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

Difference between ES 102 $1900 & essential series $1199?

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#26 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,906
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 25 September 2020 - 09:11 AM

Chip ma man, I think the issue regarding these glass types and what Jason B was trying to express is that these topics can be a bit more complicated than most are led to believe and sadly, many beginners get drawn into the marketing hype of just one type of glass. Certainly specific types of glass have superior optical properties to them, but sadly, some of this glass is not quite what others are led to believe it is either. What I suggest to others who have these types of concerns is to contact professional opticians or read real essays or journals written by opticians who can actually help others get a broader grasp of how a "complete" objective lens is made.  

 

I love the internet, it's a great source of information, however, it's also an incredible source of misinformation. We all see a great deal of these threads where individuals post these questions about one scope has this glass vs another. Unfortunately, because there's so much emphasis placed on the name of just one piece of glass, people have a hard time taking their mind off it and when others continuously see it repeated over and over, they start to focus on only that one thing. 

 

On a separate note, I've been spending some time looking through a 6" 1920's Zeiss objective Derek Wong acquired and IMO, it's as good as my FS152NSV. Imagine astronomers in the 1920's seeing world class lunar and planetary views like we see today. smile.gif  


Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 25 September 2020 - 09:13 AM.

  • Jason B, Edrow10 and eros312 like this

#27 YAOG

YAOG

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 25 September 2020 - 05:47 PM

Chip ma man, I think the issue regarding these glass types and what Jason B was trying to express is that these topics can be a bit more complicated than most are led to believe and sadly, many beginners get drawn into the marketing hype of just one type of glass. Certainly specific types of glass have superior optical properties to them, but sadly, some of this glass is not quite what others are led to believe it is either. What I suggest to others who have these types of concerns is to contact professional opticians or read real essays or journals written by opticians who can actually help others get a broader grasp of how a "complete" objective lens is made.  

 

I love the internet, it's a great source of information, however, it's also an incredible source of misinformation. We all see a great deal of these threads where individuals post these questions about one scope has this glass vs another. Unfortunately, because there's so much emphasis placed on the name of just one piece of glass, people have a hard time taking their mind off it and when others continuously see it repeated over and over, they start to focus on only that one thing. 

 

On a separate note, I've been spending some time looking through a 6" 1920's Zeiss objective Derek Wong acquired and IMO, it's as good as my FS152NSV. Imagine astronomers in the 1920's seeing world class lunar and planetary views like we see today. smile.gif  

 

Yeah, I know. My point is that all things being equal, objective size, focal ratio and production quality an FPL-53 optic will perform "better" than the FPL-51 optic due to physics. The reality of it is it's hard to make things equal. So my thinking is buy a Tak doublet for visual and buy a Tak trip for imaging and you will not go wrong. The only way to beat this is to find that one in a million FPL-53 triplet like the bespoke Parallax/AT130 I lucked into thanks to you and Derek. 

 

Oh, you have been going behind my back and seeing Derek? LOL! 


  • Daniel Mounsey likes this

#28 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,906
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 25 September 2020 - 06:20 PM

Yeah, I know. My point is that all things being equal, objective size, focal ratio and production quality an FPL-53 optic will perform "better" than the FPL-51 optic due to physics. The reality of it is it's hard to make things equal. So my thinking is buy a Tak doublet for visual and buy a Tak trip for imaging and you will not go wrong. The only way to beat this is to find that one in a million FPL-53 triplet like the bespoke Parallax/AT130 I lucked into thanks to you and Derek. 

 

Oh, you have been going behind my back and seeing Derek? LOL! 

waytogo.gif lol.gif



#29 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,562
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 25 September 2020 - 07:42 PM

A well figured lens, is a thing of beauty, no matter when it was made..

On a separate note, I've been spending some time looking through a 6" 1920's Zeiss objective Derek Wong acquired and IMO, it's as good as my FS152NSV. Imagine astronomers in the 1920's seeing world class lunar and planetary views like we see today. smile.gif 
 


  • Daniel Mounsey likes this

#30 Cascade Alpacas

Cascade Alpacas

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2012
  • Loc: Hood River, OR

Posted 25 September 2020 - 08:03 PM

If you want to use a good mount and you have a weight of let's say 20 lbs and you want a stable image get a mount that carries double the the weight of your scope.  You will have stable images.

I have a 12 inch reflector that has a carbon tube and weighs total of 30 lbs and my mount will take up to 60 lbs.  I was able to take images of Neowise. Turned out great.  Well I have now added a refractor which is a 152 mm astro it's not a apo but with a apo filter,  i'm using a Ioptron cem 60 and my 25 lbs refractor is rock solid. So my point is if you have a 20 lbs plus  scope, get a mount that carries double that and your imaging will be rock solid and fun.  If you don't have a high quality scope, get the best mount you can afford. It will payoff.



#31 YAOG

YAOG

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 25 September 2020 - 10:25 PM

A well figured lens, is a thing of beauty, no matter when it was made..

I've observed with that 6" Zeiss if it is the one I think it is and it is a fine lens. We have no idea what we have lost, people are all wrapped up in their 4, 5, 6 ,7 element psuedo Petzval modified bamboozal imaging and GOTO gee-wiz mounts and have no idea what they are missing, million year old starlight directly stimulating your optic nerve and brain. 



#32 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,906
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 26 September 2020 - 12:46 AM

A well figured lens, is a thing of beauty, no matter when it was made..

Words of wisdom.




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