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

#26 HydrogenAlpha

HydrogenAlpha

    Viking 1

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

Posted 09 May 2020 - 01:14 PM

Here's an edge-of-field test with a 0.75x reducer/flattener and the large-ish KAF-16200 chip: 

 

49875078721_1a06166056_b.jpg

 

The stars are not as perfectly round as you would expect with an FSQ, but it's good enough for me. If you want perfect stars, use a non-reducing flattener and/or a smaller chip. It's very easy to get round stars to the edges on a 4/3rd sensor and a non-reducing flattener. 


  • midnightlightning likes this

#27 fate187

fate187

    Messenger

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

Posted 09 May 2020 - 01:24 PM

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.

I meant, that the 132 is not an LZOS, just as written. There is no LZOS lens with a diameter of 132mm. I don't know were WO sources those 132 lenses.

 

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?

I used to use an AZ-Eq6 with the 123. The 130 being a little heavier the EQ6 might be a little to less a mount. The AZ is known to carry a little more and I found the 123 on the AZ being the limit, especially if you use the standard tripod. I got a Losmandy HD tripod and with that thats a whole different story and more sturdy.
 


  • midnightlightning likes this

#28 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 05:30 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!!!

Stunning images but unless I have missed them I don't see any LZOS scopes, he seems to use mainly CFF?



#29 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 05:39 AM

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

 

 

Very nice Ivan, and very helpful thanks for sharing those - this scope is currently top of my list.

 

Couple of questions, I've been told the 130 can be difficult to use with a reducer so would be interested to know how you get on if you use one?

 

I was also told focus can be sensitive to temperature - I autofocus every 1C change and every filter change so I cant see it being an issue but would be interested in your thoughts?



#30 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 05:43 AM

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. 

 So, with a good reducer, I am looking at the Riccardi x0.75, it should be possible to adjust out any non-guiding related poor star shapes - that's good to know. The LZOS package comes with a tilt adjuster though I have never used one - hope I can find a way of doing it during daylight at this time of year :)



#31 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 05:47 AM

Here's an edge-of-field test with a 0.75x reducer/flattener and the large-ish KAF-16200 chip: 

 

 

The stars are not as perfectly round as you would expect with an FSQ, but it's good enough for me. If you want perfect stars, use a non-reducing flattener and/or a smaller chip. It's very easy to get round stars to the edges on a 4/3rd sensor and a non-reducing flattener. 

Thanks Ivan, that's really useful to know. I hadn't considered there being a difference in quality between a reducer and a flattener but I guess a reducer has more to do so is presumably more difficult to make. 



#32 Carl N

Carl N

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 07:03 AM

Stunning images but unless I have missed them I don't see any LZOS scopes, he seems to use mainly CFF?

Dig around, he has TMB LZOS 115 pics in there, I ended up buying the scope from him.

Reach out to him on CN, he is very helpful and a good guy.

Edited by Carl N, 10 May 2020 - 07:04 AM.

  • midnightlightning likes this

#33 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 08:53 AM

Thanks Ivan, that's really useful to know. I hadn't considered there being a difference in quality between a reducer and a flattener but I guess a reducer has more to do so is presumably more difficult to make. 

Ideally you want to get a reducer/flattener designed specifically for the optics of your telescope.  Ie a TV reducer for your TV scope, AP for AP scopes or the Ricardi for some of the APM LZOS scopes, etc.....   For example, I have a not so cheap GSO sourced 2 inch reducer that works fine with my mirrored scopes, but absolutely introduces color with my refractors.   Spacing of the fr relative to The sensor is critical.  I believe skywatcher has a specific flattener/reducer for the esprit line as well.

 

jmd 


  • midnightlightning likes this

#34 HydrogenAlpha

HydrogenAlpha

    Viking 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 09:00 AM

 So, with a good reducer, I am looking at the Riccardi x0.75, it should be possible to adjust out any non-guiding related poor star shapes - that's good to know. The LZOS package comes with a tilt adjuster though I have never used one - hope I can find a way of doing it during daylight at this time of year smile.gif

Yeah I have the tilt adjuster too, but didn't have the need to use it...ended up just becoming a slightly expensive spacer lol.gif

 

Thanks Ivan, that's really useful to know. I hadn't considered there being a difference in quality between a reducer and a flattener but I guess a reducer has more to do so is presumably more difficult to make. 

I wouldn't say it's a difference in quality, but it's more of the fact that it makes underlying issues more obvious. It's similar to the effect of having a large sensor. 


  • midnightlightning likes this

#35 Carl N

Carl N

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 10 May 2020 - 06:51 PM

Yeah I have the tilt adjuster too, but didn't have the need to use it...ended up just becoming a slightly expensive spacer lol.gif

I wouldn't say it's a difference in quality, but it's more of the fact that it makes underlying issues more obvious. It's similar to the effect of having a large sensor.

I have the Riccardi 0.75 reducer/flattener I used for the 115 and use now on my 152. I also have the 1.0 flattener for full frame. They work really well.

And if everything is orthogonal, I havent needed the tilt adjuster cause my Starlight Xpress camera has one built in.

Edited by Carl N, 10 May 2020 - 06:53 PM.

  • mclewis1 and midnightlightning like this

#36 midnightlightning

midnightlightning

    Explorer 1

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

Posted 20 September 2020 - 03:30 AM

Thanks for all the responses



#37 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,635
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 21 September 2020 - 11:08 AM

... and thanks for the thread. I don't think these wonderful scopes get enough love and visibility.

It always seems to be more of Tak this and Tak that ... lol.gif



#38 billhinge

billhinge

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 May 2020

Posted 15 October 2020 - 02:49 PM

Yeah I have the tilt adjuster too, but didn't have the need to use it...ended up just becoming a slightly expensive spacer lol.gif

 

I wouldn't say it's a difference in quality, but it's more of the fact that it makes underlying issues more obvious. It's similar to the effect of having a large sensor. 

 

I have a 2001 APM TMB LZOS 115mm with the stock 2" FT focuser, I plan to change that next year for the 3" or even 3.5". I recently bought the x1 Riccardi and I thought that was big but the 0.75x 82mm Riccardi is huge and heavy. How safe is to hang those things off the back of a stock kuppex tube with focuser held on by 3 screws when you add a camera? I have a set of tubes based  on the APM diag https://www.apm-tele...rdiAdaption.pdf

 

Did you have any weight concerns?

 

(I plan to retube next year with an upgraded focuser so just thinking about a stop gap solution)



#39 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2007
  • Loc: The Uncanny Valley

Posted 15 October 2020 - 03:39 PM

Can you actually get the LZOS 115/805 now? I was under the impression that mine (delivered in Feb 2016) was one of the last made. edit - just checked - there's a new batch!

 

In any case, mine has a 3035 focuser with a 72mm Tak thread. It accepts the TOA130R reducer and can operate at f/5.3. I used it in Wyoming for this polarogram ...

 

Polarisation V5

  • mclewis1 and Esso2112 like this

#40 billhinge

billhinge

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 May 2020

Posted 15 October 2020 - 04:51 PM

Mine is secondhand one from 2001, I believe they still make them but maybe  not like the old versions. 

 

https://www.apm-tele...-cnc-lw-ii.html


  • mclewis1 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