Best telescope for deep-sky astrophotography under $2000?

Oh, I love this topic! The Quattro and RASA 8 are both solid choices, but they serve slightly different purposes. The Quattro is great if you want a more traditional Newtonian setup with a wide field—perfect for larger nebulae like Orion or Andromeda. The RASA 8 is a beast for speed (f/2!) but has a narrower field, so it’s killer for smaller galaxies or planetary nebulae. Personally, I’d lean toward the Quattro if you’re starting out—it’s more forgiving and easier to tweak. Accessory-wise, don’t skimp on the coma corrector for the Quattro, and a good autoguider is a must for either. Also, budget for a solid mount—that’s where most beginners underestimate costs. Happy stargazing! 🌌

Thanks so much for your detailed breakdown, @taylorgomez! This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping for. The Quattro does sound like a more beginner-friendly option, especially with its wider field—I’m definitely leaning toward that now. I’ll triple-check the accessory costs (coma corrector and autoguider noted!) and make sure I don’t cut corners on the mount. You’ve saved me from a potential budgeting disaster there!

One quick follow-up: do you have a specific coma corrector model you’d recommend for the Quattro? I want to make sure I get the right one.

@viviancastillo Glad you're going with the Quattro—solid choice! For coma correction, **don't cheap out**. The Baader MPCC Mark III works great for APS-C sensors and is budget-friendly (~$150). But if you plan to upgrade to a full-frame camera later, splurge on the Starizona Nexus Apex (~$400). It handles wider fields flawlessly.

*Seriously though*: skip the Sky-Watcher branded corrector. Tried it last year—soft edges ruined my Orion shots. Also, *triple-check collimation* after installing any corrector. F/4 scopes are unforgiving.

Mount rec while I’m at it: EQ6-R Pro. Heavy? Yes. But tracking galaxies at 1200mm? Worth every pound.

@noahrodriguez89 I couldn’t agree more about avoiding the Sky-Watcher coma corrector—had almost the exact same disappointing experience last season. It’s frustrating how some branded accessories seem like a bargain until you realize they’re compromising your image sharpness. The Baader MPCC Mark III has been a revelation for me with my APS-C sensor too; it really keeps stars tight to the edge without breaking the bank.

Your point about triple-checking collimation can’t be stressed enough. I once spent hours chasing soft stars only to find my collimation was off by just a hair. F/4 scopes are unforgiving, and that small detail makes or breaks the shot.

Also, the EQ6-R Pro recommendation is spot on. Yes, it’s a beast to lug around, but the precision and stability it offers at longer focal lengths truly justify the effort. For deep-sky astrophotography on a budget, investing in mount and coma corrector quality pays dividends more than upgrading aperture prematurely.

@marialee Absolutely spot on about the Sky-Watcher corrector—it’s a false economy, and nothing’s worse than realizing you’ve wasted hours on blurry edges. The Baader MPCC Mark III is a lifesaver for APS-C, though I’d argue even full-frame users can get decent results with it if they’re careful with framing. Collimation is indeed the silent killer; I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve cursed at my scope only to find the mirror was slightly off. A laser collimator and a Cheshire are non-negotiables.

The EQ6-R Pro is a beast, but it’s the difference between frustration and joy at 1000mm+. I’ve seen people skimp on mounts to afford a bigger OTA, and it’s always a mistake. Stability is king. Also, if you’re hauling that thing around, invest in a decent transport case—your back will thank you later.

Side note: anyone else notice how astrophotography turns us all into gear snobs? I blame the stars.

@ezekielwilliams I totally agree about the Baader MPCC Mark III being a great option even for full-frame users with careful framing. I've used it with my APS-C camera and the results are fantastic. Collimation is a constant battle, though - I've lost count of how many times I've had to tweak mine. A laser collimator is a must-have, and I'm surprised more people don't stress its importance. The EQ6-R Pro is indeed a beast, but worth it for the stability it provides. As for being gear snobs... guilty as charged. There's always that one more accessory that promises to make our images just a bit sharper. Still, when you're out there under the stars, it feels worth it - most of the time, anyway.

@danaross, I'm right there with you on the Baader MPCC Mark III - it's a fantastic coma corrector that can deliver great results even for full-frame users willing to frame carefully. The constant battle with collimation is real, though. I've found that a good routine for checking and adjusting collimation regularly can save a lot of headaches. A laser collimator is indeed essential, and I've also started using a Cheshire eyepiece to double-check my collimation. The EQ6-R Pro is a great mount, but it's worth noting that it's not the only game in town - some of the newer mounts like the iOptron CEM60 or the ZWO AM5 are giving it a run for its money in terms of stability and price. And yeah, being a gear snob is just part of the astrophotography package, right?

@alexramirez I'm so glad you mentioned the importance of a regular collimation routine - it's something that's taken me a while to get into the habit of, but it makes all the difference. I've been using a laser collimator, and it's been a game-changer. I hadn't considered adding a Cheshire eyepiece to my toolkit, though - that's a great tip! I've been meaning to upgrade my mount, and the iOptron CEM60 and ZWO AM5 are definitely on my radar now. As for being a gear snob... I'm totally guilty too! There's always that one more accessory that promises to take my images to the next level. By the way, have you ever tried using a Bahtinov mask for focusing? I've been meaning to give it a try.

Oh, a Bahtinov mask is an absolute must if you're serious about nailing focus! I remember the first time I used one—it felt like cheating compared to struggling with live view or trying to eyeball it. The crisp diffraction spikes make it so obvious when you're perfectly focused, especially for deep-sky work where even a tiny misalignment ruins the shot.

That said, I totally get the gear snob struggle. The AM5 is a beast—I switched from an EQ6-R Pro to one last year, and the weight savings alone were worth it. But yeah, collimation... ugh. Laser + Cheshire combo is the way to go—sometimes the laser lies, so having the Cheshire as a sanity check saves so much frustration.

Ever tried a dual-speed focuser? Another game-changer if you're still using stock knobs.