New TMB 92 Light, same 4.5 star optics.
Posted 03 February 2009 - 10:14 PM
The TMB92L proposed features.
Same exceptional optical system S and T called virtually perfect.
90~95mm OD tube.
100mm of backfocus. The tube would be around 15" bow to stern.
2" crayford focuser, maybe 2.5". We are trying to save weight.
Possibly not baffled, but flat black pebble painted interior or flocked. This has worked for years in other high end scopes so I don't see why it can't work on this one. I have some fears about the light cone and the baffles may just prove to be useless in that size tube.
Best part. Price....$1495ish.
We hope to have a sample or two at NEAF.
Posted 03 February 2009 - 10:26 PM
Posted 04 February 2009 - 02:36 AM
This is a good news to me to have a TMB 92ss for imaging scope and visual scope. Do you have a dedicated field flattener for this scope yet? When to finish?
Posted 04 February 2009 - 02:59 AM
Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:19 AM
I would consider this for a travel rig, so I support a flocked/thinner and lighter tube over a fatter one with baffles. The flocked tube in my TV102 works pretty well.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:36 AM
Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:56 AM
This sounds like a very nice travel (or GnG) scope, with a "just right" aperture.
See you at NEAF.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 09:54 AM
Posted 04 February 2009 - 12:25 PM
It's always good to see another premium-grade small APO with a sub-premium price. The Feathertouch would be nice, but it would also jack up the price like Mike said. Anyone who really wants the FT bad enough can always get one afterwards and retrofit it, I imagine.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 03:17 PM
And off topic just a bit, the optics on the AT-90 are excellent. This scope has not attracted the attention it deserves. Even at the original price before it went on sale, it is a steal.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 10:59 PM
I think a feathertouch would be well received even at the higher price. It's still cheaper than the original 92SS, and would be high end front to back... Perhaps a choice?
Why 100mm back focus? It seems that 2.5-3" works well for visual 99% of the time.
So- sliding dewshield and no tube extension, right?
Lastly- my vote would be 95mm O.D. 90mm O.D. might look funny having a fat cell in front of a skinny tube...
Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:58 PM
Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:03 AM
Sliding dew shield and not extension is correct.
THe 90mm is a standard in the industry. That means no special tube rings or exterior accessories. The WO and SV scopes use a 90mm tube right now.
Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:10 AM
Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:31 AM
On the barrel and baffles, there would still be dome room for a few baffles once you were about 70mm from the front of the tube. They wouldn't be very deep, but they would still be effective. Then again, a well flocked tube may be a 99% solution if the focuser draw tube is well done.
Posted 24 February 2009 - 11:31 PM
Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:30 AM