Jump to content


Photo

AP 130 vs TEC 140 vs TOA130

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#51 MAURITS

MAURITS

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1034
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Belgium

Posted 03 September 2010 - 08:21 AM

Post deleted by MAURITS

#52 MAURITS

MAURITS

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1034
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Belgium

Posted 03 September 2010 - 08:22 AM

[quote name="MAURITS"]If you use a 130mm (or 140mm) scope exclusively for
visual work, you will never see Pluto again. [/quote]


Greg, what scope can do this? ;) [/quote]

#53 Adam S

Adam S

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Gunnison, Colorado

Posted 03 September 2010 - 08:27 AM

When I purchased my 130GT I too was told that Roland was producing 1 telescope per day by AP.

#54 MrGrytt

MrGrytt

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 933
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Upstate Cuomostan

Posted 03 September 2010 - 08:48 AM

Think he did...Message number 51135 in the apug on Yahoo.


That is really good news. There are quite a number of us out here who are working on our 11th year of waiting for a call on the bigger stuff.

Harvey

#55 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20631
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 03 September 2010 - 01:28 PM

The materials needed to make quality 160mm scopes is much scarcer than the materials needed to make quality 130mm scopes. I suspect that the number of suitable 160mm blanks for A-P's 160mm design is very small and that such blanks are very costly. Notice that Yuri uses inexpensive FPL-51 or fluorite in his 160s, rather than lowest dispersion ED glass that Rolando seems to favor.

Regards,

Jim

#56 HCR32

HCR32

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Melbourne Australia

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:30 AM

If he is producing 1 scope a day then I can never see him catch up to the numbers of demand he is getting.

#57 t.r.

t.r.

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 04 September 2010 - 06:30 AM

Precisely! :thinking:

#58 Danno2006

Danno2006

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1109
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 September 2010 - 08:51 AM

If he is producing 1 scope a day then I can never see him catch up to the numbers of demand he is getting.


I am not so sure - I would want to see the back log vs. the 1 per day production and do some calculations.

Never is a long time.

#59 Jaxdialation

Jaxdialation

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3197
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Northeast, FL

Posted 04 September 2010 - 10:28 AM

Wouldn't it be great to be able to do those calculations ?!?

Of course the other alternative would be for AP to do it for us and provide a delivery estimate. Since they now have years of experience with their backlog list and who actually buys and who passes, it would seem to be within their reach to add some clarity to this. Or just say "at current production rates, and backlog "hit" rates" we will be caught up in X time."

Now back to reality.

#60 t.r.

t.r.

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 04 September 2010 - 10:29 AM

I can never see him catch up to the numbers of demand he is getting.


You took never out of context...Rolando personally making the scopes before he retires I think is the jist of it.

#61 SteveLD

SteveLD

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2008

Posted 27 October 2010 - 04:46 PM

If you are using these for imaging, the primary difference between them would be image scale and f ratio. The AP with reducer will get you the fastest f ratio and widest field with about a 580mm FL. Without the reducer, the AP gives you 780mm fl. The TOA has a standard focal length of 980mm and about 760mm with a Tak reducer. Thus it is better than the AP if you want a larger image scale. Ditto for the TEC which as a focal length of 980ml.

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.

#62 Mike Clemens

Mike Clemens

    Frozen to Eyepiece

  • *****
  • Posts: 7581
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Alaska, USA

Posted 27 October 2010 - 06:14 PM

No way, we're all refractor fans.

One time I accidentally clicked on the reflectors forum though, I got all bug eyed and clicked BACK really quick and I think nobody saw me.

#63 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3326
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 27 October 2010 - 06:17 PM

If you are using these for imaging, the primary difference between them would be image scale and f ratio. The AP with reducer will get you the fastest f ratio and widest field with about a 580mm FL. Without the reducer, the AP gives you 780mm fl. The TOA has a standard focal length of 980mm and about 760mm with a Tak reducer. Thus it is better than the AP if you want a larger image scale. Ditto for the TEC which as a focal length of 980ml.

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.


So what's you're point?

What Mike said!

#64 Scott Beith

Scott Beith

    SRF

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 44536
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Frederick, MD

Posted 27 October 2010 - 08:17 PM

Steve, Welcome to Cloudy Nights! :)

Mike and Ziggy are teasing you (kinda) :whistle: :lol:

#65 deprofundis

deprofundis

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Philadelphia, PA

Posted 27 October 2010 - 08:30 PM

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.


The Dob would outperform the the refractor at a much lower price, but I don't think it would be as portable or set up faster. An 8"+ Dob takes up a lot of volume (especially if it's not a truss model), at least as much as a 5" refractor + tripod & mount. You can set up a refractor on an alt-az mount pretty fast, and you don't have to worry about collimating it.

#66 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3326
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 27 October 2010 - 09:25 PM

No way, we're all refractor fans.

One time I accidentally clicked on the reflectors forum though, I got all bug eyed and clicked BACK really quick and I think nobody saw me.


I would never admit to something like that :whistle:

#67 HCR32

HCR32

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Melbourne Australia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 09:28 AM

Well over the past month Ive been able to look through both dob and refractor. Personally I thought the refractor did a much better job and thats taking into consideration the dob was just a little over 3 times larger. (Planetary viewing)

#68 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 28 October 2010 - 09:32 AM

If you notice, AP has no waiting lists hanging out on mounts, anymore. The runs always end up selling straight off the production line.

If you will remember a few years ago AP Increased mount production capacity and started referring to themselves as a mount company which sometimes offered telescopes (when just about everyone thought of them as a telescope company which also made mounts). Since mounts come from off the shelf materials, it was easier to increase mount production than telescope production. In retrospect, this would appear to have been a mistake. There is a lower barrier to entry for mounts, and there are lots of alternatives to AP mounts. And not to put too fine a point on it, I don't need to put a C5 on an AP mach 1 as I'm still waiting on a 130 8 years and 7 months after I went on the list.

So if he wants to sell something which will bring money in as fast as they come off the line, it's telescopes; not mounts. It may have ocurred to him many people are deferring a mount because they don't already have a high end scope to put on it, and given the lousy resale values these days, if you want to be in position to get that AP, you can't lose the money on depreciation of another OTA. And it isn't just AP seeing a soft market for high end mounts. Mountain instruments has been curtailing mount production due to low demand.

-Rich

#69 Scott99

Scott99

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2933
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:10 AM

a lot of assumptions there. Don't you think the goal of expanding was to make AP mounts an off-the-shelf item? As long as we're pulling stuff out of our ***'s, here's another assumption: AP's expansion and readily available mounts wiped out MI. (Of course I have zero evidence of this)

fyi, from what I've read the reason AP never made more scopes is because over the last few decades they couldn't find another master optical engineer to do the work long-term.

Currently the only opticians in the USA that make high-Strehl amateur refractor lenses are 1 at AP and I believe 3 at TEC. The guys at TEC were specifically recruited in Russia to emigrate here to work at TEC.

So if you're able to find another optician in the USA that wants to dedicate his career to this I'm sure AP and TEC would love to meet and hire him

Tak couldn't find any master opticians in Japan to dedicate their career to high-Strehl optics either. They use a Canon subsidiary to make their lenses. APM/LZOS uses LZOS, a huge optical firm that does many other things.



#70 SteveC

SteveC

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Sunshine State & Ocean State

Posted 28 October 2010 - 01:12 PM

If you are using these for imaging, the primary difference between them would be image scale and f ratio. The AP with reducer will get you the fastest f ratio and widest field with about a 580mm FL. Without the reducer, the AP gives you 780mm fl. The TOA has a standard focal length of 980mm and about 760mm with a Tak reducer. Thus it is better than the AP if you want a larger image scale. Ditto for the TEC which as a focal length of 980ml.

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.


Whoa !! - not the way to make friends with your first post. :grin:

Would you like to know a little understood benefit to owning refractors? They are a lot easier to swing than Dobs are, they make real good clubs. Dob owners have been know to have accidents observing near refractors for some strange reason. Dob owners must be especially clumsy! :roflmao:

#71 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6355
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:04 PM

If you are using these for imaging, the primary difference between them would be image scale and f ratio. The AP with reducer will get you the fastest f ratio and widest field with about a 580mm FL. Without the reducer, the AP gives you 780mm fl. The TOA has a standard focal length of 980mm and about 760mm with a Tak reducer. Thus it is better than the AP if you want a larger image scale. Ditto for the TEC which as a focal length of 980ml.

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.


Steve,

First of all, welcome to Cloudy Nights. You are certainly free to express your opinion, even if some of us disagree.

I have owned several 8 and 10 inch Newts (Dob and GEM-mounted). They are nice, but a 10 inch Newt is NOT easier to handle than my TEC 140 and while one of these Newts might show a brighter image than my refractor, the view is not as sharp across the FOV, nor as contrasty. There is more light fall off at the edges and I don't like coma - or dealing with collimation.

As far as cost - I was very willing to pay the price for my TEC and the views have been worth every dime. :) The OP is specifically asking about these scopes, so I'm guessing he knows what they cost as well.

YMMV and I hope you enjoy your Dob as much as I enjoy my TEC. :cool:

Ron

#72 SteveLD

SteveLD

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2008

Posted 30 October 2010 - 01:20 AM

If you are using these for imaging, the primary difference between them would be image scale and f ratio. The AP with reducer will get you the fastest f ratio and widest field with about a 580mm FL. Without the reducer, the AP gives you 780mm fl. The TOA has a standard focal length of 980mm and about 760mm with a Tak reducer. Thus it is better than the AP if you want a larger image scale. Ditto for the TEC which as a focal length of 980ml.

If you are looking for a scope purely for visual work, I am not sure why you would consider any of them. It seems to me that a premium grade DOB of 8 - 12.5" aperture would signficantly outperfrom these APOs on the planets or deep sky at a much lower price. Also, these "small" DOB's would set up faster and have a more stable mount. They would likely be more portable especially at the lower end of the aperture range, after you consider the mount. You could even get these DOBS with GOTO for possibly less than the APO costs all by itself.


So what's you're point?

What Mike said!


My point is that if you want to image at the widest field possible between these three, the AP is the only show in town. If you want to image at 1000mm and 780mm focal lengths, then the Tak is the way to go. If you want the greatest aperture and to image at 980mm, go with the TEC. All three are great scopes.

#73 SteveLD

SteveLD

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2008

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:51 AM

Steve,

First of all, welcome to Cloudy Nights. You are certainly free to express your opinion, even if some of us disagree.

I have owned several 8 and 10 inch Newts (Dob and GEM-mounted). They are nice, but a 10 inch Newt is NOT easier to handle than my TEC 140 and while one of these Newts might show a brighter image than my refractor, the view is not as sharp across the FOV, nor as contrasty. There is more light fall off at the edges and I don't like coma - or dealing with collimation.

As far as cost - I was very willing to pay the price for my TEC and the views have been worth every dime. :) The OP is specifically asking about these scopes, so I'm guessing he knows what they cost as well.

YMMV and I hope you enjoy your Dob as much as I enjoy my TEC. :cool:

Ron


Hi Ron,

I should have introduced myself before diving in. My current telescope line is limited to a Tak FS60C, Tak Sky 90, and Meade LX200R. My refractors are superb imagers, provide great wide field views, and deliver outstanding performance for their aperture. I no longer own a DOB as I do mostly imaging, but have owned a 12.5" premium DOB, Mak-Newts, a Tak Mewlon, a Tak FSQ 106, and several Newtonians. I definitely like APOs.

I agree completely with your assessment of Dobs when applied to the typical run-of-the-mill "fair to good" DOBS, but disagree with it when applied to premium DOBS and other designs with top-notch optics, coma corrector (e.g. Paracorr), and well-made DOB mount. There are very few 8-10" premium DOBS on the market anymore (they only seem to make bigger sizes). The only I am aware of are 7-10" offerings from Teleport and Portaball, both of which sport top-notch Zambuto optics, compete favorably with 5" premium APO's visually. I have looked through both and the views are exquisite. As far as ease of set up and protability of scope, tripod, and mount is concerned, a Teleport is second to none. Todd Gross claims that a 7" Teleport had a slight edge over a 6" APO in his side by side test, but it is safe to say that they can more than hold there own against 5" APO's. There are other designs that compete favorably with APO's. I once owned a Takahashi Mewlon 180mm", (no longer made), that was IMO clearly superior to 5" APO's in side-by-side comparisons and at least competitive with 6" APO's in terms of seeing detail on the planets, resolving globular clusters, and views of most objects. This scope was lighter and the tube shorter than many 4" APO's. It did have to be properly collimated to perform well, but once collimated it held collimation for long periods of time. APO's definitely provide wider FOV's and more pleasing wide field views than the Mewlon - especially at dark sites.

As far as ease of setup is concerned, 8" and larger DOBS can be pretty big and clunky if they are f/6 or larger and have thick mirrors. Shorter focal length DOBS with thinner mirrors supported by excellent mirror cells can be quite portable even in larger sizes, especially when you consider setup of tripod/mount component in the mix.

IMO Refractors are among the best scopes for wide-field imaging. They are also top notch for wide field viewing in the smaller sizes. Incidentally, I have heard Roland Christen express similar views about the relative merits of APO's versus other scope designs. On cloudy nights, he suggests that 8-12" premium Newtonians are in the same league as 7-9" APO refractors http://www.cloudynig...php?item_id=410 when it comes to the planets. Also, everyone is entitled to their preferences. Many people like APO's in the same way that some people love vintage cars. Others like them because at any given aperture, they are among the best performers. When seeing is bad, the advantage that a larger scope with premium optics has on the planets tends to evaporate. It isn't that the APO shows more detail than a bigger scope in these conditions, but because it doesn't show the effects of seeing as much, they may provide more pleasing views -- except during those sometimes brief moments during times of bad seeing when the seeing gets really good.

Steve

#74 Mike Clemens

Mike Clemens

    Frozen to Eyepiece

  • *****
  • Posts: 7581
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Alaska, USA

Posted 30 October 2010 - 12:51 PM

Obviously, Steve will make a fine covert operative for us in the reflector camp.

#75 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20631
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 30 October 2010 - 03:51 PM

Pffffft! I'm half way through the club observing list for the session with my TEC by the time the Dobbers are collimated and cooled. A refractor sets up pretty quickly compared to a truss Dob, is always collimated and cools in an instant, and so far as I am concerned there are no premium Dobs in the 8" to 12.5" range that are NOT trussed.

I agree that a premium Dob is a great scope, but if and only if perfectly cooled and collimated. If not, pass.

Regards,

Jim






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics