Ap130gtx - Page 2

Slawomir (Suavi) · #21 30-11-2017, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LewisM

I've looked through TOA130's, TOA150's, CFF140's and some Chinese similar sized triplets.

My pick of the lot - the TOA130. Just spot on in every respect.

I believe that Hans is after an imaging scope and TOA with its 40mm imaging circle and at f/7.5 might be not the best option for DSO imaging. For astrophotography, I personally would go for a faster scope (=also shorter tube) and as large corrected circle as possible. Money permitting, for me and for imaging, it definitely would be a choice between AP 130GTX and CFF140. FSQ130 seems to be awesome too, but the cost is even higher.

happycamper · #22 30-11-2017, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mekon

Agreed, but these days there are a number of other makes that are AP's equal. 25 years ago, when I took delivery of one of the first 130EDTs there was no 5" refractor that could match it - most 6" & 8" scopes could not compete. The only scopes that were comparable were Vixen 102 fluorites and they behaved like a smaller version. Taks were never seen back then.
Nowadays, as Roland Christen himself states - you don't have to wait.
The TOA 130s are just as good. I reckon my CFF 132 is just as good - and it comes with a 3.5" Feathertouch. APMs and TECs are also in the same league.
Also have to second Peter Ward's comment on Questar 7" - not impressed when I observed through Max Gardner's scope at Wiruna many years ago. My AP 130EDT gave better views.

Yup, totally with you on the TAKs, CFFs and TECs - they're all quite awesome scopes. We're spoilt for choice at the high-end now... I've never looked through a TOA130 but i have to say i very much look forward to it, and yes, i've thought more than once about the CFF (185). Must be a wonderful view. But gee there's so much to see in the 130 first...

cheers!
HC

Hans Tucker (Hans) · #23 24-12-2017, 09:45 PM

Yay..its on its way...but it has come at a cost...I am now virtually Takless

Slawomir (Suavi) · #24 24-12-2017, 10:13 PM

Great news! Congratulations Hans- you must be very excited. And those lucky ones that now have your Taks surely are also very happy, so a win-win situation

gregbradley · #25 27-12-2017, 10:08 AM

I would disagree that TECs and APMs are in the same league as AP. They are simply not. TEC are no match for AP. TEC are optimised for green and red and blue are not as good. AP does not optimise just for green.

AP has a large range of imaging accessories, TEC does not. AP focusers, fittings, adapters are all heavy duty and flex and so on is simply unheard of. Not true for other brands including Tak (surprisingly). So Tak can let you down occasionally (read the large number of threads about flex in FSQ scopes). They are out to Version 4 now of the FSQ and probably still haven't gotten on top of it. They got the optics right but not the mechanicals.

AP is still the premium brand in my opinion. Roland actually images and that makes all the difference.

But yes high end 2nd tier is more fully fleshed out now.

Greg.

william123 (William) · #26 30-12-2017, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I would disagree that TECs and APMs are in the same league as AP. They are simply not. TEC are no match for AP. TEC are optimised for green and red and blue are not as good. AP does not optimise just for green.

AP has a large range of imaging accessories, TEC does not. AP focusers, fittings, adapters are all heavy duty and flex and so on is simply unheard of. Not true for other brands including Tak (surprisingly). So Tak can let you down occasionally (read the large number of threads about flex in FSQ scopes). They are out to Version 4 now of the FSQ and probably still haven't gotten on top of it. They got the optics right but not the mechanicals.

AP is still the premium brand in my opinion. Roland actually images and that makes all the difference.

But yes high end 2nd tier is more fully fleshed out now.

Greg.

Greg (and anyone else):

What do you think of the CFF's? Are they as good optically as the AP's?

Thank you.

William

Slawomir (Suavi) · #27 30-12-2017, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william123

Greg (and anyone else):

What do you think of the CFF's? Are they as good optically as the AP's?

Thank you.

William

Lucky would be the one who could make a direct comparison

If we look at the cost, recent limited edition of CFF132mm was priced nearly 2000 USD less than AP130GTX. The AP has a larger claimed imaging circle (65mm vs 55mm), so that's one difference in optical performance. CFF is being hand aspherised, not sure if AP is still doing that and whether that's needed for GTX. As for polychromatic Strehl - no idea. Maybe except CFF's 105mm f/10 - apparently Strehl above 0.99 in the entire visible spectrum. No doubt AP delivers scopes as close to perfection as humanly possible within their parameters (f ratio, aperture etc).

I really look forward to reading Hans' impressions with his new baby

gregbradley · #28 30-12-2017, 11:05 PM

I don't really know anything about CFFs. They are probably great.
The usual weak spot though is the accessories. A weak focuser that flexes, tube currents, using carbon fibre for APO's etc.

I do know that APs have every aspect covered really well and they won't let you down.

If CFF get .99 strehl then that is extremely impressive if they can provide an interferogram to that effect.

Greg,

Peter Ward · #29 07-01-2018, 02:29 PM

For those who were interested, I managed to get some data for a quick FSQ and AP130GTX comparison.

It can be found here

I decided against doing a full blown ramble with pictures and arrows about both instruments and simply let the test images do most of the talking.

Hope you find it useful.

PRejto (Peter) · #30 07-01-2018, 06:03 PM

With reference to Greg's comments re TEC, TEC has announced that all future products will be all fluorite with the middle element. The TEC-140 recent production run is fluorite and has better blue correction than the previous ED model.

One item not specifically mentioned that needs to be considered in these choices is the back focus available when using the flattener. TEC BF for the FF is only 85mm which I personally found to be too short to accommodate gear I wanted to use.

Peter

Kunama · #31 07-01-2018, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I don't really know anything about CFFs. They are probably great.
The usual weak spot though is the accessories. A weak focuser that flexes, tube currents, using carbon fibre for APO's etc.

I do know that APs have every aspect covered really well and they won't let you down.

If CFF get .99 strehl then that is extremely impressive if they can provide an interferogram to that effect.

Greg,

I thought the CFF scopes came with Starlight Feathertouch focusers, I wouldn't consider them a weak focuser that flexes....

Kunama · #32 07-01-2018, 09:09 PM

Yuri is going to keep the last 10 ED versions of the 140 and turn them into binoscopes by shortening their tubes to improve available back focus for the EMS-ULS visual train, maybe he would be happy to do the same for an FL version........

Hans, congratulations on the AP....

gregbradley · #33 14-01-2018, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunama

I thought the CFF scopes came with Starlight Feathertouch focusers, I wouldn't consider them a weak focuser that flexes....

I agree FT focusers are high quality. They do flex a small amount though. Yuri measured flex on the FT 3050 focuser and showed it displayed less flex when it was upside down. But I didn't ever see flex issues when using my TEC180. They are a nice focuser. I was making the comment more generally rather than specifically aimed at CFF. More something to make sure is OK as focusers are typically the weak spot for many scopes.

The strongest focusers I have seen are AP ones. They are made from a large tube of stainless steel rather than some weak aluminium like most are. AP focusers look like they could be used to change a tyre on your car!

Greg.