43 replies to this topic

[rayden68]

I would think 1600x is physically impossible for any type of 80mm lens. It's only collecting about 130 times a human eye so the image would be way too dim to be usable. I also kind of doubt he was selling a telescope with a 6 element lens. I've seen the ads and I think I still have one of the issues that featured it. Maybe tomorrow I'll go look for it?

 

This telescope capabilities calculator is pretty cool:

https://astronomy.to...pe_capabilities

And the .05 exit pupil to really bust those tight doubles

[rayden68]

Someone please post proof that the lens manufacturer screwed over anyone? Aren't we disrespecting their memory by repeating this urban legend? Evidence that will stand up in court and not hearsay? I would take the side of the lens manufacturer before i would accept the credibility of a company that was advertising a 1600X 80mm telescope?

[EJN]

Birder or "Master Birder?"  They had a rubber armoured scope which was the Master Birder.  From what I remember, they had a handful of true apos (probably prototypes) while the rest were oddly-corrected achromats that were sold cheap. 

 

I picked up a used "Master Birder" in the 90s. Horrible spherical aberration and CA. The Orion ST80 is far better corrected.

Edited by EJN, 06 September 2023 - 02:39 PM.

[deSitter]

My old C14 and I would play games, and 1600X was what I was at with a 2.5mm eyepiece.

A white sign with black letters 2 miles from my house I remember I couldn't fit a whole letter

or number in my field of view and it was fine print. It was eerie.

Robert  

 

post-50896-0-94022000-1571962429.jpg

That's funny I remember running my first telescope, a 6344 up to its advertised magnification of 600x - 200x per inch You had to use the barlow which meant a lot of refocusing after 300x with the straight eyepiece. I didn't know which way to go so I racked and racked in and out until finally a dim image shuddered into view. It was jumping around like mad as the mount shook - and I remember it gave me vertigo and spooked me! Of course it was just mushy and dim so that was the first and last time I tried that. In fact i rarely ran it above 150x.

 

-drl

Edited by deSitter, 06 September 2023 - 03:26 PM.

[RalphMeisterTigerMan]

You have to remember that what Don was originally doing was using his "lens recipe" on a test chart. I'm not sure if his intention was for 1,600X was to be used on the Moon or the planets but to see how much power he could use on a test chart.

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

[deSitter]

You have to remember that what Don was originally doing was using his "lens recipe" on a test chart. I'm not sure if his intention was for 1,600X was to be used on the Moon or the planets but to see how much power he could use on a test chart.

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

It's 500x per inch. That's just wrong. It's 10x the theoretical maximum. Perfect optics can sometimes do 100x per inch, but there is nothing more to see than at 50x per inch, or even 40x for an experienced observer.

 

-drl

Edited by deSitter, 06 September 2023 - 04:10 PM.

[CHASLX200]

That's funny I remember running my first telescope, a 6344 up to its advertised magnification of 600x - 200x per inch You had to use the barlow which meant a lot of refocusing after 300x with the straight eyepiece. I didn't know which way to go so I racked and racked in and out until finally a dim image shuddered into view. It was jumping around like mad as the mount shook - and I remember it gave me vertigo and spooked me! Of course it was just mushy and dim so that was the first and last time I tried that. In fact i rarely ran it above 150x.

 

-drl

I used a 4mm and 2x barlow in my Sears 60mm blue tube all the time in the 70's.  I am always three times the power most would ever use with all my scopes but never 1600x.

[Kasmos]

I went and looked at my old S&Ts and the first issue in a box was from Dec.1985 and it had an ad for it.

 

According to the ad, it appears the "Seeing is Believing" model is the 2" focuser version.

It does not give any exaggerated power claims but actually only talks about breathtaking panorama views at a whopping 16x.

The Feb. 86 ad said they'd hold the price until March 31st. and the April ad stated it was $495 with a $50 discount.

 

I then found the ad from March '85 that started the controversy.

 

Not lab tested at 1600x but actually1800x and speaks of using it at 408x.

It says the formal introduction would be the following month,

So if any of you have the April '85 S&T that might explain more of how the story/legend developed.

I once tossed a bunch of issues out and I know I no longer have it.

 

As for the Birder,

I don't know about the offical model, but this ad shows the same 80mm scope being targeted for Birders.

 

Also, the topic of this scope has come up 3 times before, but I only skimmed thru them.

 

https://www.cloudyni...andon-80mm-apo/

 

https://www.cloudyni...vernonscope-80/

 

https://www.cloudyni...80mm-refractor/

Edited by Kasmos, 07 September 2023 - 04:23 AM.

[RalphMeisterTigerMan]

Dear Kasmos, Thank-you for finding the old ads for the 80mm Brandon. It clears a lot of things up! I believe much of my old research was faulty but the "spirit" of the "legend" is what fueled my interest. Again, thank-you for taking the time to find the old ads and posting them in my thread. It brings back so many memories, even if some of my facts were in error. 

 

It was really great to see the old ads. I completely forgot that the scope was originally intended to be a "birder" rather than a scope for Astronomy. Nice to know that an "age old scope mystery" has finally been solved. But still, it would have been nice if some first run limited production models really would have been the "seeing is believing" telescope.

 

Once again, my thanks!

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

[CHASLX200]

1600 or 1800 is not gonna happen with a 80mm. I do use 450x with no probs with a super good 80mm on a fewwwwwwwwww targets.

[Toddeo]

I purchased one- in mint condition (not the rubberized version) about 1.5 years ago. Tried it out on the Moon and Planets, had to purchase a lazer pen to actually check to make sure it was a true triplet. It was a triplet, but didn't perform very well (collimation was spot on). Couldn't wait to sell it!

[chris36]

I was given a Vernonscope finderscope.  Anybody know what Vernonscope this might have come from ?  It’s a 10x40 with cross hairs color is white.  

[deSitter]

I was given a Vernonscope finderscope.  Anybody know what Vernonscope this might have come from ?  It’s a 10x40 with cross hairs color is white.  

That sounds like the ubiquitous Japanese 10x40 that was found e.g. on Unitrons. Given that the baby blue Vernonscope 90mm tube fittings were Nihon-Seiko like Unitron, I suspect it is the same unit.

 

-drl

[RichA]

And the .05 exit pupil to really bust those tight doubles

Well, 400x was very reasonable on a good C8 for doubles (0.57") so 800x on a C14 under very good seeing conditions isn't out of the question, in-fact, the image is much brighter  than the C8 as well, owing to the light-gathering area being 4 times as large or so. 

[CHASLX200]

Well, 400x was very reasonable on a good C8 for doubles (0.57") so 800x on a C14 under very good seeing conditions isn't out of the question, in-fact, the image is much brighter  than the C8 as well, owing to the light-gathering area being 4 times as large or so. 

800X was easy in my two 14.5" Zambuto's on my best nites with Jup.  800x in a freaky sharp C14 should be ok if ya got the seeing.

[RalphMeisterTigerMan]

I hink what we need to ask is did Don actually see what he saw when viewing thru his test scope on the test chart, If he did, then he actually had he "holy grail" of all 80mm portable Apos. If he did not, why would he lie and put his and his company's reputation on the line? Since he passed away not too long ago, we cannot ask him. But the question remains; what kind of scope did he really have and what happened to the original "seeing is believing telescope?".Was it sold? Stolen? Lost? Given away? Is it possible that out there, somewhere, someone has it and does not know what they have? Hmmmm....

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

[RichA]

I hink what we need to ask is did Don actually see what he saw when viewing thru his test scope on the test chart, If he did, then he actually had he "holy grail" of all 80mm portable Apos. If he did not, why would he lie and put his and his company's reputation on the line? Since he passed away not too long ago, we cannot ask him. But the question remains; what kind of scope did he really have and what happened to the original "seeing is believing telescope?".Was it sold? Stolen? Lost? Given away? Is it possible that out there, somewhere, someone has it and does not know what they have? Hmmmm....

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

it was no Holy Grail, it was weird, odd correction, even with the sub-diameter colour corrector it wasn't an apo, it was an oddly corrected achromat.  There have been a LOT of really good 80mm refractors but Holy Grail might apply to the original 80mm f6 TMB.

[Darren Drake]

If i recall correctly the original sample on the 80mm apo was different than the ones that were later produced for Brandon.   That was when their problems began....

[RichA]

If i recall correctly the original sample on the 80mm apo was different than the ones that were later produced for Brandon.   That was when their problems began....

The Japanese maker apparently screwed up the lenses on the production units, but we'll never know the whole truth.  Some of the the rubber clad, "Master Birders," suffered from similar problems.  Some where actually good apos, some were just rich-field achromats of a kind.  The only other  scope I got off Tuthill was a used 70mm Celestron fluorite and it was great!  Buying these things used, the black anodized one has a very nice tube, light, well-made and definitely worth $200 as a used rich-field scope.  The rubber clad units are a real crapshoot, owing to the fact some were apos, some not.  Prices for these things have varied from $200 to around $800.  The one shown below is the best of the lot, the price on this ad was decent for what it is.  The one below it is the achromat.  It came in two flavours, a 2 inch model for around $500 and a 1-1/4 inch for $100 less.  The 1-1/4" had a lens in the front of  the diagonal included that was supposed to compensate for some of the colour error.  Problem was, the entrance aperture of the lens was only about 1cm and it really didn't fix the CA, just kind of shifted the correction.  Instead of the usual blue-red on either side of focus, it was cyan-pink!

 

REAL apo:

https://www.cloudyni...-apo-free-ship/

 

FAKE apo:

https://www.cloudyni...0mm-apochromat/