Jump to content


Photo

Doublet or Triplet?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:36 PM

The seeming casting to the wayside of the doublet, whether an achromat, "semi-apochromat" or near-apochromat, has arisen out of several deciding factors, perhaps the only worthwhile of these being the triplet, and in a presently supposed banishment of spurious colour, both intra- and extra-focally even, once and for all from the refractive design.

Though, given that any and all things manipulated and crafted by man in his resourcefulness are just that, thus the maxim: the fewer the parts, the lesser the maintenance, that is, if the extra trouble is worthwhile, and aside from a comparison between a medieval ox cart and a Maserati.

Consider the quadruplets...

http://www.takahashi...FSQ-106ED.html#

...and in competition...

http://www.google.co...sa=N&tbo=d&a...

...with both being imaging-specific, or astrographic refractors, both claiming photo-visual dexterity and the optics made in Japan.

However, especially in the case of the latter, and for those who prefer minimal maintenance, a live, dynamic, moderate-to-high-powered view and a comparatively carefree pride in ownership, then remain with either a doublet or a triplet.

Of doublets and triplets, which do you prefer for the finest observing experience in your leisure or retirement?

Cheers,

Alan
 

#2 Sasa

Sasa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Ricany, Czech Republic

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:50 PM

For visual doublet, for astroimaging triplet (see my signature...). I observe mostly in short, last moment decision sessions from my backyard in a small town just on the border of 1.5 milion city. I store my telescopes at room temperature and I need to use full resolving power as quickly as possible.
 

#3 DaveJ

DaveJ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

...I store my telescopes at room temperature and I need to use full resolving power as quickly as possible.


And that's exactly why I prefer my TEC 140 triplet! It's oil-spaced (only 2 air-to-glass surfaces) and has the fastest cooldown time of any telescope I've ever owned or viewed through.
 

#4 Sasa

Sasa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Ricany, Czech Republic

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

Dave, I would love to gain some experience with oil triplets. So far, I just quickly looked through one TEC140. Definitely very nice telescope!
 

#5 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

What are the pros and cons between air-spaced and oil-spaced triplets? Does the oil effect more of a unison between the three elements, with an improvement noticed both visually and photographically?
 

#6 DaveJ

DaveJ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

What are the pros and cons between air-spaced and oil-spaced triplets? Does the oil effect more of a unison between the three elements, with an improvement noticed both visually and photographically?


I'm definitely biased, but I'll answer with a resounding YES! The first TEC 140 I looked through shattered what I'd thought a refractor was visually capable. I immediately put my prior triplet up for sale and placed a deposit with Yuri at TEC. I waited almost 9 months for it and have been giddy ever since receiving it. Please excuse me, I do kinda "go on" about it, but that's what love does to you. :o
 

#7 chboss

chboss

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 731
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Zurich Switzerland

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

Alan,

Air vs Oiled tripllets has some history and comes up frequently in very longish threads... :D

To your original question, my preference for visual in the following order:
1. Fluorite doublet, excellent color correction, light weight and fast cool down
2. Oil filled triplet: faster cooldown than an air spaced triplet (my experience with a 6.1" oil filled triplet)
3. Air spaced triplet (Used to own a chinese made triplet required a long time to reach optimal performance)
4. Quadruplet: Optimized for large fields and AP so only used if nothing else on hand.

For me cooldown time is the main issue since my telescopes need to be stored inside. Second comes weight, since I love to take the scopes out of the city to real dark skies.

If optical quality is the only criteria, the choice of the design for visual use is less important. Good materials and precise execution make the real difference. ;)

best regards
Chris
 

#8 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:24 PM

"Air vs Oiled tripllets has some history and comes up frequently in very longish threads..."

Yes, as I'm well aware. :)

On the other hand, your ordered preferences are enlightening. Thank you, Chris.

Still, I can't help but wonder further if oil effects more of a homogeneity between the elements, and thus an advantage, however slight, for visual.

Regards,

Alan
 

#9 chboss

chboss

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 731
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Zurich Switzerland

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:37 PM

Alan,

An oil filled design limits the freedom of the designer since the radii have to be very close or equal. In theory an air spaced design offers more freedom and could be better corrected. (I read that in an earlier thread so its just heresay)
The oil filled optics do not need coatings on the internal lens surfaces since the oil "removes" the glass-air surface. So there are no reflections that could have a negative influence.

One other aspect, I prefer a longer focal ratio say f8 and higher.
High magnifications can be reached with longer focal length eyepieces which have usually better eye relief. Furthermore at f8 even simpler eyepieces perform well.

best regards
Chris
 

#10 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:24 PM

Then the extra effort required in mating the elements with oil, if done expertly, should result in a more finely-figured objective, ideally, yes?

Would the difference be noticeable visually?

I consider my air-spaced doublet at f/8 to be the fastest I'd prefer, certainly no faster than f/7, and a mirrored arrangement...:shocked:...no faster than f/5.:lol:

Regards,

Alan
 

#11 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8768
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:06 AM

mating the elements with oil, if done expertly, should result in a more finely-figured objective, ideally, yes?


It's the opposite, actually. The inner glass surfaces do not require a high degree of figuring since the interface will all but disappear when the oil is filled in.
 

#12 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44370
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:01 AM

However, especially in the case of the latter, and for those who prefer minimal maintenance, a live, dynamic, moderate-to-high-powered view and a comparatively carefree pride in ownership, then remain with either a doublet or a triplet.



Personally I am fine with doublets, triplets and Petzvals. One cannot make blanket statements without considering the specifics, the right design for the job. I find a 80mm F/7 FPL-53 doublet to be a good performer, a 102mm Hk-61 F/7 doublet to me an adequate but not stunning performer. Bigger apertures, faster scopes, require better glass and/or more elements. A 6 inch F/7 better be a triplet if one wants reasonable color correction, a 4 inch F/9 can provide color free views as a doublet.

If one is afraid of the workings of their scope, it is probably best to stick with a doublet, triplets can go out of collimation and that may well require a trip back to the factory. If one reads the forums here, doublets can require collimation but confident/competent owners generally are able to collimate them.

As far as Petzvals are concerned, I do not dismiss them because of their added elements any more than I dismiss the 31mm Nagler because of it's 6 element design. In my particular case, the previous owner of my NP-101 messed with the collimation, I collimated it myself, it was easy but I am comfortable working with my scopes.

At the eyepiece, it provides live, dynamic views at any magnification within the range of a 4 inch telescope, 15x-300x+. Wandering around the Milky Way with the 31mm Nagler + 31mm Nagler from a dark, clear site, it doesn't get any dynamic, any more live than that except maybe for wandering around the Milky Way with a 12.5inch or 16 inch RFT.

I am glad I am blessed with the frequent opportunity to view under clear, dark skies with a variety of telescopes, both achromats and apos, with doublets, triplets and Petzvals as well as with reflectors of a variety of sizes.

The pleasures and joys of observing the night sky have little to do with the particular equipment, some is a little better, some is a little worse, what is important is the sky and what I bring inside myself...

:ubetcha:

Jon
 

#13 PhilCo126

PhilCo126

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2005
  • Loc: coastline of Belgium

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

As said in numerous other " Apo-topics "
Basically, the quality of any apochromatic refractor depends on three items: (1) aperture, (2) glass quality and (3) lens configuration.
:imawake: :gotpopcorn: :imawake: :gotpopcorn:
 

#14 sg6

sg6

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:47 AM

Doublet or triplet to me depends mainly on the f number and to a smaller extent the glass types used.

A doublet with ED glass then I would be happy if the f number were 7.5 or slower, I would think about f/7 if fpl-53, although I would prefer 7.5.

At the f/6 area then a triplet, I note that WO say for their short (f/6 and f/5.9) doublets, they say CA is well controlled, not eliminated. And I respect their honesty, not many are these days.

For the f/6 to f/7.5 area, if triplet then OK, if doublet then it would depend on the use I intended and the cost.
 

#15 walt99

walt99

    Vostok 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Kentucky

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:46 PM

[quote name="Jon Isaacs"] [quote]

The pleasures and joys of observing the night sky have little to do with the particular equipment, some is a little better, some is a little worse, what is important is the sky and what I bring inside myself...

:ubetcha:

Jon [/quote]

Agreed ! To see the incredible work of the greatest artist of all is often a religious experience for me . . .

Me , I like my FS 128 flourite doublet . Showed color on Saturn for the first time . My TOA 130 triplet never did that .
 

#16 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:45 PM

Post deleted by Sky Muse
 

#17 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:02 AM

Whether simplicity as to choosing a telescope based on the fewest number of optical elements as the best choice is just one of many subjective opinions posted on this forum and can no way substantiated as a basis in fact,just as any other opinion as to advocating another choice of a telescope design with more or less elements as being the "better one"cannot be proved,either. One size doesn't fit all when it comes to choosing a particular telescope,whether it be based on price or sophistication. The object behind any forum is the free exchange of ideas and opinions in a friendly and respectful manner. This thread has the makings of an excellent one with valuable information for the newer observers,provided we refrain from equipment bashing which will not be tolerated here.

I will post this from our TOS for our newer members to consider:

The Basics:

As the TOS has grown over the years of forum operation, it has been decided it might be helpful to include a short summary of the expectations of the users - an executive summary if you will. Simply put, the following behavior is expected from users:

* Play Nice
* Share
* Be Polite
* Be Honest
* Respect other members & the administrators and moderators who are working to keep this board a useful resource.

Above all, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Feel free to discuss things here, but please don't beat it to death. Stating your viewpoint once, on-topic and in a civil manner, in a thread is sufficient.

Any disrespectful or trollish postings will be removed immediately and without warning. :ubetcha:
 

#18 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44370
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:41 AM

It is not that anyone should be afraid, or frightened; rather, one would simply exist in the realisation that they are not as mechanically-inclined as others.



Something to consider:

Nearly any refractor can shift collimation, doublets, triplets, and Petzvals. If one is not mechanically inclined, then nearly any refractor may require a trip to the factory to be collimated. Most but not all can be collimated by an owner with basic optical and mechanical skills. An example:

Help Collimating a Takahashi FS-102

As far as doublets being the best.. they have significant field curvature and less than perfect color correction though in the smaller sizes/slower focal ratios it may not be apparent. They may be the best compromise for certain observers, but triplets and Petzvals can provide more perfect views. In fact, Takahashi no longer makes larger doublets, the 102mm and larger scopes are all FPL-53 Triplets and Petzvals.

And I must say, the characterization concerning lost observing time is off the mark... I collimate my Newtonians each and every time I use them. It takes a few minutes, normally done before sunset. No eyepiece time lost there. I collimated my NP-101 two years ago. Since then it has traveled thousands of miles, been used hundreds of times, it's still just fine. In those two years, I have lost far more observing time finding dropped glasses than I ever spent startesting and collimating it.

I asked you once how much eyepiece time you have looking through an NP-101. Rather than secondhand links, I would like to hear your experiences looking through an NP-101, an NP-127 or other Petzvals. What has been your personal experience under dark skies with the essentially perfect 4+ degree views the NP-101 provides? Have you had any collimation issues or do you know a friend who has? Have you observed Venus at 200x and noted that there is no chromatic aberration even out of focus?

Doublets like the Takahashi FS-102 or the TV-102 are fine scopes and may suit the requirements of many observers. For me, the 800+ focal length represents a deal breaker. I know that many observers enjoy these scopes and are not particularly interested in those big views, that is fine for them, not for me.

Jon Isaacs
 

#19 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:47 AM

...done.

Regards,

Alan
 

#20 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

I've collimated my 6" f/5 Newtonian, though not the refractor, for there's been no need, yet.

Incidentally, when I was two, I was placed in a wooden playpen, passed down from elder cousins, and against my will, of course. I reached up, grabbed a flatware knife from the counter above and adjacent to my "prison", then proceeded to unscrew and disassemble one corner, and until I escaped. Two to four screws were discovered afterwards at the scene. There were witnesses...:shocked:...and to another adroit incident...

"As far as doublets being the best.. they have significant field curvature..."

I haven't noticed that in mine, but don't mind me.

"In fact, Takahashi no longer makes larger doublets..."

I understand that it would cost at least three times the price I paid for my fluorite, a doublet, in 2003, to exactly replicate it today, and for the price of the current TOA-130, a triplet.

"I asked you once how much eyepiece time you have looking through an NP-101."

None, for I bought an FS-102 instead, and for visual only. The NP-101 is a "photo-visual" petzval, with "photo" being its strength and intent per design. If I want low-powered views, there are perhaps oculars to accomplish same with the F/8. Besides, I have my eyes, my binoculars and a 6" f/5 Newtonian to enjoy low-powered views when desired. Then, I have my Parks 8" f/5 Newtonian, purchased just after the refractor, at which time I had comet-hunting in mind, and do still, and long before personal knowledge of David H. Levy's 6" f/5 "Comet Hunter".

If I ever did desire a quadruplet, perhaps in another life, I'd save my pennies for Takahashi's.:rockon:

Sometimes, not often, I look at my refractor, at f/8, and think...

"Is is too fast?"

...but that's just me.

Cheers,

Alan
 

#21 la200o

la200o

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1520
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SE Michigan, USA

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:22 PM

So I guess the answer to Jon's question is that you've spent zero time at the eyepiece of an NP101 and therefore know nothing about them. The NP101 in fact is not only a fine astrograph, but a superb visual telescope; I'd suggest taking a look through one before offering opinions based on no experience whatever, otherwise it seems like you're just trolling.

Regards,
Bill
 

#22 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

Post deleted by KWB
 

#23 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:39 AM

Last warning in this thread:The idea is for it not to focus on personalities between posters,which is a sure fire thread wrecker but simply about experience with and opinions of using various examples of astro gear,with plenty of room left over for our novice members to ask questions.

If any more agenda pushing as to equipment bashing continues, this thread will be well on it's way to being locked.
:lock2:
 

#24 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44370
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:06 AM

None, for I bought an FS-102 instead, and for visual only. The NP-101 is a "photo-visual" petzval, with "photo" being its strength and intent per design. If I want low-powered views, there are perhaps oculars to accomplish same with the F/8. Besides, I have my eyes, my binoculars and a 6" f/5 Newtonian to enjoy low-powered views when desired.



As someone who has many hours at the eyepiece of an NP 101, I can say that its strength are its wide, flat field combined with essentially perfect color correction. It is an excellent performer at high magnification, the planets and double stars are clean and crisp. At F/5.4 it does require well corrected eyepieces to show its best.

There are certainly other fine 4 in retractors out there and the all around high level of performance of the NP 101 may not be desired or needed but it sure is sweet.

Jon
 

#25 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: De Soto County, MS

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

The public are drawn to refractors for a variety of reasons, and though this list does not presume the gamut, consider nonetheless, although not necessarily in order of preference...

1. Simplicity of design, therefore, less maintenance.
2. Portability.
3. Overall quality.
4. Apertural requirements, combined in varying focal ratios and per observing interest.
5. Direct observation versus indirect.
6. Solar observation.
7. Military and civil observation.
8. Imaging.
9. Childhood memories.
10. ...

Lastly, if for nothing else, the fact that it's a refractor, and the original telescopic design.

Alan
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics