52 replies to this topic

[R.Kelley]

This looks like a beautiful beast 

 

https://www.teleskop...ht-Focuser.html

 

160mm of aperture, 3.5" Feather Touch Focuser, Oil-Spaced objective! But I've never heard of FPL55... is that better corrected than FPL53? Anyone have any experience with these? How does CFF compare to TEC, Astro-Physics, etc? Are they as good as the TEC-160 ED?

 

 

[Just wishful thinking here.. not looking to purchase anything]

Edited by rkelley8493, 26 May 2020 - 01:18 PM.

[sg6]

FPL55 is the next one along to the left of FPL53.

Will be more ED then FPL-53, not sure of the chemical properties. Something says likely to be "softer" then FPL-53

 

Has been on the Ohara site for a year or two. Did wonder when and if it would make an appearance.

 

Any bets on when the first "Has anyone compared the 160 FPL-55 to the (?) 160 FPL-53?" will appear.

Now who is going to have one of each to make a comparison?

Edited by sg6, 26 May 2020 - 01:29 PM.

[Jeff Bennett]

I have owned CFF 92 F6 and 105 F6 scopes, both of which were oil-spaced triplets.  I recall the 105 used FPL53, and I am pretty sure the 92 did as well.  My understanding is that FPL53 is difficult to get in blanks the size and quality needed for the larger scopes.  I believe this is why TEC now makes their 140 with Fluorite, while the ED version produced up until recently used FPL53.  CFFs approach was to shift to FPL55.

 

Based on my experience, CFFs are wonderful scopes with superb optics and outstanding build quality.  Optically I would put them in the same group as AP and TEC, both of which I own now.  The only comparison I can make of very similar scopes is the 92 CFF and my recently arrived AP Stowaway.  Optically the CFF gave up nothing to the AP.  The CFFs tend to be built like tanks, and my 92 CFF was definitely heavier than the Stowaway, even though the AP has a heavier focuser than I had on the CFF.

 

Regards,

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff Bennett, 26 May 2020 - 01:31 PM.

[Jeff B]

This looks like a beautiful beast 

 

https://www.teleskop...ht-Focuser.html

 

160mm of aperture, 3.5" Feather Touch Focuser, Oil-Spaced objective! But I've never heard of FPL55... is that better corrected than FPL53? Anyone have any experience with these? How does CFF compare to TEC, Astro-Physics, etc? Are they as good as the TEC-160 ED?

 

 

[Just wishful thinking here.. not looking to purchase anything]

You might find these links useful.  

 

https://www.cloudyni...n/?hl= cff 160

 

https://www.cloudyni...n/?hl= tec160ed

 

Jeff

[DeanD]

Looks like a great scope! Wishful thinking for me too: it is never going to happen.

 

Just for interest, this site: https://refractivein...PL&page=S-FPL55 shows identical characteristics for FPL55 and FPL53

 

- and really, minor differences in the refractive index of different ED glass types don't matter as much as the execution of the design of the different elements, and their quality of material and finish.

 

- Dean

Edited by DeanD, 27 May 2020 - 01:26 AM.

[R.Kelley]

You might find these links useful.  

 

https://www.cloudyni...n/?hl= cff 160

 

https://www.cloudyni...n/?hl= tec160ed

 

Jeff

Very useful! Thanks Jeff 

I did a search for CFF 160mm f/6.5, and your evaluation was one of the first links to populate  Well done!

[R.Kelley]

Looks like a great scope! Wishful thinking for me too: it is never going to happen.

 

Just for interest, this site: https://refractivein...PL&page=S-FPL55 shows identical characteristics for FPL55 and FPL53

 

- and really, minor differences in the refractive index of different ED glass types don't matter as much as the execution of the design of the different elements, and their quality of material and finish.

 

- Dean

Haha that's very true Dean   But it doesn't hurt or cost anything to dream 

You make some very good points about the design, material, and finish. The lens elements are just a part of the whole design. There's more to a telescope than just the objective lens. 

[turtle86]

This looks like a beautiful beast 

 

https://www.teleskop...ht-Focuser.html

 

160mm of aperture, 3.5" Feather Touch Focuser, Oil-Spaced objective! But I've never heard of FPL55... is that better corrected than FPL53? Anyone have any experience with these? How does CFF compare to TEC, Astro-Physics, etc? Are they as good as the TEC-160 ED?

 

 

[Just wishful thinking here.. not looking to purchase anything]

 

Yes it does, and I’m sure it’s a wonderful performer.  There’s one for sale on Astromart.   If I had an observatory, I might be tempted.  

[Jeff B]

Other than the weight and length differences, there was also one practical difference between the TEC 160ED and the CFF 160 concerning tube currents.  The TEC has small but consistent bouts of transient tube currents when cooling, while the CFF is largely free from them.  I attribute that difference to the different light baffle designs for both.  The TEC 160ED has four "conventional" baffles whose diameter taper as you approach the focal plane and are placed in the tube.  In contrast, the CFF's has many more machined "baffle-lets" which are sharp ridges machined down the length of the tube's I.D.  Both work very well at suppressing visual stray light and giving a large fully illuminated field at the focal plane.   However, and this has been true with my ATM experience as well, with conventional baffles, warmer air can pool at the top of the tube behind a baffle and then spill up through the center hole into the light path.  Similarly, cool air can pool in front of the baffle and spill down into the light path.   Compared to some other refractors with conventional baffles, the TEC's tube currents were mild and not long lasting but could return sometimes especially if the ambient temperature drops quickly .  As the CFF does not have such a baffle design, I rarely see tube currents with that scope.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff B, 27 May 2020 - 12:22 PM.

[dan_1984]

I did about a years worth of research, and many agree about the optical quality and mechanics of CFF telescopes, either apos or reflectors. They are in the same league as TEC or AP or TAK. Me I went for the 200 mm CFF oiled spaced triplet. I am expecting delivery in late August. The manager of CFF is a pleasure to talk too. He will listen to your needs! You can find other users on he forum that already have a 160 mm from CFF. They will give you direct feedback. As for me I have to wait a little bit... to get u direct feedback.

 

PS: I would advise buying directly from the manufacturer. Sometimes dealers are not careful enough with the products or simply don’t know how to store or transport or handle the product.

Edited by dan_1984, 11 June 2020 - 04:17 PM.

[drprovi57]

I did about a years worth of research, and many agree about the optical quality and mechanics of CFF telescopes, either apos or reflectors. They are in the same league as TEC or AP or TAK. Me I went for the 200 mm CFF oiled spaced triplet. I am expecting delivery in late August. The manager of CFF is a pleasure to talk too. He will listen to your needs! You can find other users on he forum that already have a 160 mm from CFF. They will give you direct feedback. As for me I have to wait a little bit... to get u direct feedback.

 

PS: I would advise buying directly from the manufacturer. Sometimes dealers are not careful enough with the products or simply don’t know how to store or transport or handle the product.

 

I have a CFF 200 F6.5 on order as well - expecting delivery in July... 

[dan_1984]

I have a CFF 200 F6.5 on order as well - expecting delivery in July... 

That is good news, great news and awesome news   . That means you get the first lens , I get the second or third....After you get it be sure to PM me and share the joy! Congratulations! I am excited for both of us now.

Edited by dan_1984, 12 June 2020 - 11:00 AM.

[Gavster]

Unfortunately I didn’t have a good experience with the new cff 160 f6.5 I purchased as per this link (purchased as a brand new scope, not used and at full retail price).
https://www.cloudyni...ther-cff-scope/
In my opinion the build quality of my Tec160fl (which I got a few months later) is much better. And the Tec160fl delivers fantastic views.

Edited by Gavster, 13 June 2020 - 09:30 AM.

[dan_1984]

Unfortunately I didn’t have a good experience with the new cff 160 f6.5 I purchased as per this link
https://www.cloudyni...ther-cff-scope/
In my opinion the build quality of my Tec160fl (which I got a few months later) is much better. And the Tec160fl delivers fantastic views.

Sorry to hear about your problem. If I understand corectly from your post, the purchase was made from a dealer. As I stated, it is better and safer to buy from the manufacturer directly. Paint chips and minor misscollimation problems can appear due to innapropriate handling or storage at the dealers shop. As an example mr.  Fus recomends the apos beeing stored vertically if not used for long periods. 
Can you elaborate on the difference in build quality? Was it the focuser, the tube, the baffles, the paint?

Thanks for your input!

[Gavster]

Sorry to hear about your problem. If I understand corectly from your post, the purchase was made from a dealer. As I stated, it is better and safer to buy from the manufacturer directly. Paint chips and minor misscollimation problems can appear due to innapropriate handling or storage at the dealers shop. As an example mr.  Fus recomends the apos beeing stored vertically if not used for long periods. 
Can you elaborate on the difference in build quality? Was it the focuser, the tube, the baffles, the paint?

Thanks for your input!

The focuser was a feathertouch and was great. The paint was not as good or robust as my tecs (and astro physics) imo. It was thin and susceptible to marks. I also remember the dewshield was not as comfortable to move and the dovetail bar had an odd line running through it like two bits of metal had been bonded together, maybe this was from the black coating, not sure. The miscollimation was quite severe and I guess happened in transit, but I’ve not had this happen before or since.

The dealer was very good and took the scope back for a full refund with no questions. I have bought a scope from the same dealer since with no problems at all.

I’ve bought 2 astro-physics, 4 Taks and 2 tecs all from dealers with no issues at all, I guess I was unlucky. But as a result of this I ended up with my Tec160fl so a happy outcome.

[dan_1984]

The focuser was a feathertouch and was great. The paint was not as good or robust as my tecs (and astro physics) imo. It was thin and susceptible to marks. I also remember the dewshield was not as comfortable to move and the dovetail bar had an odd line running through it like two bits of metal had been bonded together, maybe this was from the black coating, not sure. The miscollimation was quite severe and I guess happened in transit, but I’ve not had this happen before or since.

The dealer was very good and took the scope back for a full refund with no questions. I have bought a scope from the same dealer since with no problems at all.

I’ve bought 2 astro-physics, 4 Taks and 2 tecs all from dealers with no issues at all, I guess I was unlucky. But as a result of this I ended up with my Tec160fl so a happy outcome.

Now the painting is applied by powder-coating. I don't know if powder-coating was done on all scopes from the beginning, I will have to ask. Usually powder-coating is more resistance to all damaging factors than regular wet-painting.

Perhaps you were a little bit unlucky , but as you say, in the end there was a happy outcome.

[Catalin Fus]

Mr Gavster, I would kindly ask you, with all due respect, if you place your story very often on topics related to CFF to try at least to place it in a correct light.

(for me, it is a bit weird to see you still push on this, 3 years after something was fixed and it was clearly not your experience with us, rather your experience with a dealer, which makes it irrelevant as you could have purchased any brand from that dealer, with the same issues; to hold a manufacturer responsible for what happens with a telescope that has spent almost a year on the shelves and 2000 km away, or even imply it indirectly, it is not correct nor normal).

 

* you communicated with me but decided to buy from an European dealer because of availability;

* you received, what was immediately obvious, a used telescope, improperly stored. Personally, we were far from happy to see that happening but on the other hand, given that you chose to buy there, you should have resolved your issues exclusively with them and mention them in all your commentaries and posts, not CFF Telescopes. I bet that a lot of people buying used equipment, no matter the brand, possibly might have encountered same situation.

* the ding you saw is normal if a sharp object hits the dew shield and such an action will show same result no matter the paint.

* yes, powder coating is applied in a thin layer (0.15 - 0.2 mm) and it is definitely prone to damage if a sharp object falls on a powder coated surface. We're speaking about aluminium here, which by itself is a softer alloy.

* after you contacted me back suddenly, telling me you purchased the 160mm and it is 'bad', I intervened realizing quickly what happened & dealer fixed the situation asap.

Believe it or not, we had a say in the way that situation was resolved.

 

If an oil-spaced refractor it is stored with its optical axis parallel to the ground (horizontal), for .... about half a year.... there might be a chance of seeing the same 'miscollimation'.

To prevent that, I think all manufacturers of oil-spaced optics might recommend long-term vertical storage. In fact, for your information, after that scope was returned to the dealer, we were contacted to 'repair' the lens. 

We told them to store it vertically for a bit of time....after a couple of days or a week, it was back to 'normal' as it was delivered. Don't know on the cosmetics side, what happened.

 

Your unhappy story also had a positive impact on us/our business:

* all dealers that were not able to deliver a high-quality service for our brand, were removed from our list of collaborators, starting with 1st of January 2018. 

* whenever a prospect customer contacts us regarding a possible purchase from a dealer, we deliver all information possible, regarding when the telescope was delivered, what configuration was delivered and we send the optical test report.

By doing this, we have minimized risks of damaging our brand.

We had a couple of unpleasant situations, prior to yours that made us think twice about what to do and with whom we can or cannot collaborate.

After some years in the business, it is obvious that situations like yours are bound to happen and we're glad they did. On the long run, it helped us.

For this, we owe you a 'thank you!' for bringing out your story.

 

So, although your experience was negative, for which I'm sorry, it seems it came with positive outcomes for you and for us. 

I'm glad you are happy with your TEC, it is a great refractor from one of the very few manufacturers that are still doing everything 'in house'. It was/is an excellent choice.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt supporting such businesses as there might be more to gain for everybody, long term.

 

Wishing you a nice weekend!

* edited to avoid misunderstandings*

Edited by Catalin Fus, 14 June 2020 - 04:37 AM.

[SLight]

As an ex-manufacturer of high-end products myself, I totally agree with Catalin his point. These days social-media, forums etc... have a strong impact on any brand / manufacturer. The comment from an unhappy customer can have a strong and long-lasting impact on ones business. Everybody can make a mistake and every manufacturer has been through a learning curve. Even if in this case the fault wasn't by the manufacturer and has been corrected it still may impact the way a potential buyer sees the brand. 

Please be aware of this every time you post an opinion on a product. We are al people here and behind every brand there are people doing there very best to help you in case something happened.

[R.Kelley]

Mr Gavster, I would kindly ask you, with all due respect, if you place your story very often on topics related to CFF to try at least to place it in a correct light.

(for me, it is a bit weird to see you still push on this, 3 years after something was fixed and it was clearly not your experience with us, rather your experience with a dealer, which makes it irrelevant as you could have purchased any brand from that dealer, with the same issues; to hold a manufacturer responsible for what happens with a telescope that has spent almost a year on the shelves and 2000 km away, or even imply it indirectly, it is not correct nor normal).

 

* you communicated with me but decided to buy from an European dealer because of availability;

* you received, what was immediately obvious, a used telescope, improperly stored. Personally, we were far from happy to see that happening but on the other hand, given that you chose to buy there, you should have resolved your issues exclusively with them and mention them in all your commentaries and posts, not CFF Telescopes. I bet that a lot of people buying used equipment, no matter the brand, possibly might have encountered same situation.

* the ding you saw is normal if a sharp object hits the dew shield and such an action will show same result no matter the paint.

* yes, powder coating is applied in a thin layer (0.15 - 0.2 mm) and it is definitely prone to damage if a sharp object falls on a powder coated surface. We're speaking about aluminium here, which by itself is a softer alloy.

* after you contacted me back suddenly, telling me you purchased the 160mm and it is 'bad', I intervened realizing quickly what happened & dealer fixed the situation asap.

Believe it or not, we had a say in the way that situation was resolved.

 

Please, try to store your TEC160 or whatever oil-spaced refractor you may own, with its optical axis parallel to the ground (horizontal), for .... about half a year....and then look through it.

I bet there would be a high chance of seeing the same 'miscollimation', which is inherent to all oil-spaced optics if stored horizontal for a very long time.

To prevent that, I think all manufacturers of oil-spaced optics recommend long-term vertical storage. In fact, for your information, after that scope was returned to the dealer, we were contacted to 'repair' the lens. 

We told them to store it vertically for a bit of time....after a couple of days or a week, it was back to 'normal' as it was delivered. Don't know on the cosmetics side, what happened.

 

Your unhappy story also had a positive impact on us/our business:

* all dealers that were not able to deliver a high-quality service for our brand, were removed from our list of collaborators, starting with 1st of January 2018. 

* whenever a prospect customer contacts us regarding a possible purchase from a dealer, we deliver all information possible, regarding when the telescope was delivered, what configuration was delivered and we send the optical test report.

By doing this, we have minimized risks of damaging our brand.

We had a couple of unpleasant situations, prior to yours that made us think twice about what to do and with whom we can or cannot collaborate.

After some years in the business, it is obvious that situations like yours are bound to happen and we're glad they did. On the long run, it helped us.

For this, we owe you a 'thank you!' for bringing out your story.

 

So, although your experience was negative, for which I'm sorry, it seems it came with positive outcomes for you and for us. 

I'm glad you are happy with your TEC, it is a great refractor from one of the very few manufacturers that are still doing everything 'in house'. It was/is an excellent choice.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt supporting such businesses as there might be more to gain for everybody, long term.

 

Wishing you a nice weekend!

Do oil-spaced objectives have to be stored in such a way to keep the oil suspended in place? Common sense tells me it would have to be kept in a climate controlled environment away from temperature extremes, but does the orientation [vertical/horizontal] really have an effect on the oil's dispersion over time?

Edited by rkelley8493, 13 June 2020 - 12:52 PM.

[Catalin Fus]

Do oil-spaced objectives have to be stored in such a way to keep the oil suspended in place? Common sense tells me it would have to be kept in a climate controlled environment away from temperature extremes, but does the orientation [vertical/horizontal] really have an effect on the oil's dispersion over time?

I have been pointed out by people with much more knowledge than me that the explanation below might not be true to fact. To avoid any future forum discussions/arguing using it as an example, I want to make that clear now.

Gravity might not affect that, other forces might be at play. Until more on that subject is clear, I feel it's my duty to correct this.

 

* Well, considering gravity affects in time all molecules found in that extremely thin oil layer between lenses, it can introduce a wedge effect that can alter star shape in focus for a couple of hours or more, when the scope is placed back on a mount and used. The redistribution of molecules will take a bit of time.

The oil will not go away, be lost or anything alike. We are speaking about an effect that can be observable due to gravity's influence. That's all.*

 

So, yes, from what I can recommend, vertical storage is best for long term (let's say weeks or more). 

 

Hopefully this info helps.

Edited by Catalin Fus, 14 June 2020 - 04:43 AM.

[R.Kelley]

Well, considering gravity affects in time all molecules found in that extremely thin oil layer between lenses, it can introduce a wedge effect that can alter star shape in focus for a couple of hours or more, when the scope is placed back on a mount and used. The redistribution of molecules will take a bit of time.

The oil will not go away, be lost or anything alike. We are speaking about an effect that can be observable due to gravity's influence. That's all. 

 

So, yes, from what I can recommend, vertical storage is best for long term (let's say weeks or more). 

 

Hopefully this info helps.

Catalin, you guys manufacture some very beautiful pieces of equipment! Keep up the good work 

[RichA]

Do oil-spaced objectives have to be stored in such a way to keep the oil suspended in place? Common sense tells me it would have to be kept in a climate controlled environment away from temperature extremes, but does the orientation [vertical/horizontal] really have an effect on the oil's dispersion over time?

If a scope had to be kept in such an environment, it wouldn't be much good for using in winter or summer...

[R_Huntzberry]

Although not a 160mm CFF, I have owned a CFF 185mm F/6.8 for 3 years now (S/N -009) and I can wholeheartedly recommend CFF. Not just for the quality of their telescopes but also for their excellent customer service and professionalism.

 

I also own or have owned Astro-Physics, TEC, LZOS and Tak refractors. At this price point/quality level any differences are so subtle that it will require both optics to be set up side by side on a night of excellent seeing just to distinguish one from the other.
Even then, I usually prefer the view through the scope I’m currently looking through. Then move to the other scope, now I like the view through this scope a little better. 

Over the years I have found that I prefer oil spaced triplets over air spaced for a variety of reasons. But that’s just my personal preference.

If my name hadn’t come up on the AP 92mm Stowaway list I was going to purchase a CFF 92.

 

Here’s a link to a thread I started when I received my CFF 185. All comments and observations will also be applicable to any CFF refractor.

https://www.cloudyni...apo-in-the-usa/

 

Best regards,

 

Richard

[ichdien]

Well, considering gravity affects in time all molecules found in that extremely thin oil layer between lenses, it can introduce a wedge effect that can alter star shape in focus for a couple of hours or more, when the scope is placed back on a mount and used. The redistribution of molecules will take a bit of time.

The oil will not go away, be lost or anything alike. We are speaking about an effect that can be observable due to gravity's influence. That's all. 

 

So, yes, from what I can recommend, vertical storage is best for long term (let's say weeks or more). 

 

Hopefully this info helps.

Roland Christen just posted the following response to a person who asked a similar question:

 

Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io>

2:54 AM (1 hour ago)

to main@ap-ug.groups.io
For this scope and for any of our scopes, there is no effect by leaving it horizontal.

Rolando

[Scott in NC]

And Yuri Petrunin from TEC agrees with Roland Christen from AP, stating that the scope’s orientation during storage should not matter.

 

https://groups.io/g/...3?p=,,,20,0,0,0