Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The AT92

  • Please log in to reply
1191 replies to this topic

#26 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 24 July 2017 - 09:19 PM

We will look at a dedicated reducer after the scopes get out and about, however I am concerned about the cost as the scope is already f/5.5.  I am unsure how reasonably priced a dedicated reducer could be as the scope would be really fast when it is all said and done.  The TMB92 worked very well with our generic field flattener.


  • Pug likes this

#27 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 27 July 2017 - 01:26 PM

Also, the image circle is 48mm.


  • Starhawk likes this

#28 Aleko

Aleko

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,160
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: AZ/WI

Posted 14 August 2017 - 03:06 PM

 

The focal ratio will be f/5.5?

 

Looks very interesting.   Definitely will make a nice grab and go.

It is f/5.5.  

 

Here is a link to the review of the original lens design when it was a TMB92.  

 

 

The review mentions a removable 2-1/4 inch section of the tube on the TMB92. Is this also a feature of the new AT92?

 

-Alex



#29 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 14 August 2017 - 03:10 PM

 

 

The focal ratio will be f/5.5?

 

Looks very interesting.   Definitely will make a nice grab and go.

It is f/5.5.  

 

Here is a link to the review of the original lens design when it was a TMB92.  

 

 

The review mentions a removable 2-1/4 inch section of the tube on the TMB92. Is this also a feature of the new AT92?

 

-Alex

 

It will not have that feature.



#30 paulh83

paulh83

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA

Posted 14 August 2017 - 06:49 PM

Could be worth selling my SV70ed doublet for this as my grab-and-go. 



#31 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,739
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 26 August 2017 - 03:04 PM

Any word on whether this will come with a case, or rings and dovetail? It looks like the 92SS was able to get nice and short for an airplane carry-on bag, hoping the little AT92 will be able to do so as well. This is an enticing scope but I would rather have a doublet with this aperture and maybe slightly slower f-ratio to save on cost while still being airplane-portable. The TS 90mm that unscrews into multiple tube sections might be the better option, and it's quite a lot cheaper. It is also a more binoviewer-friendly option which would be excellent for a rich field scope like the AT92/TS90.


Edited by yokken, 26 August 2017 - 03:07 PM.

  • 25585 likes this

#32 Aleko

Aleko

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,160
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: AZ/WI

Posted 26 August 2017 - 03:14 PM

Any word on whether this will come with a case, or rings and dovetail? It looks like the 92SS was able to get nice and short for an airplane carry-on bag, hoping the little AT92 will be able to do so as well. This is an enticing scope but I would rather have a doublet with this aperture and maybe slightly slower f-ratio to save on cost while still being airplane-portable. The TS 90mm that unscrews into multiple tube sections might be the better option, and it's quite a lot cheaper. It is also a more binoviewer-friendly option which would be excellent for a rich field scope like the AT92/TS90.

 

Last I saw on the web site, it does come with rings, dovetail, and case.  :-)

 

Alex


Edited by Aleko, 26 August 2017 - 03:15 PM.

  • Pug likes this

#33 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,739
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:29 PM

Ha, I must have missed then when looking at their lineup. With rings, dovetail, and case, $1800 is a little easier to swallow. Still pretty spendy but probably close to fair given the optical quality.



#34 Aleko

Aleko

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,160
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: AZ/WI

Posted 26 August 2017 - 05:36 PM

Ha, I must have missed then when looking at their lineup...

 

 

When going to the Astronomics web site, the AT92 is not 

listed under refractors. (?).  But you can still find it under Manufacturers/Astrotech.  

 

Alex



#35 mattyk-usa

mattyk-usa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Savannah, GA

Posted 27 August 2017 - 03:50 PM

Can we assume that the focuser is the same assembly that is used on the other EDT's?  As a 130EDT owner, I would consider that to be a positive.


  • dagadget and Pug like this

#36 olivdeso

olivdeso

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Paris France

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:24 AM

It is a triplet with a center element of FCD100 (ED), one mating element of LAL14 (Lanthanum), and then a third element.

 

Excellent.

 

I was searching on the website but could not find the info. FCD100 is the Hoya equivalent to the well known O'hara FPL53.

 

-> IMO, you should really emphasize it on the product webpage. It is a key point (go/no go to me)  which makes all the difference on a such fast triplet.

 

Great job, great product, congratulations

 

Olivier

 

p.s. having some AP, I still miss my AT106...may be the AT92 could cure the pain...


  • Pug likes this

#37 KRAS

KRAS

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2017

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:53 AM

I need to buy some Hoya stock... Is FCD100 glass that expensive? the AT80 is 750$ and the 92 is 1800$ 

 

With a scope that small at this f/ could you really notice any difference between FPL-51 and FPL-53 / FCD100? 


  • Pug likes this

#38 mattyk-usa

mattyk-usa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Savannah, GA

Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:05 AM

Well, I simply can't see how one could go wrong with this OTA.  (Pre-) Ordered.  :smile:


  • Astronomics, Tyson M and Pug like this

#39 mattyk-usa

mattyk-usa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Savannah, GA

Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:11 AM

I need to buy some Hoya stock... Is FCD100 glass that expensive? the AT80 is 750$ and the 92 is 1800$ 

 

With a scope that small at this f/ could you really notice any difference between FPL-51 and FPL-53 / FCD100? 

Glass is one part of the equation. These objectives are specifically figured, based on the design of two legends of the business.  Ask anyone who has a LOMO or TMB designed objective in this size class.  For visual observers, this scope will take more magnification with less spurious color than cheaper designs.  For AP, the benefits should be obvious.  I'll bet they stay priced at a premium in the used market as well.  They're not for everyone, and that's just fine - but like many hobbys, the cost slope to get the very best gets very steep towards the end smile.png


Edited by mattyk-usa, 01 September 2017 - 11:11 AM.

  • Astronomics and Pug like this

#40 olivdeso

olivdeso

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Paris France

Posted 01 September 2017 - 05:27 PM

I need to buy some Hoya stock... Is FCD100 glass that expensive? the AT80 is 750$ and the 92 is 1800$ 

 

With a scope that small at this f/ could you really notice any difference between FPL-51 and FPL-53 / FCD100? 

 

Explore is also using FCD100 in some of their designs. Their 80F6 triplet is less expensive, but the design is more "common", the manufacture has probably already it on the shelves. Which is a different story for the AT92.

 

Yes, the difference between FPL51/FCD1/FK61 and FPL53/FCD100 is obvious for AP.

On the 80mm F6 triplet, the FPL51 is still acceptable. At the edge, but still good enough for many users.

But with 92 and at F5.5, FPL53 is mandatory, and there is not much margin if any.


  • Pug likes this

#41 olivdeso

olivdeso

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Paris France

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:22 PM

Also, the image circle is 48mm.

 

1) I understand 48mm with your generic flatener, is it right? which flatener exactly?

because I had the 2" AT FF with the AT106, but its output has T2 thread i.e. less than 42mm of free aperture. However, its quality and performance are excelent together with the AT106. So is there any larger FF which fits into the 2.5 focuser?

 

2) Any idea of the weight yet ? Between the TMB92L and the TMB92FT ? about 3Kg?



#42 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:26 PM

1.  The image circle was calculated without the flattener by the lens manufacturer.  We will get one in hand and put it through its paces to verify everything.  We will have a dedicated flattener to will attach to the focuser after we get one here to verify all the measurements.  It will be sent off to Roger and he will work on the design when he isn't working on 3 meter mirrors.  lol

 

2.  No clue on weight, but I believe you are on the right path.


  • Pug likes this

#43 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,739
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 03 September 2017 - 02:32 PM

Mike, forgive me if this was already covered somewhere, but I can't find any details. Will this come with a 2.5" Feathertouch focuser like the original TMB92? The cost of the scope suggests that it should, as the original was roughly the same price and almost a quarter of the cost of the scope was the focuser. Otherwise I suppose I'm curious where the money is going in terms of production cost and product value. I would expect most people to want a premium focuser on a premium little scope like this... I know I would.

 

I'm also curious about the potential price of the dedicated flattener. I assume it will not be cheap in any sense of the word, but from what I've seen from similarly fast scopes, it will absolutely need one, maybe even for visual observation. frown.gif

 

Oh, how this scope torments me... I am going to cross my fingers and hope that the economy gods smile upon me. I don't want to miss out on this. But it's going to be ungodly expensive for such a small scope.


Edited by yokken, 03 September 2017 - 02:33 PM.


#44 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 03 September 2017 - 02:56 PM

It doesn't come with the 3" FT as the original.  The $700 price point was too pricey and we feel the upgraded version of the EDT focuser is going to give the FT a run for its money in most categories.  When the original TMB92 was released there wasn't any other real option out there and Werner made the 3" FT specifically for our scope.  Over the past 7 years or so the focusers have improved dramatically.

 

That being said, the closet current competition is the CFF 92 at f/6 with a 3" FT focuser that runs $3600 USD, roughly double the cost.

 

I think we are right on target with our pricing of the 92 as we have "updated" the design and kept cost split between the two old scopes even though our lens cost went up 55% since we last had them produced.


  • zjc26138 and Tyson M like this

#45 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 03 September 2017 - 02:57 PM

It won't need a dedicated flattener for visual.  The TMB92 has been out in the field for years and has never had a dedicated flattener.  It has been an awesome visual instrument as well as photographic instrument.


  • Pug likes this

#46 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,739
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 03 September 2017 - 03:03 PM

Yikes, a 55% increase in lens cost? Well dang, consider me uninformed. Is that due to shortages of FPL-53 or another necessary resource? I know inflation hasn't devalued the dollar that badly...

 

I appreciate the transparency; it certainly makes me feel more confident about purchasing from you. But it still stings to think about dropping $2000 on the scope and then likely another $300-500 on a flattener and then another $100-200 on a case, etc etc... and that's again without a Feathertouch. It all adds up. But I digress... this is the cost of the hobby, it just hurts to see when seeing numerous TMB92SS sold on CN for $1500, with the FT and a case.

 

I'll just keep on dreaming over here. Thanks Mike.



#47 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6,546
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 03 September 2017 - 03:10 PM

We will see about the flattener.  It really comes down the economy of scale for it.

 

It is a number of things that raised the price.  The number would have been higher if we didn't hit a certain Minimum Production Quantity.


  • Pug likes this

#48 je2000

je2000

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Austin

Posted 13 September 2017 - 07:11 PM

I was thinking of the Esprit 80 or Stellarvue 80 for getting into imaging. Would the AT92 pair well with the Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ5? That combo would travel well, I think.


Edited by je2000, 13 September 2017 - 07:16 PM.

  • Pug likes this

#49 kingjamez

kingjamez

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2006
  • Loc: Fairfax, VA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:48 PM

When are these expected to arrive?

 

-Jim



#50 mattyk-usa

mattyk-usa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Savannah, GA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:24 PM

I was thinking of the Esprit 80 or Stellarvue 80 for getting into imaging. Would the AT92 pair well with the Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ5? That combo would travel well, I think.

I'd think that would work very well.  You certainly wouldn't be undermounted. 


  • havasman likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics