Refractor or reflector, which shows more?

The Newtonian reflector, for the same money: two to three times the aperture, so three to seven times the light. An 80 mm refractor costs what a 150 mm Newtonian does.

Is a refractor easier than a reflector?

It has nothing to adjust and travels without care. A Newtonian needs collimating now and then, five minutes once you know how. On a Dobsonian base it is, on the other hand, easier to point than most refractors on their tripod.

Which refractor for a city balcony?

An 80–90 mm on an alt-azimuth mount, or a 90–127 mm Maksutov. For the Moon and planets, which light pollution does not spoil. Budget €250–400 for a mount that does not shake.

70/700 refractor or 130/650 Newtonian?

The 130/650 on a tabletop base, without hesitation: three and a half times the light, a steady base, €200–250. The €119 70/700 has a tripod that shakes; it is the telescope that gets sold in February.

Why do astrophotographers use refractors?

Because a sensor can expose for minutes and does not need aperture, and a short refractor is light, adjustment-free, and easy for a motorised mount to carry. The budget then goes into the mount, not the tube.

Guide · Updated 30 August 2026

Refractor or reflector for a first telescope?

A refractor and a reflector do the same job: gather light and concentrate it into an eyepiece. The difference that matters to a beginner is one number. For the same money, the reflector (a Newtonian on a Dobsonian base) gives two to three times the aperture. The rest of this page is about when that number decides, and the two situations where it does not.

The short answer

To see as much as possible for €200–450: a Newtonian on a Dobsonian base. A 130 mm tabletop at €200–250, a 150 mm floor-standing at €300–400. A refractor at the same price is 70 to 90 mm.
On a city balcony, mainly for the Moon and planets: an 80–90 mm refractor or a 90–127 mm Maksutov on an alt-azimuth mount. Compact, nothing to adjust, a sharp and steady image.
For deep-sky photography, one day: a small 72–80 mm ED refractor on a motorised equatorial mount. But that is no longer a first instrument, it is a first lens.
In every case, no 60–70 mm refractor at €99 on a light tripod, and no 114 or 130 mm Newtonian on an EQ1/EQ2 equatorial. The tube is not the problem; what carries it is.

The advisor decides for your sky and your home

What the words mean

A refractor has a lens at the front; you look in from the back, along the axis. A reflector has a mirror at the bottom of the tube and you look in from the side, near the opening. The Newtonian is the simple reflector; the Dobsonian is a Newtonian sitting on a wooden base that turns and tilts, with no tripod. The Maksutov and the Schmidt-Cassegrain are folded reflectors, short, with a glass plate at the front — they behave like a long refractor in a short tube.

The three numbers to read on any of them: the aperture in millimetres, the focal length in millimetres, and their ratio (1200 mm of focal length for 150 mm of aperture is f/8). The magnification printed on the box is not a property of the instrument; it is the focal length divided by an eyepiece's, and it changes when you change the eyepiece.

Aperture per euro

A mirror costs less than a lens of the same diameter, because one surface has to be polished instead of four, and the glass does not need to be perfect all the way through. At €350 that buys a 150 mm Newtonian or an 80 mm refractor. The 150 gathers (150/80)², three and a half times the light, and resolves detail twice as fine. Under a decent sky that is the difference between guessing at a galaxy and seeing it.

80 mm · 56×

Detectable

150 mm · 105×

Recognisable

The Hercules cluster, same eyepiece, same suburban sky: 80 mm refractor on the left, 150 mm Newtonian on the right. At 80 mm it is a grainy patch; at 150 mm the stars separate right to the core.

On the planets the gap is smaller than people expect, because air turbulence caps everyone at about the same place most nights. But it is not zero: the Cassini division in Saturn's ring needs about 100 mm in average air, and the 70 mm refractor will not have it.

80 mm · 93×

Recognisable

150 mm · 175×

Detailed

Saturn in the same two instruments. The 80 mm shows it sharp and small, ring detached; the 150 adds the Cassini division and the belt on the globe, on the nights the air allows.

Compare two instruments on the same target

The two cases where the refractor wins

The balcony. A 150 mm Newtonian is 1.2 m long on its base; on three square metres between a railing and a patio door it does not point at much. An 80 mm refractor on an alt-azimuth mount sits on a photo tripod, comes out in a minute, and sees the Moon and planets as well as a city sky allows — which is very well, because light pollution does not touch the planets.

Zero adjustment. A Newtonian has two mirrors that need aligning now and then (collimation: five minutes with a €20 tool, once you understand it). A refractor has nothing to adjust, ever, and rides in a car boot without complaint. For someone who knows in advance they will not touch a screw, that is a real argument.

The refractor that wins those two cases is an 80–90 mm on a decent alt-azimuth mount, at €250–400. Not the €119 70/700 from the toy aisle: same family, but a shaking tripod turns the best lens in the world into a blurry Moon.

The trap they share

The tube is rarely what disappoints. The mount is: a plastic table tripod under a 60 mm refractor, a small EQ1 equatorial under a 114 mm Newtonian. In both cases the image shakes for seconds after every touch, and at 100× a planet crosses the field in a minute — you spend the evening chasing it. The Dobsonian base does not have this problem because it is heavy, low and gearless. That is why the 150 mm Dobsonian is the most common answer on the forums: not because the Newtonian is a better optic, but because its base is the best mount you can have at that price.

130/900 on EQ2, 150/750 or Dobsonian 150/1200: the Newtonian duel

And for photography?

There the refractor takes the lead again, for other reasons: a small 72–80 mm ED is short, light, needs no collimation, and a sensor does not mind its modest aperture since it can expose for minutes. But the instrument is then a third of the budget; the motorised equatorial mount is half, and you still need the camera. Count €1,200–1,800 for a setup that stands up. If that is the project, start with the guide on the mount, not the tube.

Do you need a GoTo mount?

Questions people ask

Refractor or reflector, which shows more?: The Newtonian reflector, for the same money: two to three times the aperture, so three to seven times the light. An 80 mm refractor costs what a 150 mm Newtonian does.
Is a refractor easier than a reflector?: It has nothing to adjust and travels without care. A Newtonian needs collimating now and then, five minutes once you know how. On a Dobsonian base it is, on the other hand, easier to point than most refractors on their tripod.
Which refractor for a city balcony?: An 80–90 mm on an alt-azimuth mount, or a 90–127 mm Maksutov. For the Moon and planets, which light pollution does not spoil. Budget €250–400 for a mount that does not shake.
70/700 refractor or 130/650 Newtonian?: The 130/650 on a tabletop base, without hesitation: three and a half times the light, a steady base, €200–250. The €119 70/700 has a tripod that shakes; it is the telescope that gets sold in February.
Why do astrophotographers use refractors?: Because a sensor can expose for minutes and does not need aperture, and a short refractor is light, adjustment-free, and easy for a motorised mount to carry. The budget then goes into the mount, not the tube.

Written and maintained by the person behind About.