One Scope To Rule Them All

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Gee Colin, for an educated man you have a poor memory. It's Fluorite: anything else is just glass"

Academics these days...

I knew I had it wrong but I couldn't quite remember it. Figured I'd get it close enough

P.S.
Only remember things of importance

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I was in a weak financial moment - leave me alone, oroit

It does it's job. Lots to improve on, but it's at least optically very good.

As for the A-P...well.....side by side right there with Tak, to the point I preferred it over the Tak. I paid the same for the A-P as I did for the Esprit 80 lol...yes, I got an ABSOLUTE BARGAIN (once in a lifetime!). If/when it goes up for sale, I assure you the price will be at minimum TWICE what I paid for it

Give me the heads up when you sell it Lewihashi, and I'll remember to wait 30 minutes until after the first price drop

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

... It's Fluorite: anything else is just glass"

Yes, but the second element is still ... just glass.

[AstroApprentice (Jason)]

Hi Lewis,
Don't forget Borg - they also use fluorite from Canon Optron.
http://www.canon-optron.co.jp/englis...ucts_caf2.html

Originally Posted by LewisM

Why? All the modern Tak fluorites are PURE fluorite / CaF2 again - the FC-100, the FC-76, the FS-60, the FOA-60 and so on. REAL, GENUINE FLUORITE.

Not just in the older models.

Only Tak and TEC use fluorite in it's real form (Zeiss and Vixen did). William Optics DO NOT and never have despite their widely known BS advertising (which they HAD to change due to misinformation). A "Fluorostar" does NOT have single piece of real fluorite in it - the glass used though is FPL, which is fluorite ENRICHED glass.

[Peter Ward]

I had the pleasure of side by side testing Tak150 and AP155. We pushed both telescopes to insane magnifications...about 1200x if memory serves. The Tak got a little touchy...in that the airy disk wasn't perfectly circular and showed a minuscule bit lateral colour.

The AP remained, well perfect, we couldn't fault it....but a sample of one, from each manufacturer, I freely admit was statistically insignificant.

I however much prefer AP's simple and robust approach to accessories/adapters. Tak literally have adapters for adapters...and they are dammed expensive.

My advice...if you ever see an AP refractor come up for sale, grab it!

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Originally Posted by AstroApprentice

Hi Lewis,
Don't forget Borg - they also use fluorite from Canon Optron.
http://www.canon-optron.co.jp/englis...ucts_caf2.html

So does Agema Optics: http://www.agemaoptics.com/telescopes/

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

Given the 5k limit, Which was my budget at one time, I went for a WO 132FLT. I bought second hand and it included the factory flattener.

Why.... as I like imaging, it doesn't need to be colimated, flexure of the tube is not an issue (as was a largish newt I used to use), the focal length of 924mm is ok for most nights seeing, i haven't had any issues with focuser creep, it is APO I haven't had any noticeable fringing etc from the scope, it's not so big that it becomes unstable on my mount.

All in all pretty much meets my needs, good value for money, which when I spend 5k is what I am trying to get.

Glen, I believe you made an excellent choice. You are about to enjoy the velvet pleasure of zero collimation and pinpoint stars and for "fumble-butts" like myself, one of the massive benefits of a good APO is that, if the image is "off" it's not the equipment, it's you! For the not so competent (like myself) shortening the diagnostic process is immensely valuable and a huge benefit of a solid APO.
Over and above all this.... as your "forever scope" the WO is super cool to look at, being easy on the eye is important when you're planning a long life cycle.
Congratulations!