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

AP third production run of the 92mm F6.65 Stowaways

  • Please log in to reply
255 replies to this topic

#26 GaryJCarter

GaryJCarter

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Fairview, Texas

Posted 26 December 2019 - 05:58 PM

I received my 3rd run notification yesterday. My confirmation to be included on the original offer came April 17, 2018 at 11:20:14 PM CDT. Yes, I am all-in! waytogo.gif


Edited by GaryJCarter, 26 December 2019 - 05:59 PM.

  • Scott in NC and tadeusz like this

#27 balu01

balu01

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:44 PM

I got notified too, on the fence about it though not sure if I end up getting it, have about a week to decide.

I am Takd out, not planning to give up my 100's and a 92 at this point might be just a 92 to have a 92 however good it may be.


Edited by balu01, 27 December 2019 - 12:44 PM.


#28 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,916
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 27 December 2019 - 03:12 PM

I got notified too, on the fence about it though not sure if I end up getting it, have about a week to decide.

I am Takd out, not planning to give up my 100's and a 92 at this point might be just a 92 to have a 92 however good it may be.

It's worth trying one, you can't lose since you can sell it in a few minutes should you decide it doesn't meet your needs.


  • Scott in NC and balu01 like this

#29 k5apl

k5apl

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,169
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 27 December 2019 - 06:32 PM

I would be surprised if he compares the A-P and the TAK and sells the A-P Stowaway.  I think my 92 Stowaway is

exceptional and maybe his will be also.  If not, then somebody off the list will be very happy.


  • Paul G and peleuba like this

#30 balu01

balu01

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 27 December 2019 - 09:21 PM

I think there is plenty of exceptional scopes, 

 

I would be surprised if he compares the A-P and the TAK and sells the A-P Stowaway.  I think my 92 Stowaway is

exceptional and maybe his will be also.  If not, then somebody off the list will be very happy.

I think there are plenty of exceptional scopes. Now staying in reality , I really don't think aN AP would be able to show much more than a TAK for that matter. While they are legendary and I understand that fact, how much better a perfect star test can get? I get that from all my TAKs.


  • 3 i Guy, SandyHouTex, leviathan and 3 others like this

#31 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,405
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 27 December 2019 - 09:42 PM

Although I passed on mine, I'm really happy to hear that AP is still making these.  Never before have so many brand new APs been put into the hands of so many people in such a short period of time.


  • Paul G, Paul Hyndman, plyscope and 5 others like this

#32 R Botero

R Botero

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,484
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 28 December 2019 - 04:42 AM

I also received my notification last night waytogo.gif. I need to decide what additional goodies to order with it; maybe a flattener. 

Ordered and paid the deposit for scope and flattener yesterday! cool.gif


  • Paul Hyndman, Scott in NC, HARRISON SCOPES and 4 others like this

#33 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,775
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 28 December 2019 - 10:01 AM

I think there is plenty of exceptional scopes, 

 

I think there are plenty of exceptional scopes. Now staying in reality , I really don't think aN AP would be able to show much more than a TAK for that matter. While they are legendary and I understand that fact, how much better a perfect star test can get? I get that from all my TAKs.

I’ll probably get notified soon, but I’m kinda on the fence myself.  I have a TSA-102 that is perfect, and the AP is primarily for imagers, which I haven’t been doing lately.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 28 December 2019 - 10:01 AM.


#34 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 28 December 2019 - 11:29 AM

Before the Stowaway arrived here I wondered if my right eye would be able to to detect any difference with the TV-85 and the FC-100DF and I assumed I would not. The first night out solo with the 92 in the summer Milky Way and I knew the 92 was putting more energy where it should be. What really stood out was how "bright" the "dim" stars were, I just couldn't get over this. After two more solo nights and doing my best to be objective with my thoughts it was evident that the 92 was going to be a cut above the other two scopes optically. And when I dual mounted the proof was there, no denying the fact. It is very obvious that Roland does indeed take the time to and is able to satisfy his own personal OCDness with regard to the optics. I'm just like everyone else and when I've used the 85 or the 100 I always thought "how can it get any better?". Solo and one wouldn't perhaps realize but side by side and the proof is there.

 

This share is not meant to "stir the pot" by any means but to encourage all that are on the list if you have the resources available then give the little Stowaway a try, you just might be surprised. And as has been stated if it's not for you then you can move it on while recouping all and you'll always be able to say "been there done that". But if possible give it a go and you be the judge empirically.

 

 

Peace...


  • k5apl, Astrojensen, eros312 and 3 others like this

#35 kkt

kkt

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,927
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 28 December 2019 - 09:23 PM

I got on the list April 20.  So I should get my notification in a couple of days, right?  ;)



#36 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 697
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006

Posted 29 December 2019 - 11:25 AM

Before the Stowaway arrived here I wondered if my right eye would be able to to detect any difference with the TV-85 and the FC-100DF and I assumed I would not. The first night out solo with the 92 in the summer Milky Way and I knew the 92 was putting more energy where it should be. What really stood out was how "bright" the "dim" stars were, I just couldn't get over this. After two more solo nights and doing my best to be objective with my thoughts it was evident that the 92 was going to be a cut above the other two scopes optically. And when I dual mounted the proof was there, no denying the fact. It is very obvious that Roland does indeed take the time to and is able to satisfy his own personal OCDness with regard to the optics. I'm just like everyone else and when I've used the 85 or the 100 I always thought "how can it get any better?". Solo and one wouldn't perhaps realize but side by side and the proof is there.

 

This share is not meant to "stir the pot" by any means but to encourage all that are on the list if you have the resources available then give the little Stowaway a try, you just might be surprised. And as has been stated if it's not for you then you can move it on while recouping all and you'll always be able to say "been there done that". But if possible give it a go and you be the judge empirically.

 

 

Peace...

So you are saying you like it better than your Tak FC-100DF? Can you expand on this?



#37 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 29 December 2019 - 12:41 PM

So you are saying you like it better than your Tak FC-100DF? Can you expand on this?

I don't want this to get into a heated debate and emotions flare and get derailed but the Stowaway here has the better optic. The 100DF is under corrected for SA while the 92 is essentially perfect. That is the difference in Takahashi (or TV from experience here) developing a prescription and getting their needs met by another working the glass and delivering the product. It is obvious that Roland can and is working the glass and the limit to the finished product is when his personal aim/goal (OCD) is met. My share is meant as an encouragement to those that are on the list and are wondering whether to pass or try the 92. I encourage to give it a try since you'll be out nothing if it doesn't perform as expected/wanted. The energy that goes into the airy disc on the 92 sample here is remarkable, one simply has to experience this because no amount of describing nor any optical testing and posting of numbers can convey what dropping an eyepiece in and looking up with it will reveal. An example of this "not being able to put into words/describe" is when I was comparing them on M55 using the Ethos and keeping them around the ~60x mark. The 100 and the 85 performed as they always have and showing what their aperture size should. The 92, dumping more energy into the airy disc, was like using a larger optic. I was wishing that the buddies I have here on CN and elsewhere were right there with me so they could "see" for themselves because words alone just fall short.

 

Lol, maybe I'm blind in my right eye and the 92's prescription is just what I needed.  ;)  If you get the opportunity to try don't let it pass you by. You be the judge but make your judgement based on what you see in the eyepiece and not on what I or others share, words can only take you so far.

 

 

Peace...


  • Paul G, Moondust, eros312 and 1 other like this

#38 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,775
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 29 December 2019 - 01:54 PM

Before the Stowaway arrived here I wondered if my right eye would be able to to detect any difference with the TV-85 and the FC-100DF and I assumed I would not. The first night out solo with the 92 in the summer Milky Way and I knew the 92 was putting more energy where it should be. What really stood out was how "bright" the "dim" stars were, I just couldn't get over this. After two more solo nights and doing my best to be objective with my thoughts it was evident that the 92 was going to be a cut above the other two scopes optically. And when I dual mounted the proof was there, no denying the fact. It is very obvious that Roland does indeed take the time to and is able to satisfy his own personal OCDness with regard to the optics. I'm just like everyone else and when I've used the 85 or the 100 I always thought "how can it get any better?". Solo and one wouldn't perhaps realize but side by side and the proof is there.

 

This share is not meant to "stir the pot" by any means but to encourage all that are on the list if you have the resources available then give the little Stowaway a try, you just might be surprised. And as has been stated if it's not for you then you can move it on while recouping all and you'll always be able to say "been there done that". But if possible give it a go and you be the judge empirically.

 

 

Peace...

I appreciate what you’re saying, but the Physics are that you can’t focus light any better once you have an optic that is basically perfect.  That is usually better than lambda/10.  Not to mention that refractors do a poor job, even triplets, when trying to focus ALL visible wavelengths at the same point.  The blur circle for all colors other than green, are usually larger than the Airy disk.  Here are some spot plots for a TSA-102 which is a triplet.  They demonstrate what I’m saying:

 

http://www.takahashi...ptics.spots.htm

 

I have a lot of respect for Roland, and ZEISS for that matter, but they can’t do better than the Physics.  Not to mention that the new Stowaway is f/6.65 which makes it worse than the TSA-102 which is an f/8.

 

I am glad that you are thrilled with your new Stowaway.



#39 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 29 December 2019 - 02:17 PM

A spot diagram representing the theoretical performance of a lens does not necessarily reflect the performance of a production lens.

 

Perhaps the " The 100DF is under corrected for SA while the 92 is essentially perfect." was missed.

 

Clear skies, Alan


  • Paul G, Paul Hyndman, peleuba and 4 others like this

#40 MSWcdavis

MSWcdavis

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2012

Posted 30 December 2019 - 05:20 AM

Yea AP raised the bar with these things - price included

 

the trickle down effect will continue

 

If I got into astrophotography I know a stowaway would do the trick

 

for visual it’s just not enough for my tastes 



#41 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 30 December 2019 - 12:51 PM

Probably old stuff to some but wasn't to me. Lol, now I know why the little Stowaway bested the little 85 here. Roland posted these and if this is a violation please remove and my apologies. Not all of us do social media and would not have seen these.

 

 

Peace...

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Stow1.jpg
  • Stow2.jpg
  • Stow3.jpg

  • eros312 likes this

#42 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 December 2019 - 01:09 PM

As long as these are here, it should be made clear to those who did not see them at ap-ug, that these are not three different lenses, but rather a single lens, starting at the beginning of the correction process, at an intermediate stage, and finally meeting Roland's standards and ready for use ("After several hours of correction work").

 

Generally, permission is required to post images and such that were created by other people.

 

Clear skies, Alan


Edited by Alan French, 30 December 2019 - 08:43 PM.

  • Joe Bergeron, peleuba, R Botero and 3 others like this

#43 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 30 December 2019 - 01:14 PM

Thank you, Alan, for setting me straight and making it clear of the progression.  waytogo.gif

 

 

Peace...



#44 sydney

sydney

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 732
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 December 2019 - 11:02 PM

My Stowaway also has excellent star profiles and exceptional contrast.   My Tak FSQ 106ED, however,  is optically just as good.  The differences are in the aperture, weight, and the fact that the field of the FSQ is flat.  Switching between them, these differences are obvious.  Other differences are cost and availability.  With the FSQ, you pay a premium for the flat field (and some extra aperture).  Both scopes are well worth their prices.  I would even say that for their optical and mechanical qualities, and adherence to their design goals, they are both bargains.


  • Kunama likes this

#45 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 697
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006

Posted 31 December 2019 - 11:43 AM

   My Tak FSQ 106ED, however,  is optically just as good.  The differences are in the aperture, weight, and the fact that the field of the FSQ is flat. 

 15.432 lbs for the Tak vs 7.1 lbs with cap for the Stowaway, so maybe mount requirements are different also.  


  • lionel likes this

#46 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 31 December 2019 - 12:27 PM

 15.432 lbs for the Tak vs 7.1 lbs with cap for the Stowaway, so maybe mount requirements are different also.  

For visual, perhaps. For imaging, I would guess this falls within the margins for many imagers using either of these scopes. 



#47 LMO

LMO

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Salt Lake City, UT

Posted 31 December 2019 - 04:38 PM

Probably old stuff to some but wasn't to me. Lol, now I know why the little Stowaway bested the little 85 here. Roland posted these and if this is a violation please remove and my apologies. Not all of us do social media and would not have seen these.

 

 

Peace...

 

https://www.cloudyni...-1577728183.jpg
https://www.cloudyni...-1577728206.jpg
https://www.cloudyni...-1577728219.jpg

 

As long as these are here, it should be made clear to those who did not see them at ap-ug, that these are not three different lenses, but rather a single lens, starting at the beginning of the correction process, at an intermediate stage, and finally meeting Roland's standards and ready for use ("After several hours of correction work").

 

Generally, permission is required to post images and such that were created by other people.

 

Clear skies, Alan

 

My thanks to 'jeremiah2229' for posting these and to Alan French for clarifying that they represent stages in the correction of a single Stowaway lens, along with my hopes that they will be allowed to remain on CN. 

 

They present a dramatic demonstration of results when the ability of modern interferometry to reveal what needs to be done to perfect an objective is combined with the efforts of an optician with the skill and willingness to do it.  Very impressive!

 

    Larry

 

Edited 01/01/20 to correct typo in 'jeremiah2229.'


Edited by LMO, 01 January 2020 - 05:36 AM.

  • Paul G, eros312, jeremiah2229 and 1 other like this

#48 Paulimer

Paulimer

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Hong Kong

Posted 03 January 2020 - 01:39 AM

I received mine on 20/12/2019, #266, not sure if it is second or third batch if there is such a thing.

Daleen has been extremely helpful and friendly during the transaction process and i was able to bring it to a photography trip right after. 

 

The M42 was taken with the 0.8 reducer with a D810A. The weather didn't permit the test of the flattener, which on initial runs gave much better results on the corners than the reducer. 

 

get.jpg?insecure


  • eros312, niteskystargazer and Paul Morow like this

#49 agavephoto

agavephoto

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2009

Posted 03 January 2020 - 10:33 AM

I received mine on 20/12/2019, #266, not sure if it is second or third batch if there is such a thing.

Daleen has been extremely helpful and friendly during the transaction process and i was able to bring it to a photography trip right after. 

 

The M42 was taken with the 0.8 reducer with a D810A. The weather didn't permit the test of the flattener, which on initial runs gave much better results on the corners than the reducer. 

 

get.jpg?insecure

If your box came with the number 92665-2-266 written on it, then it is from the 2nd production run. You can also see this by unscrewing the dew shield's retaining ring on the front and then sliding the dew shield back to see the lens cell and there should be a hand written SN there if you no longer have the box.

 

EDIT - based on when you got it, I would think it is from the end of the 2nd production run.


Edited by agavephoto, 03 January 2020 - 10:34 AM.

  • Paulimer and Starhawk like this

#50 plyscope

plyscope

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,894
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Perth, West Australia

Posted 03 January 2020 - 03:16 PM

I see the AP website has been updated recently and on the Stowaway page there is mention of the third run being in production. There is also mention of another 130 GT run later in the year. Both lists are closed. There is hope for those on the lists.


  • Paul G, SandyHouTex and kkt like 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