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

My email came in today for AP130

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#51 cdr dcm

cdr dcm

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Duluth, MN

Posted 30 June 2020 - 09:45 PM

I don't want to rain on anyone's AP parade but I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the AP 130 and the TEC 140 FL (which is available with a few months' wait). In fact the extra 10 mm of aperture might give the TEC the edge. Near perfection of design and production is the case with both (including Tak and a few others) Physics and your eyeballs, not to mention atmospheric conditions, are likely to be the limiting  factors for any of these.


  • zjc26138, turtle86, payner and 5 others like this

#52 AstroGabe

AstroGabe

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,543
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • Loc: SE Wisconsin

Posted 30 June 2020 - 09:50 PM

I don't want to rain on anyone's AP parade but I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the AP 130 and the TEC 140 FL (which is available with a few months' wait). In fact the extra 10 mm of aperture might give the TEC the edge. Near perfection of design and production is the case with both (including Tak and a few others) Physics and your eyeballs, not to mention atmospheric conditions, are likely to be the limiting  factors for any of these.

 

Good points.  One thing that really appeals to me about the AP130GTX over the TEC (I've considered getting one for years) is the portability.  Having the scope break down makes it really portable for travel.  Also, for my imaging, which will be my primary use, I've read in the past that there has been some issues with TEC having bloated blue stars on some sensors.  


  • kkt and gjanke like this

#53 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,902
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 01 July 2020 - 12:08 AM

I don't want to rain on anyone's AP parade but I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the AP 130 and the TEC 140 FL (which is available with a few months' wait). In fact the extra 10 mm of aperture might give the TEC the edge. Near perfection of design and production is the case with both (including Tak and a few others) Physics and your eyeballs, not to mention atmospheric conditions, are likely to be the limiting  factors for any of these.

Well it's 10 mm more aperture and it's 10% more focal ratio, and that adds up surprisingly more than you might think.  The TEC 140 is an imposing and large instrument close up.  That it is a top performer there is no doubt.  

 

980 mm focal length to the GT's 819.  About 16 cm longer or 6.3 inches.   The tube on the TEC 140 is one diameter for the whole length, the GT130 is tapered after the light rays have converged a bit.  The TEC 140 has the larger objective and with the larger objective comes not just a wider dew shield but a *longer* one.

 

So all told the TEC 140 is an imposing physical presence and compared to the GT130 is like one of those impossibly tall runway supermodels.   I don't think the weight is that different from the GT130.

 

Both scopes are solid on a G11 class mount.

 

I don't think the 10 mm of aperture is, for my purposes, worth the additional transport/storage problems.    But then I cheat.  When I want more aperture I put my 92mm on top of the c8.  Or the C14.  And I even put the 92 mm on top of the GT130 which isn't necessary, is kinda silly, does not expand available aperture, but is a great deal of fun.   In any event I'm not in a position of needing the extra 10 mm. 

 

If anything ever happened to the much-valued GT130 I would strongly consider replacing it with a CFF or TEC, in spite of my reservations about the TEC's size.   CFF has a 135 mm f/6.7.  At least for now they do. 

 

I have more refractors than I should have, though.  

 

Greg N


  • John Gauvreau likes this

#54 snommisbor

snommisbor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Cedar Park, TX

Posted 01 July 2020 - 04:51 PM

I don't want to rain on anyone's AP parade but I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the AP 130 and the TEC 140 FL (which is available with a few months' wait). In fact the extra 10 mm of aperture might give the TEC the edge. Near perfection of design and production is the case with both (including Tak and a few others) Physics and your eyeballs, not to mention atmospheric conditions, are likely to be the limiting  factors for any of these.

Before I got rid of my 140 I did a comparison with my buddy’s 130. There was a slightly detectable difference in views but nothing worth wanting to go from a 130 to 140. Where the big difference is, is in size. I was amazed at how much bigger the 140 was to the 130. After that viewing session though I did decide to sell my 140 and did upgrade to a 160 due to that slight difference. Of course now with the 130 coming I may have to think hard about getting rid of the 160 and going to a 180.


  • cdr dcm, Lookitup and gjanke like this

#55 ryderc1

ryderc1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2006

Posted 01 July 2020 - 06:53 PM

Before I got rid of my 140 I did a comparison with my buddy’s 130. There was a slightly detectable difference in views but nothing worth wanting to go from a 130 to 140. Where the big difference is, is in size. I was amazed at how much bigger the 140 was to the 130. After that viewing session though I did decide to sell my 140 and did upgrade to a 160 due to that slight difference. Of course now with the 130 coming I may have to think hard about getting rid of the 160 and going to a 180

A few months ago I weighed my 2003 AP 130/6 and TEC 140 ED. Both had their rings and mounting plates attached but no diagonal. I was surprised to find that the weights were within one pound of each other.  And given that AP 130's made after my model (e.g. the GT and the GTX) are heavier than my 2003 EDFS, a TEC 140 ED with rings is actually lighter than the more recent 130 AP's yet has 10mm more aperture. Since I could no longer justify owning two scopes so close in size and performance with some trepidation I passed the 130 along to a new owner.


  • cdr dcm, Heywood, leviathan and 2 others like this

#56 Swanny

Swanny

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2017
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 01 July 2020 - 06:54 PM

Let’s pump the brakes on ‘a few months’ to get a TEC140FL. My neighbor is about to year 2 on his wait. I was on the list with a quote of 6 months that was quickly bumped back to a year and a half. I chose to move to a Tak130. Still better than 8 years but there are other scopes as good as the above mentioned without the wait.
  • astrohamp likes this

#57 cdr dcm

cdr dcm

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Duluth, MN

Posted 01 July 2020 - 07:41 PM

Certainly can't argue with the choice of the Tak 130!


  • leviathan likes this

#58 andysea

andysea

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,912
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 01 July 2020 - 08:58 PM

I had the TOA130. Coupled with the 4" flattener it was an amazing imaging scope.


  • rockstarbill likes this

#59 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,565
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 01 July 2020 - 09:06 PM

I don't want to rain on anyone's AP parade but I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the AP 130 and the TEC 140 FL (which is available with a few months' wait). In fact the extra 10 mm of aperture might give the TEC the edge. Near perfection of design and production is the case with both (including Tak and a few others) Physics and your eyeballs, not to mention atmospheric conditions, are likely to be the limiting  factors for any of these.

 

I wound up with the AP 130 GT but really I’d be just as thrilled with a TEC 140 or Tak 130 TOA.  All are superb.


  • payner, cdr dcm, Paul Morow and 1 other like this

#60 donadani

donadani

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,066
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 01 July 2020 - 11:57 PM

Had the AP-130EDF-GT but sold it after a comparison with an older AP-130EDT on the planets - both great but the views in the EDT with f/8 were a little bit more stable for me. The big strenght of the GT is it´s compactness and possibility do divide the tube in three parts - so perfect for journeys if needed. The GT with rings, dustcap, 3" AP dovetail was 9.3kg.

 

Before some weeks came up an older 130EDFS with tailored tube and peppled paint - for a good price - and I couldn´t resist! smile.gif condition was not the best but price good and no dings or dents so I could bring it back it nearly "like new condition" - I absolutely love the tailored tube scope from AP! For me the nicest scopes AP ever made. 

 

A TEC 140 is great too - of course - especially the optics! but the tube is not as refined as those from AP and focuser is a FeatherTouch - yes great - but not unique - I prefere the AP´s ones just if they come without micropinion as with this EDFS.

 

So give me the TEC to enjoy the best views (no wonder with 10mm more aperture) - a instrument to use. But give me the AP to enjoy and celebrate just the use of the scope AND the views. With the older ones - you love it to pull off the dewcap and push it on again with the different side on front - or you hate it wink.gif The rings and plate has to be stored separately and is another step you have to do before viewing. With the TEC I open the case and the scope is more or less ready to go - more comfortable of course.

 

Btw. the EDFS with rings, 3" dovetail and dustcap is 10kg straight so same as the TEC and a bit more as the newer EDF-GT.

 

Yes maybe I should sell one again - but both are used frequently and I really can not decide which one to let go and luckily there´s no hurry...


Edited by donadani, 02 July 2020 - 12:18 AM.

  • plyscope, cdr dcm and eros312 like this

#61 k5apl

k5apl

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,168
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 02 July 2020 - 10:06 AM

This is a very interesting thread and my $.02 is several years ago my friend Chuck and I compared the AP130GT to the TOA130 looking at Jupiter.  Used same eyepiece manufacturer (AP, TV, Zeiss) for comparable power, same diagonals, sitting next to each other.  At highest powers the TOA was slightly sharper (makes sense!).

 

As a previous poster noted, the advantage of the GT is that it can be broken down into 3 pieces for travel purposes. My GT has viewed "epic" skies on top of Haleakala volcano at 10K feet altitude in Maui, HI.  A great place that has minimum light pollution and clear skies.  I could never have brought a TOA size scope with me (cost, wife, and mount considerations).  So I had a great scope in a great location for many visits.  A true visual test environment.

 

What is an "epic" night?  You look up and see so many bright stars that you have trouble recognizing the major constellations. You see clouds in the South, but then realize its the Milky Way.  Add in the GT and good accessories and its a wonderful experience.  Rigel is an easy split, many stars around the C asterism in the Double Cluster, and the two small stars near the Double in the middle of the Trifid make it look like a 'double-double'. What I saw there has never been duplicated anywhere that I have viewed in the continental U.S.  And that couldn't have

happened (for me) without a 130mm refractor that could easily travel.

 

IMO the best telescope is the one that fits the owner's purpose (and is used frequently).  And we are blessed to have a myriad of refractors to choose from.  Blanket statements about which one is "best' are not credible to me.

Bottom line for me was to get my refractor to a location that would allow the optics to demonstrate their quality.

YMMV, and that's OK.


  • Joe Bergeron, John Gauvreau, cdr dcm and 11 others like this

#62 John Gauvreau

John Gauvreau

    Astro Sensei

  • *****
  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 July 2020 - 12:32 PM

IMO the best telescope is the one that fits the owner's purpose (and is used frequently).  And we are blessed to have a myriad of refractors to choose from. 

YMMV, and that's OK.

That, word for word.  



#63 Heywood

Heywood

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,311
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posted 04 July 2020 - 03:38 PM

Had the AP-130EDF-GT but sold it after a comparison with an older AP-130EDT on the planets - both great but the views in the EDT with f/8 were a little bit more stable for me. The big strenght of the GT is it´s compactness and possibility do divide the tube in three parts - so perfect for journeys if needed. The GT with rings, dustcap, 3" AP dovetail was 9.3kg.

Before some weeks came up an older 130EDFS with tailored tube and peppled paint - for a good price - and I couldn´t resist! smile.gif condition was not the best but price good and no dings or dents so I could bring it back it nearly "like new condition" - I absolutely love the tailored tube scope from AP! For me the nicest scopes AP ever made.

A TEC 140 is great too - of course - especially the optics! but the tube is not as refined as those from AP and focuser is a FeatherTouch - yes great - but not unique - I prefere the AP´s ones just if they come without micropinion as with this EDFS.

So give me the TEC to enjoy the best views (no wonder with 10mm more aperture) - a instrument to use. But give me the AP to enjoy and celebrate just the use of the scope AND the views. With the older ones - you love it to pull off the dewcap and push it on again with the different side on front - or you hate it wink.gif The rings and plate has to be stored separately and is another step you have to do before viewing. With the TEC I open the case and the scope is more or less ready to go - more comfortable of course.

Btw. the EDFS with rings, 3" dovetail and dustcap is 10kg straight so same as the TEC and a bit more as the newer EDF-GT.

Yes maybe I should sell one again - but both are used frequently and I really can not decide which one to let go and luckily there´s no hurry...

Have you seen a TEC 140FL? I would say the tube was just as "refined" as anything Astro-Physics has sold. And I have owned telescopes from both makers.

Edited by Heywood, 04 July 2020 - 03:39 PM.

  • Scott in NC likes this

#64 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,405
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 04 July 2020 - 07:48 PM

Have you seen a TEC 140FL? I would say the tube was just as "refined" as anything Astro-Physics has sold. And I have owned telescopes from both makers.

Having also owned scopes from both makers (two of each), I agree with Heywood.



#65 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,518
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:07 AM

Figure out a way to get a look through one.  

 

As for competitors, there have yet to be any.  There's no secret sauce.  One person works up the design.  The glass for each type of element in a batch of telescopes comes from the same furnace run (e.g. there are three types of glass, so three furnace runs).  The as-made glass has its optical properties measured.  The same person who designed it updates the prescription for just that run based on the as-made glass properties.  The lenses are made.  The lenses successfully yielded are matched into optical sets and final figuring is done by hand by same said person to reduce chromatic aberration to minimum achievable. The lens sets which survive to this point are the notifications for that run.  The optical sets get sent to be coated.  The same person assembles them to get to maximum Strehl ratio, and the scope is assembled around that lens cell.

 

So, that's what you have paid for, and when you get a chance to use one (and it's best to use as much other hardware as you can, first), the result is singularly remarkable.  And if you don't believe such is possible, again, I say seek one out and get a look.  Nothing anyone can produce in mere words can describe the difference between a C5 or ED80, C8, 100ED, or 90mm Mak, 5" Mak, or 7" Mak and what an AP130 GT does.  The enormous range of practical magnifications, and contrast which leaves one staring at objects as if seeing them for the first time after three decades under the stars is the difference.  And it has to be experienced to be understood like Scuba has to be experienced to be understood.

 

If you're on the list, AND are active in the hobby, get the scope if you can.  Each of these is an experiment- Roland puts them out to see what will happen.  If he were doing contract work for professional optical activities, he could make plenty of money.  He does this because it makes new friends, and people take them places he cannot go, and tell the story.  I took an AP130 to Idaho for the eclipse.  It got to see the Transit of Venus.  It spent a day at the edge of the top of the Army Tower on Mount Lemmon to watch an eclipse with a group of grad students.  Richard Hatch and Bruce McCandless got to see Saturn through it.  If astronomy is an unfolding adventure for you, you need to take glass worth the trip.  If you have no idea what I am talking about and all of this sounds over the top, even I said a C5 was a perfect scope to be stuck on a desert island with.

 

-Rich

 

 

Lol. Not being able to get one is almost silly to me as a business person, unless it is truly significantly better than the competition. From Googleing I see what you are saying, which makes it frustrating for people who may be accustomed to getting what they want if they are willing to pay... I am fairly new to astrophotography but I am so freaking hooked that I am unreasonably obsessed with perfection... are AP scopes seriously factually THAT much better than the competition that I'll regret not having one?

Kindest regards.


  • eros312 and alan.dang like this

#66 donadani

donadani

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,066
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 05 July 2020 - 02:07 AM

Have you seen a TEC 140FL? I would say the tube was just as "refined" as anything Astro-Physics has sold. And I have owned telescopes from both makers.

 

No, not the 140FL - but the ED and a bigger FL - and from AP the 130EDFS, EDFS-GT btw.

 

Tubewalls of the TEC´s are very thin with 4 classic baffles (140ED) - of course good to be light vs. the newer AP made from one piece solid aluminium with many internal baffles - I don´t say this is more effective - but nicer indeed!

 

The TEC´s dewcaps are simply screwed to an sliding adapter that works more or less good. The screwheads are outside on the tube vs. the AP (GT) don´t needs screws anymore. The older AP caps were clamped what I personally prefere over a screwed solution too but that´s only my opinion. 

 

The TEC´s tubes are simple tubes wink.gif vs. the AP offers features like a possibility to disassamble the tube in two (GTX) or three (GT) parts for easier travelling. The older EDFS have the tailored tubes with a nice - off set before the the lenscell adpater - I like these scopes the most! wink.gif

 

 

 

In general adapters (lenscell or foucser) at TEC´s are more simple and fuctional vs. the AP´s  are more lively, robust with many off-sets. AND AP offers their own focusers vs. "standard FT" at the TEC´s. 

 

Of course not all AP solutions are very "refined" either - for example the slinding mechanism of the AP-140 (in a 160 tube) because they left scratches in the inner paintjob of the dewcap or the fixing of the focuser in the older EDFS with a setscrew "into" the thread of the focuser... 

 

Did TEC introduced any enhancements with the new 140-FL´s? 

 

Don´t get me wrong - I like the TEC design too - especially for it´s very functional and light concept - the 140ED has the same weight as the 130EDFS and the TEC dust cap is a nice and "refined" solution too - at least when the dewcap is retracted (not so much when extracted... wink.gif ) - AND because of this concept a 7" TEC apo can be handled much better by one person then a AP one. 

 

cs

Chris

 

Edit:

 

 

120 vs. 130 vs. 140

 

 

 

 

or

green vs. red vs. blue

 

for explanations look here: https://www.vox.com/...lors-star-wars 

 

wink.gif


Edited by donadani, 05 July 2020 - 05:56 AM.

  • contrailmaker and gozer like this

#67 121601

121601

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2004

Posted 14 July 2020 - 09:01 PM

Not too big. Not too small. Just right.

 

Seriously, an easily managed yet capable size.

 

Clear skies, Alan

Hello,  Just wondering, Can one substitute the Stellarvue 130 rings ( www.highpointscientific.com/stellarvue-ring-set-for-sva130-refractor-telescopes-r130set )  in place of the Astro-Physics 55RING2 to mount the current AP130 GTX  (diameter = 5.5 inches)?  One main difference is the AP 55RING2 has holes separated by 60mm, while the Stellarvue ha 1.5 inches spacing.  thanks, CS

 



#68 madcity

madcity

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004
  • Loc: WI, USA

Posted 16 July 2020 - 02:06 AM

Congrats on your Stowaway notification!  Wouldn't that be something - to get a Stowaway and GTX130 in quick succession?  Talk about the stars aligning just right.  smile.gif

Now if only you were also on the Mach2 list *and notified* ... triple star alignment!

 

(Plus a second mortgage...)


  • AstroGabe and andysea like this

#69 andysea

andysea

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,912
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 18 July 2020 - 09:13 PM

A friend of mine got the GTX and the Honders on the same month. How crazy is that?


  • rockstarbill likes this

#70 Dwight56

Dwight56

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 359
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2010

Posted 20 July 2020 - 03:11 AM

Yes AP machines their baffles from thick walled Aluminum tubing and have been doing this since the 90's I have a AP 130 EDFs and an AP 155 and a 105 Traveler from that era all have machined baffles.



#71 Cbaxter

Cbaxter

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2020

Posted 01 August 2020 - 02:56 AM

Figure out a way to get a look through one.

As for competitors, there have yet to be any. There's no secret sauce. One person works up the design. The glass for each type of element in a batch of telescopes comes from the same furnace run (e.g. there are three types of glass, so three furnace runs). The as-made glass has its optical properties measured. The same person who designed it updates the prescription for just that run based on the as-made glass properties. The lenses are made. The lenses successfully yielded are matched into optical sets and final figuring is done by hand by same said person to reduce chromatic aberration to minimum achievable. The lens sets which survive to this point are the notifications for that run. The optical sets get sent to be coated. The same person assembles them to get to maximum Strehl ratio, and the scope is assembled around that lens cell.

So, that's what you have paid for, and when you get a chance to use one (and it's best to use as much other hardware as you can, first), the result is singularly remarkable. And if you don't believe such is possible, again, I say seek one out and get a look. Nothing anyone can produce in mere words can describe the difference between a C5 or ED80, C8, 100ED, or 90mm Mak, 5" Mak, or 7" Mak and what an AP130 GT does. The enormous range of practical magnifications, and contrast which leaves one staring at objects as if seeing them for the first time after three decades under the stars is the difference. And it has to be experienced to be understood like Scuba has to be experienced to be understood.

If you're on the list, AND are active in the hobby, get the scope if you can. Each of these is an experiment- Roland puts them out to see what will happen. If he were doing contract work for professional optical activities, he could make plenty of money. He does this because it makes new friends, and people take them places he cannot go, and tell the story. I took an AP130 to Idaho for the eclipse. It got to see the Transit of Venus. It spent a day at the edge of the top of the Army Tower on Mount Lemmon to watch an eclipse with a group of grad students. Richard Hatch and Bruce McCandless got to see Saturn through it. If astronomy is an unfolding adventure for you, you need to take glass worth the trip. If you have no idea what I am talking about and all of this sounds over the top, even I said a C5 was a perfect scope to be stuck on a desert island with.

-Rich


In no way do I mean any disrespect! Please don't take this as a slight or as disrespect, but ratheras my inexperienced opinion. I have the opportunity to look through two AP scopes in the very near future, but I seriously doubt that the view will be "singular." I cannot imagine AP scopes defying perceptible human vision. That is to say, I seriously doubt that an AP scope will be "singular" and be OBVIOUSLY better than a similarly sized TAK scope. Under exceptionally dark skies I may notice a difference, possibly. But excluding cognitive conservatism, I seriously doubt the view through an AP scope will be significantly distinguished from the view through a similarly sized TAK or the like scope. In short, I doubt the wait is "physically" worth the wait. I have spent several hundreds of thousands of $
On my various hobbies, and while I will admit that astrophotography is my most recent hobby, I am unwilling to spend a substantial amount of $ on uncertaities. I will try to remember to report back here after I spend a moonless night of excellent seeing, with some AP scopes, among several other proclaimed top tier premium scopes.

Lastly, prestige is of zero value to me. Physical functionality and factual, scientifically quantifiable performance measures (in regards to human perceptible limits), are much more meaningful to me. I do not buy on hype nor biased evaluations.

Simply put, I cannot take personal testimony as physical, scientifically measurable evidence, that I let influence my decisions. Physically, there are very likely, currently direct competitors to AP, without the excessive wait.

Regards.
  • Paul Garais likes this

#72 bobhen

bobhen

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,296
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:07 AM

In no way do I mean any disrespect! Please don't take this as a slight or as disrespect, but ratheras my inexperienced opinion. I have the opportunity to look through two AP scopes in the very near future, but I seriously doubt that the view will be "singular." I cannot imagine AP scopes defying perceptible human vision. That is to say, I seriously doubt that an AP scope will be "singular" and be OBVIOUSLY better than a similarly sized TAK scope. Under exceptionally dark skies I may notice a difference, possibly. But excluding cognitive conservatism, I seriously doubt the view through an AP scope will be significantly distinguished from the view through a similarly sized TAK or the like scope. In short, I doubt the wait is "physically" worth the wait. I have spent several hundreds of thousands of $
On my various hobbies, and while I will admit that astrophotography is my most recent hobby, I am unwilling to spend a substantial amount of $ on uncertaities. I will try to remember to report back here after I spend a moonless night of excellent seeing, with some AP scopes, among several other proclaimed top tier premium scopes.

Lastly, prestige is of zero value to me. Physical functionality and factual, scientifically quantifiable performance measures (in regards to human perceptible limits), are much more meaningful to me. I do not buy on hype nor biased evaluations.

Simply put, I cannot take personal testimony as physical, scientifically measurable evidence, that I let influence my decisions. Physically, there are very likely, currently direct competitors to AP, without the excessive wait.

Regards.

There have always been competitors to AP.

 

No one waits for years without a telescope just waiting for that AP.

 

AP scopes contain very high quality optics AND mechanics. If you read a little about the history of apochromatic refractors for the consumer market you will find AP was a leading innovator in design bringing both high quality and low price when compared to the competition at the time. One could argue that AP created the apo refractor market for the average consumer.

 

If they have something that you want, then put your name on a list and then go purchase another scope that might be similar or close to what you want. If your name comes up, then you can decide to keep the scope you have or sell it for the AP that might better meet your needs – it really isn’t that hard. And you can always buy used or run a wanted ad stating that you are willing to pay top dollar for a certain AP model.

 

Sure there are always some who buy anything based on brand but most people shelling out thousands of dollars for a telescope like an AP have done their homework or are experienced enough to know what they are getting or are repeat customers. They also know that there are excellent alternatives in the market that might better fit their needs.

 

Buying a high-end telescope is like buying a high-end super car: Ferrari, McLaren or Lamborghini. They’re all good, it’s just that one might meet your needs more than another.

 

HERE is a link to an old comparison review that you might find interesting. 

 

Bob


Edited by bobhen, 01 August 2020 - 07:38 AM.

  • Paul G, Joe Bergeron, Paul Hyndman and 6 others like this

#73 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,970
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:29 AM

Hello,  Just wondering, Can one substitute the Stellarvue 130 rings ( www.highpointscientific.com/stellarvue-ring-set-for-sva130-refractor-telescopes-r130set )  in place of the Astro-Physics 55RING2 to mount the current AP130 GTX  (diameter = 5.5 inches)?  One main difference is the AP 55RING2 has holes separated by 60mm, while the Stellarvue ha 1.5 inches spacing.  thanks, CS

They both say for 5.5" O.D. tubes and the link you gave for the Stellarvue rings says "The rings have five 1/4-20 threaded holes on the top and bottom which includes a center hole, two holes that are 1.5” apart and two holes that are 60 mm apart." If you need the 60mm spacing, it sounds like they'd work.

 

My only experience is with the AP 130 GT and the AP rings. If you want to be absolutely sure it sounds like a question for Stellarvue or someone who uses the Stellarvue rings on an AP 130 GTX. 

 

Clear skies, Alan



#74 alan.dang

alan.dang

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2011

Posted 01 August 2020 - 10:04 AM

Figure out a way to get a look through one.  

 

As for competitors, there have yet to be any.  There's no secret sauce.

 

So, that's what you have paid for, and when you get a chance to use one (and it's best to use as much other hardware as you can, first), the result is singularly remarkable.  And if you don't believe such is possible, again, I say seek one out and get a look. 

 

-Rich

What are your personal thoughts between the GT and GTX?  It’s a bit of a moot point since the GTX is what is available but other than the portability, have you done comparisons?  We think of spherical lenses being worse than asphericals, but the grinding process may be easier with the spherical designs, providing even higher consistency but you do add another air glass interface.

 

or the new Stowaway that may have optics made outside the US, due to different coatings, and seems to be a much higher volume production.



#75 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,020
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 07 August 2020 - 09:13 PM

Just happened to compare some images taken with my 10 year old TV127is with a new AP130 and the AP results just blew the Televue away. There is some secret sauce at work here. I'm sorry I never got on the list back in the day.
Rgrds-Ross


This is why I have 2 of them. The secret sauce!


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