Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:54 PM
So my questions: what is the light transmission/ghosting difference between coated and uncoated? Is it cost-effective/intelligent to get it coated? If so, who would I send it to??
Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:16 PM
I think you can make a fine telescope without having to get the lens coated.
Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:33 PM
Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:04 AM
The 6" F10 is a great all around scope. A D&G F12 may be a little better. N
Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:43 AM
(BTW, my 6" f/5 was listed as "uncoated", but the flint is definitely AR coated, so you might get lucky...)
Posted 04 January 2014 - 08:31 AM
What *might* matter is the veiling glare which could result if the curves on one or more surfaces happens to be just right for causing an aperture-filling (or near-filling) ghost reflection as seen from the focus.
One way to initially test for this is to shine a penlight up the focuser, with eye and light beside one another at about the position of focus. You could ease things by using a piece of glass from a small picture frame as a beam splitter. Place the glass ahead of the light, tilted about 45 degrees. You observe the reflection off the glass, as though it were a diagonal. You're looking to see if any reflection fills a considerable portion of the objective. If the spots are small, you *should* have little to fear from veiling glare from this source.
Posted 04 January 2014 - 09:01 AM
I'll wait and see if any surfaces are indeed coated, and try Glen's test....ghosting is something I am a bit concerned about....but hopefully the folks at Jaegers took this into account during their design phase....
Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:52 AM