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

unknown 102/1500 refractor - origin or ATM ? What is it ?

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 19 January 2018 - 12:59 PM

Dear friends,

 

maybe you can help me to identify this strange refractor ? I will get this scope in february...till now, i just have a few pics. The guy who will give me this refractor has do not know any thing about this scope.

Well I'm a classic scope friend, as we all here.....but this thing is a mistery for me.

 

This is what I know from my friend and from the pics :

 

- vintage (?) achromatic refractor 102/1500

- lens cell from metall but not adjustable ( strange )

- no labels anythere, no sticker on the OAZ no label on the cell or elsewhere

- lens cell has outer threads for a dew cap , dew cap missing (?)

 

Well I'm really not a greenhorn in classics scopes and have own many classic scopes and collect them, but I have never seen a refractor like this.

 

Allways if I think "thats it's !" I see little details that will not match...

 

Of course its no Unitron, but its no SYW Yamamoto, no Vixen ( but some little details look like Vixen or Celestron ), no other well known japanese producer AFAIK....so what is this ??

 

Could it be an early Antares Elite ???? The strange is really the cell...nearly all well known 102/1500 achromats have/had a cell wit 3 pairs of push&pull screws...but this guy does not !

 

I remember the Celestron C100E, little details like the focuser and the rings remember me at this, but overall its certainly NOT a Celestron, I guess.

 

The actual owner also didnt know how old this scope is....

 

Is it a origin product OR is it maybe a complete ATM refractor ???

 

Any ideas, friends ?????

 

kind regards, Michael Aaron from germany

Attached Thumbnails

  • u1.jpg
  • u2.jpg

Edited by AaronM, 19 January 2018 - 01:05 PM.

  • Bomber Bob likes this

#2 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 19 January 2018 - 01:01 PM

Two more pics

Attached Thumbnails

  • u3.jpg
  • u4.jpg

  • TSSClay likes this

#3 Martin

Martin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2005
  • Loc: South Dakota

Posted 19 January 2018 - 05:48 PM

Could it possibly be a Mizar?



#4 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11885
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:12 AM

I would not rule out an ATM project, but some of the parts definitely come from Japanese telescope manufacturers, as they are consistent with the style then in vogue there from the early 1980'ies to around 2000. 

 

I've tried looking through some old catalogues online, but haven't found a clear match for the parts yet. The focuser definitely makes me think Vixen. The tube rings COULD be early Vixen, made for the Saturn mount. They're definitely different from the rings later used on the Polaris, SP and GP series. Sadly, the Vixen catalogue scans on Galakuma's site are too low resolution to allow me to see the details clearly. 

 

A closeup of the focuser would be nice. 

 

I've found no matching parts in Mizar, Kenko or Carton catalogues. Neither Mizar, nor Kenko made 4" refractors and the Carton was an f/13, not f/15, and the details don't match.

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Edited by Astrojensen, 20 January 2018 - 07:13 AM.

  • terraclarke likes this

#5 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17962
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:18 AM

Looks like a 90's focuser and rings...


  • Astrojensen likes this

#6 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:46 AM

Thanks so far, friends...well seems I have to wait till february to inspect it in detail......worst thing is the lens. One of the pre-owners has lost the original spacers and replaced them with paper-stripes (?).

Well, before I will spend many hours in  restoration, I'll let check the optic by Wolfgang Grzybowski. He's a well known optic specialist in germany and saved many optics and has great experienes in measuring and optimizing of mirrors and lenses.

 

If he make new spacers and will check the quality of the lens as good, than its worth to restore this refractor. If he say "the lens is horrible" of course not...

 

kind regards, Michael



#7 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:47 AM

Thanks so far, friends...well seems I have to wait till february to inspect it in detail......worst thing is the lens. One of the pre-owners has lost the original spacers and replaced them with paper-stripes (?).

Well, before I will spend many hours in  restoration, I'll let check the optic by Wolfgang Grzybowski. He's a well known optic specialist in germany and saved many optics and has great experienes in measuring and optimizing of mirrors and lenses.

 

If he make new spacers and will check the quality of the lens as good, than its worth to restore this refractor. If he say "the lens is horrible" of course not...

 

kind regards, Michael

 

 

.....could that be a Jaegers cell ???

Attached Thumbnails

  • u5.jpg

Edited by AaronM, 20 January 2018 - 08:02 AM.

  • Bomber Bob likes this

#8 starman876

starman876

    Nihon Seiko

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 19931
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:24 AM

jaegers or edmunds cell.    I have both and they do look similar.   The spacers almost look like something Surplus Shed would have done when they were selling Jaegers objectives.



#9 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19732
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: 39° 4' 19" N / 84° 28' 22" W

Posted 20 January 2018 - 10:21 AM

jaegers or edmunds cell.    I have both and they do look similar.   The spacers almost look like something Surplus Shed would have done when they were selling Jaegers objectives.

It looks nothing like the cell on my 4” F15 Edmund refractor. 



#10 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11885
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 20 January 2018 - 10:25 AM

Paper strips might actually not be such a bad idea for spacers on an achromatic doublet, since their thickness is very uniform, when under pressure. I've used black electrician's tape, as well as common household tape, with great success in the past. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • Bomber Bob likes this

#11 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:18 PM

Have come across doublets with postage stamp edge trimmings. Worked just fine.



#12 bartine

bartine

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1890
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Silver Spring, MD

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:15 PM

I've had several Orion scopes that had Japanese manufactured objectives that had the exact same spacers...



#13 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12587
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:38 PM

...probably means nothing but the guide scope rings & fittings are dead-ringers for those on my Dai Ichi Kogaku 80mm f15, vintage about 1980 or so...

 

GuideRingComp.png


  • Astrojensen likes this

#14 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 21 January 2018 - 12:48 PM

Thank you friends for your hints !

 

Dear Kokatha man : I guess your hint to Daiiti may be a hot scent !

 

But overall I tend to the presumption that this refractor is a complete ATM refractor by using parts of many different telescope makers....

Still the lens-cell is a mistery for me.....usual all "big"  4" refractors uses collimatable cells.....maybe the cell is ATM too ?...

 

Kind regards, Michael



#15 Kasmos

Kasmos

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2015
  • Loc: So Cal

Posted 21 January 2018 - 01:38 PM

Does not look at all like my 4" Jaegers cell. Mine has a depressed section around it for the label/decal.



#16 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 26 January 2018 - 07:34 AM

Hi friends, because of the fact that it will last a few weeks till this old refractor will be useable ( restoration project wink.gif ) I have done something that looks like a crime for us classic scopes friends :

 

I have ordered a "classic style" new Bresser 102/1350 mm Achro bow.gif . I was interested in these refractor since it appears on the market, because it's a kind of rebirth of the old long focal ratio refractors. Okay, it's a cheap telescope and I await not to much, but maybe with a little tuning it will be a nice scope. My lathe is waitinglol.gif

 

https://www.bresser....e-assembly.html

 

And later it maybe an interesting comparison between the unknown japanese 102/1500 and this modern chinese 102/1350 mm refractor...cool.gif

 

 

Kind regards, Michael


Edited by AaronM, 26 January 2018 - 07:35 AM.

  • Astrojensen, terraclarke and Augustus like this

#17 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 26 January 2018 - 10:14 AM

China optics and mechanics are constantly improving. I'm sure that will be a fine scope. I had a Meade AR5 with very good spherical correction - just recently sold it and the new owner is ecstatic. Its main optical defect was lack of the superb polish one sees on the old hand-worked Japanese lenses.

 

-drl



#18 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 28 January 2018 - 02:50 PM

Hello friends,

 

i have now a suspicion ! A few years ago I had a 76/1250 mm refractor Prinz Model 660 made bei Kenko - and : yes, the lens cell looks very similar !!!!

Is my 102/1500 maybe a Kenko refractor ???

Here I have an old pic from my Kenko lens cell :

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • newtonrings3.JPG

  • terraclarke likes this

#19 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11885
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 28 January 2018 - 04:43 PM

 

Is my 102/1500 maybe a Kenko refractor ?

The biggest refractor I can find in the Kenko catalogues is a 80/1200mm. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark



#20 AaronM

AaronM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2006
  • Loc: NRW, Germany

Posted 01 February 2018 - 07:01 AM

Dear Thomas,

 

it another item, but it belongs a little bit to a classic scope: I had the short chance to test the new Bresser 102/1350 mm Achromat.

 

It was a sad experience...well my english is to bad to post it here. But if you like, you can see my little report here :

 

 

http://www.astrotref...TOPIC_ID=220888

 

Maybe one can use a Google translator...

 

My best regards, Michael a'la "wambo" in astrotreff


  • Astrojensen likes this

#21 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12587
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 01 February 2018 - 07:52 AM

...a very depressing read Michael - my sympathies! frown.gif

 

You state several times that you "think" the lenses themselves might be ok...& besides your "plastic, plastic & more plastic" comments & any possible influence this might have had on the ability of the objective assembly to stay collimated - as the vendor claimed it to be after he worked on it before sending it to you - you also appear to "think" you might have got a dud & Jurie bought a good one - you are a very fair man my friend...I'd be inclined to be much more cynical, personally..! lol.gif

 

I didn't bother reading any of Jurie's comments about his tbh...

 

We all make mistakes however & I cannot blame plastic as an issue for the large amount of money I paid for an OOUK 16" "special optics" Newtonian I purchased quite a few years ago now...that really was an absolutely crying shame! frown.gif



#22 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 01 February 2018 - 08:08 AM

Sounds like severe SA caused by a lens mounted backward. Even the cheapest Chinese machine-generated achromat should have reasonable spherical correction and what you describe is not reasonable.

 

-drl



#23 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 01 February 2018 - 08:20 AM

Let me describe an experience with a similar scope - a Meade 90mm alt-az refractor I bought for next to nothing, expecting little. Same type cell as this one, but metal tube and dewshield - cheap plastic focuser etc. At the time I had nothing smaller than a 5" refractor and wanted something I could schlep out every night to follow the ring-plane crossing of Saturn back in 2009. f/10.

 

Well this scope performed magnificently. It did its job on the ring-plane crossing far better than I could have hoped. So well that I upgraded the focuser, invented a means of collimating the cell, took care to reduce tube reflections etc. with flocking, and increased the overall performance. The spherical correction is outstanding. There is a slight evidence of a central zone but is very slight. This scope can split Pi Aquilae easily which is near its theoretical limit. The polish is not great, not unexpected from a machine-generated optic. But overall it performs extremely well, and now gets used for low-power cruising with 2" eyepieces.

 

So I would expect a similar report from yours, which is almost surely made by the same house as mine. For the ringless mush you describe, the only possible cause is severe spherical aberration, and that must surely be coming from an improperly assembled objective, where either the entire thing is backward, or the front element is flipped.

 

-drl


Edited by deSitter, 01 February 2018 - 08:22 AM.


#24 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11885
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:21 PM

Dear Thomas,

 

it another item, but it belongs a little bit to a classic scope: I had the short chance to test the new Bresser 102/1350 mm Achromat.

 

It was a sad experience...well my english is to bad to post it here. But if you like, you can see my little report here :

 

 

http://www.astrotref...TOPIC_ID=220888

 

Maybe one can use a Google translator...

 

My best regards, Michael a'la "wambo" in astrotreff

Hi Michael

 

I have already read your depressing report. I've been a member of astrotreff for quite some time, though I don't post much there, but I read quite a lot.

 

 

 

Sounds like severe SA caused by a lens mounted backward. Even the cheapest Chinese machine-generated achromat should have reasonable spherical correction and what you describe is not reasonable.

 

[...]

 

For the ringless mush you describe, the only possible cause is severe spherical aberration, and that must surely be coming from an improperly assembled objective, where either the entire thing is backward, or the front element is flipped.

 

-drl

I was thinking the exact same thing, the very moment I read the review on astrotreff.de. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to take the objective apart, inspect it and either mount it backwards or flip the front element. I've corrected Zeiss objectives, where the lens elements had been flipped, so it's EXTREMELY likely, that the same thing could have happened here. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark



#25 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 02 February 2018 - 03:14 PM

FES aberration? (Flipped Element(S) )


  • Astrojensen 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