Different... but it's still a Bushnell!
Written: Jan 27 '02
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Easily transported, lightweight, gives a large field of view
Cons: Accompanying eyepieces are of poor quality, no finderscope makes stargazing difficult
The Bottom Line: Bushnell has always been known for 'hobby-killer' telescopes. The Voyager is a step above, but it needs a leap. Spend some more money for a Celestron or Meade.
|
|
|
| indyantilles's Full Review: Bushnell Voyager 100x4.5 in. Reflector Telescope |
I bought this at the tail end of last summer, when my obssession with astronomy hit it's peak. The only telescope I had access to was my father's thirty year old off-brand refractor, which was very wobbly and difficult to control. I began my search for a low cost telescope that would provide better views and would be quick and easy to set up.
One of the main attractions of the Bushnell Voyager was the decent-sized aperture (i.e. the size of the mirror which gathers and reflects light). Most beginner scopes have a small 60mm lens, which is barely adequate in the city, where I stargaze the most; if you want to view really dim objects, you need more light. For $150, the Bushnell afforded the greatest size aperture for the price.
In addition, I like the Bushnell because it is easy to transport: it weighs only 11 lbs. and comes with a shoulder strap to carry it from the backyard to deep within a dark secluded woodlands. You can either place the scope in your lap, or use the accompanying three-legged 'tripod' to hold it. The ball-and-socket design allows you to quickly turn the telescope at any point in the sky you please.
All that sounds good, but in practice it falls apart. The ball-and-socket design makes it nearly impossible to mount a finderscope, which I feel is essential to help find celestial objects. It shouldn't take me ten minutes to find the Moon, and it is nearly impossible to find really dim objects without a lot of practice and patience. Furthermore, the telescope is very loose when placed in the tripod (especially on muggy nights), making it difficult to keep pointed at your target.
What really kills this telescope more than anything else, though, are the lousy eyepieces that are included with it. They are partially plastic and look and feel cheap, and perform comparably. Even the so-called 'Plossl' eyepiece, usually a quality design, has an astigmatism, making it annoying to use-- is that Mars over there, or a bright star?
I still have it-- it rests comfortably in the dark recesses of my closet. Within a month of purchasing this, I bought another, cheaper Celestron telescope that performs much better. I only bring the Bushnell out occasionally for shots at the Moon.
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
indyantilles
|
|
Reviews written: 5
Trusted by: 0 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.