I live in an extremely light polluted place. On a new moon night, magnitude 3.5 stars are at the limit of naked eye visiblity on clear nights, and the Orion nebula is visible as a smudge through my binoculars and I can see 6-7 stars of the Pleaidies (apparent magnitude about 5.5 I guess)

If I buy a 130 mm reflector telescope, roughly what will be the limiting magnitude of the objects I can see?

I used $5log(130/6.5)=6.5$, which means I would be able to see upto about magnitude 10 even from a light polluted city.

This sounds too good to be true...

Is my estimate roughly accurate and do you think spending a few hundred dollars on the telescope is worth it if I never intend to leave the city for a while?


Your calculated estimate may be about correct for the limiting magnitude of stars, but lots of what you might want to see through a telescope consists of extended objects-- galaxies, nebulae, and unresolved clusters. The magnitude estimates of these objects tend to consider them as point sources, but as extended objects they have much less of a contrast difference with the sky. In my experience in an equally light-polluted location with a similar-size telescope, the sky brightness makes the limiting magnitude of extended objects between 7 and 8, even with a light-pollution reduction filter in use.

That isn't to say a telescope is worthless in the city; you can still observe the Moon and planets, resolved clusters are pretty, and you can observer the brighter extended objects. But bringing the telescope to a dark-sky location makes an incredible difference with many more objects visible.

  • $\begingroup$ Light pollution filters may help a bit, but my experience from a bortle 8 location, is not very much. $\endgroup$ – Dr Chuck Mar 27 at 20:27

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.