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

Quality of optics in the early, first-generation Tele Vue f/5 Genesis.

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 14 May 2020 - 01:35 PM

As I recently purchased one of these and will soon have it on its way, I would like to hear from those who own / have owned this instrument and who are willing to share their personal experiences with using and viewing through its glass. How did you find it, what are your favorite objects / best views / uses for it, how do you find the overall quality / fit / finish so many years on? Any peculiar quirks?

Look forward to hearing back from you.


  • Rollo likes this

#2 bobhen

bobhen

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,993
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:14 PM

I owned one when they first came out many years ago.

 

It’s F-5 but longer than a normal F-5 doublet. The field is flat and the scope delivers the goods under a dark sky. I thought the lunar/planetary views were quite good and maybe even better than what the reviewer thought is his review below.

 

The fit and finish were excellent and it certainly felt and looked like a quality product. I enjoyed the scope while I had it but eventually decided to sell it because at the time, with my light pollution, I could not take full advantage of its wide-field capability. Later I purchased a much less expensive fast achromatic refractor to use as my wide field scope.

 

These days I do my deep sky observing with an image intensifier and the TV Genesis with its fast F-5 optics and its wide, flat field would be a good scope for Night Vision use.

 

HERE is the link to the Genesis F-5 review.

 

Bob


  • Astroman007 likes this

#3 AstroBrett

AstroBrett

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2009

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:28 PM

Mine gives excellent views once it is thermally equilibrated, so I always make it a point to set it up after the sun goes down so it can slowly cool. Other than the focuser, the quality was top notch throughout, and the storage case was convenient and protects the scope well.  The focuser has required some tweaking and has a tendency to be stiff. Overall, I've been very pleased with the scope and don't anticipate ever parting with it. When the Milky way is up, it is my instrument of choice for visual work.

 

Brett


  • 25585 and Astroman007 like this

#4 Loren Toole

Loren Toole

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 613
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • Loc: New Mexico USA

Posted 14 May 2020 - 04:53 PM

I've owned a Genesis since 1990, still have it and use it, now mainly for imaging but I've depended on this scope for years of visual observing. Wide field, low power is fantastic. Planetary above 150x is mediocre.... I tested this scope in 2017 using a Roddier star test, it shows the optics have a strongly turned-up edge which reduces the overall image quality at high power. Excess color is little obtrusive but not excessive.

 

But, all in all, I'd say this scope is a great balance of  many features, definitely a keeper (as I have proven).

 

Loren


Edited by Loren Toole, 14 May 2020 - 06:46 PM.

  • 25585 and Astroman007 like this

#5 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 14 May 2020 - 07:25 PM

I owned one when they first came out many years ago.

 

It’s F-5 but longer than a normal F-5 doublet. The field is flat and the scope delivers the goods under a dark sky. I thought the lunar/planetary views were quite good and maybe even better than what the reviewer thought is his review below.

 

The fit and finish were excellent and it certainly felt and looked like a quality product. I enjoyed the scope while I had it but eventually decided to sell it because at the time, with my light pollution, I could not take full advantage of its wide-field capability. Later I purchased a much less expensive fast achromatic refractor to use as my wide field scope.

 

These days I do my deep sky observing with an image intensifier and the TV Genesis with its fast F-5 optics and its wide, flat field would be a good scope for Night Vision use.

 

HERE is the link to the Genesis F-5 review.

 

Bob

The actual objective lens is probably about f12, the rear compressor/flattener element knocks it down by a large amount to f/5.  The net size of the scope is longer than a pure f/5 would be, but much shorter than an f/12.



#6 Don W

Don W

    demi-god and Chairman of the Finance Committee

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 24,134
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • Loc: Wisconsin, USA

Posted 14 May 2020 - 07:45 PM

I've had 2 of them. You will see some color on bright objects, but it's not terrible. Wonderful RFT views. At low power with a good OIII filter you can have a blast looking at the Veil and North America under dark skies. If you're looking for a planetary scope a 4" f/5 is certainly not the right direction.


  • Rollo, 25585 and Astroman007 like this

#7 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 14 May 2020 - 07:49 PM

I've had 2 of them. You will see some color on bright objects, but it's not terrible. Wonderful RFT views. At low power with a good OIII filter you can have a blast looking at the Veil and North America under dark skies. If you're looking for a planetary scope a 4" f/5 is certainly not the right direction.

So the early Genesis is a rich field scope is what you're saying? I love my TV-85 for its lunar and planetary views especially. My incoming Genesis I plan to enjoy the deep sky with. A great deal of wide-field Milky Way sweeping but also clusters, doubles, nebulae, and galaxies.

A 31mm Nagler is in my future.

 

Edit: minor typo.


Edited by Astroman007, 14 May 2020 - 08:08 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs, alnitak22 and 25585 like this

#8 aztrodog

aztrodog

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2010
  • Loc: South Florida

Posted 14 May 2020 - 09:37 PM

I love mines. Throw in a powermate and the planetary views are better than any top shelf 4” achromat I have ever had and equal in sharpness and contrast to any 4” APO with just a hint of color. Maybe I got lucky and ended up with a really good one, but I certainly consider mines a planetary scope...if a 4” could ever be called that. Mechanically not much to complain about. I did change the focuser pinion assembly for the current one as I like the grip and looks of the newer knobs . I have it on top of the Gibraltar which makes for a wonderful and versatile grab and go combo. 

 

Hope yours brings you much joy under the stars.

 

Angel


  • Don W and Astroman007 like this

#9 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 84,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 15 May 2020 - 04:09 AM

I do not own an F/5 Genesis but I have looked through a few including looking at Jupiter and Saturn.  

 

These are deep sky scopes and the ones I've used did not provide planetary views comparable in contrast to the NP-101.  You'll probably still use your TV-85 for the planets.

 

Jon


  • Astroman007 likes this

#10 bobhen

bobhen

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,993
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 15 May 2020 - 06:07 AM

The TV Genesis has high quality optics and uses around a F-12 doublet as the objective. I’m pretty sure a high quality 102 mm F-12 doublet would best a TV 85 on the planets, if not, they will be close.

 

When you are out deep sky observing with the Genesis and Mars is up, it’s not like you have to put the Genesis away and bring out the TV 85.

 

Below is a 25-year-old drawing I did of Mars with the Genesis.

 

Bob

Attached Thumbnails

  • TV Mars (1).jpg

Edited by bobhen, 15 May 2020 - 06:47 AM.

  • Brent, Rollo, eros312 and 4 others like this

#11 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,498
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 15 May 2020 - 07:09 AM

Like Loren, I have had mine since 1990. Next up from binoculars as its magnification can go as low as 9x with a 55mm to 100x with a 5mm eyepiece.

 

Optical quality if OK for lower magnifications, but there is some false colour at higher. But its flat field is where it scores, grab & go easiness with a TV Panoramic or Gibraltar mount.  


  • Jon Isaacs and Astroman007 like this

#12 Phillip Creed

Phillip Creed

    Idiot Seeking Village

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,435
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Canal Fulton, OH

Posted 15 May 2020 - 07:33 AM

I owned the f/5 Genesis a few years ago.  Basically a 4" f/5 that thinks it's a 4" f/12 achro on planets.  Noticeable color on planets and the moon, but still rather subdued.  The flat, wiiiiiiiide fields are the draw.  There's something to be said for a scope whose field of view is so wide (>5° with the right eyepiece), it acts as its own finder.

Clear Skies,

Phil


  • Jon Isaacs, stevew, 25585 and 1 other like this

#13 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 6,158
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 15 May 2020 - 07:45 AM

I used the TV Genesis for thirteen years as my primary visual scope. It did everything from low wide field views at 20x to high powered Planetary at 260x effortlessly. Pop in a Barlow and go! I find the planetary viewing comments here puzzling? I had sharp contrasty views of the planets and the moon with just a bit of residual CA which did not soften the contrast in my sample. For the price and compactness it was a treat to use. It’s no AP, Tak or TEC, but for its day it delivered the goods and still would if a good sample.
  • bobhen, stevew, John O'Grady and 3 others like this

#14 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:27 AM

For such minor color issues as some have reported, what would be a recommendable "minus violet" (?) filter to clean that up if I choose to? Or would an MV filter be advisory at all?



#15 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 84,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:51 AM

For such minor color issues as some have reported, what would be a recommendable "minus violet" (?) filter to clean that up if I choose to? Or would an MV filter be advisory at all?

 

I have to wonder if everyone is discussing the F/5 Genesis.  The SDF version is quite different and a step closer to the TV-101/NP-101.

 

Jon



#16 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:55 AM

I have to wonder if everyone is discussing the F/5 Genesis.  The SDF version is quite different and a step closer to the TV-101/NP-101.

 

Jon

That's what I'm discussing at least. The original f/5 was basically an achromat, albeit a very nice one. Hence the MV question.



#17 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,062
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 15 May 2020 - 09:00 AM

That's what I'm discussing at least. The original f/5 was basically an achromat, albeit a very nice one. Hence the MV question.

They are. I've owned both and find most of the comments about minor CA in the first generation fairly accurate. That was improved in the subsequent sdf model.

Dang it. Meant to reply to Jon.

Edited by Auburn80, 15 May 2020 - 09:01 AM.


#18 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,498
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 15 May 2020 - 09:09 AM

For such minor color issues as some have reported, what would be a recommendable "minus violet" (?) filter to clean that up if I choose to? Or would an MV filter be advisory at all?

Baader semi-apo filter, that includes fringe killer. 


  • Astroman007 likes this

#19 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 6,158
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 15 May 2020 - 09:10 AM

That's what I'm discussing at least. The original f/5 was basically an achromat, albeit a very nice one. Hence the MV question.

Yes original Non SDF! I never used nor saw a need for any minus violet filter. I did use nebula filters obviously. It was no achromat, it used fluorite in the petzval corrector. That statement is a bit much. The first off the line may have indeed been soft...but I assure you, to be able to use mine at 260x on Jupiter in exquisite seeing, it had to be sharp! YMMV...but wanted to let you know the Genesis can be a fine performer especially when not next to the modern offerings! Hell, I saw “w” clouds on Mars, Saturns rings edge on and it’s moons, and the view it gave my of Ganymede crossing over the cloudtops of Jupiter at 260x using the TV 2.5 Barlow and a Nagler 4.8mm was one for the books that I often mention. A “soft” CA riden scope simply wouldn’t do this...

Edited by t.r., 15 May 2020 - 09:24 AM.

  • eros312, 25585 and Astroman007 like this

#20 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,498
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 15 May 2020 - 10:24 AM

Yes original Non SDF! I never used nor saw a need for any minus violet filter. I did use nebula filters obviously. It was no achromat, it used fluorite in the petzval corrector. That statement is a bit much. The first off the line may have indeed been soft...but I assure you, to be able to use mine at 260x on Jupiter in exquisite seeing, it had to be sharp! YMMV...but wanted to let you know the Genesis can be a fine performer especially when not next to the modern offerings! Hell, I saw “w” clouds on Mars, Saturns rings edge on and it’s moons, and the view it gave my of Ganymede crossing over the cloudtops of Jupiter at 260x using the TV 2.5 Barlow and a Nagler 4.8mm was one for the books that I often mention. A “soft” CA riden scope simply wouldn’t do this...

You are right. That Scopesreview gets under my skin some. Not sure if its the same person who did the TV-76 as well... 4.gif


  • Astroman007 likes this

#21 bobhen

bobhen

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,993
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 15 May 2020 - 11:18 AM

For such minor color issues as some have reported, what would be a recommendable "minus violet" (?) filter to clean that up if I choose to? Or would an MV filter be advisory at all?

I never used nor did I see the need for MV filter - you won't either. 

 

And yes that is with the Original F-5 TV Genesis.

 

I went back and looked at my log notes. Here are just a few quick notations from a few nights to give you an idea  of the powers that were used. The views were sharp at these powers on these nights. Even higher powers could be used in better seeing. 

 

Mars was observed at 280x

Jupiter was observed at 155x 

The moon was observed at 294x and even higher

 

Bob


  • Astroman007 likes this

#22 Astroman007

Astroman007

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 May 2020 - 11:59 AM

Baader semi-apo filter, that includes fringe killer. 

This one? https://kwtelescope....i-apo-filter-2/



#23 Toddeo

Toddeo

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,201
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Sierra Vista, AZ

Posted 15 May 2020 - 12:24 PM

That's what I'm discussing at least. The original f/5 was basically an achromat, albeit a very nice one. Hence the MV question.

To my knowledge, at least the original had an element of Fluorite at the rear. It states that in the literature and on the side of the  focuser. My 1991 "mint" Genesis- to my eyes- shows no false color. I've taken photos of the Moon and a couple planets with no color fringing. I've compared the views with a few of my scopes that use FPL-53, and a couple Triplets- no difference. I've had over three dozen refractors(currently have only 8) and the less quality air spaced doublets certainly showed color. Maybe I just lucked out and have a "above average"  Genesis.   

Attached Thumbnails

  • P1120060_opt.jpg
  • P1120062_opt.jpg

Edited by Toddeo, 15 May 2020 - 12:33 PM.

  • 25585 and Astroman007 like this

#24 Don W

Don W

    demi-god and Chairman of the Finance Committee

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 24,134
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • Loc: Wisconsin, USA

Posted 15 May 2020 - 02:36 PM

The TV Genesis was definitely not an achro. For its time, it was very well corrected  for color. It's just that since then, better designs have come along. I think many of us are spoiled with them and expect that level of view from older scopes.

 

The only limitation I ever felt with it was getting up to power on the planets. I loved the deep sky views, especially globular clusters.

 

I have a pair of Brandon 94s. They feature a triplet lense made by Roland Christen. I've not had the opportunity to do a side by side with an original f/5 Genesis, but I'm just guessing they will have less color.

 

Now that we have some warmer weather and occasionally even a night of clear skies, I'm hoping to do a side by side with one of the Brandon 94s and my recently acquired AT92. Should be a fun night. Would be even more fun with a Genesis f/5 but I don't have one. I may just set up my SDF for grins.


  • John O'Grady and Astroman007 like this

#25 Bonco2

Bonco2

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2013

Posted 15 May 2020 - 04:15 PM

Bought an early model in the late 80's. It blew my socks off. I'd been observing primarily with reflectors since 1960. Everyone agrees to its great ability to provide flat, wide field views with excellent contrast for dim nebula and pin point stars. That' what really impresses everybody. BUT, I find my Genesis to be excellent in lunar, planetary and double star views. Like others have posted, I've had some of the best views with little noticeable false color especially on the moon, Jupiter, and Saturn. MY best high power views are with a Nagler 4.8 and a Dakin 2.4X Barlow yielding 250X. That's not to say the later Telvue models are not better in this regard but I don't find the Genesis to be considered not capable of excellent high power 4 inch telescope views. It's likely the telescope I'll never sell and see no need to upgrade to the more expensive models as I don't see the improvement justifies the cost.
  • eros312 and Astroman007 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