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

How good or bad is the Astro-Tech AT152EDT f/8 Triplet APO?

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,023
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 09 May 2019 - 11:07 AM

Hello,

 

Just how good/bad is the Astro-Tech AT152EDT f/8 Triplet APO?  For the price it's within my budget but wondering if the optical quality

will be as good as my ES 5" FCD100? Thanks for the help.

 

Clear Skies,  De Lorme


  • akagai1960 likes this

#2 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,792
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 09 May 2019 - 01:59 PM

I’ve found mine to be very good. You’ll need a mount that’s capable of carrying it. As much moment arm as weight capacity. Mine gives excellent visual views and once I’m home more will be capturing some images with it. There’s a thread from earlier and some pictures on the Mach1. Build quality is very good too.


  • akagai1960 likes this

#3 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,023
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 09 May 2019 - 02:49 PM

Thanks Phil,

 

I read your reviews{and others} from awhile back saying just how good they were. But was wondering if the optical quality{and QC}was holding up. Talked to Astronomic's today and ask whether the AVX I have could handle the 6' triplet since it was really pushing it's capacity at 28lb and they said for visual use only it would be fine.  Have you tried using binoviewers with the 6" apo yet?  If so how does the focuser handle the weight?  Thinking about buying one next month.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

De Lorme



#4 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,112
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 09 May 2019 - 04:35 PM

I use an AVX with a SW150 ED and it's pretty much at the limit of the mount. With the AT152ED being a triplet I don't know if it could handle that. It's a whole 7 lbs heavier.

I'm the last person to underestimate the AVX but I think that might finally be too much.
  • Heywood likes this

#5 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,268
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 09 May 2019 - 05:44 PM

I use an AVX with a SW150 ED and it's pretty much at the limit of the mount. With the AT152ED being a triplet I don't know if it could handle that. It's a whole 7 lbs heavier.

I'm the last person to underestimate the AVX but I think that might finally be too much.

My G8 was over loaded with a 130mm EDT.  The 152 would have monster weight up front.


  • Phil Cowell and Auburn80 like this

#6 agmoonsolns

agmoonsolns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2018

Posted 09 May 2019 - 06:15 PM

It will be much better than the 5", the AT are one of the best *for their price bracket*. Just keep in mind, you get what you pay for. The LZOS made TMB lenses are very much better, I have done direct comparisons. If I was on a tight budget, I would go for the AT scopes. With a larger budget, I would hunt around for a used TMB/LZOS, but they cost way more. The AT triplets are the best bang you can get for your buck, you would be hard pressed to do better without spending several times as much.


  • akagai1960 likes this

#7 HydrogenAlpha

HydrogenAlpha

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 554
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 09 May 2019 - 06:51 PM

It will be much better than the 5", the AT are one of the best *for their price bracket*. Just keep in mind, you get what you pay for. The LZOS made TMB lenses are very much better, I have done direct comparisons. If I was on a tight budget, I would go for the AT scopes. With a larger budget, I would hunt around for a used TMB/LZOS, but they cost way more. The AT triplets are the best bang you can get for your buck, you would be hard pressed to do better without spending several times as much.


Out of curiosity, what differences do you see between the AT and LZOS? I have a friend who did a side-by-side comparison between the LZOS 152 and APM 152ED doublet, and the differences were noticeable but subtle, and I assumed it was mainly just due to one being a triplet and the other being a doublet. With the AT152 being a triplet, I didn't think the differences would be that obvious
  • vkhastro1 and gnowellsct like this

#8 agmoonsolns

agmoonsolns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2018

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:29 PM

The differences were really obvious in the star test and the TMB could handle much higher magnifications. Color correction was superb in both. The most noticeable difference was that the AT delivered softer images and scattered more light than the TMB. Not huge differences, but it was immediately noticeable. The AT refractors are wonderful, but the TMB/LZOS are definitely better. 


  • Blueox4 likes this

#9 John O'Grady

John O'Grady

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Waterloo, ON CAN

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:31 PM

What I'm curious about is if the AT152EDT is based on the TMB152 f/8.  I've read on CN that the AT92 evolved from the TMB 92SS and was wondering if this is the case for other refractors from the AT EDT series.  I know... I should contact astronomics and ask.  If I was going to buy tomorrow, I would..



#10 John O'Grady

John O'Grady

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Waterloo, ON CAN

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:33 PM

The differences were really obvious in the star test and the TMB could handle much higher magnifications. Color correction was superb in both. The most noticeable difference was that the AT delivered softer images and scattered more light than the TMB. Not huge differences, but it was immediately noticeable. The AT refractors are wonderful, but the TMB/LZOS are definitely better. 

But the comparison was against a AT 152 doublet rather than the AT 152 triplet, correct?


Edited by John O'Grady, 09 May 2019 - 07:33 PM.


#11 agmoonsolns

agmoonsolns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2018

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:44 PM

I think they had to make some adjustments in the design because one of the original glass types used in the original design is no longer available or costs too much. I think Astronomics is trying very hard to keep these refractors as affordable and inexpensive as possible. 


  • Illinois and John O'Grady like this

#12 agmoonsolns

agmoonsolns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2018

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:44 PM

No, I compared the triplets side-by-side.

 

But the comparison was against a AT 152 doublet rather than the AT 152 triplet, correct?


Edited by agmoonsolns, 09 May 2019 - 07:45 PM.

  • John O'Grady likes this

#13 John O'Grady

John O'Grady

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Waterloo, ON CAN

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:55 PM

No, I compared the triplets side-by-side.

 

Ok - thanks for clearing that up.  Now that is interesting.  

Thank you for sharing your experience from comparing the tw.

 

The TMB152 LW is kinda of my dream scope, so I'm very interested in comparisons between the two.

The AT152EDT is an attractive option but I think I'll hold off longer to see if a used TMB152 come up for sale.


Edited by John O'Grady, 09 May 2019 - 07:55 PM.

  • agmoonsolns likes this

#14 agmoonsolns

agmoonsolns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2018

Posted 09 May 2019 - 07:59 PM

You might want to look at refractors from TEC and Agema too.


  • John O'Grady likes this

#15 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,792
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:11 PM

Thanks Phil,

 

I read your reviews{and others} from awhile back saying just how good they were. But was wondering if the optical quality{and QC}was holding up. Talked to Astronomic's today and ask whether the AVX I have could handle the 6' triplet since it was really pushing it's capacity at 28lb and they said for visual use only it would be fine.  Have you tried using binoviewers with the 6" apo yet?  If so how does the focuser handle the weight?  Thinking about buying one next month.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

De Lorme

I haven’t tried binoviewers on the 152 yet but have a Vernonscope binoviewer and WO binoviewer. I can give them a test if it’s clear here over the weekend. I honestly don’t see an issue with the focused and the binoviewer .



#16 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,792
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:14 PM

I use an AVX with a SW150 ED and it's pretty much at the limit of the mount. With the AT152ED being a triplet I don't know if it could handle that. It's a whole 7 lbs heavier.

I'm the last person to underestimate the AVX but I think that might finally be too much.

Agree with you there. The moment arm might be the issue. Have a CGEM II that I can test it on.


  • dagadget likes this

#17 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,792
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:15 PM

It will be much better than the 5", the AT are one of the best *for their price bracket*. Just keep in mind, you get what you pay for. The LZOS made TMB lenses are very much better, I have done direct comparisons. If I was on a tight budget, I would go for the AT scopes. With a larger budget, I would hunt around for a used TMB/LZOS, but they cost way more. The AT triplets are the best bang you can get for your buck, you would be hard pressed to do better without spending several times as much.

If I remember the AT152EDT is an updated TMB design.


  • John O'Grady and aa6ww like this

#18 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,792
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:20 PM

Ok - thanks for clearing that up.  Now that is interesting.  

Thank you for sharing your experience from comparing the tw.

 

The TMB152 LW is kinda of my dream scope, so I'm very interested in comparisons between the two.

The AT152EDT is an attractive option but I think I'll hold off longer to see if a used TMB152 come up for sale.

If you have access to a TMB152 LW, I’m in central NY and could meet half way with the AT152EDT to run a comparison.


  • John O'Grady likes this

#19 John O'Grady

John O'Grady

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Waterloo, ON CAN

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:42 PM

If you have access to a TMB152 LW, I’m in central NY and could meet half way with the AT152EDT to run a comparison.

I wish I did.  That's a comparison I'd like have the opportunity to try.  I'll keep this mind if I ever get access to one in the future.  Thanks!  


  • Phil Cowell likes this

#20 YAOG

YAOG

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 09 May 2019 - 09:00 PM

 

Thanks Phil,

 

I read your reviews{and others} from awhile back saying just how good they were. But was wondering if the optical quality{and QC}was holding up. Talked to Astronomic's today and ask whether the AVX I have could handle the 6' triplet since it was really pushing it's capacity at 28lb and they said for visual use only it would be fine.  Have you tried using binoviewers with the 6" apo yet?  If so how does the focuser handle the weight?  Thinking about buying one next month.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

De Lorme

De Lorme,

 

The AT152EDT is too heavy and too long to work well even visually on an AVX. IMO you will need at least CGX/CGX-L or better yet a G11 or MACH1 to carry and image well with a long 1200mm optic. They are long and the weight is located at both ends of the long tube, this is asking for trouble with a light tripod and low-end mount. You will also need to raise the mount up to its limits to clear the ground and this makes the weak tripod even shakier.  

 

Chip


Edited by YAOG, 10 May 2019 - 11:51 AM.

  • Phil Cowell likes this

#21 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,840
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 09 May 2019 - 10:20 PM

Out of curiosity, what differences do you see between the AT and LZOS? I have a friend who did a side-by-side comparison between the LZOS 152 and APM 152ED doublet, and the differences were noticeable but subtle, and I assumed it was mainly just due to one being a triplet and the other being a doublet. With the AT152 being a triplet, I didn't think the differences would be that obvious

I'm beginning to think this is more significant than I used to think.  But there are some doublets that I think would hold their own against pretty much anything in visual use, such as the Tak FS series and the Vixen Ed81s.  But I'm a lot more dubious than I used to be, now that I've spent some time with some top tier triplet apos.  

 

Greg N



#22 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,023
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 10 May 2019 - 12:15 AM

Phil I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion on how well the focuser works with binoviewers and a couple of eyepieces. 

 

Chip that was my concern also. It's was the main reason I called Astronomics. I made this pier extension just after I got my ES 5"FCD100.

I have very little vibration from the focuser.  Cost me about $25 to make and it's been a life saver for looking up really high. All of this rides on top of a JMI Wheely Bar.  The wheels sit on top of leveled pavers and I screw the threaded knob into the dirt with my cordless drill. Takes about 4 seconds for each wheel. 

 

I can't afford a new mount plus a new refractor.  Astronomics tested the 6' triplet with the AVX and said it would be fine for VISUAL only. 

 

 

De Lorme

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_1110.JPG
  • IMG_1103.JPG
  • IMG_1344.JPG
  • IMG_1120.JPG

Edited by De Lorme, 10 May 2019 - 12:22 AM.

  • akagai1960 likes this

#23 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,112
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 10 May 2019 - 12:31 AM

I guess if they tested the combination it might be worth a try. But I'd still be ready for the possibility that you might find it insufficient and want a better mount.

#24 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,268
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 10 May 2019 - 05:19 AM

Smaller mounts just won't cut it with a top heavy 6" APO.  G11 would do fine, but any CG5 class mount or smaller is out.


Edited by CHASLX200, 10 May 2019 - 05:19 AM.

  • precaud likes this

#25 YAOG

YAOG

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 10 May 2019 - 11:37 AM

Smaller mounts just won't cut it with a top heavy 6" APO.  G11 would do fine, but any CG5 class mount or smaller is out.

That's what I said. 




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