23 replies to this topic

[Astro88]

A few people have bought the TS Photoline 130 strictly for visual use.  And that scope appears to be the same as the Astro-Tech AT130EDX and the Altair Wave Series 130 F7 ED, except for the type of glass used.

Has anyone compared the views between any of these and the Astro-Tech AT125EDL?  From what I've read, the AT125EDL is extremely good.  For visual only, does the Photoline 130 provide a better view?

If the answer is yes, what is different about it, and is it subtle?

Or is the removable 100mm extension tube for binoviewing the main reason for buying a TS Photoline 130 for visual use?  I'm somewhat confused by this, since I've heard people use binoviewers with the AT125EDL too.

[wrvond]

Since nobody else has answered I'll try to help you as much as I can - considering I have no experience with the TS Photolines at all.

 

What I do have is an AT125EDL, an AT150EDL and a Mk V binoviewer with 1.7x GPC.

 

My BV works a treat on my 125EDL with no modification to the scope at all. I'm using the 1.7x GPC and Baader 8-24mm Mv IV zooms.

First, if you are using any prism based BV it is recommended you use a GPC to correct for color aberration. I had a 1.25x GPC but I had a hard time achieving focus with my setup. Changing to the 1.7x allows me to reach focus without shortening the OTA. 

If I were using a mirror based BV like the CZAS I used to have, GPCs are completely unnecessary as far as CA is concerned. However, back focus is still an issue, especially when the BV have a very long light path so you have to Barlow the BV in order to achieve focus or shorten the OTA to compensate for the length of the BV.

Manufacturers have caught on to folks wanting to use BVs with their refractors at their native focal length. Doing so can help eliminate some of the guesswork in trying to achieve focus and maximum magnification.

 

My 150EDL has the removable section (4 inches long) that allows me to use my BV without a GPC, but then I have to deal with CA, so the minimum GPC I can use to counteract CA is the 1.25x GPC. So it's not a silver bullet (at least for me). I've tried the 150 with and without the extension tube and the jury is still out on which configuration works best for me.

 

Here's my 125EDL with BV and zooms in place. In the background is my 150EDL. You can see the removable section on it.

 

 

The Baader Mk V binoviewer with Baader Mk IV zooms. When I had a CZAS BV I didn't own any zooms, I used pairs of Tele Vue eyepieces - I had at least eight pairs of eyepieces and an APM 2x Barlow. So far I'm liking these zooms enough that I don't feel a need for fixed focal length eyepiece pairs.

 

 

Focused on some high tension power line insulators a bit over three miles away through a window. It takes 20mm of out travel to focus.

 

Since you are wanting to binoview, rather than spend money on a 130mm triplet, consider the 150EDL doublet. For visual the EDL scopes give up nothing to any midlevel triplet. I also suggest that any mount that will hold a 130mm triplet will carry a 150mm doublet (specifically the EDL) just as well, if not better.

The 125EDL is significantly smaller and lighter than either of these other scopes but I'd still recommend (and use) a Losmandy G11 class mount.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

[bobhen]

There will be little difference between the TS 130 version and the A-T 130 version, as the glass used in both while different is excellent. There is no optical guarantee for either scope.  I'm sure they will be wonderful for visual. But if you are JUST VISUAL, you do not need to pay for extras that you will never need or use, like a fast FL or triplet optics.  

 

For just visual, consider the 125 EDL doublet. The EDL line is very good and you do get an optical guarantee minimum of .95 Strehl. The extra 5mm in the 130 will mean very little. 

 

I did once own a 102mm F7 EDL doublet and found the scope to be very good. 

 

Bob

[Lookitup]

+ 1. The 125 EDL doublet is easier to balance to and cools faster.

[Dave Novoselsky]

As far as “no guarantees” goes, the AT EDL series are all individually tested to ensure they meet certain standards, fairly high from what I understand.

[Maximus001]

I had my 125edl DPAC tested by Paul and it did, indeed, meet or exceed the guarantee.  He was especially impressed with the focuser, as we all are.

[RAKing]

IIRC, the TS Photoline 130 is very similar to my old TMB 130SS.  Both are triplets, and the TMB was a fantastic scope that was short enough for easy binoviewer use.  I still have my A-T 125EDL and it's also a wonderful scope.

 

The difference in the views will be very subtle.  Five millimeters extra isn't going to be like turning on the light in a dark room.  The triplet lens on the TS 130 might show some excellent color, but the FC-100/Lanthanum combo in the AT 125 also shows great color and might remind you of the FS-series doublets from Takahashi.

 

What will be very obvious will be the weight!  My A-T125EDL complete with rings, handle, and dovetail, only weighs 15.36 pounds.  The TS 130 weighs 23+ pounds, and that could be the OTA only.  That is a lot of extra weight that you will be lifting every session.

 

My .02,

 

Ron

[25585]

There is some difference between 120 and 130mm. Comparing my TSA and TOA Taks, the latter shows more detail, noticable more in background stars standing out a bit brighter and clearer. I do not have any Chinese triplets, but have a 120 ED doublet, that is very good. The TSA beats it, again background detail, but as same aperture, less obviously. Globular clusters are resolved better in 130mm, while nothing like in an 8" & larger Newtonian. 
 

I am not a planet observer, like to to look at our local rock balls and gas balls shining away with the Sun's reflected light.

[wrvond]

I like to maintain a 20 to 25mm gap between scopes. Anything less just doesn't feel like much of a difference to me.

[Oldfracguy]

A few people have bought the TS Photoline 130 strictly for visual use.  And that scope appears to be the same as the Astro-Tech AT130EDX and the Altair Wave Series 130 F7 ED, except for the type of glass used.

Has anyone compared the views between any of these and the Astro-Tech AT125EDL?  From what I've read, the AT125EDL is extremely good.  For visual only, does the Photoline 130 provide a better view?

If the answer is yes, what is different about it, and is it subtle?

Or is the removable 100mm extension tube for binoviewing the main reason for buying a TS Photoline 130 for visual use?  I'm somewhat confused by this, since I've heard people use binoviewers with the AT125EDL too.

If you are talking about the TS 130mm f/7 with an FPL-53 center element, like the one CN member Eddgie raves about, then it will outperform an AT125EDL.  I've had two AT125EDL's, and two of the regular ED FK61 Astro-Tech AT130EDT scopes that do not incorporate a Lanthanum glass mating element.  I've also had the smaller EDL scopes, including the AT72EDII and AT60ED that could rightly be called EDL models due to their use of a Lanthanum glass mate with their FPL-53 ED element.  I've also has a few of the regular FK61 AT115EDT triplets, which perform extremely well.  They show more symmetrical star test patterns on either side of focus, indicating good correction for spherical aberration than the typical EDL scopes do, whose outward (extrafocal) diffraction patterns often appear muddled.  The reason I mention the Lanthanum mating elements is that after having an AT115EDT and "moving up" to an AT125EDL, the first thing I noticed was the colors of stars were a little off what they looked like in the ED triplet and with Newtonians, i.e., pure reflectors.  After owning a number of the EDL models, I have to conclude that the reason they do not show any traces of color fringing around bright targets is attributable to that Lanthanum glass mating element acting as a sort of weakened minus violet filter, attenuating some of the wavelengths down in the blue region.  I think the best one of these scope to get would be an ED triplet with the special dispersion FCD-100 or FPL-53, and no Lanthanum.  For visual use, that's what I would go for.  The 130mm f/7 triplet, outfitted with a finder scope, diagonal and eyepiece, will weigh in at around 24 lbs.:

 

 

 

The 125mm f/7.8 doublet with the same visual accessories will weigh in just over 17 lbs.:

 

 

 

If you like to split double stars at 300+x, the AT125EDL is just getting out of third gear at those magnifications.  If you like to see wider views of things like open clusters and planetary nebula with a color rendition as close to natural as possible, the TS-Optics Photoline with FPL-53 would be the better choice:

 

https://www.teleskop...-7-focuser-7717

Edited by Oldfracguy, 20 February 2025 - 10:04 PM.

[ABQJeff]

There will be little difference between the TS 130 version and the A-T 130 version, as the glass used in both while different is excellent. There is no optical guarantee for either scope. I'm sure they will be wonderful for visual. But if you are JUST VISUAL, you do not need to pay for extras that you will never need or use, like a fast FL or triplet optics.

For just visual, consider the 125 EDL doublet. The EDL line is very good and you do get an optical guarantee minimum of .95 Strehl. The extra 5mm in the 130 will mean very little.

I did once own a 102mm F7 EDL doublet and found the scope to be very good.

Bob

The AT130EDX is guaranteed 0.95 Strehl in Green.

[ABQJeff]

I would do the AT130EDX or Altair Wave 130. Both guarantee 0.95 Strehl in Green. Use GPC for binoviewers if needed.

Photoline will give a test report but no Strehl guarantee (I asked) and they have never stated what color (although it is likely green as well).

[civis]

But if you are JUST VISUAL, you do not need to pay for extras that you will never need or use, like a fast FL or triplet optics.  

 

For just visual, consider the 125 EDL doublet.

Wonder why people claim that triplet is not needed for visual? Should be the other way around - some color visible in doublets is easy correctable in heavy post processing which most astrophotographers rely on, while our brain during visual session will just keep showing false color. So it's triplets for visual, and doublets for photo.
 

[civis]

The AT130EDX is guaranteed 0.95 Strehl in Green.

How do they guarantee it, any tests supplied with the AT telescopes?

[ABQJeff]

How do they guarantee it, any tests supplied with the AT telescopes?

Yes the manufacturer provides Mike of Astronomics with test reports. However, Mike withholds distributing them because sometime ago someone insisted on returning a scope because his friend got a scope with .01 higher Strehl and said he would complain if the return wasn’t honored. Because margins in astronomy sales are so tight Mike decided just to not provide the reports anymore and just inform buyers that they indeed are over 0.95 Strehl (Note TEC, AP and Televue don’t provide Strehl test reports NOR any Strehl guarantee). Mike has all the reports of all the EDL and EDX scopes sold so if someone sues him as a “liar” he has the evidence to back up that all his EDL and EDX sales are over 0.95 Strehl.

BTW IMHO if I was Mike I would have told that buyer of yore to pound sand and go ahead and complain that he got a 0.97 Strehl scope while his friend got 0.98, or whatever the numbers were (that would actually have been good press, “how dare AT sell such poor quality!”, haha)

Edited by ABQJeff, 22 March 2025 - 05:10 PM.

[25585]

My APM LZOS 130mm F6 has a Strehl of 0.97 in green, it is very good, like a 130mm Tak TSA-120 say.

[Oldfracguy]

Wonder why people claim that triplet is not needed for visual? Should be the other way around - some color visible in doublets is easy correctable in heavy post processing which most astrophotographers rely on, while our brain during visual session will just keep showing false color. So it's triplets for visual, and doublets for photo.
 

Well, not unless the Doublet is one that uses the special dispersion FPL-53 or FCD-100 glass coupled with a Lanthanum glass mate.  These scopes show little to no evidence of CA at high magnifications on bright targets, even less than some of the "regular" ED glass (FCD-1, FPL-51, FK-61) Triplets.  Having had a number of these scope myself, I have to say that they do alter the overall color and cast of the views, which I believe is due to the Lanthanum glass mating element.  Colorful double stars like Albireo, Almach, Izar and Iota Cancri appear subdued, and less vibrant than what the look like through an ED triplet, and through a pure reflector.  Triplets are excellent visual scopes, and should not be considered as good for imaging only by any means.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 22 March 2025 - 11:51 PM.

[RichA]

If you are talking about the TS 130mm f/7 with an FPL-53 center element, like the one CN member Eddgie raves about, then it will outperform an AT125EDL.  I've had two AT125EDL's, and two of the regular ED FK61 Astro-Tech AT130EDT scopes that do not incorporate a Lanthanum glass mating element.  I've also had the smaller EDL scopes, including the AT72EDII and AT60ED that could rightly be called EDL models due to their use of a Lanthanum glass mate with their FPL-53 ED element.  I've also has a few of the regular FK61 AT115EDT triplets, which perform extremely well.  They show more symmetrical star test patterns on either side of focus, indicating good correction for spherical aberration than the typical EDL scopes do, whose outward (extrafocal) diffraction patterns often appear muddled.  The reason I mention the Lanthanum mating elements is that after having an AT115EDT and "moving up" to an AT125EDL, the first thing I noticed was the colors of stars were a little off what they looked like in the ED triplet and with Newtonians, i.e., pure reflectors.  After owning a number of the EDL models, I have to conclude that the reason they do not show any traces of color fringing around bright targets is attributable to that Lanthanum glass mating element acting as a sort of weakened minus violet filter, attenuating some of the wavelengths down in the blue region.  I think the best one of these scope to get would be an ED triplet with the special dispersion FCD-100 or FPL-53, and no Lanthanum.  For visual use, that's what I would go for.  The 130mm f/7 triplet, outfitted with a finder scope, diagonal and eyepiece, will weigh in at around 24 lbs.:

 

Someone should do a magnitude grasp test with two identical sized scopes, one with Lanthanum and one with the older (better?) discontinued glass, especially for blue stars.

[Dr Arnheim]

Someone should do a magnitude grasp test with two identical sized scopes, one with Lanthanum and one with the older (better?) discontinued glass, especially for blue stars.

When you look at the transmission data of various ED glasses you won't find a difference of Lanthanum and other glasses. Also a lot of eyepieces have Lanthanum elements as well. Some of them (f.i. Morpheus) are known of very high quality and color fidelity. So I guess the "Lanthanum blocking blue thing" is a myth. That said, my fluorite doublet produces colder and more colorful images to my eyes than my ED triplet does when using Morpheus eyepieces which doesn't make sense to me, so I'm happy to be proven wrong and learn something.

[Oldfracguy]

When you look at the transmission data of various ED glasses you won't find a difference of Lanthanum and other glasses. Also a lot of eyepieces have Lanthanum elements as well. Some of them (f.i. Morpheus) are known of very high quality and color fidelity. So I guess the "Lanthanum blocking blue thing" is a myth. That said, my fluorite doublet produces colder and more colorful images to my eyes than my ED triplet does when using Morpheus eyepieces which doesn't make sense to me, so I'm happy to be proven wrong and learn something.

I have some Tele Vue Nagler Type 6 eyepieces that incorporate Lanthanum glass.  I can see the differences in color between them and simple Fujiyama Orthoscopics of the same focal length (and hence same magification) when viewing colorful double stars.  Of course, the Nagler Type 6 eyepieces provide a field of view that is about twice that of the Orthoscopics, so I use them a lot more often.

 

If your eyes tell you something when you look through the eyepiece, believe them.

[Droro]

Since nobody else has answered I'll try to help you as much as I can - considering I have no experience with the TS Photolines at all.

 

What I do have is an AT125EDL, an AT150EDL and a Mk V binoviewer with 1.7x GPC.

 

My BV works a treat on my 125EDL with no modification to the scope at all. I'm using the 1.7x GPC and Baader 8-24mm Mv IV zooms.

First, if you are using any prism based BV it is recommended you use a GPC to correct for color aberration. I had a 1.25x GPC but I had a hard time achieving focus with my setup. Changing to the 1.7x allows me to reach focus without shortening the OTA. 

If I were using a mirror based BV like the CZAS I used to have, GPCs are completely unnecessary as far as CA is concerned. However, back focus is still an issue, especially when the BV have a very long light path so you have to Barlow the BV in order to achieve focus or shorten the OTA to compensate for the length of the BV.

Manufacturers have caught on to folks wanting to use BVs with their refractors at their native focal length. Doing so can help eliminate some of the guesswork in trying to achieve focus and maximum magnification.

 

My 150EDL has the removable section (4 inches long) that allows me to use my BV without a GPC, but then I have to deal with CA, so the minimum GPC I can use to counteract CA is the 1.25x GPC. So it's not a silver bullet (at least for me). I've tried the 150 with and without the extension tube and the jury is still out on which configuration works best for me.

 

Here's my 125EDL with BV and zooms in place. In the background is my 150EDL. You can see the removable section on it.

 

Screenshot 2025-02-19 155456.jpg

 

The Baader Mk V binoviewer with Baader Mk IV zooms. When I had a CZAS BV I didn't own any zooms, I used pairs of Tele Vue eyepieces - I had at least eight pairs of eyepieces and an APM 2x Barlow. So far I'm liking these zooms enough that I don't feel a need for fixed focal length eyepiece pairs.

 

Screenshot 2025-02-19 155534.jpg

 

Focused on some high tension power line insulators a bit over three miles away through a window. It takes 20mm of out travel to focus.

 

Since you are wanting to binoview, rather than spend money on a 130mm triplet, consider the 150EDL doublet. For visual the EDL scopes give up nothing to any midlevel triplet. I also suggest that any mount that will hold a 130mm triplet will carry a 150mm doublet (specifically the EDL) just as well, if not better.

The 125EDL is significantly smaller and lighter than either of these other scopes but I'd still recommend (and use) a Losmandy G11 class mount.

 

Hope this helps.

would you say a 125edl complements a 80mmf6 for general astronomy use? 

the 80 does not work very well with a bino. its nice for going places and moon and doubles and AP. 

[wrvond]

would you say a 125edl complements a 80mmf6 for general astronomy use? 

the 80 does not work very well with a bino. its nice for going places and moon and doubles and AP. 

I would say no, it doesn't really. The 125 EDL is a fantastic scope, but "only" two inches larger in diameter. While this is a pretty significant difference, it's not a quantum leap in performance. The 125 can work well with a binoviewer and it will gather more light than the 80 while still being fairly light weight, but for a truly complementary scope I select the 150 EDL. The 150 is about the smallest aperture you want to visually observe DSOs and is purpose built to work with a binoviewer. However, I've tried it with and without the removable section and have opted to leave it in and use a GPC in the binoviewer.

 

My C11 and XT12 are only an inch apart in diameter, but worlds apart in the views they provide and their portability so in that sense they complement each other - or at least compete with each other. The 150 is about half the aperture of those two and reasonably portable and the 80 is about half of that and very portable. 

 

Some things to note: the 80 is too small to use on a G11 mount really, and the 150 is pretty much the limit for the G11. The 150 really wants a G11T class mount but I'm not willing to lug that puppy around. The 102 EDL is not much larger or heavier than the 80 and sits on a GM-8 very nicely while the 125 needs a G11 class mount.

 

I've got the 80 EDL and not going to give it up because it fills a niche for me and what I do, but if I didn't have it and was shopping I'd probably go for the 102 EDL for the extra aperture.

Before the 150 came out I was very happy with my 125 for what it was, but ever since I got the 150 the 125 has been gathering dust. 

 

I've left my initial thoughts for you to read if you wish, but after re-reading and pondering I want to modify my position a bit. For general usage, the 80 and 125 can be a good pair, especially if you don't want to deal with the size and weight (which is significant) of the 150 EDL.

[Eddgie]

The Photoline with FPL-53 an the AT EDX with FCD-100 glass are both going to have an exceptionally high polychromatic Strehl. This is about as big and as fast as you can to and achieve virtually perfect color correction. 

The 125EDL likely absorbs a bit of violet, so while it may appear to be "color free," and color that is absorbed, is not contribution to the image. 

 

The two 130mm scopes also have the removable section so they are binoviewer ready, even when using a 2" diagonal, which means that with the shorter focal length and no GPC, you can get a far wider field than you can get in the 125mm scope.

 

While the 125 is lighter, it is also much longer when used with a binoviewer! The 130s are both shorter focal lengths, and with the removable section, they are about 6 inches shorter than the 125!  That may not seem like a big deal, but the difference really shows up when viewing near zenith with binoviewers, where you don't have a lot of range for your neck to bend. 

While the 130s are heavier, the shorter length (when using binoviewers) means they don't really have much more moment of inertia than the 125. 

 

The difference between the views will likely be extremeluy subtle but the extra aperture and higher contrast transfer will let you stretch out your highest power views a bit more, and keeping image brightness at high powers is harder with binoviewers, so I think that the extra brightness will definitely helps. 

 

I have a 130mm f/8 FPL-53 triplet, and of the 25 or so refractors I have owned (maybe more, maybe less, I just don't really know) and this is the one refractor that I have never regretted buying.  The 6" Apos were just to big for me, and scopes like the 120ED were just not quite enough for me. The 130s will be fantastic binoviewer scopes. For general observing, you can leave off the GPC and still get very low color error views (at low powers, you won't see color error except on brighter stars and the limb of the moon or planets), and for solar system work or double stars, you can put in a Barlow or GPC and enjoy views that have the same or better contrast than a 6" ED doublet. Also, 130mm will give high resolution views on far more nights than many  larger scopes. 

 

Hands down, the 130mm FPL-53 Triplet is easily the most enjoyable refractor I have ever owned. Weighty, but short and manageable, fantastic wide field views with binoviewers and low power eyepieces, and incredible contrast on solar system objects.  Doubles are rendered in their true colors.  The short tube keeps the neck in a comfortable position without having to have the scope on a really tall tripod.  The binoviewer ready 130 SD triplets are (in my humble but well experience opinion) the perfect all around refractors. Every time I turn mine to a planet, I am amazed at how much contrast you can get out of 130mm of aperture and the wide field views with binoviewers are always a treat. 

 

Measure twice, cut once. If you are going to binoview, my advice is to go with the 130 SD scope, either the AT with FCD-100, or the Photoline with FPL-53. Either of these will be outstanding binoviewer platforms. 

[Psion]

I can see that Strehl is a powerful spell caster. The average astronomer won't even see the difference between 0.92 and 0.95. I wonder if astronomers desiring the largest Strehl possible would be willing to pay an extra €1000 from 0.95 for every Strehl + 0.01.

Edited by Psion, 29 March 2025 - 05:10 PM.