Swap 12" LX200GPS for APO Refractor?

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Hi all

If I were to sell/trade my LX200GPS on a William Optics FLT 132 Triplet APO would I be visually satisfied? After purchasing the little WO 66mm the other day (semi APO) I'm sure that a 132mm version would be stunning. The mechanical quality is superb and I've heard the optics are extremely good as well. I'd like a Tak but don't think my budget would stretch that far. It's a lot less weighty so I'd use it far more than a 12" SCT. Should be very good for photography if mounted on an EQ6 or some other meaty mount (G11??? )

Any advice from anyone?

Cheers
Chris

[astronut (John)]

Hi Chris,
As you know the main difference between the scopes will be light grasp, if you can put up with that you've jumped one major hurdle.
A 5 1/2" APO is going to give you very sharp edge to edge fields, better than the LX200.
And with no central obstruction your planetary detail is going to be mind blowing.
I think the mechanical construction and optical quality + size are going to go a long way to make up for the loss of light grasp compared to the bigger scope.
My Unitron 4" has a disadvantage in light grasp to my LB 12", but I like the mechanical and classically aesthetic look it has, that will never age.
So in simple terms..............GO FOR IT!!!!

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Thanks John for your sensible advice. I believe that the twin 12" bino's will satisfy my aperture requirements for purely visual work, and after looking through the little 66mm refractor over the past few nights I've pretty much decided that refractors are the way to go for me for photography and general planetary viewing. The 66mm shows Jupiter and Saturn at the moment as brilliantly-focussed orbs... simply fantastic... but very small. A larger scope will be great. And you're right - I love the quality of build in the William Optics fluorite APO, and as an instrument it will last for many satisfying years.

Cheers John - I'll think about swapping the two now.

Chris

[jase (Jason)]

I saw the FLT-132 at an astrophotography conference in Belgium November last year. Impressive scope, but don't fool yourself, its not light. For visual work you'd be ok with the EQ6. Imaging would require something more substantial to provide accurate tracking with this scope. You also need to consider the use of a field flattener if you intend to use large format CCDs. Personally, I have my reservations on TMB optics.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by jase

I saw the FLT-132 at an astrophotography conference in Belgium November last year. Impressive scope, but don't fool yourself, its not light. For visual work you'd be ok with the EQ6. Imaging would require something more substantial to provide accurate tracking with this scope. You also need to consider the use of a field flattener if you intend to use large format CCDs. Personally, I have my reservations on TMB optics.

Thanks Jase. The 9-10kg that this OTA weighs is substantially lighter than the OTA/Fork combination of the LX200, so it isn't that heavy. Why the reservations about the optics? Every review I have read practically raves about them. If you compare them to a Tak I suppose you'd go the Tak - but for a 130mm, the Tak in this country is still $2k more.

[jase (Jason)]

The original WO FLT110 used TEC optics, these were hand crafted lenses and were provided with optical testing certification. These were an absolute steal for the price. TMB optics are mass produced, hence cheaper. The same optical lens sets you get in the FLT-132 are in the TMB signature series. I'm sure they're tested but not to the level performed by TEC. If the FLT-132 was to use TEC optics, then you'd probably find it would cost similar to that of the Tak TOA-130F. I guess you pay for what you get in this hobby.
Don't get me wrong, they are still of good quality. Visually, I've also heard similar spectacular comments. However, a good visual scope doesn't necessarily mean its a good astrograph. Depends on your primary use of the instrument.
I would recommend reading some of the essays compiled by Roland Christen from Astrophysics. http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/index.html. Roland undoubtedly produces the best refractors available today. His essays touch on coating types and other factors that distinguishes a visual high end refractor to a high end astrograph.

[jase (Jason)]

http://www.iankingimaging.com/show_article.php?id=14
The second photo with the little girl would indicate the FLT-132's scale.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

That second photo reminds me of an old model I once had of Apollo 11...

Did William Yang do that on purpose?

[Ambermile]

That's Ian's sister, not a little girl...

I'd second the TEC v. TMB statement above also, and for the same reasons. The TEC oil-spaced triplet is something that has to be seen and looked through to be appreciated properly. The TMB stuff is just not in the same class. You only have to go try an buy a 110 fluorostar - they sell SH for pretty much the new cost, sometimes *more* than the new price.

Arthur

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

why ? we here at northland astro society just accuired a celestron c11 .every member who has had a chance to view thru it agrees that it has the sharpest optics any of us have ever seen in a reflecting telescope bar none.the coatings and quality of the primary allow views refractor sharp,i should know as i reguarly observe with my 102mm flourite celestron but as they say appature rules.sorry that your 12in dosent satisify. hope this helps.. clear skies.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

My 12"' Meade "satisfies" Brian, my doubts there. It's optics are fantastic - it's weight is not. That's my problem. If I had an observatory with it set up permanently I'd be a happy chap, but I don't.

All I'm after is some opinions on wether or not I'd be horribly dissatisfied if I chose to go with a 132mm APO refractor, given that it's a hell of a lot lighter to lug around, after loving my 12" SCT for a while.