Bushnell Voyager

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Bushnell Voyager

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 2 Next

Bushnell Voyager
I already have a Celestron G5, but as portable as that is, I find myself occasionally out about other business, when I realize the sky is beautiful and dark and I don't have a scope with me. As portable as the G5 is, I wouldn't carry it in the car all the time. I wasn't satisfied with cheap binoculars, and I felt $200 for a very portable 4.5 inch scope was the way to go. The images are great at low magnifications, it's incredibly portable and quick to set up, and it's cheaper than the Astroscan. Based on what I was expecting, and what I got, I'm completely satisfied. For what this is and what I wanted, it really fits the bill.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40001

Bushnell Voyager
Remarkably convenient. Images are acceptable at low magnification.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40002

Bushnell Voyager
very pleased with the price, convienience, and that Bushnell is now getting into a quality market. Altho I was always VERY satisfied with their binoculars,
and in head-to-heads with Nikon, and minolta bino's......Found Bushnell optics
better than the aforementioned, (regardless of waht other reviews wish to say about Bushnell)

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40003

Bushnell Voyager
This scope looks like an Astroscan that just happens to be a deep blue color.
That is where the simularities end. This 'scope has the worst spherical abberation I've ever seen in a commercial 'scope. Stars all have gull wings, and even huge Jupiter could not be brought to focus. STAY AWAY from this telescope. (Another bargain basement special that will only succeed in chasing away budding astronomers)

The only reason I gave it a two instead of a zero is it can show some halfway decent images of extended deep sky objects. Is this enough reason to buy one?
I think not.

Overall Rating: 2
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40004

Bushnell Voyager
I bought this ona whim. I live in NYC but visit family in PHX AZ several times a year. I am a lazy observer. I hardly ever use my C-8 but I use the Voyager everytime I can. It has its limitations but it can go to 100x and get sharp views on Saturn & Jupiter. It excels at sweeping in the dark AZ skies. I am embarrased that I do not own a barlow but I want to use my 20mm Erfle with one and check the image and field.

It was a bargain on hagglezone.com for $185.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40104

Bushnell Voyager
A horribly bad imitation of the venerable Astroscan (which is by no means perfect). The ONLY thing that is better is the focuser, everything else is WAY worse. The included eyepieces are terrible. The scope lacks adequate in-travel to use most better-quality aftermarket eyepieces, none of the four barlows we tried could come to focus. The optical window mounted at the very end of the OTA dews up VERY quickly. The oversize strap lug holes snag and tear the felt bearing pads and make smooth sky scanning impossible. There is not even a peep sight finder. And finally the optics were so poor in the example tested that useful magnification was limited to about 25x. All in all, not a scope I'd recommend to anyone and certainly not for the beginner. There is a good reason the Astroscan costs more!

Overall Rating: 1
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40105

Bushnell Voyager
Quite satisfied with the Plossl lens that were supplied. I've owned
the Edmund Astroscan, and in a head-to-head, find these two scopes quite
comparable. The price advantage of this scope gave it better value. Neither
of these two scopes were good for HIGH-POWER viewing. for lower power "wide-field" viewing....great affordable telescopes

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40106

Bushnell Voyager
Maybe I got a bad one, but I could see little thru the scope due to the secondary mirror imposed over the image. Maybe extremely poor collimation. I gave up one it.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40107

Bushnell Voyager
For the price, it is very good. For what it's purpose...wide field deep sky and moderate power is very good... NOT a high power scope, but it was not intended for it.

One piece of advice, toss the supplied 5mm eyepiece, I use it for a dust plug for the focuser since mine didn't come with one.

Overall I'm satified with the scope given how much I paid for it and what it can do that my 22" can't do...see the almost the WHOLE North American Nebula, quite get both arcs of the Viel, etc...you get the idea...

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40109

Bushnell Voyager
For what I paid and expected I am totally satisfied. Stars focus to sharp pinpoints up to x100 (with a good quality eyepiece) and I have been able to detect surface detail on Jupiter as well as the Cassini division in Saturn's rings. Extended objects stand out well including nebula and clusters.

I have an 8" equatorial which I like very much but the convienence of this 'scope can't be overstated. I can literally go from thinking about using the 'scope to observing in just a few minutes. It's compact enough that I take it with me when I travel and camp.

I would give it a 10 except for the totally worthless 5mm eyepiece that comes with the 'scope. This poor quality eyepiece makes the abberations from the spherical mirror all too obvious. A better decision by Bushnell would be to include a 17mm or 12.5mm instead. This is a LOW POWER 'scope that fits it's role very well and is much more enjoyable than any pair of binoculars could be.

I do recommend the addition of a Rigel Systems Starfinder finder scope. Mounting this on the back end of the tube against the "ball" part provides a lightweight pointing device that will save a lot of time when searching for celestial targets but does not mess up the balance of the 'scope in it's mount.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40006

Bushnell Voyager
It appears as though there are two schools of thought on this telescope. The two examples I have seen in our club, were both terrible! Spherical abberation that leaves stellar images looking like spikey ovals, and the planets just unobservable.

The gentleman above's claim that as long as you use good eyepieces the telescope gives good images, just does not hold water as we tried everything that people in the club had, ranging from RKE's to Televue premiums.

I am not doubting that some people have gotten "good examples" of this telescope. It just seems to me that either there are huge variences in quality control, or they are making these things at two different locations. I just don't know if anyone should take a $200 chance that you will get one of the good ones! Can't recomend this telescope to anybody, because I don't dislike anybody THAT much!

Overall Rating: 1
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40007

Bushnell Voyager
Useful only for very low (under 25x) power viewing. Terrible optics, dews up extremely quickly, poor quality eyepieces, no finder and huge strap lug holes snag and rip bearings (RUINS the big plus of a ball mount scope - smooth motions and many aftermarket eyepieces and barlows will not come to focus. A pathetic imitation of the Astroscan. There are VERY good reasons the Astroscan costs more, do yourself a favor and pass up this cheap imitation.

Overall Rating: 1
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40008

Bushnell Voyager
Great little scope for lunar, and lower power wider-field views.
Great portable, quick setup..simple..it gets used, and has decent light
gathering

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40110

Bushnell Voyager
The relative ratings of this scope and the Meade ETX70 have made me cynical about ratings. A side-by-side comparison of the Bushnell Voyager to the ETX70 made me want to call up Meade and scream. Nevertheless, the ETX70 is credited with spectacular optics, and the Bushnell Voyager is panned. One reviewer on another site even declared that he saw gull wings around stars in the star test. I saw no such effect.

Very well, this isn't the greatest scope in the world, but it is fine for its target market: casual family viewing. The low-power eyepiece yields a very fine wide view - much broader than the view in the ETX90 at comparable magnification. At 100 power, it reveals surface detail on Jupiter, and shows Saturn clearly. The beloved ETX70 blurs out far below 100 power, and for $150.00 more, it never showed the rings of Saturn in my experience. (That's pretty damning, IMHO.)

At $180.00, there's nothing cheaper that shows as much as the Voyager. It has no snob appeal. It's not for the serious amateur. It's for the casual family, and it's well-targeted.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40111 

>The relative ratings of this scope and the Meade ETX70 have made me cynical about ratings. A side-by-side comparison of the Bushnell Voyager to the ETX70 made me want to call up Meade and scream. Nevertheless, the ETX70 is credited with spectacular optics, and the Bushnell Voyager is panned. One reviewer on another site even declared that he saw gull wings around stars in the star test. I saw no such effect. 
>
>Very well, this isn't the greatest scope in the world, but it is fine for its target market: casual family viewing. The low-power eyepiece yields a very fine wide view - much broader than the view in the ETX90 at comparable magnification. At 100 power, it reveals surface detail on Jupiter, and shows Saturn clearly. The beloved ETX70 blurs out far below 100 power, and for $150.00 more, it never showed the rings of Saturn in my experience. (That's pretty damning, IMHO.) 
>
>At $180.00, there's nothing cheaper that shows as much as the Voyager. It has no snob appeal. It's not for the serious amateur. It's for the casual family, and it's well-targeted.

Uhh...why did you post this on the Bushnell Voyager page?
Bushnell Voyager
Purchased one hoping to save $150 off the astroscan price. Mistake. Images are terrible with all but lowest power. Optical window is uncoated and catches glare and dew. Focuser, not a true 1.25, but a converted one. Scope operates at a true aperature of 90mm and not 114. Hole in bottom of scope almost always catches felt pads. Bushnell messed up. They copied one of the best telescope designs and didn't execute. For this reason I now own an astroscan which has had no improvements and remains unchanged since its inception in the mid 70s.
Larry

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40009

Bushnell Voyager
Bushnell at 4.5" aperture is more like a 3" aperture scope. why ? It does NOT have antireflective coating to the protective glass.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40010

Bushnell Voyager
This is a low power wide field scope. It uses a spherical mirror
to keep the price down. There is nothing wrong with using a fast
spherical mirror at low power since the abberations will be below
the visual resolution of the human eye. At higher magnifications
(above25x)these aberrations (mainly spherical aberration) become
evident in this scope. However, the aperture of this instrument is
large enough that an off aperture mask can be utilised to give better
high power views. When used in this mode the scope becomes essentially
a diffraction limited 40mm unobstucted reflector. Much of the criticism
of this affordable scope is unfair. At the cost of a pair of binoculars
you are getting at least equal and in most cases BETTER resolution and
FAR BETTER light grasp than binoculars in this price range.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40011

Bushnell Voyager
I have used this scope for over 1 year now;it is easy to set up in seconds and you can use higher power with an good eyepiece,but of course it is fantastic at lower powers.I have had two 8 reflectors and one 4 inch refractor,but this scope is so easy to set up and I have tinkered with it adding flock paper inside and fine tuning it with the front diagnol mirror.This is why most people who had bad images with this scope.At $169 it was a great buy!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:9 Mount:10 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=70075

Bushnell Voyager
I am very pleased with this scope.
This is the sope that got me hooked in astronomy.
I now own an Orion XT8, so my little B/V 4.5" gets little use, but I've held on to it for travel.
It's not a perfect scope, but it is very usable.
At $99 it was a great buy.
I have no regrets.

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:6 Mount:6 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=345390

Bushnell Voyager
Hi, I found this scope to be an excellent value and a good little scope. It is extremely easy to use and setup is merely removing the dust cover. I found mine to be out of adjustment when I got it ,but after making the adjustments to the secondary mirror, I was able to pull in sharp views over 100 x. Images were surprisingly sharp, even next other larger dobs. We are very pleased with ours.

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:7 Mount:7 Ease of Use:9 Value:9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=352589

Page 1 of 2 Next

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Checking Your Telescope
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
[Get rid of the ads!]
Voting Guide