TEC110FL initial impressions

[gregbradley]

I thought I'd give a quick and dirty review of first impressions of this rare scope.

Focus has a definite snap to and is very specific. More so than any other scope I have used. With a Robofocus attached to the focuser it was definitely in focus in one spot and 3 steps away focus had clearly shifted from optimum. That's a good thing.

Focus seemed stable over a 1 hour imaging run. Another plus.

The lens is simply breathtaking to look at. It also has fantastic coatings. A gentle bluish tinge comes off this invisible lens. Gorgeous.

Also Yuri is known for his super dark black internal paint and this is no different. Perhaps the blackest black internally of any scope.

I had some trouble with my Proline and adapter and it looks like its going to have to be precise spacing much like the AP reducer. I had been told its tolerance was +/- 1mm and that seems true. My adapter had to be packed out with washers due to the adapter thread going in too deep in the FLI filter wheel's very shallow thread before it hits the filter retaining screw of the FLI filter wheel.
I hope they fixed that defect in later FLI filter wheels - its quite annoying to have to put your brand new Precise Part US$250 adapter
on a grinder at night at your dark site just to get it to work!! Even more when you have to do it several times! Make sure you sepecify how deep it needs to be for your FLI filter wheel. I suspect the latest model has that corrected as it is a different system holding in the filters. It was a weak spot of FLI filter wheels. The front cover plate is a bit thin as well The Apogee one is a work of art although they made an error putting cutouts in the carousel which can move dust around so in some cases flats don't match lights.

I put in my ML8300 and adjustment adapters and that looks good. Round stars to the corners. the 5.4 micron pixels match this F5.6 scope very very well. You can see it in the downloads.

It frames an object like the Lagoon very nicely with that camera and a 5 minute luminance is sharp and clear with lots of detail. More than you would expect from a 110mm aperture.

The focuser seems very good. It was a bit confusing at first. There is a tension knob on top (gold plated thank you). It seemed totally stuck.
The manual shows it as a tension knob. A few emails revealed an unusual tension design where the microfocuser knob (also gold plated) has a central part which unscrews This enables you to adjust the tension of how much the microfocuser knob rubs against a fabric type washer between the 2 and this creates tension. Enough to hold a heavy Proline and filter wheel from slipping. Very nice. The gold "tension knob" is now just for show.

The focuser is a TEC focuser and it is very well made and glides very smoothly. Time will tell if there is any flex. It is rated to hold 12lbs which is a heavy payload for such a relatively small scope. It seems to be an extremely nice focuser and I prefer it to the Feathtouch, but only a little bit better. But still that is an accomplishment as FeatherTouch are the acknowledged industry best

Dewshield is very nice with the standard little curved down edge Yuri puts on his dewshield which has the effect of a baffle like on AP scopes.

Inside the tube are lots of machined in baffles again like an AP scope.

The clamshell looks beautifully made but like any TEC scope rings has a design defect where it has a recessed section which they fit rubber into. There is simply not enough cushioning and clearance from the sharp metal edges and scratching your OTA body is only a matter of time no matter how careful you are. Also the design means you have to completely unlock your rings and really push hard to overcome the friction of the rubber to move the scope for balance. Perhaps more of an issue with the 140, 160 and 180 as the 110 is set as far back as possible. But with the 180 to unlock a US$19000 scope, that is kinda heavy ( probably the largest portable APO there is)
and have to shove hard to get a balance and risk it flipping it out of its rings is taking a risk. I got some heavy duty APM rings from Germany. I'd prefer the AP rings as they seem the best in the business.
So as nice as the clamshell is, first order of business when getting a TEC scope is to chuck the rings and get something else. I got some nice replacement ones and will be fitting them. They have lots of nice felt to cushion the scope whilst holding it firmly and are particularly nicely made. I will have to post who made them. They are quite pretty yet solid and strong.

The scope has a rotating focuser which works very nicely without any stick. The only thing there is the focuser just barely clears the losmandy dovetail plate. There is a TEC mounting plate but its a bit lightweight. So unless you stick the scope over the edge of the dovetail plate that may have limited workability or I mount the scope on some spacer blocks to get more height. I did not use the TEC mounting plate which probably would be fine for visual but not really rigid enough for imaging.

The flattener looks very similar to the TEC180 one, not the same but similar. All my adapters for the 180 will fit it which is very handy.

I took a 1 hour image of the Lagoon, unguided on the Paramount ME.

Nice sharp images.

I did a quick process and colour combine in CCDstack and my jaw dropped.

No way an image that nice with such fabulous rich colours with only 1 hours total exposure under a full moon and poor seeing. Wow.

This what I was hoping for but better.

I'll be posting a proper image taken under dark skies with multiple hours in a week or two on board a Paramount MX. In the meantime I can get my spacings right for the Proline and see if I can get that to work. Wide field like an FSQ106 images are what I was hoping to achieve. Not there yet. There is also a clever accessory of a supporting ring that goes under the end of the focuser. I'll have to get one of those as it looks like it would stop flex. A good idea for many scopes.

Perhaps even a shootout between FSQ106 and TEC110FL could be in order. That could be fun.

The proven performer FSQ106ED versus the upstart TEC110 with its exotic flourite and exotic matching glasses (apparently
you have to have high performing low index glass as mating elements for fluorite for it to work being so low index itself).

Does Yuri currently make the best optics in the world?? Certainly any fluorite triplet has the potential to claim that title.

Greg.

[jase]

Great write up Greg. A FSQ versus TEC110FL shoot out would be interesting. Quadruplet versus a Triplet...

Of course, a picture speaks a thousand words...wheres the lagoon? :)

[gregbradley]

I think a shootout would create a lot of interest.

Focal length is 616mm versus 530 for the FSQ so FSQ is natively a bit wider.

I get round stars to the corner with the FSQ and reducer. I will have to achieve that first with the TEC. I got 2 tips on how to get that.
One is a clever support ring for the end of the focuser to the dovetail.
The other is to flip the carousel of my filter wheel so the filter retaining screws are on the other side so the adapter can screw in all the way.

The Lagoon was just a quick and dirty image not for publication. But I will be taking images every clear night. I got everything setup even more last night and also got some new rings.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

I was able to get round stars to the corners of the PL16803 tonight with a different adapter.

So that is promising. Now to take it on a long exposure.

Greg.

[popkrab]

Very very nice and helpful review. Thank you very much Greg for great review. I'm in deciding about between these scope, TEC 110FL and FSQ 106EDX-III.

For a TEC 110FL:
I like the beautiful looking, very very nice and so sexy scope. I like optical quality made by TEC especially it made from FL crystal in the middle piece of glass. I also like TEC focuser which you reciewd very much. I believe it can handle well, should be better than in a FSQ 106 EDX-III.

For the FSQ 106 EDX-III
I like camera angle adjuster, dedicated reducer, flat-field without dedicated FF. Easy to use with any CCD camera without exactly adapter distance like in the TEC-FF.

Can you suggest me or give me more info if compare between FSQ 106ED and 110FL? I really wouldlike to hear from you in every perspective.

Thank you very much.
POP

[AG Hybrid]

I noticed something very interesting about your posts Greg.

There's no pictures. RTFM. You must always provide pictures with such threads :P

[gregbradley]

Yes you are absolutely right! Here is a photo:

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/138569622/large

With the 110FL its all about the lens. Fluorite triplet oil spaced TEC style.

I already own a TEC180 and it has a beautiful lens. I am partial to triplet style lenses.

I have also owned 2 FSQ106's and they are the professional standard widefield imaging machines.

They are not that dissimilar in some ways. TEC is F5.6 and FSQ is F5 plus has a reducer which works well giving F3.6.

I would rate the FSQ focuser as better than the TEC. The FSQ106ED I had showed none of the flex that some FSQ owners complain of with heavy loadings. I used an Apogee U16M with zero flex and a FLI PL16803 with virtually no flex (I think there is some minor flex between the Proline and its filterwheel which has been fixed in later models of the 5/7 filter wheel).

The TEC focuser is very smooth and handles a Microline camera fine which is within its rated loadings. It does not handle the Proline although I worked out a solution which was to support the drawtube with a Losmandy padded guide ring. That works quite well.

I would give the edge in the lens department to the TEC. In a recent test by Percy Muir he rated the TEC lens the best he's ever handled.
One thing I did notice is that it snaps to focus more perfectly than any other lens I have used. The FSQ also snaps to focus and is easy to focus.

Basically we are talking about 2 fabulous scopes here.

I like the antireflection coatings on the TEC a bit better but that is just subjective. Both have excellent colour correction.

The TEC is quite a bit lighter. The FSQ is built very solidly for a small scope which means everything is beefy.

The FSQ focus lock mechanism is poor and is best not used and a Robofocus used instead. The TEC focus lock mechanism is quite clever and consists of adjusting the tension on a circular washer behind the microfocuser knob which has a raised inner knob which can be turned to adjust tension. It works very well.

I personally feel the drawtubes for either scope should be stainless steel like AP uses rather than aluminium tube.

I am not a fan of TEC rings or the clamshell. They seem to very easily damage the OTA with their design. I would allow for buying replacement rings whereas the FSQ clamshell works beautifully and I used to use that all the time with no flexure and easy to use and adjust the scopes balance. But it is an extra to the scope and not cheap.

The TEC has a nice case and came with extras like DSLR adapter, starbeam finderscope (an extra). It also has a nice eyepiece holder plug.
The clamshell has a handle on it which is useful. The scope is quite light and I set it up recently on a lightweight Manfrotto camera tripod that I would never mount the FSQ on.

Fit and finish are similar on both. The TEC clamshell looks good but is really more suitable for visual than imaging although I suppose it may be OK. I have custom rings that are quite strong although awkward to connect.

Percy did a test on both TEC110 and FSQ for colour correctness. It consisted of seeing how the scope projected different colours RGB and measuring their levels to see if they handled each the same. The TEC was perfect with the lens out off the body and slightly skewed to one colour in the tube - green. The FSQ was slightly off on 2 colours.

Then he put flocking on the inside of both scopes tubes. The colour became perfect with both.

It turns out the paint used to coat the inside of scopes can affect colour fidelity.Some black paint have a definite green hue.

I did not notice any green bias to the TEC in the few images I have taken so far. In fact I found the colours to be more vibrant than normal and the images more alive than I expected. Star colours were better than normal.

So the TEC110 is all about the lens in my opinion. Both scopes are awesome. The FSQ has the great reducer, stronger focuser, a flatter field which would be handy for mosaics.

If you wanted to image with a heavy image train unless you know the FSQ has a good focuser like my one was then per posts on the net it sounds risky. But then the TEC doesn't handle the weight either without a work around. So they are equal in that regard or in my case I would give the edge to the FSQ.

FSQ has a captains wheel to rotate the focuser which is unnecessary with the camera angle rotator (an extra depending on which model you got). I also had the dovetail fittings which I like as they give a positive mount and they can also rotate very easily. So the captains wheel is not that useful. The TEC has a collet style ring that allows the focuser to rotate. In the few times I have used it I was unable to tighten it with the scope mounted tight enough to have no flex with my heavy camera.
I had to have it on a towel and tighten it so no flex with the joint with the tube. In comparison my AP140 has a collet and it is easy to tighten and have no flex. Same with TEC180. Perhaps thats a size thing.

But if you were imaging with a lighter imaging train it comes down to a preference. At this stage I would prefer the triplet and its characteristics but it has a hard act to live up as the FSQ was a reliable workhorse that makes excellent images very easy to take.

Sorry if I can't state one is the better than the other because I am not sure either is a clearly better than the other. Its pretty close and comes down to what type of imaging you intend to make. FSQ would be better for mosaics and has a slightly wider field plus the known reducer (actually 2 are available now). The TEC does not have a reducer available although the APM one may work (to be proven). But it makes vibrant images that seem to have better than average colour from the same equipment.

I love em both. To make it worse they are also similar prices.

A fluorite triplet is likely to become a classic though much like the AP traveller.

Yuri's team are exceptionally good at making optics. You won't find anyone complaining about a TEC scope or its optics. I have never seen anything other than high praise.

The TEC will hold its resale value well. I have never seen a TEC scope ever sell for less than about 90% of original purchase price. The 110 even more so as there are currently only 50 of them.

If you use reducer on the FSQ there is an exact distance for the CCD.
No matter which one you use you will need some adapter to connect to your camera so the distance from the flattener is not really an issue.
The TEC flattener works well by the way except that it adds weight to the drawtube quite a distance out and reduces the payload the focuser can handle. If your chip is small enough the flattener would not be needed. I am not sure what that size is - probably a bit smaller than the KAF8300. KAF8300 may just squeak it in but I'd have to test.

Greg.

[popkrab]

Hello Greg,

Many thanks to the more info about FSQ VS TEC 110FL in imaging perspective. I have QHY8 CCD camera (APSc CCD size), QHY9 (KAF 8300 mono) and I have a plan to have a one camera which use KAF 16803 chip. It may be FLI ML16803-65 due to its size is small, lighter than others.

It is interesting that you said about flexture on FSQ 106ED. Many told it caused from focuser housing and drawtube but you said it came from connection of CFW 5-7 of FLI filterwheel!!! . If I buy an FLI ML16803-65 with CFW 5-7. What specific question have to ask to FLI? Can you help me to guide the way of question. I'm not know exactly what reason is caused to FLI CFW 5-7.

Do you have an Tak 0.73X reducer? is it good if match to KAF 8300 chip?

I think Tak FSQ 106 EDX-III should be the way to go if consider to focuser capability, camera orientation adjustment.

Can you suggest me which tube ring should fit nicely to FSQ OTA if not Tak tube holder.

Do you have any comment what you don't like or like in your Tak FSQ 106ED? I'm considering in FSQ 106EDX-III.

Thank you very much again.

Best Regards,
Pornchai POP

[gregbradley]

If I were buying a FLI camera I would chose the Microline due to the lighter weight. It seems to have all the features of the Proline mostly but is half the weight or so.

Cooling on the 16803 chip per Tim Khan is only 3 or 4 degrees C less than the Proline. Both have RBI control, both fast downloads, both good shutters, the Proline has a usb hub with 2 usb ports and 2 power outlets for connecting filter wheel and guider or a focuser.

CFW 5/7 has 2 large bolts that screw onto Proline body. I am not sure the Microline has the same 2 bolts. I suspect not but ask FLI.

I usually image with the Proline 16803 at -35C but if its a warm night I get -30C. I have always been able to get -30C. But if you were able to get -25C on a Microline on the same night I don't think there is a lot of difference in dark noise.

As far as RBI goes I basically have only seen it twice and it did not affect the image. When you stack multiple images you are usually using mean combine or similar and it gets rid of a lot of minor artifacts.

I saw RBI on one image where a jet flew through the image and the very bright jet light trails lasted faintly in the next several subexposures. They disappeared with mean combine.

I saw some white splotches on darks taken after imaging a bright globular cluster.

So I would not worry about RBI. I hve not seen any ill effects in my images from that.

I did have the .73 reducer and it is fantastic. It really is a great accessory.

You can orient the camera on the TEC110. You can loosen the adapter ring for the flattener to achieve turning and tighten it up once rotated. Or you could loosen the collet and rotate the focuser with a lighter load. From my limited use it seems to handle a microline fine and Tim Khan is using a Microline 16803 with the TEC and no problems so it is adequate for that load. My imaging train is outside the specification for weight load for the TEC.

An option for either scope is to replace the focuser with a solid tube and fit an Atlas or PDF focuser and then the camera.

I never used my Microline 8300 on the FSQ but I believe it would be a great choice. I did not use it as I have other scopes that would create that same image scale but are larger scopes and therefore better resolution.

The 16803 is one of the great imaging chips and in my opinion the best chip on the amateur market at the moment. It has it all, sensitive, good Ha response, low noise, large FOV, large well depth, antiblooming. Its hard to beat. But of course it is more expensive.

SoCal rings fit FSQ106ED very nicely and they have a raised section at the bottom to help the scope's focuser clear the dovetail plate.

Greg.

[cventer]

Ponchai

I bought Gregs FSQ from him. Lovely piece of equipment.

You can see pics of the Socal rings in my post here

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=83848

I used them instead of the clamshell as I wanted to mount another dovetial plate on top for accessories.

[gregbradley]

Chris,

I wonder how it would go if you used your mini 50mm or 60mm finder scope guide setup and a 2nd guider and lens or efinder locked onto the dovetail plate and set to 1 minute corrections. You may be able to go much longer focal length with that.

I am going to be experimenting with multiple guidecams. I cannot use MMOAG with the reducer on my CDK17. Whilst I get round stars most of the time I do lose some to elongation from flexure at different angles.

A 2nd guide cam like the STX setup may help there.

I'll post the results once I do this. It won't be for a while but its a project I intend doing.

Also I remember Jase referring to some great autoguiding plug ins you can use with Maxim DL. Averaging 2 guide stars for example.

Chris you're good with software. What about a plug in that did mean combines on the fly of your guide star guiding exposures?

Imagine between 1 to 10 x 1 second guide exposures rapidly mean combined and then working the autoguding correction from that.

It'd be a great way to beat the seeing and perhaps set at 4 x 1 second combined guide exposures on an accurate mount and in theory you would get superior autoguiding as you would be averaging out the seeing. It would work better on a bad seeing night. When you consider most people experience poor seeing routinely it would be a valuable plug in. A 2nd guide camera set to 60 second guide corrections and mounted on the dovetail could help with flexure in the guide scope.

Greg.

[Poita]

I'd love to line my Lomo up beside these one day and take a gander as well, I'm always interested how different scopes compare and what the extra investment brings.

[gregbradley]

You never know, one time there may be a star party. I agree it would be interesting to see how it stacks up.

One thing for sure is the differences betwen the higher quality scopes are pretty small in my experience.

Greg.