Jump to content


Photo

Why so little used TMB 92Ls?

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:22 AM

I've been checking online astro classifieds over the past year and have only seen a handful of used 92Ls. Why is this? Is it because majority of the people that have bought a 92L are that happy with it and don't want to sell it? Could it be that there just have not been very many 92Ls sold yet? It seems a bit strange that I have seen quite a bit of the 92ss versions on the used market but not very many 92Ls.

#2 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:54 AM

The 92L is actually smaller, lighter, and more portable than the 92SS. It is IMO the perfect grab and go. I use it on a photo tripod with a Stellarvue M2 mount, which makes it easy to take anywhere and use for daytime or nighttime viewing. It is built like a tank and the optical quality is top notch. This is the one telescope I would never sell. Quite a few people on CN own one and I think they are probably just as attached to theirs as I am.

I think people buying the 92SS where doing so for AP because of the focuser section that can be removed for that purpose. Then they find out they want to shoot deeper and need to go up to a bigger APO, so out goes the 92mm and in comes the 120mm. I can understand the 92SS being a temporary stopover on the way to AP nirvana.

#3 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4445
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:52 AM

I cannot imagine upgrading to anything that would combine the level of portability, quality and performance from my 92L. Hence it will stay right here.

#4 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20037
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:32 AM

Not many produced, most likely.

There aren't many cemented Burgess 80mm triplets available either, but that doesn't mean much about the scope, one way or the other.

I don't think limited availability used is relevant in assessing anything but relative scarcity.

- Jim

#5 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:38 AM

From a quick web search it looks like the 92L was released in 09 about one year latter than the 92ss. So it's been available for about 4 years now compared to the 5 years of the 92ss correct? Yet I see close to 4 times more 92ss on the used market than the 92L. Is the 92ss just that much better of a seller that there are 4 times as many 92ss sold? I surely thought I'd see an increase in the 92Ls on the used market after they went on sale for $1200 but the sale has appeared to have no effect on it at all. As of now I would have to agree with Jim that there just isn't very many 92Ls produced even though the 92L seems to be quite popular. Maybe someone in the know could shed some light on the number of 92L's sold in a given year compared to the number of 92ss's sold.

#6 frebie

frebie

    Chief assistant to the assistant chief

  • -----
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 1191
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Neither here nor there.

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:48 AM

The current ratio is about a 50/50 split. The 92SS has sold more since its inception simply because it was introduced earlier, so it's probably a 60/40 split in total numbers sold. Exact numbers? That's proprietary information that the competition would probably be very interested in knowing, so my lips are sealed. As a rough guess, . . . somewhere between one and one million.

#7 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

Thanks for the info Frebie that helps explain things quite a bit.

#8 turtledude1

turtledude1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2008
  • Loc: SW Fla.& SW. NM

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:39 PM

I could have purchased either when I got my 92SS; my choice was based clearly on the focuser. A pound or two heavier didn't matter to me.
Russ

#9 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

That focuser is really nice, and I think if you are doing AP it is a good idea to go that direction. For binoviewing it is definitely the way to go.

However, I am surprised at how good the Crawford style focuser is on the L model. Aimed at Zenith I can focus it easily up or down with a Powermate and a 31 Nagler in the diagonal. The only crawford style focuser I have ever owned that could that. With my 80ED I have to lock the focuser to keep the 31mm all by itself from pulling the focus tube all the way down.

#10 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

I chose the 92L for grab-n-go and visual use only. Very nice little scope, quite capable. The focuser was very good as well for its task, no issues. A very close friend of mine was retiring from his stressful (Nuclear!) job and wanted to get back into observing without hassles. He had previously had the Meade 10 sct and was quite accomplished in his day. He took one look through my easy to set-up and use 92L and begged me for it. He knew I had plenty of other scopes to fall back on. Well, it did indeed get him back into observing, he loves it! Problem is, I miss that little 92!!! I do get to share views with him as a consolation! Hopefully Karma will reward my good deed...so far...I'm still waiting! :lol:

#11 turtledude1

turtledude1

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2008
  • Loc: SW Fla.& SW. NM

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

No matter how you slice it their both TMB 92's and either will do an awesome job. One of the best bang for the buck scopes out there in my opinion.
Russ

#12 joelimite

joelimite

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Colorado Springs, CO

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

I shan't ever part with my TMB 92L. I bought it used last year and it performs admirably as a grab-and-go, widefield scope. It's killer under dark skies. Why they rarely turn up used, I couldn't tell you. I'd guess it's a combination of low production numbers and satisfied customers.

#13 AlienRatDog

AlienRatDog

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Ann Arbor

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:48 PM

Do they come with tube rings?

#14 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

No rings.

I use the Stellarvue Clamshell on mine, fits perfectly.

It comes with the dovetail, which can be removed if you want to put on some other kind of dovetail.

#15 joelimite

joelimite

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Colorado Springs, CO

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:58 PM

That's what I use too, Lane.

Attached Files



#16 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:00 PM

There are several mounting holes for a finder on the clamshell. You can see the bracket here and some more holes in front of those.

Attached Files



#17 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:12 AM

Also, Astronomics has AstroTech rings that match perfectly for that mounting option, it is what I used.

#18 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:05 AM

Nice pics guys. Well from the looks of it I should have bought a new 92L when they were on sale for $1200. If they ever go on sale again I'll get a new one but until then the quest for a used one continues.

#19 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:17 PM

What would be a fair price for a used 92L now days? My reason for asking is I had a guy offer me his 92L but I feel his asking price is a bit too high. Since I started looking I've only seen 4 TMB 92Ls for sale on the used market all priced between $800-$1000 so this is the price range I'm looking at paying for a used 92L. Did the used market price for a 92L recently gone up or should it still be around $1000?

#20 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:27 PM

I think $800-$1000 is spot on for used, depending on whether it was bought on sale or not by the original owner and how important that is to you. They are certainly worth that price in use!!!

#21 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:33 PM

Thanks t.r. The guy was asking $1300 so I'm pretty sure he must have bought his new and not on sale.

Does anyone know if the 92L will ever go back on sale anytime soon or why they went on sale the first time? I hate to spend anymore than $1000 on a used one just in case they go on sale again and I can get a new one for $1200.

#22 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:41 PM

Can't recall for sure, but I think I got mine new for $1295 on sale and they have put these on sale several times now. If you can wait a while they will probably do it again. You might call Astronomics and see if they will just sell it to you for the sale price anyway. I have negotiated with the local scope dealer on several items over the last few years and got the items for less than an online sale price. So I know it can be done with some dealers.

#23 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:07 PM

Thanks Lane that's good to know. Normally I wouldn't care too much if I didn't get a good deal on a scope that I want but I'm buying the TMB 92L to compare it to my Vixen ED114SS. Which ever one I like better I'll keep so there's a good chance I will need to resale the 92L. This is why I'm looking to buy used so if I happen to sell the 92L I can get what I paid for it.

#24 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3590
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:28 AM

I am not sure why you are buying a 92L to compare to your 114mm, but I can tell you that if your reason is anything but portability then you should probably consider buying something else. The short focal length means you will see curvature when using most long focal length eyepieces. I had to experiment with a lot of eyepieces to figure out which ones could handle that curvature well and as you can probably guess the ones that worked best were definitely not the cheap ones.

I already had a very nice AT106mm apo before I got the 92L. The 106mm has optics just as good at the 92L and no curvature issues at all. So the only reason I got the 92L was because I could not carry the 106mm and its mount plus my C11 and its mount in my car along with my camping gear and cloths. I wanted to have a wide field refractor with me to complement the C11 when I traveled to dark sites and traveled on vacation. The 92L was much smaller and could use a simple Stellarvue M2 mount on a small photo tripod. So it takes up very little space in the car. There is also the bonus that this little scope makes the ultimate daytime spotting scope.

#25 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:15 AM

Portability is one reason but I do a lot of afocal photography/videos and while the 114 works really well for this I feel that a triplet might give me noticeably better results. A color free sharper view is more what I'm hoping to find in the 92L. This comparison is strictly for daytime use as well. All my afocal photos and videos are of birds and wildlife. I sometimes get the feeling that a 114mm scope is a bit overkill for a daytime spotter.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics