0
$\begingroup$

Magnification is defined as $f_{objectiv}/f_{ocular}$. If I had the first telescope with the focal length of 500 mm, ocular 10 mm and second telescope with the focal length of 1000 mm, ocular 20 mm, is there a difference between them? Both of them has 50x magnification.

I want to know if there is any difference in the quality of image, etc.

Thank you for all!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you add each telescope's objective diameter (aperture) to the question? $\endgroup$ – Mike G Aug 1 '19 at 14:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ All else being equal (same aperture, same quality of optics) there won't be a difference between them. But long f/ratio (longer focal length with same aperture) does make it easier to fabricate a quality lens/mirror. $\endgroup$ – antlersoft Aug 1 '19 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ @MikeG I am centered only to magnification. $\endgroup$ – User123 Aug 1 '19 at 17:22
2
$\begingroup$

The larger the entrance aperture, the greater the light-collecting capability. Now, you didn't specify that, but that does matter in your final choice.

Next, as the comments suggest, the choice of optics depends on the cost vs. quality trades. You want not only a given magnification but also as little coma, distortion, spherical aberration, and so on. At a very simple (and probably unrealistic) level, the longer lens pair (1000,20) might be easier to fabricate with low aberrations. In real life, we quickly descend into multi-element systems, or cemented doublet designs, and so on.

I'm guessing you are talking about a Keplerian design (two positive lenses), in which case consider how much longer the physical telescope is in the 1000-20 case.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.