This site introduces you to the design and characteristics of the refractor. Hopefully after you read this, you'll have some idea if it's the right telescope for you.

If you're already sure a refractor is right for you, shop with this astro-customized search engine:

Custom Search

If you want to learn more about refractors, read on.

The Refractor Telescope Design The oldest and easiest to understand telescope type is the refractor. Used since the early 1600's, the refractor consists of an objective (the imaging forming element) at the front of the telescope, and an eyepiece at the rear.

Mousing over the above telescope images shows a ray trace diagram of a refractor. The objective lens (right side of picture) converges incoming light into a focused image.

It's common for a modern refractor to also have a diagonal mirror (left side of image) that reflects the converging rays into an eyepiece for more convenient viewing. Refractors with such a diagonal (called a star diagonal) see an image that is rightside up, but reversed left to right.

Shown: 50mm Jaegers Refractor on Pipe Fitting Mount The original refractor telescopes used a single piece of glass for the objective that caused horrible chromatic aberration (color dispersion). In an effort to reduce this distortion, some of the old refractors were made exceedingly long, over 100 feet. Increasing the focal length of the telescope causes the converging rays to come together at a much shallower angle, making the critical focus region wider. This reduces the chromatic aberration caused by the different colors coming to focus at different focal points. Most modern telescopes, like the one shown here, use an objective made of two tailor made pieces of glass. Such telescopes are called achromats.

The modern refractor telescope has a number of features making it desirable. One is that the refractor requires minimal maintenance. Keeping the lenses covered when not in use, and very occasionally cleaning the objective surface is all that's required. Unlike reflectors, refractors never need to be re-aligned.

Refractors also give the highest contrast images, making them very good for planetary observing. This is because refractors have a clear light path from objective to eyepiece. Most reflector designs necessarily have a secondary mirror in the light path to deliver the image to the eyepiece. Because of the clear light path available in refractors, they give star images uncluttered by the spikes prevalent in many types of reflector telescopes.

Refractors tend to give steadier images. This is for a number of reasons, including that fact that the telescope tube is closed at both ends, preventing air moving in the light path. Also, there's an averaging effect because the light travels through multiple elements.

So why doesn't everyone use refractors? For the amateur astronomer, the biggest reason is cost. Sizes of 4 inches diameter or bigger begin to cost in the thousands of dollars. Because the achromat works best at long focal ratios, the larger refractors are also very heavy and unwieldy.

However, if the low maintenance and steady images, especially for planetary viewing, is what you crave, a refractor is an excellent telescope. If you are just starting out, the long time standard 60mm refractor is a great choice. You'll be able to see more with a bigger scope of another variety, but the simplicity of using a refractor will increase the likelihood that your first telescope won't end up quickly in a garage sale.

If you're pretty sure a refractor is right for you, I suggest you examine the following table to see what kind of telescopes work best for different kinds of observing..

Telescope/Observing Preference Table

Use this astro-customized search to browse some excellent telescope vendors.

Custom Search

Some Personal Notes

A few years ago I was going through a transition in telescopes, having finally given away an 8 inch Dob I'd had for 20 years. While shopping for a replacement, I spent a season with only a 50mm refractor to use for my astronomy hobby. It was really a fun season. I had a small equatorial mount from another scope, and it had a clock drive to which I'd added a fast/slow control. The 50mm and tripod could be easily carried around, so I could leave the unit assembled. In ten minutes I could carry it out, set it in place, and be observing. Within 15 minutes, the optics would cool to the point of providing good images. I was able to observe some Mars features on a 17 arc-second sized planet -- I was amazed. I also got some good Saturn observing that year. The rings were easily visible, but I could not make out the Cassini division with this instrument. That kind of convenience is what's available with a modest sized refractor.

Download My Latest Novel

My own experience is that images are at their best through a quality refractor. I once bought a Bushnell 60mm refractor that was on sale. Bushnell telescopes have many critics. I found, as one writer had commented, that the optics on the inexpensive instrument were actually quite good. It gave fine star images. As with most inexpensive telescopes, it used the small 0.975 inch eyepieces, which are usually a form of Kellner. They aren't bad, the main objection is that there's a much smaller selection of these eyepieces available.

The issue I had with the bargain telescope was the inadequate mount. At higher magnifications, the slightest touch or breeze would start vibrations that seemed to take forever to die out. That's something to keep in mind if you are bargain hunting -- don't get a telescope with too flimsy a mount. Or, if you're handy with tools, replace a flimsy mount with a sturdy pipe fitting mount as shown in the 50mm image (see how to build a sturdy tripod).