Considering Williams optics flt132 - anything to look out for?
Hi everyone,
I am looking for feedback from people who have used or own a williams optics flt132 or williams optics scopes in general.
What is the quality like?
Anything to avoid?
Apart from a recent post on R&P focusers, is there anything else with the focusers good or bad?
Any other points i should look out for?
What would be a reasonable price first and secondhand (if i can ask such a question)?
I really have one shot at getting one of these scopes and would love the flt151, but like the though of a takahashi i can not stretch the budget that far (as much as they constantly expressed as a great scopes). I think i will be moving on some scopes and astro gear to fund this by the looks.
Any help / advice would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Matt
Last edited by yoda776; 12-10-2016 at 06:32 AM.
Reason: Forgot a questioj to ask
HI Matt I have a w/o 132 which I brought about a year ago 2nd hand of another iceinspacer ,it is a wonderful scope very well made great optics
I would say that Williams optics gear is very well made nice and solid ,I have a roto focuser on mine and this is just great does not move ,I paid $4000 for mine every bit worth it
cheers ALAN
WO had a bad production run back around 2008/09 and the earlier fluorostars had aluminium cells which might cause issues in very cold temperatures.
In more recent years they switched to a steel cell and the optics are excellent on the samples I've seen. I was the first owner of Alan's FLT132 and it's optics are close to Tak quality, as are the optics on my FLT98.
The only issue I might expect to deal with on a new FLT132 would be adjusting the focuser, which isn't hard to do.
Some focuser details:
The silver slotted screws on top of the focuser can be tightened slightly if there is any drawtube slop.
There's a tension adjustment grub screw on the pinion assembly, although I didn't find that to be very effective.
If you need to carry heavier loads the dual focus knobs can be removed by loosening the grub screw holding it to the shaft and the nearby grub screws on the black pinion block - then the slotted brass nut can be tightened slightly to increase pressure on the microfocuser bearing.
In the last photo (detached pinion assembly) you can see a cross hatched area on the shaft which the focus lock bears against; on the other side you can see a white nylon block which the tension adjustment grub screw pushes against the shaft.
It's not a feathertouch but it is quite a decent focuser.
Considering William optics fit132 - anything to look out for?
Hi, I have a WO 81 mm GTF refractor and its been great. A really solid scope and terrific optics. See review on this web site under Equipment reviews > Telescopes. Cheers, John W.
Having owned 3 WO refractors now - I would agree with the comments on finish quality and calibre of the optics.
If you plan to do astro photography - suggest a Moonlight focuser that is computer controller is a great add on - it mates well, holds a lot of gear with zero slippage and achieves great focus very well.
It does not do your response justice, but I will respond with one response.
Thank you to all for the varied range of different aspects regarding the scope. It is very much appreciated. I would really love that tak150 on sale in the telescope forum but well out of my league!
Sounds like the WO Flt132 would be a good choice and i do wish to use it for imaging. I will note the possibility of changing the focuser to a moonlite and the motor drive for hands free.
I have an AZEQ6 and imagine this should take the load + imaging gear ok. I only have two counter weights though, so i imagine i may need a third.
Please keep the responses coming as they are all valued.
Have you got this scope or tried it out? Sounds interesting at the price although reasonably set on williams optics. Been researching for a little while. Considered the meade 6000 series 130mm, think it is the skywatcher espirit as well. Looked at apm a little while ago too.
My other thought is aperture and impact on what i am taking while jmaging and also the visual aspect, particularly planetary but also some deep space. Have my 16" truss dob motorised for that.
Is there also any preference on pairing with cameras - DSLR or CCD in brand, model, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone
You might find this one an interesting alternative.
Ordered that 130mm triplet ED APO, and a 70mm quad ED APO. Waiting for them to arrive, any day now. Edit: they're in customs... hmm... that's taken a while.
All depends on deciding what you intend to use it for - scope, camera and mount.
Oh, and I intend on using the scope for imaging and viewing - planetary, moon and some general deep sky. I have a much larger scope (16" dobby) that is a light bucket and satisfies the deep sky needs ... of course when the clouds clear!
If you had the opportunity to buy an earlier model WO FLT132 (2007) versus the current FLT132 (presume this is the 2015 model judging by today's pricelists) is there any real difference? (other than the aluminimum tube versus steel tube).
Quality still the same?
The reason for asking is the debate in my mind over a new one or a secondhand one.
The latest updated version of the FLT132 has a new lens cell design by TMB I am lead to believe and an upgraded 3.5”, 360º rotating rack and pinion focuser ,significant upgrades i would think
Thanks Andrew. So this new design may present better for imaging and viewing perhaps?
I know i would likely have to get the PFLAT4 field flattener. i have also heard there is a feather touch focuser for this scope. Can't seem to find it to know the cost if I were to buy all this new. I know in secondhand circles with the older WO scopes I have researched people have sold them with feather touch focusers. Just can't find it on the WO web site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab1963
The latest updated version of the FLT132 has a new lens cell design by TMB I am lead to believe and an upgraded 3.5”, 360º rotating rack and pinion focuser ,significant upgrades i would think
I know nothing about imaging so i am not qualified to give any input but i would say visually a noticeable improvement with the TMB lense cell and every scope whether imaging or visual would benefit from a feathertouch ,here is the scope you are looking for with a 4'' FTF but would shop around for a better price ,nice looking scope
Thanks for the link Andrew and the honest reply. I know a little about imaging and have researched a bit, done a bit too, but as with anything there is a lot to learn. Not sure of the price in Australia, as that is a US site, but at least I know the feather touch can be bought from somewhere!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab1963
I know nothing about imaging so i am not qualified to give any input but i would say visually a noticeable improvement with the TMB lense cell and every scope whether imaging or visual would benefit from a feathertouch ,here is the scope you are looking for with a 4'' FTF but would shop around for a better price ,nice looking scope
If there are any other comments on comparing older WO FLT132s to the newer models I would be grateful to hear them, particularly imaging (or if anyone has some great links).
I have decided to go for a WO FLT132 now as it suits the quality / budget ratio. Just a matter of knowing if there are any significant differences in the newer versus older models (other than avoiding the 2008/2009 range mentioned earlier). I understand over time scopes can be developed to be better but they can also be developed worse too.
An older flt132 with feathertouch may be just fine, but you'd need some assurances from the owner about it's optics.
The new ones are very good and the focuser does not need replacing.
Thanks for the notes on everything tony. I think, if I am right, in seeing what you have written to date - the steel tube in the new version is better than the aluminium due to coping with temperature ranges better. The focuser on the new seems good on its own, so an older one with feathertouch may not amount to much difference. I have also seen the new scopes have better optics from another post.
So that said I would be after either new or something like a good secondhand 2015 model.
So this new design may present better for imaging and viewing perhaps? 
