TS 120mm 900MM FL ED Doublet
Posted 03 August 2013 - 02:23 PM
By Steven P. Sukel
Posted 03 August 2013 - 03:50 PM
Thanks for the well-written, informative review.
Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:56 PM
Posted 03 August 2013 - 11:36 PM
Certain changes need to be made in the Mag. Table because a 6mm eyepiece gives 150X, a 5mm is 180X, a 4mm is 225X, and a 3mm is 300X.
Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:16 AM
Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:44 PM
Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:23 AM
Thanks for taking the time to share
Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:58 PM
Like you, I am delighted by the optics and the aperture - for me, it will get a lot of use when I don't want to set up the 10" Newt.
Being used to the 10" and 8" apertures of Newts, I expected to be disappointed with the views from my light-polluted location (Red at best, probably White). I was not disappointed at all!
On a New Moon night, with great seeing, the Ring/ M57 was beautifully presented - obvious at 37x in with a Panoptic 24, and it just got better at 100x with a Nagler T6 9mm, a Delos 6mm, and a Nagler T6 5mm.
The Double/ Double (Epsilon Lyra) was beautifully split at 100x.
I'll look forward to your future reports - 120mm f/7.5 is a sweet spot for refractors - bigger is too much scope for me to handle (I had a 6" achro) less does give me the light grab I like (I had a 100ED).
Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:41 PM
Posted 21 August 2013 - 06:42 AM
Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:04 PM
I'm Matteo, from Italy, and I need some help!
I'm desperately serching for a 120 ed refractor that could reach the focus with a baader maxbright binoview, without a focal multiplier!
I hope that this nice refractor can do that, but I need to know its exactly backfocus. Do someone of you have this instrument? How can I contact with Steven Sukel?
Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:41 PM
I have it's cousin, the WO Megrez 120. When I tried binoviewing, I had the cheaper Orion unit. I found that I could achieve focus without the correcter using a 1.25" diagonal. Hopefully some who has this scope can confirm.
Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:08 PM
1. The interior of the focuser adapter was machined to tolerances that did not ensure compatability with one of the world's most popular 2" diagonals;
2. Dust particles that should never have been present within the tube at final assembly ended up on the objective during transit, necessitating partial disassembly of the instrument by the customer to rectify the situation;
3. No provision was made for affixing a finder scope and rings, apart from mounting them at a less-than-desirable position on the mounting rings, far from the eyepiece;
4. The objective is made in part from "secret" glass, if I'm reading the review correctly. This would seem to imply that no data or specifications are available for the material, especially as regards any potential hygroscopic tendencies or other physical aspects of the element.
I do not find the above issues acceptable in a plus-$2000.00 instrument.