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

William optics FLT 132 VS TSoptics triplet 130

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 bockos

bockos

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2014

Posted 19 March 2020 - 06:52 PM

Hi, i am interested in these two triplets which will be better for planetary detail at higher magnifications. Given the fact that flt 132 is twice the price of ts 130 triplet is it So much better? Thanks! 



#2 bigdob24

bigdob24

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Central Illinois

Posted 19 March 2020 - 08:08 PM

I can only commit on the WO 132 . I have had one for years and it’s optics are very good producing great views of Jupiter. Saturn the moon a Messier Objects .

I would guess the difference in price is in the glass.

Maybe someone will talk about there experience TS Optics

BD 



#3 outofsight

outofsight

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,711
  • Joined: 31 May 2015

Posted 19 March 2020 - 08:13 PM

Here's my take. The only way you'll see a significant difference when viewing a planet is if one of the telescopes is made wrong, if something is defective with the scope. FPL-53 is FPL-53, and there's a 2mm difference, not enough to see any difference (or any at all). But that's only my take. You should do more research and, hopefully, get some other opinions. Good luck with deciding.



#4 beanerds

beanerds

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Darwin Australia

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:24 AM

I have a friend with the flt110 and another with the ' Sky Rover ' 110mm triplet which is the same as the  TS , and because I have a Long Perng 110mm f6 APO we have  ,, as you could expect done many ,,, many side by sides in different enviroments  ,, dark sky through to city viewing  , so ,,

 

,, all 3 of us have the same believes ,, the flt WO with its fluorite lens is the better scope ,, the sky Rover triplet is a close second and of course my LP doublet ,,, well ,,, of course .

 

But ,, in our dark sky site ,,, there is nothing between these 3 up to about 80x ,, 110mm is a good size from these places .

 

High power ,,, the fluorite in the  WO is again the winner  , but again the FPL53 pf the Sky Rover is right there ,,, .

 

Yes I know these are not 130mm scopes but if I had to pick it would be the WO ,, its build quality for 1 is impressive ,,, also a lot more expensive ,, your call mate they are both great scopes .,

 

Beanerds .


Edited by beanerds, 20 March 2020 - 07:26 AM.


#5 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 18,184
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:58 AM

For the same price I like the WO (Gold/white w/rotolock) however if the savings are significant then I see the TS as the better deal.


  • SteveG likes this

#6 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 83,102
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:59 AM

the fluorite in the  WO is again the winner

 

 

Something to think about... 

 

I have a William Optics 80mm Megrez II FD. RIght on the objective cell it says: "Fluorite Doublet" and underneath the dew shield, on the side of the objective cell it says, "Co-designed with TMB"

 

But the reality is that the objective is not Fluorite, it is FPL-53.   This issue was raised on Astromart about 15 years ago and at one point I Emailed William Optics and they verified that it was FPL-53 and not Fluorite.  The same is true for the  FLT 132. 

 

https://williamoptic.../flt132_old.pdf

 

Here's the Company 7 page on the FLT-110:

 

http://www.company7....ors/flt110.html

 

It is not Fluorite, it's Fluorocrown" which should be FPL-53 and not FPL-51.  

 

It is my understanding the William Optics has never sold a true Fluorite scope.  

 

So, this comes down to the optical quality of the objectives and not the glass types.  Further complicating the issue is that there were some problems with the William Optics triplet objectives some years ago... 

 

I have no opinion one way or the other.  My 80mm is very good but I've never looked through either of the scopes in question.

 

Jon


  • SteveG, beanerds, junomike and 2 others like this

#7 outofsight

outofsight

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,711
  • Joined: 31 May 2015

Posted 20 March 2020 - 09:57 AM

Yes, they, WO, tries to lead you to believe it's fluorite, but, more clearly, they say it's FPL-53. Their "marketing practice" is not quite right, but I'm sure it's still a nice scope.

 

So, bockos, that should help you, according to all the info provided by both "manufacturers," there's no difference with the glass.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#8 beanerds

beanerds

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Darwin Australia

Posted 20 March 2020 - 10:56 AM

Something to think about... 

 

I have a William Optics 80mm Megrez II FD. RIght on the objective cell it says: "Fluorite Doublet" and underneath the dew shield, on the side of the objective cell it says, "Co-designed with TMB"

 

But the reality is that the objective is not Fluorite, it is FPL-53.   This issue was raised on Astromart about 15 years ago and at one point I Emailed William Optics and they verified that it was FPL-53 and not Fluorite.  The same is true for the  FLT 132. 

 

https://williamoptic.../flt132_old.pdf

 

Here's the Company 7 page on the FLT-110:

 

http://www.company7....ors/flt110.html

 

It is not Fluorite, it's Fluorocrown" which should be FPL-53 and not FPL-51.  

 

It is my understanding the William Optics has never sold a true Fluorite scope.  

 

So, this comes down to the optical quality of the objectives and not the glass types.  Further complicating the issue is that there were some problems with the William Optics triplet objectives some years ago... 

 

I have no opinion one way or the other.  My 80mm is very good but I've never looked through either of the scopes in question.

 

Jon

At the time the only comparo to true Fluorite was my Sky90 and yes there is a difference at the eyepiece ,, to the eye that only fluorite can show .

 

Beanerds.

Attached Thumbnails

  • DSC00012 (3).JPG


#9 SteveG

SteveG

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,186
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 20 March 2020 - 01:13 PM

Hi, i am interested in these two triplets which will be better for planetary detail at higher magnifications. Given the fact that flt 132 is twice the price of ts 130 triplet is it So much better? Thanks! 

 

Both scopes are FPL53 Chinese products that get excellent reviews. Optically, there shouldn’t be any differences. The build quality of the WO scope will be superior IMO, but that will come with a weight penalty, something to consider in this class of scope. I’ve followed several threads regarding the TS scope, including the current thread where the lens had to be returned due to collimation issues, which could happen with any scope. This means he had to ship it back to Germany at his costs. You also have to factor in the unknown and variable import duties that the shipper will collect. Having said that, there’s another TS owner that lives near me who is thrilled with his TS 130, and only paid a very small duty fee.



#10 bigdob24

bigdob24

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Central Illinois

Posted 20 March 2020 - 08:01 PM

I can only commit on the WO 132 . I have had one for years and it’s optics are very good producing great views of Jupiter. Saturn the moon a Messier Objects .

I would guess the difference in price is in the glass.

Maybe someone will talk about there experience TS Optics

BD 

One thing I failed to mention is the focuser that came on my WO was junk. Tried adjusting it had it rebuilt and it just would not hold Binos without slipping . I ended up buying a FeatherTouch and of coarse it’s great.

That being said it’s been several years ago and they may have addressed the issue someone with a newer model will have to chime in.

BD 



#11 Cometeer

Cometeer

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,157
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California or Illinois

Posted 20 March 2020 - 09:02 PM

One thing I failed to mention is the focuser that came on my WO was junk. Tried adjusting it had it rebuilt and it just would not hold Binos without slipping . I ended up buying a FeatherTouch and of coarse it’s great.

That being said it’s been several years ago and they may have addressed the issue someone with a newer model will have to chime in.

BD 

The latest WO r&p focusers are excellent. Never saw a need to replace them. 


  • Jon Isaacs and OldManSky like this

#12 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 83,102
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 March 2020 - 07:11 AM

One thing I failed to mention is the focuser that came on my WO was junk. Tried adjusting it had it rebuilt and it just would not hold Binos without slipping . I ended up buying a FeatherTouch and of coarse it’s great.

That being said it’s been several years ago and they may have addressed the issue someone with a newer model will have to chime in.

BD 

As RR said, the newer ones are very good.  The focuser that came on my WO Megrez II FD, probably 2004 vintage had issues with the two speed and I eventually replaced it with a focuser from an AT-106LE which has been a good focuser for me.

 

Jon



#13 John Miele

John Miele

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,742
  • Joined: 29 May 2005
  • Loc: North Alabama

Posted 21 March 2020 - 08:01 AM

Both scopes are FPL53 Chinese products that get excellent reviews. Optically, there shouldn’t be any differences. The build quality of the WO scope will be superior IMO, but that will come with a weight penalty, something to consider in this class of scope. I’ve followed several threads regarding the TS scope, including the current thread where the lens had to be returned due to collimation issues, which could happen with any scope. This means he had to ship it back to Germany at his costs. You also have to factor in the unknown and variable import duties that the shipper will collect. Having said that, there’s another TS owner that lives near me who is thrilled with his TS 130, and only paid a very small duty fee.

I'm the person who had to return the lens assembly for my TS130. It was not collimation, I am pretty sure it was tilted or decentered lens elements. 

 

I believe the problem occurred during the original shipping of the telescope to Teleskop Express. TS shipped it to me in a double box. The outer box was in good shape. But the inner box had a gash in the end and the telescope  arrived with a dented 1.25" EP adapter piece in the focuser. My theory is the telescope was shipped from China to Germany in that single inner box. It took a tremendous impact that put the gash in the box and dented the EP adapter. I believe that impact also shocked and decentered one or more of the lens elements very slightly. TS then shipped the scope to me  using that damaged box placed inside of a larger box. It took me  few sessions to discover the problem because frankly, you have to either use high power visually or carefully examine star images to see the effect. The effect being the stars would not focus to points. They remained little streaks which I first thought was a mount tracking error. 

 

Yes this same problem could occur with any telescope. Hazards of shipping a telescope that has no hard case with foam but is instead simply bubble wrapped inside a cardboard box. I am still waiting on a replacement lens cell. Given the duty fees, the high shipping costs and the extremely long wait times (due in large part to customs delays both ways) I will not buy a scope from any dealer outside of the US again.


  • Jon Isaacs, SteveG and eros312 like this

#14 bigdob24

bigdob24

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Central Illinois

Posted 21 March 2020 - 07:13 PM

Glad to hear they fixed the focusers on there scopes

BD



#15 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2008
  • Loc: San Diego Ca.

Posted 22 March 2020 - 02:07 PM

 The WO FLT132 is lighter than the TS 130 with 3.7" focuser by a fair bit.  If damping times are longer it's a disadvantage for L&P all the more so if it's on a non driven mount.  I see that with my IM715D on a Giro with excellent damping vs my overweight C9.25 on a Unistar with  good damping. I'm very happy with my WO ZS110 triplet with FPL-51 L&P performance. Didn't the WO  FLT110 F6.5 with a TEC lens use fluorite?  David


Edited by dscarpa, 22 March 2020 - 02:38 PM.


#16 SteveG

SteveG

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,186
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 22 March 2020 - 11:38 PM

 The WO FLT132 is lighter than the TS 130 with 3.7" focuser by a fair bit.  If damping times are longer it's a disadvantage for L&P all the more so if it's on a non driven mount.  I see that with my IM715D on a Giro with excellent damping vs my overweight C9.25 on a Unistar with  good damping. I'm very happy with my WO ZS110 triplet with FPL-51 L&P performance. Didn't the WO  FLT110 F6.5 with a TEC lens use fluorite?  David

Wow. I didn’t look them up and just assumed the WO was going to be heavier. The latest versions of the FLT132 have a steel lens cell. I’ve not read a bad review of one in a long while. Their newer focusers are fantastic BTW.




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