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

Share your images taken with LZOS 115/805 (or any LZOS)

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 06 May 2020 - 01:59 AM

After weeks of research I am looking at this telescope as my next purchase.

 

But this is based on posts saying how good they are.

 

I am struggling to find ANY images anywhere taken with this scope with good star shape and colour across the frame. I'm not saying they are not good scopes, lots of people rate them highly but where is the evidence?

 

So, I would love to see some of your images taken with this scope - come on don't be shy :)



#2 kel123

kel123

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Joined: 11 May 2019

Posted 06 May 2020 - 02:06 AM

There are images on Astrobin.

Like these ones
https://www.astrobin...pm-lzos-115805/

That should be your first port of call when looking for images with any setup.

Edited by kel123, 06 May 2020 - 02:07 AM.

  • Mark9473 and midnightlightning like this

#3 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,722
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Canberra, Australia

Posted 06 May 2020 - 02:09 AM

Given the amount of post processing that happens to images before they hit the web I would not recommend using them as a guide to choose an optic......

 

Having said that, I have an LZOS triplet (152/1200) that is simply superb but I don’t let cameras have any fun, only eyepieces. It compares very well with my previous scopes (TSA, TOA, FS etc)


  • Tyson M, Gabby76, midnightlightning and 1 other like this

#4 kel123

kel123

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Joined: 11 May 2019

Posted 06 May 2020 - 02:20 AM

Given the amount of post processing that happens to images before they hit the web I would not recommend using them as a guide to choose an optic......

Having said that, I have an LZOS triplet (152/1200) that is simply superb but I don’t let cameras have any fun, only eyepieces. It compares very well with my previous scopes (TSA, TOA, FS etc)


You are very correct. Some experts in image processing can turn up excellent images from lackluster telescopes.
  • Kunama and Gabby76 like this

#5 fate187

fate187

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 16 May 2015
  • Loc: Saxony, Germany

Posted 06 May 2020 - 11:56 AM

You can check out (my) Astrobin. The point is the 115/805 is probably not a prime imaging scope but more made for visual observation. There is a 100 f/6 I think, or the 123 f/6 (I own one and use it for imaging), or the very famous 130 f/6. Granted you have a flattener, these scopes will deliver! The 123 and 130 can also be combined with a reducer to deliver f/4.5.


Edited by fate187, 06 May 2020 - 11:57 AM.

  • midnightlightning likes this

#6 balu01

balu01

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 06 May 2020 - 09:50 PM

It should be perfectly fine with flattener, or for faster speed attach a reducer. LZOS optics are top tier , lots of people image with them.
Should have a very nice image circle although I have not checked the specs.
My 130/1200 proved to be a great shooter too when I tried, but I don’t actually use it for imaging.
as an added bonus it will serve you great as a visual instrument too

Edited by balu01, 06 May 2020 - 09:53 PM.

  • midnightlightning likes this

#7 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 07 May 2020 - 12:56 PM

There are images on Astrobin.

Like these ones
https://www.astrobin...pm-lzos-115805/

That should be your first port of call when looking for images with any setup.

That's where I started but, without wishing to offend anyone, very few if any of those have round stars - which is the reason for my post. These LZOS scopes are highly regarded but its hard to find images with round stars.



#8 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 07 May 2020 - 12:59 PM

You can check out (my) Astrobin. The point is the 115/805 is probably not a prime imaging scope but more made for visual observation. There is a 100 f/6 I think, or the 123 f/6 (I own one and use it for imaging), or the very famous 130 f/6. Granted you have a flattener, these scopes will deliver! The 123 and 130 can also be combined with a reducer to deliver f/4.5.

 

I am looking at both the 123 and 130 - would you rate them for AP? Are any of your 123 images on astrobin?



#9 balu01

balu01

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 08 May 2020 - 02:49 AM

That's where I started but, without wishing to offend anyone, very few if any of those have round stars - which is the reason for my post. These LZOS scopes are highly regarded but its hard to find images with round stars.

 

Granted, some are due to guiding, some are actually , well yes, you right, not exactly nice stars. 

You want to image, I know you looking at LZOS, but if you really wish to attack you are at TOA130 territory in pricing, hard to beat those scopes, very hard. I would not sell mine, well maybe yes if i could get a TOA150, but no permanent setup and being mobile would be pretty dumb for me to go there.


Edited by balu01, 08 May 2020 - 02:54 AM.

  • midnightlightning likes this

#10 fate187

fate187

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 16 May 2015
  • Loc: Saxony, Germany

Posted 08 May 2020 - 04:46 AM

I am looking at both the 123 and 130 - would you rate them for AP? Are any of your 123 images on astrobin?

All images taken from mid 2016 until the end of 2018 were taken with the 123 f/6. Check these out for example:

https://www.astrobin.com/344110/

https://www.astrobin.com/381463/

(not advertising here)

 

I got this very scope from a very talented astrophotographer in Germany: 

https://www.astrobin.com/159449/

https://www.astrobin.com/154298/

https://www.astrobin.com/160143/

 

As Balu has written I would say any stars not round are due to guiding or not correct distance of the chip to a reducer/flattener. Bloated stars would catch my attention if I were looking for optics that are not up to AP.

 

best wishes


  • Wildetelescope and midnightlightning like this

#11 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 08 May 2020 - 06:08 AM

Granted, some are due to guiding, some are actually , well yes, you right, not exactly nice stars. 

You want to image, I know you looking at LZOS, but if you really wish to attack you are at TOA130 territory in pricing, hard to beat those scopes, very hard. I would not sell mine, well maybe yes if i could get a TOA150, but no permanent setup and being mobile would be pretty dumb for me to go there.

These look very nice but I'm going to have t draw a budget line - I started in Esprit territory and have incrementally move up 3x that :O



#12 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 08 May 2020 - 06:27 AM

As Balu has written I would say any stars not round are due to guiding or not correct distance of the chip to a reducer/flattener. Bloated stars would catch my attention if I were looking for optics that are not up to AP.

 

best wishes

Really helpful thanks. Those stars are much better than a lot I have seen. Interestingly I started looking at the WO FLT 132 this morning and there are a lot of good images online taken with it. 

 

The LZOS has great resolution, the small star next to Altinak in your horsehead is nicely resolved - its not even visible in my Esprit 80 image (I know they are not really comparable).

 

I would be happy to produce these images so both scopes are good. The WO works out about two thirds the price, inc reducer, but I do like the F4.5 for faster imaging.

 

Don't know if you can help with this but I bought a 102 in March and sent it back because I couldn't get anywhere near round stars - which is why I'm so worried about it now.

 

I had spot on focus using a bahtinov mask and assumed that if it was in focus the spacing would be ok for the flattener.

 

I'm wondering now if it would have been possible to improve star shape by changing the spacing within the focus range. I don't know how much you can change spacing and still keep it in focus - is there some room for adjustment here that might have got the reducer working? The manufacturer was very supportive when I reported the problem and asked for advice, but just they sent a new focuser and reducer out and didn't suggest that I try further tuning.



#13 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 08 May 2020 - 07:35 AM

You are very correct. Some experts in image processing can turn up excellent images from lackluster telescopes.

And folks like myself can create a mediocre image from an excellent scope;-).   Simply using an inexpensive focal reducer with an AP traveler can bring color back into your lifelol.gif.   narrow band imaging also can cover some ills as well.  Judging from posted images should be taken with a grain of salt.  By most accounts, LZOS lens stand up against the best in the world.  

 

Jmd 


  • Kunama and midnightlightning like this

#14 fate187

fate187

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 16 May 2015
  • Loc: Saxony, Germany

Posted 08 May 2020 - 10:19 AM

JMD is correct. Always look careful at "nice" photos". Narrowband imaging is possible with an achro, but such a scope will create massively bloated stars in RGB imaging.

Which specific 102 scope did you use? Could you share some images you made so people here could asses if the scope or maybe the mount/guiding was the issue. In general if stars look good in the center but have trails towards the edge its reducer/flattener to sensor distance. If all stars are elongated towards one direction it might be guiding. There are so many issues possible.

But with either an LZOS, Tak, or any other premium scope you are in the green is my take waytogo.gif


  • midnightlightning likes this

#15 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 08 May 2020 - 02:42 PM

Really helpful thanks. Those stars are much better than a lot I have seen. Interestingly I started looking at the WO FLT 132 this morning and there are a lot of good images online taken with it. 

 

The LZOS has great resolution, the small star next to Altinak in your horsehead is nicely resolved - its not even visible in my Esprit 80 image (I know they are not really comparable).

 

I would be happy to produce these images so both scopes are good. The WO works out about two thirds the price, inc reducer, but I do like the F4.5 for faster imaging.

 

Don't know if you can help with this but I bought a 102 in March and sent it back because I couldn't get anywhere near round stars - which is why I'm so worried about it now.

 

I had spot on focus using a bahtinov mask and assumed that if it was in focus the spacing would be ok for the flattener.

 

I'm wondering now if it would have been possible to improve star shape by changing the spacing within the focus range. I don't know how much you can change spacing and still keep it in focus - is there some room for adjustment here that might have got the reducer working? The manufacturer was very supportive when I reported the problem and asked for advice, but just they sent a new focuser and reducer out and didn't suggest that I try further tuning.

The optics on the Esprit line of scopes are generally considered to be quite good.  It is always possible to get a bad one but most reviews I have read have been extremely positive.  I can't help but notice that the common issue you raise is whether the star is round or not.  Unless the collimation is off or there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the optical figure, most scopes will show you round stars.  MY Celestron omni 120 mm Achromate show round stars.   Typically,for imaging, the issue is what folks here refer to as star bloat, or fat stars.  They are round, but appear wide or fat. Often on bright stars you will see a little ring of blue around the edge of the star if you blow the image up, which is a sign of chromatic aberration.  The color can be masked with good processing, BUT you will still see a two tone outer ring if you look closely.  How much that bugs you is a matter of personal disposition.  Pretty much All my scopes are Semi-Apo, meaning that through the eyepiece I see very little, if any color, but with a camera, the limits of the refractor's color correction becomes evident.  That is OK with me, because most of my refractors are vintage scopes of one stripe or another and I would not trade them for anything.  

 

The fact that it is star shape that you notice as being off, REALLY suggests to me this is a mount/guiding issue.  Or possibly as fate187 suggests, coma due to the Focal reducer, or a dozen other things.  Have you done a visual star test of any of your scopes to check the collimation?  If you get text book concentric circles, then the star shape problems are not the optics but something else. I would hate for you to buy a Tak or LZOS, etc... and run into the same problem and get discouraged. 

 

All images taken from mid 2016 until the end of 2018 were taken with the 123 f/6. Check these out for example:

https://www.astrobin.com/344110/

https://www.astrobin.com/381463/

(not advertising here)

 

I got this very scope from a very talented astrophotographer in Germany: 

https://www.astrobin.com/159449/

https://www.astrobin.com/154298/

https://www.astrobin.com/160143/

 

As Balu has written I would say any stars not round are due to guiding or not correct distance of the chip to a reducer/flattener. Bloated stars would catch my attention if I were looking for optics that are not up to AP.

 

best wishes

Those are some very beautiful images!  I particularly like M81. 

 

JMD


  • midnightlightning likes this

#16 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 08 May 2020 - 02:52 PM

JMD is correct. Always look careful at "nice" photos". Narrowband imaging is possible with an achro, but such a scope will create massively bloated stars in RGB imaging.

Which specific 102 scope did you use? Could you share some images you made so people here could asses if the scope or maybe the mount/guiding was the issue. In general if stars look good in the center but have trails towards the edge its reducer/flattener to sensor distance. If all stars are elongated towards one direction it might be guiding. There are so many issues possible.

But with either an LZOS, Tak, or any other premium scope you are in the green is my take waytogo.gif

I suspect it was spacing given what you say but too late to do anything now.

 

Did you trade in your LZOS 123 for the WO 132?



#17 NebulaWAN

NebulaWAN

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2014
  • Loc: France

Posted 08 May 2020 - 02:59 PM

I loved my LZOS but too heavy to move and too long to get to site temperature while traveling ...

So, I headed for a TEC, much more slender and light ;-) Loss of 8kg/17lbs for 2cm/ 0.78inch less ...
 

LZOSetTEC lentilles

  • denis0007dl and midnightlightning like this

#18 fate187

fate187

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 16 May 2015
  • Loc: Saxony, Germany

Posted 08 May 2020 - 04:51 PM

**** ... 8" LZOS and 7" Tec FL bow.gif

Yes LZOS are quite heavy triplets. I still have the 123. The 132 is not an LZOS lens but another rebrand from WO. In fact mine 123 is a WO Fluorostar. Not that the glass LZOS uses has anything to do with the fluorite, that is used in TEC FLs.

As JMD suggested: try to edge out your Esprit first so see were the issue originates. These are generally good imaging scopes in a good package. You will pay alot more for the LZOS lens + flattener/spacers, etc.



#19 Carl N

Carl N

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,703
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 08 May 2020 - 06:00 PM

Go to buckeyestargazer.com and look at Joel's work. That is one excellent scope. The only drawback, besides the weight which makes it not really grab and go, is the old CNC focuser. Built like a tank, but not easy to put a focus motor on. Now, any LZOS with a feathertouch? Fine scope!!!
  • midnightlightning likes this

#20 Suavi

Suavi

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 05 May 2017
  • Loc: 20.25 deg South of the Equator

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:51 PM

Go to buckeyestargazer.com and look at Joel's work. That is one excellent scope. The only drawback, besides the weight which makes it not really grab and go, is the old CNC focuser. Built like a tank, but not easy to put a focus motor on. Now, any LZOS with a feathertouch? Fine scope!!!

The extension to Joel's website is net

 

http://www.buckeyest...s/Equipment.php

 

And yes, his images are world class.


  • Carl N and midnightlightning like this

#21 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 09 May 2020 - 03:58 AM

**** ... 8" LZOS and 7" Tec FL bow.gif

Yes LZOS are quite heavy triplets. I still have the 123. The 132 is not an LZOS lens but another rebrand from WO. In fact mine 123 is a WO Fluorostar. Not that the glass LZOS uses has anything to do with the fluorite, that is used in TEC FLs.

As JMD suggested: try to edge out your Esprit first so see were the issue originates. These are generally good imaging scopes in a good package. You will pay alot more for the LZOS lens + flattener/spacers, etc

My existing Esprit 80 is brilliant, never had an issue with it - had to fine tune the spacing with aluminium rings once when I added a new EFW but really happy with it. I had it tuned when I bought it and it came out at 0.945 strehl (with no tweaking the settings to get that figure).

 

Not sure I understand your comment about the 132, are you saying that is an APM scope produced by WO? Do WO use Chinese lenses? I'm interested in them as its on my shortlist of 4 scopes.



#22 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017

Posted 09 May 2020 - 04:36 AM

Go to buckeyestargazer.com and look at Joel's work. That is one excellent scope. The only drawback, besides the weight which makes it not really grab and go, is the old CNC focuser. Built like a tank, but not easy to put a focus motor on. Now, any LZOS with a feathertouch? Fine scope!!!

Wow! 

 

I may not get there but that is the quality of image I aspire to :)

 

I notice that a lot of people use piers for larger telescopes - I cant do that due to location. Will a 130mm be ok on a decent tripod - EQ6R class. Which may need a short "pier" extension to stop the FW crashing the legs?



#23 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 09 May 2020 - 06:17 AM

Wow! 

 

I may not get there but that is the quality of image I aspire to smile.gif

 

I notice that a lot of people use piers for larger telescopes - I cant do that due to location. Will a 130mm be ok on a decent tripod - EQ6R class. Which may need a short "pier" extension to stop the FW crashing the legs?

My parallax pier is one of my best purchases.  Very noticeable improvement in stability over the tripod with pier extension for my eq6.  I use that mount now on an old losmandy HD tripod.  Handles my f8 127 mm AP triplet with no issues.  Actually does not do a bad job with my f9 150 mm AP for visual.  Should handle a faster 5 inch with no problem. 

 

Jmd


  • midnightlightning likes this

#24 HydrogenAlpha

HydrogenAlpha

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 09 May 2020 - 12:38 PM

Some shots taken over the last few months with my LZOS 130 f/6

 

49822239436_b05d17be9c_b.jpg

 

49822553882_386014b631_b.jpg

 

49821701653_d1f814e045_b.jpg

 

49822239181_46567da776_b.jpg

 

49822554242_c6ab779a9c_b.jpg

 

49821674248_8bfed2e458_b.jpg


  • John O'Grady, fate187, alfogator and 2 others like this

#25 HydrogenAlpha

HydrogenAlpha

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 09 May 2020 - 01:08 PM

That's where I started but, without wishing to offend anyone, very few if any of those have round stars - which is the reason for my post. These LZOS scopes are highly regarded but its hard to find images with round stars.

The non-roundness at the edge of field is not due to the LZOS optics. It's almost always due to tilt in the imaging train, or due to the reducer/flattener (or corresponding spacing issues). 

 

For stars at the centre of the FOV, any non-roundness is going to be due to guiding error. 

 

If any of these were caused by the lens, then it is a defective unit. 


  • Wildetelescope and midnightlightning 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