In reality there are too many other variables, such as figuring, etc as Tony says. However, I've read a number of posts over the years saying that doublets have a slight edge in contrast.
For example, the TV102 was considered better for planetary than the TV-101 (or maybe the NP-101) due to the fewer elements of glass.
This 'might' be a more valid comparison than the FS128 to TSA120 as the TV scopes were in production at the same time so 'presumably' would have been figured to the same standard and used the same quality of coatings, etc.
Then there are those who insist that you need real Calcium Fluorite, and some of the classic apo doublets use this glass. But how much do today's coatings, etc. compensate for, or even improve on, the best fluorite lenses? You can't just believe the marketing!
I think I'm glad I've never looked through a true apo. It might ruin me for my current scopes and I know a 5" Tak will never be in my budget.
|