Sorry: Telrad or Rigel

I am convinced that I need one of these. I have an 8" Newt on EQ mount and
it takes me forever to aim at a target. I am good with my charts and know
where things are, but I can't find them in the scope without a lot of
frustration. The finder scope is a pain. I can hardly hug my cannon to see
through the 6x30finder. It's aligned properly. I bought a bigger finder but
haven't installed it. I want to observe. I get so tired of trying to get
things into my FOV!!!!

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Rigel has built in dew shield, built in pulser. Rigel wins then, right? Or
does it?

Please advise so I can get what I need.

Doink

I own a Telrad and love it. I use it as the ONLY finder on both a 10" =
dob and a 4" refractor. I've used Rigels but have never owned one. The =
Telrad just works how i like and feels better somehow to me.=20

-Florian

IMHO Telrad is by far the superior in term of ease
of use, quality of build and quality of" image".
However, it is very heavy in comparison to Rigel,
and for me, for dob balance reasons, I accept the
compromises and use the Rigel! If you do not have
C of G issues go for the Telrad.

Adam


So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad
seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Rigel has built in dew shield, built in pulser.
Rigel wins then, right? Or
does it?

"Doink" wrote in message
...
I am convinced that I need one of these. I have an 8" Newt on EQ mount
and
it takes me forever to aim at a target. I am good with my charts and know
where things are, but I can't find them in the scope without a lot of
frustration. The finder scope is a pain. I can hardly hug my cannon to
see
through the 6x30finder. It's aligned properly. I bought a bigger finder
but
haven't installed it. I want to observe. I get so tired of trying to get
things into my FOV!!!!

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Rigel has built in dew shield, built in pulser. Rigel wins then, right?
Or
does it?

Please advise so I can get what I need.

Doink



I have an 8-inch Dob that came with a 6x30 straight-through finder. I
replaced that with a right-angle finder and added a Telrad. I use both the
Telrad and the finder. I first use the Telrad to get me in the vicinity,
use the finder to center on the crosshair, then go to the eyepiece. In most
cases, the finder is not needed -- I can go straight from the Telrad to the
eyepiece.

One minor annoyance with the Telrad: It mounts low on the scope tube and to
see through it, I must press my cheek onto the scope tube. I have never
seen a Rigel in person but from the pictures it appears to stand up taller
than the Telrad.

Go for the Telrad -- I am quite pleased with mine and would not go back to
life without it.


--
----
JAS

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Also consider a better finderscope with at least 50mm aperture. Make
sure the mount stands high enough off the tube. I used to use a
Telrad all the time when I had a 6x30 finderscope, but since I got a
nice 7x50 I haven't used the Telrad more than once or twice in the
last three years. The Telrad is more comfortable to use, but you
should be aware of the tremendous advantage a good finderscope has in
light gathering and precision.

Ritesh

JAS wrote:

"Doink" wrote in message
...
I am convinced that I need one of these. I have an 8" Newt on EQ mount
and
it takes me forever to aim at a target. I am good with my charts and know
where things are, but I can't find them in the scope without a lot of
frustration. The finder scope is a pain. I can hardly hug my cannon to
see
through the 6x30finder. It's aligned properly. I bought a bigger finder
but
haven't installed it. I want to observe. I get so tired of trying to get
things into my FOV!!!!

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Rigel has built in dew shield, built in pulser. Rigel wins then, right?
Or
does it?

Please advise so I can get what I need.

Doink



I have an 8-inch Dob that came with a 6x30 straight-through finder. I
replaced that with a right-angle finder and added a Telrad. I use both the
Telrad and the finder. I first use the Telrad to get me in the vicinity,
use the finder to center on the crosshair, then go to the eyepiece. In most
cases, the finder is not needed -- I can go straight from the Telrad to the
eyepiece.

One minor annoyance with the Telrad: It mounts low on the scope tube and to
see through it, I must press my cheek onto the scope tube. I have never
seen a Rigel in person but from the pictures it appears to stand up taller
than the Telrad.

Advantages of the Rigel (and I have one on my ETX125):
It's lighter
Takes up less real estate on the main scope's tube
Stands up higher
These latter two really go together. The Rigel is basically
a vertical design while the Telrad is a horizontal one. The
Telrad actually has more surface contact with the main
OTA so may be a bit more inclined to stay aligned.

If any of those are important to you, then the Rigel is
the better choice. If none is of concern, then there's
no difference -- pick the one you like.



Go for the Telrad -- I am quite pleased with mine and would not go back to
life without it.

--
----
JAS

--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
FAX: (781) 271-8500


"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns

"Doink" wrote in message
...

Please advise so I can get what I need.

Doink--

i own and use both regularly. i prefer the image in the Telrad (more eye
relief and an additional bullseye ring), and recommend the Rigel primarily
for very small scopes (st80s, etc). a Telrad should work fine on your 8"
scope. but, a Rigel is a fine product in its own right and, if you prefer
the lower overall price, i'm certain you'll be quite happy with it.

clear, dark skies--

mark d.

"Doink" wrote in message ...
I am convinced that I need one of these. I have an 8" Newt on EQ mount and
it takes me forever to aim at a target. I am good with my charts and know
where things are, but I can't find them in the scope without a lot of
frustration. The finder scope is a pain. I can hardly hug my cannon to see
through the 6x30finder. It's aligned properly. I bought a bigger finder but
haven't installed it. I want to observe. I get so tired of trying to get
things into my FOV!!!!

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Rigel has built in dew shield, built in pulser. Rigel wins then, right? Or
does it?

Please advise so I can get what I need.

Doink

I use a Rigel on all my telescopes (ETX90, 4" and 6" refractors, and
13" and 22" dobs). It's small, light, and the illuminated circles are
at least 4" higher than the telescope barrel or upper ring. The
intensity is variable from bright to none, you can set it to blink at
variable speeds, and the battery seems to last a very long time. It
also comes with two bases.
Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman

So, all that aside. Telrad or Rigel? Telrad seems the standard, Rigel
seems it might be easier on an 8" Newt. (f/5)

Here's a review of the Rigel, with comparisons to the Telrad:

http://www.cloudynights.com/accessories2/rigel.htm

Regards

Dave

Here's another comparative review on the same site I posted earlier:

http://www.cloudynights.com/accessor...geltelrad.html

Regards

Dave