Athens, OH
Jeff1844
puts it up against much more expensive scopes like a 4" Tak and against cheaper
scopes like the Celestron 80 WA and such, but always keeps prices and such in
perspective. His page is worth a read for anyone whether buying a scope or
not--I got a chuckle quite a few times in it:
Its at www.scopereviews.com
It is sponsored by a commercial organization of some kind--there is a link to
a scope company and I though Tak sponsored it too--not sure--but he does not
seem biased and its lots of fun.
Peace,
Jeff
VMI1983
>
>Hmm, well everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I certainly
>wouldn't have given up the 10" Dob!
Hey I gave up my 10" dob for a Ranger and
I never looked back!!! C.S.
Matt
Oldfield So
> I have been researching the purchase of a telescope for about a year now
> and have come to the conclusion that I should buy a high quality first
> scope, so that I can use it for a longer period of time.
Same here.
> I live in a relatively a location with a relatively dark sky, Iowa, and
> want something fairly portable but of high quality. I have been leaning
> towards the Televue Ranger but wanted some end-user opinions first.
If you're living in a relatively dark sky, you can get a large instrument,
right?
> Does anyone use this particular scope for most of their viewing and will
> it be adequate to learn the skies and do some quality exploring?
Other than the C90, I've only the Ranger. After getting the Ranger, I
nearly forget my C90. Yes, I'm very happy with the Ranger and it
continues to give me enjoyable viewing time. :)
> I am
> thinking of outfitting it with a Televue 2x barlow and an 8mm eyepiece
> in addition to the 20mm it comes with.
Try to consider the Powermates instead, they're parfocal in the Ranger.
If I were to buy eyepieces/barlow again, I would get a 32mm, a 20mm and a
5x Powermate (15x,24x,75x,120x).
Best Regards,
Oldfield So
--
Oldfield K.Y. SO | ky...@cse.cuhk.eduDOThk | http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~kyso
tfla...@my-dejanews.com
Todd Fiedler <tfie...@muscanet.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to thank everyone that has contributed, both through this
> thread and through personal messages, to my quest for a high-quality
> beginner's scope.
>
> While I am sure that the Ranger would be an excellent first -- and long term
> scope for me, I have decided, based upon the opinions of many here, to look
> at a 5" or 8" SCT from Meade or Celestron.
Nine chances out of ten, this is the right decision, especially if you
go all the way and get an 8" SCT. The 5" models seem fine in their place,
but you clearly get less for your money than with the 8" models.
After you have added up the cost of a mount, plus the fancier eyepieces
that you would need due to its short focal length, I think that you would
find that a Ranger would cost very nearly as much as a bottom-of-the-line
8" SCT, and that's without trying to match the SCT's motor drive. And
there is no question that a decent 8" SCT will give vastly better images
of the planets, and even more vastly better images of deep-sky objects,
excepting only the ones that don't fit in its field of view.
However, I will give one plug for the Ranger, which was (effectively)
my first telescope. Because of its super-wide field of view, a Ranger
is ideally suited to learning the tricky skill of star-hopping. I think
that it is very likely that you would learn the sky more quickly using
a Ranger than using an 8" SCT.
--
- Tony Flanders
Cambridge, MA