Travel telescopes
Same aperture, and only one publishes what it does with it.
Seventy millimetres on both, in a backpack on both. The difference is what the listings are prepared to state: one gives a focal length, a focal ratio and the height range of its tripod, the other gives none of the three and a longer accessory list.
| Compared on | Travel Scope 70 (21035-ADS) | YWMY-Y103 |
|---|---|---|
| Packed length | Not stated anywhere in this listing | 400 mm (maker’s bullet) |
| Total carried weight | Not published by the maker. | Not published by the maker. |
| Aperture | 70 mm (from the title and bullets) | 70 mm (maker’s bullet) |
| Focal ratio | Not published by the maker. | f/5.7, the quotient of the two figures above |
| Optical design | Refractor, coated glass optics per the maker | Refractor, fully multi-coated per the maker |
| Mount | Manual alt-azimuth pan arm with clutch | Not published by the maker. |
| Tripod type | Not published by the maker. | Aluminium, 40 cm to 90 cm, as the maker publishes it |
| Case protection | 20 mm and 10 mm eyepieces plus a 4 mm in this version, backpack, full-height tripod, astronomy software download | K25 and K6 eyepieces giving 16x and 67x per the maker, four Moon filters, shutter release, phone adapter, backpack, 5x24 finder |
A tick means one listing published something the other did not, or published a better figure. It does not mean the product is better, and the column is not a score out of anything: a maker who says less loses lines here without losing a comparison. The two verdicts below are where the page is settled.
The one with a described mount. A pan arm with a clutch is a real mechanism and the listing names it, which matters more on a travel telescope than the eyepiece count. Against that, no focal length appears anywhere — so the magnifications its eyepieces give cannot be worked out at all.
The one that publishes its arithmetic. Four hundred millimetres on seventy is f/5.7, the eyepieces are quoted with the magnifications they give, and the tripod range is stated in centimetres. Four Moon filters is a generous count for a shelf where one is usually enough.
On a travel telescope, a lot. Forty centimetres is a tabletop height and ninety is standing at a low eyepiece; a tripod fixed at one of those is only right half the time.
One is usually enough — it dims a bright Moon so the eye can hold detail. Several of different densities allow a choice as the Moon waxes, which is a refinement rather than a necessity.
Because the instrument is bought for what it can show away from home, and without the focal length no eyepiece can be matched to it in advance.
70 mm aperture · focal length not published
A 70 mm travel refractor sold with a backpack, a full-height tripod, two eyepieces, and — in this Amazon-exclusive version — an extra 4 mm eyepiece and a 3x Barlow.
Best for: A 70 mm that travels with a proper tripod rather than a tabletop stand
≈ £86 / €120
70 mm aperture · 400 mm focal length
A 70/400 travel refractor with a 45° erecting diagonal, four Moon filters, a shutter release, a phone adapter and a backpack.
Best for: Daytime and Moon use in one instrument, with phone photography in mind from the start
≈ £65 / €55
Any figure written into the body of this page was true on the day it was written. The amount shown next to each instrument is requested from the retailer as the page loads, and it is that amount, not the text, that stands.
