I've heard that using a refractor is better than a reflector when it comes to planets to best reproduce their colors. But perhaps other factors can weight in too? For example, do you want a slow or fast f-stop to get the best view of a planet? What about eye-pieces, what style of eyepiece construction will give the best views?
[Physics] For observing planets what kind of telescope offers the best view
observational-astronomyplanets
Related Solutions
To view the Sun in white light, you need a dedicated solar filter. Several types are available, but the best are made from AstroSolar film made by Baader. This is a polymer (not Mylar) with extremely good optical properties, coated with metal to reflect 99.99% of the light hitting it. It blocks most of beamthe Sun's light and heat before it even enters the telescope. Filters made from Baader material are available in high quality cells from Kendrick. I have several Kendrick filters and they are excellent:
http://www.kendrickastro.com/astro/solarfilters.html
To see flares and prominences, you need a much more specialized filter which only passes hydrogen alpha light. These can be used in front of refractors, but most observers prefer a dedicated solar telescope like the Coronado PST (Personal Solar Telescope). I use one of these every clear day to view the Sun. Small flares and prominences are visible nearly every day.
Although I have used projection to view the Sun, I generally recommend against it for safety reasons. It puts all the concentrated energy of the Sun into the focal plane of the telescope, and can very easily damage or destroy eyepieces. The projection beam leaves the eyepiece in a very concentrated form, hot enough to ignite paper placed in its path. I simply feel much safer with a professionally made filter blocking the light and heat before it enters the telescope.
There are two separate issues here:
• "they seem to have a lot of flare coming out of the planet like an ‘X’ where the planet is at the centre."
This is normal for all Newtonian reflectors, so much so that most of us don't even notice them. They are diffraction spikes caused by the spider which supports your diagonal mirror. They are inherent in the telescope's design, and the only way to eliminate them is by going to a different design: a refractor or a Schmidt or Maksutov design. But, don't worry about them, as they actually have absolutely no effect on the main image, except for a slight loss of contrast.
• "they seem slightly blurred (almost impossible to get a sharp focus)"
This is a different issue, and springs from two different causes. First, the telescope may not be collimated properly. Collimation is the process of lining up the various optical elements in a telescope. Collimation is a normal part of the maintenance of all telescopes, and is not difficult if approached systematically. The process is described well here:
The second factor is in the images themselves. At present, both Venus and Mars are far away and, as a result, show very small disks, 22 and 13 arc seconds respectively, as compared to Jupiter, 34 arc seconds. This has two effects. First, any detail on these planets is vey much smaller in size than the detail on Jupiter. In fact, no detail is ever visible on Venus except for its phase (slightly more than half). On Mars you may see a tiny polar cap and a faint smudge or two on the rest of the disk. Secondly, their small size makes them more subject to the degradation of "seeing," turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere. As a result of these two factors, seeing detail on Mars is a challenge even in much larger telescopes than yours!
Finally, there is the question of your eyepieces. Planetary observing is probably the most challenging aspect of visual astronomy, because the planets are so small. The planets require much more magnification than any other object you're likely to look at, except for very close double stars. Your eyepieces give you 26x and 65x, whereas serious planetary observing begins at around 150x, and is mostly carried out at 200x to 300x. The short focal length of your telescope, while providing fine wide-field views of deep sky objects, is not well suited for high magnifications. The shortest focal length eyepiece commonly used, 4mm, will only get you 162x, which is only barely adequate for planetary observing. Even then, the small aperture of your telescope may preclude using this high a magnification.
Don't waste time or money on filters. They serve no useful purpose on a telescope as small as yours. You would be better off spending the money on better quality eyepieces than those which came with your telescope.
Best Answer
The two factors to consider in a telescope used to observe the planets are resolution and contrast. To get good enough resolution you need an aperture of at least 5 inches. In addition, the optics must be of high quality to deliver the most contrast. Despite the common recommendation of refractors, very few serious planetary observers use them, except for those able to afford large apochromatic refractors, which are very expensive. The typical amateur refractor is too small in aperture to show much on the planets. Telescopes using the Maksutov design work very well, but also become expensive and heavy in larger sizes. So, most serious planetary observers use Newtonian reflectors. Traditionally long focal ratios (f/6 or longer) perform the best, but modern short focal ratio (f/4 or f/5) mirrors can perform almost as well, so long as their optical quality is high.
In general, simple eyepieces of older design (orthoscopic, Plössl) are best because of their high contrast, but typically they have very short eye relief, so that many observers prefer more modern designs with longer eye relief, such as Tele Vue Radians.