The Ultimate Very Best Apo in 6" size O.T.A.

I was seriously thinking about ordering a Takahashi FS 152 and a thought occurred. I could get a Celestron CGE-14 XLT for the same money. Scope and mount. Or a RCX 12". Man it's hard to choose toys.

Well If someone now said to me I'm going to bye you one & now its your pick after reading this thread,{ what one would you like } ?.

Ok I,ll have a !!!! -please.
But if you can,t get a !!!! then I,ll have ???? thanks.

Guess what a !!!! is , or a ????.
If you can,let me know.

Have fun out there Bill.

No problem...buy me the TMB 356 triplet APO pls.

Thanking you in advance for your generoisity!

Graciously,

Gary

Gary- to kind, but I only wish a 6 ", .
Regards Bill.

Well then Mr Cheapskate , if ya put it that way....

1st Choice: AP-160 (due only to re-sale value)
2nd Choice: SV-152/TMB 152 (either/or, same scope really)
3rd Choice: TAK TOA 150
4th Choice: SV-130 (if you want to be really cheap and shave me down by an inch)
5th Choice: TEC 140 (if ya want to meet me halfway)
6th Choice: TOA 130

PM me for my mailing address. My birthday is Aug 3rd....I'm counting on ya! LOL

Gary

Gary its now your choice ! your about to score one scope , Whats its going to be out of your list ?.
So many are watching- please choise carfully.
Happy Birthday for Aug 3rd.

Have fun Bill.

Ha! Well if it were a "real world" choice, then it would have to be the SV/TMB 152. Gotta drop the 160, because something that is 5 years away is really no choice at all!

(checking my front door for a Delivery Reciept) lol

Gary

Hi Clive:

Since we make each telescope here and we fabricate our own metal parts and tubes on our machines, we can adjust the weight somewhat for customers by turning down the aluminum tube a little more. We start with 1/8" tubing and generally turn down about 1/16". Two people have specified I make the telescopes with as thick a tube as possible as they are using big mounts and want overkill in terms of flexure. But we can reduce this thickness more than this without any problems with flexure. This significantly reduces weight. I will have more on this posted soon as I finish determining how light I can go without any flexure.

I am also working on another approach that will be even lighter but that is down the road a bit.

In the old days I depended heavily on suppliers to provide parts and many were poorly machined and had to be re-worked. It was false economy if one cared about accuracy. That is why I have invested so much in our new machines. Our capability is much better than it used to be and we outsource much less now. So people who order 152's from us can specify that they want a lighter tube and we can do that.

But you have to admit it is interesting that of all the 152 customers we have waiting, only two had special requests in terms of weight and both wanted thicker, heavier tubes. As they say - go figure.

Vic Maris

I am also working on another approach that will be even lighter but that is down the road a bit.

[/quote]

HI ya Vic, thanks for stopping by! Per chance, would that new tube approach resemble the carbon fiber tube with CNC fittings that Markus Ludes is offering with the TMB lenses?

Ya ought to stick your nose in here more often Vic....Robert and I can't do ALL your promoting!!

Gary Edington
SV-80 and other stuff

Thanks Gary. Just trying to put out the facts as I see them. Well and correct the sometimes incorrect view on the facts. Hope your liking that SV80.

So Bill are you any closer to a decision?

SV130 or SV 152? Would there visually be much difference? Any advantage as an astrography for 152 @ f/7.9? Would ya sacrifice what little you might gain out of the 44 inch tube for a 23" one at f/6? We are talking 6" APO's here, but what real advantage do they have over 5" ones, and at what COST? (price, portability, mounts, etc etc)

Gary

The answer depends on how important visual astronomy is to you vs. imaging.

I find deep sky objects are noticable more interesting visually in a 6". On a good night it is nice to have the extra brightness for planetary viewing. The extra resolution is also nice.

A 5" f/6 can be stable on a less beefy mount than a 6" f/8.

Rich

Astro-Physics made the 6 inch APO market in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tak and Zeiss 6 inch APOs were very expensive. The other current 6 inch APO makers/assemblers have a market to fish in because Astro-Physics doesn't meet the demand that Astro-Physics developed.

Rich

Hi Clive:

Since we make each telescope here and we fabricate our own metal parts and tubes on our machines, we can adjust the weight somewhat for customers by turning down the aluminum tube a little more. We start with 1/8" tubing and generally turn down about 1/16". Two people have specified I make the telescopes with as thick a tube as possible as they are using big mounts and want overkill in terms of flexure. But we can reduce this thickness more than this without any problems with flexure. This significantly reduces weight. I will have more on this posted soon as I finish determining how light I can go without any flexure.

I am also working on another approach that will be even lighter but that is down the road a bit.

In the old days I depended heavily on suppliers to provide parts and many were poorly machined and had to be re-worked. It was false economy if one cared about accuracy. That is why I have invested so much in our new machines. Our capability is much better than it used to be and we outsource much less now. So people who order 152's from us can specify that they want a lighter tube and we can do that.

But you have to admit it is interesting that of all the 152 customers we have waiting, only two had special requests in terms of weight and both wanted thicker, heavier tubes. As they say - go figure.

Vic Maris

Thanks for all the info, Vic.
Nice to hear that you're offering thinner CNC tubes for those who want them.
WRT weight, I've found that folks usually think "built like a tank" (or even heavier!) is great... until they try lifting the "tank" outta it's case.
Oooooh, my back!!

Best wishes,


Clive.

Rich from all I've read AP did make the market in that time. Only problem is they don't want to help those in need of a scope much now. So just because they did all that then doesn't make them the best now. Something I see over and over again on CN is the one characteristic for the best scope is the one you use. Waiting 6-9 months for a different brand is a lot better in my book than 5-6 years. A person would be hard pressed to get as much viewing with their scope than me with a 4+year head start.

Also some say customer service isn't that important for deciding on a scope. Myself I saw that is crazy. You wouldn't buy a new car if you weren't sure if you could ever get it serviced right or a question answered. I had a question about where Stellarvue scope parts are all made and Vic answered me in about 30 minutes. Pretty good in my book.

The answer depends on how important visual astronomy is to you vs. imaging.

I find deep sky objects are noticable more interesting visually in a 6". On a good night it is nice to have the extra brightness for planetary viewing. The extra resolution is also nice.

A 5" f/6 can be stable on a less beefy mount than a 6" f/8.

Rich

If visual/imaging were equally important, then 5" APO and 11" SCT makes more sense! (arghhh..this is making me crazy!)

Gary

Rich from all I've read AP did make the market in that time. Only problem is they don't want to help those in need of a scope much now. So just because they did all that then doesn't make them the best now. Something I see over and over again on CN is the one characteristic for the best scope is the one you use. Waiting 6-9 months for a different brand is a lot better in my book than 5-6 years. A person would be hard pressed to get as much viewing with their scope than me with a 4+year head start.

Also some say customer service isn't that important for deciding on a scope. Myself I saw that is crazy. You wouldn't buy a new car if you weren't sure if you could ever get it serviced right or a question answered. I had a question about where Stellarvue scope parts are all made and Vic answered me in about 30 minutes. Pretty good in my book.

I said AP isn't keeping up with damand. There is only one Roland to go around and many people want his telescopes.

Rich

Hey guys! We're all fools.

I was at the local "Mega Store" this morning - you know the one with "Mart" at the end of the name.

I saw a scope there that was only $159.95. And right on the box it said,

Amazing views of the planets and stars!
Up to 550x
Bright, clear lensens [sic]
See craters on the moon!

That HAS to be the "ultimate very best scope", and it's cheap! Think I'll sell my 9.25 and my TV85 and buy a bunch of those to give to my friends.

I'll take 2.

Robert,

Postal regulations prohibit sending [certain objectionable materials] and I don't want to get in trouble with the feds.

And I've slapped my own wrist for going off topic on this but just had to share!.

Gary,
I have read on more than one occasion that the move up from a 4 inch refractor to a 5 inch is very noticeable. The move up from a 5 inch to a 6 inch refractor is said to be less so. This has to do with visual only. When you look at the bang for the buck it sounds like the 5 inch would be the way to go. Particularly when one compares the amount of dollar difference when going from 5 inches to 6 inches
Dan

The lighter tube we are experimenting is not carbon fiber. I am very concerned about two issues, weight and temperture. What Clive writes is correct based on converstaions I have had with people who own big refractors. They probably want the lightest tube they can get if they are assured that no other problems result. The fact is, we may have even more telescopes sold if we effectively promoted the weights better than showing the heaviest on the web. But then we have more business than we can handle now anyway. Decisions decisions.

If ya get too busy Vic, just tell me and Robert to keep our mouth shut for a bit.and we will stop singing your praises. Surely between us, we just have to account to 20% of that new surge ya been getting! In fact, let us get our scopes, yak our mouths off, and get you so far behind that you develop a 5 year wait list and drive the price of OUR scopes way up! (decisions, decisions...lol)

Gary

Just to summarize on all the great scopes that have been mentioned .
What have No aberations at all ? Thats perfect optics- nothing to pick on, I may have missed this point but maybe not.

Regards Bill.

No such thing as perfect optics...just those that are 99.7% corrected. They would include AP, TAK, SV, TMB, TEC. Even if the optics were perfect, our own less then perfect vision would screw it all up anyways! IMHO, anyone of these brands that offer 6" is a winner, the only thing differentiating them is "features". For example, the AP 160 is an f/7, whereas the SV 152 is f/7.9...maybe this difference has some importance to you. Or, TEC and AP have crinkle finish paint jobs, SV, TMB, and TAK do not (personally, I don't like the crinkle finish, and if I could get all the features I am looking for in nice gloss tube, I would buy the gloss over crinkle). Bottom line, there are ultimate SCOPES in the 6" category, but the title of "ultimate" is not going to be based upon which one of these is actually better, but rather, which design is best for you and your particular needs! AFter going back and forth and weighing things out for myself, I have concluded that to get all the features I need and to stay within certain limitations I have, that the ULTIMATE APO for me would be f/6, 130mm, coupled with some big aperture SCT.

(although if f/7 160 AP was actually available, I would live with the crinkle finish and get that, ONLY because it is a combination of biggest aperture with shortest f/ratio for its size)

Gary