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

Is a TEC 140 (or 160) a good upgrade from an FC100DL for visual planetary use?

refractor
  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#51 michael1959

michael1959

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2011

Posted 11 October 2020 - 10:44 PM

 

 

The comments about the 160ED's bulk I find interesting as for a 6.3" F8 triplet with the big 3.5" FT focuser, I consider it to be "light weight for" its aperture.  My CFF is actually about two pounds heavier despite its shorter length.  

 

Jeff

 

I really need to eat my "Wheaties." As it is, I've never enjoyed hoisting the 160ED onto my Mach1. And it's not so much the weight per se, as the distribution of the mass along the scope's length. It always feels awkward.  Perhaps if I'm forced to mount it more often in my new location (rather than simply roll it out of the garage on some wheels) I'll build up some muscles and soon be twirling it like a baton.   


  • Tyson M likes this

#52 Jsquared

Jsquared

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 359
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Duncan, Ok

Posted 11 October 2020 - 10:55 PM

I ran a 140 vrs 160 Tec recommendation thread last winter in CN. The consensus was the 160 would give better light grasp but the trade offs of greater weight and heft with longer tube and more awkwardness favored the 140. It’s only 19 lbs and is fairly easy to mount.

The other issue is cost. About 140 or 150 is the limit for an affordable refractor. Larger and the price begins What seems a logarithmic assent.

There is a reason the 140fl is TEC’s best selling scope.

I’ve a 140 on order.

If I go larger I plan to get a F4 16” dob.
  • Tyson M, gozer and Ihtegla Sar like this

#53 michael1959

michael1959

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2011

Posted 11 October 2020 - 11:00 PM

good to know there are more!  When CFF began posting their numbers of sold refractors it showed their customers are choosing f/6-f/7 apos over f/8-f/9 by about 10 to 1.  In general.  That was surprising to me but it explains why Tak, TEC, AP, etc. are going with f/6 or f/7.   

With the TEC160 the f/7 FL was a lot more expensive so the ratio is probably lower, I doubt there are 400 160FL's out there.

 

Wow. 10 to 1. That is surprising. Maybe astrophotography has something to do with it as well. People want a faster scope for AP. I happen to prefer longer f-ratios for visual observing and I have a couple of 60mm f/15 scopes, but as the objective diameter increases f/15 becomes more difficult to manage. As Jeff B implied, f/8 is a nice compromise. 

 

You're right, there probably aren't 400 160FL's out there. But maybe 100?  



#54 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,190
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 11 October 2020 - 11:50 PM

have an old C-8 and on a perfect night it can provide stunning views of the planets but it gives me endless headaches with cooling, dew and doesn't perform that well in mediocre seeing, which is all too common. I've set it up next to my DL several times and the DL almost always beats it by a large margin due to the C-8 having issues with cooling, dew and seeing.

 

I'd be interested to know whether you set up on grass, cement, or asphalt etc.

 

I think everyone should get to experience a 5" apo (or more).  The CFFs won't be around forever because the company will eventually use up its stock of "small telescope glass" and then specialize in larger instruments (humongo RC types of things).   If I were inclined to drop a lot of money on an apo, as increasingly I am, it would probably be a CFF 135 or 140.

 

I don't think any of these scopes will cure mediocre seeing.   I use 92mm triplet apos on top of SCTs and on top of my 130 mm apo and I have yet to think to myself, "Thank goodness I have this here apo to cut through the bad seeing."  I like my apos because of their spectacular views, not because they're magic.

 

Greg N



#55 Ihtegla Sar

Ihtegla Sar

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:03 AM

I'd be interested to know whether you set up on grass, cement, or asphalt etc.

I think everyone should get to experience a 5" apo (or more). The CFFs won't be around forever because the company will eventually use up its stock of "small telescope glass" and then specialize in larger instruments (humongo RC types of things). If I were inclined to drop a lot of money on an apo, as increasingly I am, it would probably be a CFF 135 or 140.

I don't think any of these scopes will cure mediocre seeing. I use 92mm triplet apos on top of SCTs and on top of my 130 mm apo and I have yet to think to myself, "Thank goodness I have this here apo to cut through the bad seeing." I like my apos because of their spectacular views, not because they're magic.

Greg N

I'm not looking to "cure" mediocre seeing. Just for something that will perform at least as well as my FC100DL in mediocre seeing. My C-8 does not. I have set it up on a variety of surfaces including asphalt, cement and yes grass. It performs poorly on any surface until it's cooled which typically takes three hours or more, even on grass, and in mediocre seeing it doesn't matter what surface it's on, the planetary performance has been less than mediocre. The one time it performed well on planets I had it set up on a second floor deck. And it was a mild evening in mid July with good seeing and a cloud layer moving in, so my viewing was unfortunately cut short. But the C-8 gave a brilliant view of Saturn before the clouds moved in. I don't think my FC100DL is "magic". I have seen my C-8 out perform it by a wide margin on occasion, but only rarely when the conditions were perfect which is rare where I live. My experience has been that the FC100DL out performs the C-8 on planets the vast majority of nights when set up on exactly the same surface. The FC100DL even performs well when it is set up on warm black asphalt. It's not "magic", it's just a non-folded unobstructed light path with a near perfect optical figure in a small tube that cools to ambient quickly and performs well in a variety of temperature and seeing conditions. I'm looking for something a little larger that maintains the performance of the FC100DL in less than ideal conditions.

Edited by Ihtegla Sar, 12 October 2020 - 01:32 AM.

  • 3 i Guy likes this

#56 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 12 October 2020 - 09:15 AM

I'm not looking to "cure" mediocre seeing. Just for something that will perform at least as well as my FC100DL in mediocre seeing. My C-8 does not. I have set it up on a variety of surfaces including asphalt, cement and yes grass. It performs poorly on any surface until it's cooled which typically takes three hours or more, even on grass, and in mediocre seeing it doesn't matter what surface it's on, the planetary performance has been less than mediocre. The one time it performed well on planets I had it set up on a second floor deck. And it was a mild evening in mid July with good seeing and a cloud layer moving in, so my viewing was unfortunately cut short. But the C-8 gave a brilliant view of Saturn before the clouds moved in. I don't think my FC100DL is "magic". I have seen my C-8 out perform it by a wide margin on occasion, but only rarely when the conditions were perfect which is rare where I live. My experience has been that the FC100DL out performs the C-8 on planets the vast majority of nights when set up on exactly the same surface. The FC100DL even performs well when it is set up on warm black asphalt. It's not "magic", it's just a non-folded unobstructed light path with a near perfect optical figure in a small tube that cools to ambient quickly and performs well in a variety of temperature and seeing conditions. I'm looking for something a little larger that maintains the performance of the FC100DL in less than ideal conditions.

Have you checked out the Agema SD 120?



#57 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,157
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 12 October 2020 - 10:08 AM

I really need to eat my "Wheaties." As it is, I've never enjoyed hoisting the 160ED onto my Mach1. And it's not so much the weight per se, as the distribution of the mass along the scope's length. It always feels awkward.  Perhaps if I'm forced to mount it more often in my new location (rather than simply roll it out of the garage on some wheels) I'll build up some muscles and soon be twirling it like a baton.   

An excellent point.  It's sooo nose heavy....

 

Gee, how nose heavy is it?

 

It's so nose heavy that as you lift the OTA up into its saddle, the forward weights makes it feel like you're lifting 25 -30 pounds with just one side of your body.  Also, you have to spread your arms out so they span past the rings.  If the heavy end is on your right hand, this means your left hand is actually pushing the back end up and around the more forward center of gravity of the OTA.  You have to then compensate for that with more force from your right arm.  That can get to be tiring very quickly, especially early in the morning when you take it apart.  I did this with my TMB/APM 175 F8 triplet and it was a bear

 

I can compensate for the imbalance to a degree by extending and placing my right hand on the end of the dew shield and lifting that way but I don't like the idea of apply pressure to the nose of the dew shield nose that way.  

 

So for me, the real problem was the high unbalance could just quickly fatigue my right arm.  My solution was to add weight.....to the aft end.    I found that first configuring the OTA for observing (adding the diagonal, bino-viewer, finder and an aft weight counterpoise to the finder), made for a very balance weight split between my arms and thus a much easier and safer lift of the OTA into the saddle despite the overall increase in weight (about 10 pounds).  You can see what I mean by my observing configuration in the photo of my 160 above.

 

So, despite adding ~ 10 pounds of addition weight, the lift is much easier to do for me.  In fact, doing this type of configuring and balancing before the lift allows me, for example, to quickly, easily, and safely lift the ~45 pounds of my old AP 179 F9, up, and into the saddle.  

 

Jeff


  • gozer likes this

#58 BKBrown

BKBrown

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,637
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Under dark skies in central Virginia, USA

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:23 AM

I'm not looking to "cure" mediocre seeing. Just for something that will perform at least as well as my FC100DL in mediocre seeing. My C-8 does not. I have set it up on a variety of surfaces including asphalt, cement and yes grass. It performs poorly on any surface until it's cooled which typically takes three hours or more, even on grass, and in mediocre seeing it doesn't matter what surface it's on, the planetary performance has been less than mediocre. The one time it performed well on planets I had it set up on a second floor deck. And it was a mild evening in mid July with good seeing and a cloud layer moving in, so my viewing was unfortunately cut short. But the C-8 gave a brilliant view of Saturn before the clouds moved in. I don't think my FC100DL is "magic". I have seen my C-8 out perform it by a wide margin on occasion, but only rarely when the conditions were perfect which is rare where I live. My experience has been that the FC100DL out performs the C-8 on planets the vast majority of nights when set up on exactly the same surface. The FC100DL even performs well when it is set up on warm black asphalt. It's not "magic", it's just a non-folded unobstructed light path with a near perfect optical figure in a small tube that cools to ambient quickly and performs well in a variety of temperature and seeing conditions. I'm looking for something a little larger that maintains the performance of the FC100DL in less than ideal conditions.

I understand, and I think the TEC 140 will do the trick for you. The image below was taken with my TEC 140 under highly variable seeing conditions. The majority of the time was, as my son would say, "meh" in the seeing department, but interrupted by seconds at a time of reasonably good seeing. The final image was compromised of 10% of the best frames acquired in a three minute collection run...roughly 1800 frames out of 18,000. These conditions are average for my area in the mid-Atlantic region and I still routinely acquire good images. Those intervals of a few seconds of good seeing at a time are not uncommon for many of us regardless of where we live, and provide those memorable views planetary observers patiently wait for...

 

Transit_16042016_bkb.jpg

 

Clear Skies,

Brian snoopy2.gif


  • Scott in NC, RAKing, Paul Morow and 4 others like this

#59 michael1959

michael1959

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2011

Posted 12 October 2020 - 11:47 AM

 

So for me, the real problem was the high unbalance could just quickly fatigue my right arm.  My solution was to add weight.....to the aft end.    I found that first configuring the OTA for observing (adding the diagonal, bino-viewer, finder and an aft weight counterpoise to the finder), made for a very balance weight split between my arms and thus a much easier and safer lift of the OTA into the saddle despite the overall increase in weight (about 10 pounds).  You can see what I mean by my observing configuration in the photo of my 160 above.

 

So, despite adding ~ 10 pounds of addition weight, the lift is much easier to do for me.  In fact, doing this type of configuring and balancing before the lift allows me, for example, to quickly, easily, and safely lift the ~45 pounds of my old AP 179 F9, up, and into the saddle.  

 

Jeff

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure I have the accessories that will fully match the weight of the nose end, but even a little bit might help. I'll have to try it next time I mount the scope . . . which won't be for months because it's currently located 800 miles away at my sister's place (long story).



#60 dedo

dedo

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 247
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Italy, Rome

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:40 PM

Have had these two side by side a couple weeks ago. They were absolutely identical visually on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars. If your goal is visually planetary work go for the ED.

I've also had my ED side by side with an APM 152F8 doublet. The 152 showed some more on the Moon but not on Jupiter after cooldown. Howewer It needed a full hour and half to reach thermal equilibrium with a delta of 10 degree celsius.

The TEC acclimates really fast but more of all it delivers really good images during acclimation too due to the fact the the lens assembly isn't constrained in the cell. This along with the perfect balance of weight, tube size and aperture makes for me an almost perfect grab and go. For me beeing able to immediatly deliver good images is where I would put my money on after optical quality.

Attached Thumbnails

  • tec.jpg

  • Doug Culbertson, Jeff B, Ken Sturrock and 4 others like this

#61 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,157
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:02 PM

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure I have the accessories that will fully match the weight of the nose end, but even a little bit might help. I'll have to try it next time I mount the scope . . . which won't be for months because it's currently located 800 miles away at my sister's place (long story).

And there is another way of doing it too, a modification of how Gred N mounts his C14.

 

Position and lock the mount (alt/az or EQ) so that the dovetail w/rings is pointed straight up and down.  lift the scope veritcally and place it (either on the focuser or dew cap end) on a platform (small table top or the pad of your observing chair for instance) that's right next to the open ring, holding on to it of course.  Then walk it into the rings and clamp them shut.  Bingo!  I've done it this way several times when changing the mounts under my TEC 200ED ( the only sacry part is letting the long OTA fell back into my arms a little).

 

Jeff


  • StarAlert likes this

#62 Ihtegla Sar

Ihtegla Sar

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:11 PM

I understand, and I think the TEC 140 will do the trick for you. The image below was taken with my TEC 140 under highly variable seeing conditions. The majority of the time was, as my son would say, "meh" in the seeing department, but interrupted by seconds at a time of reasonably good seeing. The final image was compromised of 10% of the best frames acquired in a three minute collection run...roughly 1800 frames out of 18,000. These conditions are average for my area in the mid-Atlantic region and I still routinely acquire good images. Those intervals of a few seconds of good seeing at a time are not uncommon for many of us regardless of where we live, and provide those memorable views planetary observers patiently wait for...

 

attachicon.gifTransit_16042016_bkb.jpg

 

Clear Skies,

Brian snoopy2.gif

Thanks much.  This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for, and I will probably grab the next TEC 140 that comes up for sale, or maybe the 160 if another one of those comes along.

 

Have had these two side by side a couple weeks ago. They were absolutely identical visually on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars. If your goal is visually planetary work go for the ED.

I've also had my ED side by side with an APM 152F8 doublet. The 152 showed some more on the Moon but not on Jupiter after cooldown. Howewer It needed a full hour and half to reach thermal equilibrium with a delta of 10 degree celsius.

The TEC acclimates really fast but more of all it delivers really good images during acclimation too due to the fact the the lens assembly isn't constrained in the cell. This along with the perfect balance of weight, tube size and aperture makes for me an almost perfect grab and go. For me beeing able to immediatly deliver good images is where I would put my money on after optical quality.

Thanks much.  This confirms my thoughts that the TEC 140 ED would be as good for visual as the more expensive TEC 140 FL and that the APM 152 might not have the fast cooling/high performance during cooling that I was looking for, and the smaller size of the 140 may be a better fit for me.  I will probably try to get the next TEC 140 or 160 that comes up for sale in good condition at fair price, but will definitely be looking for the ED rather than the FL, since I am primarily a visual observer.



#63 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,990
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:14 PM

Steve, you’ve probably already seen this, but there’s a TEC 160FL f/7 that’s been listed on AM for a while.  It’s quite a bit more expensive than the recently sold 160 ED though.


  • gozer and Ihtegla Sar like this

#64 Ihtegla Sar

Ihtegla Sar

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:24 PM

The TEC 140 or 160 sound like they would be a good fit for me, but since it may be a while before another TEC comes up on the used market, I should probably at least consider alternatives . . .

I think everyone should get to experience a 5" apo (or more). The CFFs won't be around forever because the company will eventually use up its stock of "small telescope glass" and then specialize in larger instruments (humongo RC types of things). If I were inclined to drop a lot of money on an apo, as increasingly I am, it would probably be a CFF 135 or 140.


From what I have read the CFFs are good and very similar to the TECs, but are produced in Europe so are more readily available and cheaper there, whereas users in the US opt more for the TEC due to cost and availability issues here.

Is there something particular about the CFF that you would draw you to them over the TEC? There is not as much information online about the CFF as the TEC, at least as far as I can find, so I would certainly appreciate any information about the CFF you can provide.

An Agema fluorite 130mm doublet seems like an alternative for quicker cooling.

Thanks. I hadn't thought about an Agema but it may be worth considering. Although there are so many people talking about how special their TEC ED scopes are and how well they perform even while they are cooling that it might be hard to pass one of those up. I don't know much about the Agema scopes though so I might want to do some research. What do you know about them? Have you ever looked through one and compared it to your FC100DL or your TSA 120?

Have you checked out the Agema SD 120?


Not yet, but you are second person to mention the Agema scopes, so I should check them out. Have you looked through one?

Edited by Ihtegla Sar, 12 October 2020 - 02:21 PM.


#65 Ihtegla Sar

Ihtegla Sar

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:28 PM

Steve, you’ve probably already seen this, but there’s a TEC 160FL f/7 that’s been listed on AM for a while.  It’s quite a bit more expensive than the recently sold 160 ED though.

Thanks.  Yeah, I have seen it.  That scope is close enough to a new price that I would probably just buy new id I decided to go for a TEC FL.  Since I am visual only and do not think I have the temperament to wade into the AP arena, I'd probably prefer an ED to an FL, just because the ED scopes are tuned for visual and the FL scopes are designed for both visual and AP.  From what I have read, in this thread and elsewhere, the FL scopes are no better for visual than the ED scopes so I probably would want to get an ED and put the money I save toward a larger mount, which I may need for the 140 and would definitely need for the 160.


  • Scott in NC, RAKing, BKBrown and 1 other like this

#66 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,990
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 12 October 2020 - 01:29 PM

Smart. :ubetcha:



#67 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,157
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:14 PM

So here are a couple of threads that might be germane to this discussion concerning the CFF 160 and TEC 160ED:

 

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

 

 

https://www.cloudyni.../?hl=evaluation

 

Enjoy!

 

Jeff


  • Tyson M and Ihtegla Sar like this

#68 michael1959

michael1959

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2011

Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:37 PM

And there is another way of doing it too, a modification of how Gred N mounts his C14.

 

Position and lock the mount (alt/az or EQ) so that the dovetail w/rings is pointed straight up and down.  lift the scope veritcally and place it (either on the focuser or dew cap end) on a platform (small table top or the pad of your observing chair for instance) that's right next to the open ring, holding on to it of course.  Then walk it into the rings and clamp them shut.  Bingo!  I've done it this way several times when changing the mounts under my TEC 200ED ( the only sacry part is letting the long OTA fell back into my arms a little).

 

Jeff

This seems like such an obvious (and good) idea that I'm surprised I hadn't thought of it. I like this a lot. It may have added another decade (or more) of life with my TEC 160ED. Thanks!


  • StarAlert likes this

#69 Scott99

Scott99

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,307
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:00 PM

IMO the ED triplets aren't "tuned" differently than the FL.  As a visual user the only difference I see in the design specs are that the FL triplets have better color correction.   Therefore the FL scope will give better visual images.  

 

Whether it's worth the additional expense for that improvement is up to the user.  The TEC140ED specs said .02% color error over the visual wavelengths.  The Tak FS series was around .05%.  The best corrected triplets like the TEC FL's are under .01%.   Can you see the difference, is it worth it, etc that's up to you.    All the TEC140's and 160's are excellent for visual use and imaging IMO. 

 

Aren't all refractor lenses designed to put the best focus in the visual green wavelengths?  we'll save the "tuning" for our musical instruments lol.gif

 

 

TEC140Strehl.jpeg


Edited by Scott99, 12 October 2020 - 03:14 PM.

  • gozer and Ihtegla Sar like this

#70 R_Huntzberry

R_Huntzberry

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2011
  • Loc: North Florida Lat 30.30

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:11 PM

 

Position and lock the mount (alt/az or EQ) so that the dovetail w/rings is pointed straight up and down.  lift the scope veritcally and place it (either on the focuser or dew cap end) on a platform (small table top or the pad of your observing chair for instance) that's right next to the open ring, holding on to it of course.  Then walk it into the rings and clamp them shut.  Bingo!  I've done it this way several times when changing the mounts under my TEC 200ED ( the only sacry part is letting the long OTA fell back into my arms a little).

 

Jeff

This is how I mount my CFF 185. The only variation is that I leave my rings and dovetail attached to the scope and tip the dovetail into the saddle on the mount (Robin Casady "tip in" saddle) I use my adjustable observing chair to set the ota on as you mentioned.

 

Richard


  • Jeff B and gozer like this

#71 Ihtegla Sar

Ihtegla Sar

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:38 PM

IMO the ED triplets aren't "tuned" differently than the FL.  As a visual user the only difference I see in the design specs are that the FL triplets have better color correction.   Therefore the FL scope will give better visual images.  

 

Whether it's worth the additional expense for that improvement is up to the user.  The TEC140ED specs said .02% color error over the visual wavelengths.  The Tak FS series was around .05%.  The best corrected triplets like the TEC FL's are under .01%.   Can you see the difference, is it worth it, etc that's up to you.    All the TEC140's and 160's are excellent for visual use and imaging IMO. 

 

Aren't all refractor lenses designed to put the best focus in the visual green wavelengths?  we'll save the "tuning" for our musical instruments lol.gif

 

 

attachicon.gifTEC140Strehl.jpeg

Maybe I should have used the term "optimized" instead of "tuned."  I was referring to the old advertising for the TEC 140 ED, which said "The color correction is optimized for visual use with focus shift less than 0.02% from 436nm to 1000nm."  Whereas the TEC website for the new TEC 140FL now says it is "optimal for visual and CCD imaging."

 

I have seen those charts, but I have also read this thread, which seems to give a very slight edge to the TEC 140 ED for visual use on planets in post 79 with the FL giving a warmer tone on Saturn and the ED being "just a little bit better" on Mars in a side by side comparison.  Later in the thread it gets into DPAC testing and a technical discussion that is somewhat beyond my current level of comprehension, but if I am reading it correctly, it sounds like the ED was better corrected in red and the FL was better corrected in blue, where a high level of correction is crucial to AP.

 

If the FL really does give better visual images than the ED, then I might be willing to pay more for for the fluorite. From what I have read there is no difference visually or a very slight edge to the ED over the FL for visual.  Have you viewed a TEC ED next to a TEC FL and done a side by side comparison? 


Edited by Ihtegla Sar, 12 October 2020 - 03:40 PM.

  • gozer likes this

#72 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:53 PM

Maybe I should have used the term "optimized" instead of "tuned."  I was referring to the old advertising for the TEC 140 ED, which said "The color correction is optimized for visual use with focus shift less than 0.02% from 436nm to 1000nm."  Whereas the TEC website for the new TEC 140FL now says it is "optimal for visual and CCD imaging."

 

I have seen those charts, but I have also read this thread, which seems to give a very slight edge to the TEC 140 ED for visual use on planets in post 79 with the FL giving a warmer tone on Saturn and the ED being "just a little bit better" on Mars in a side by side comparison.  Later in the thread it gets into DPAC testing and a technical discussion that is somewhat beyond my current level of comprehension, but if I am reading it correctly, it sounds like the ED was better corrected in red and the FL was better corrected in blue, where a high level of correction is crucial to AP.

 

If the FL really does give better visual images than the ED, then I might be willing to pay more for for the fluorite. From what I have read there is no difference visually or a very slight edge to the ED over the FL for visual.  Have you viewed a TEC ED next to a TEC FL and done a side by side comparison? 

I always have to chuckle when I hear marketing claims like the ED is "optimized for visual", but the FL is optimized for both visual and CCD. Something simply can't be optimized to do two different things. That's not what optimized means. Optimized means it does ONE thing best... unless there is no tradeoff between two things. And how often is that the case? 


  • Ihtegla Sar likes this

#73 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,157
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 12 October 2020 - 06:47 PM

This is how I mount my CFF 185. The only variation is that I leave my rings and dovetail attached to the scope and tip the dovetail into the saddle on the mount (Robin Casady "tip in" saddle) I use my adjustable observing chair to set the ota on as you mentioned.

 

Richard

Excellent!!



#74 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,190
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 12 October 2020 - 09:01 PM

I always have to chuckle when I hear marketing claims like the ED is "optimized for visual", but the FL is optimized for both visual and CCD. Something simply can't be optimized to do two different things. That's not what optimized means. Optimized means it does ONE thing best... unless there is no tradeoff between two things. And how often is that the case? 

1.  So by this logic, a meal could not be optimized (a) to show off the talents of the chef and (b) to feed someone who was really really hungry.  But of course it could do both.  

 

2.  In this particular matter, if Yuri says it is optimized, it very likely is.   If I were to guess, which I would have to do as a non-owner of the famous TEC 140, I would say it is optimized for visual performance and also has a carefully planned ability to use a specific reducer/flattener for purposes of imaging.

 

Greg N



#75 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 12 October 2020 - 09:03 PM

The seller is not the original owner, I sold that scope quite a few years ago. It was in pristine/ as new condition when I sold it and based on the on the Astromart pictures it appears to be the same.

The optics on this scope are stunning. You will not be disappointed.

Cool down was never a problem for me but I live in Florida so take that for what it's worth.

 

Here's a few old pictures I've posted here before but will give you a direct size/bulk comparison between the 140 and 160.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

attachicon.gifTEC140-160.jpg

 

attachicon.gifLens_01.jpg

 

attachicon.gifLens_02.jpg

Were you the original owner? 




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