• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Tempted (1 Viewer)

Well spotted - there doesnt seem to be too much difference is specification.

Both 560mm f7 80mm ED. But there are other differences

The black one has 3" Focuser but comes with a 2" adapter. Not sure if 3" reduced to 2" is as good as a natural 2" focuser.
The Black one has adjustable optics, the white one has fixed optics.
Black one weighs 3kgs White one weighs 2.25kgs

The Black one has the advantage of already being black. The one piece tripod mount on the white scope looks fixed in one position which could be a problem. The tripod rings on the black scope are obviously adjustable

Someone like Paul C or Fernando who both have better experience with Refractors maybe be able to shed light on these.

The White scope is a lot cheaper of course. Might be worth investigating too.
 
Last edited:
There also is the SW 80ED for the same price of the Astro Professional, which is a good value too. For less than 400€ I've found an Orion 80ED with collars, good price I think.

The 3" focuser should give no vignetting when doing photographs, but in fact I don't think there is vignetting even with 2" focuser.

I also fear the the Astro-Pro would not be well balanced because of the tripod mount. One could still buy collars etc, but the price goes up then!

In addition, you'll need a more sturdy tripod with the TS scopes.. I currently use an old Slik video tripod, which is too light, and vibrations are a real problem to deal with..

Why not use a fringe killer filter? I use one on my achromat and there is a huge difference in IQ. See here : http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/196/7/9/with___without_filter_by_diy171-d3rk6xd.jpg It's a 100% crop. Lefty is with filter, righty is without filter. I don't think it's a good idea to buy a filter if you want to do a serious job, I'd recommand an ED scope. I was offered that filter, so it's good to me.
 
I have actually owned a SW80ED but ventured out trying other things , just from curiosity.

Paul C mentioned PF killer filters, but said there will be some loss of light, so i deal with any PF in Photoshop

AS for the balance of the White TS scope, i guess that could be eliminted by a having plenty of mount holes in the Dovetail Bar ( for choice of mounting position ) that would need to be fitted.

I have a Dovetail Bar here already, so it may not be the problem i thought it might be. I have a decent tripod ( Gitzo + Manfrotto 808RC4 Pan head ) so no problems there.

That photo with and without filter seems very extreme - i never had that much problem with PF, although my ST 120 f5 did suffer more than the ED scopes here. But since i;ve sold the ST 120, i'm after something else. Will have to see what else is around for sale !
 
Last edited:
I have just been looking at the black one earlier, I still think that it would need a paintjob or a lenscover it is very shiny black. You would put a leansplate on the white (Astro) so dont think it would be much of a problem that it cannot be moved. Actually the 3 first Astro's under refractors look good, similar to the skywatcher evostar ed80.
I want to get a short one so maybe the black one or the skywatcher equinox.
 
Musoman, my filter has no big light loss. For example, if I were at 1/320 I go to 1/300 with the filter on (I was surprised too).. It has never been an issue to me. However Paul C is right : most of the filters produce loss of light. Afterwards, their effect depends on their coating quality. :)

Nevertheless, I really liked your pictures taken with the ST120!

Please give any feedbacks if you find something interesting (that may interest me or others people here).
 
kurakura said:
Are they all in pvc tubing???? cannot quite figure it out.

This one is alittle more expensive but with carbonfiber tubes, 44cm collapsed and only 2,2kg

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4625_Astro-Professional-ED-Apo-80-560mm---Carbon---2--Crayford.html
Click to expand...

The question is : is the carbonfiber tube worth 600€ ? Would not it be more interesting to buy a "better scope" at that price (optically I mean) ?

I got another question : what are the pros of having a bigger diameter, ie ED120 vs ED80 ? More "details" in the picture (better power resolution)?

Thank you!
 
Interesting
I dont think 600 Euro is worth the lighter weight.

AS for 120mm scope vs. 80 mm scope.


The surface area of 120mm scope is 3600 Sq mm

The surface area of 80mm scope is 1600 Sq mm

So the the 120mm optics let in 2¼ x more light than 80mm optics
 
Interesting
I dont think 600 Euro is worth the lighter weight.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the differences in the focusers though

the 375Euro comes with a 2" 1:11 micro
the 575Euro comes with a 2" 1:10 micro and Flat field (Only good for astronomy???)
the 599Euro comes with a 2" 1:!0 micro

The black TS ED APO Refraktor 80mm f/7 has a 3" 1:11micro focuser
 
For a filter I had the Baader Semi Apo filter and there was way too much light lost to the point it was unusable. Easier to download Purple Fringe Killer in Photoshop and retain all your shutter speed.

The tripod mount on the white scope looks in just the right place to be well balanced. The big tripod rings would be worse in my opinion as the balance point for photography is generally under the focuser. On the black scope it's quite possible there is an extra tripod mount on the bottom of the focuser, in the photos you can see it's machined flat.

The main thing with both these scopes is that neither mentions the glass used so we would have to assume it's only FPL-51.

Kurakura - don't bother getting the Equinox. There's some posts on it somewhere in this forum.

The scope you linked to is the same as the SW Evostar 80ED http://www.optique-unterlinden.com/catalogue/produit/m/0/p/OR042

Paul.
 
Yes, no mention of ED glass being FPL-53, so assuming something less as you say.

Then again, i'm not positive but i think Fernandos TS804 , or whatever the model was, was not designated FPL-53, and he seemed to get great photos with that. I'm guessing but it seems that TS has scopes built for them to sell under the TS brand ?

If so, i would think ( still guessing though ) as we're talking about another TS scope comparable in spec and price to Fernandos, it maybe pretty decent.
 
Seems i was wrong and TS does state that Fernandos TL804 is FPL-53, and its a triplet too, so not comparable like I thought.
 
kurakura said:
here is what looks to be the black one in a triplet version. The tubus is different, but seems like the same kinda thing to me, not sure what glass is in them probably the 51

http://www.astro-professional.com/html/ed_80mm-3.html
Click to expand...

FPL-51 in a triplet should be ok because in theory a triplet will correct all stray colours. That's not always the case in the cheapest triplets and a good doublet can be better than a cheap triplet.

In a doublet FPL-51 tends to give blue halos around strong constrasts where as with FPL-53 it's virtually eliminated.

Paul.
 
Hi all,

Regarding your earlier question DIY171, regarding the larger aperture able to achieve a better resolution and power, the answer in theory is yes, and yes.

Because the larger objective will let in more light, (2 ¼ times more light according to Musoman ), and also because, in theory, the larger distance apart of the outer rays of light should achieve a higher resolution, this therefore means that you will have the inherent detail and brightness available within the image beam, for you to be able to explore with higher magnifications, whether by eyepiece or Barlow or whatever.

I keep adding in the words “ in theory”, because my own personal experience tells me that the extra resolution seen through a larger diameter objective is the result of the larger D. normally having a longer focal length ( which will create a larger image ), and this, together with the extra brightness, will enable you to see better detail.

Putting it another way, I have yet to see a demonstration of better resolution being achieved from a larger diameter objective, but which had at the same time the same focal length, and the same brightness of image as the smaller objective, (to be achieved by reducing the brightness of the original scene )

However, this is all semantics, because, for whatever reason, the larger Objective will give you better resolution and available magnification.

Tom
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
Camera Land's Store Wide 4th of July Sale Now through July 5th
Replies
0
Views
485
gr8fuldoug
G
B
Spotting Scope Suggestions
Replies
4
Views
1K
Chris G6 UXU
Chris G6 UXU
B
Spotting Scope Suggestions
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Ben_B_Lisse
B
C
New Maven B.6 10x50: A brief comparative review
2 3
Replies
56
Views
20K
adhoc
A
E
A KamaTech flub, a Tract Toric Schott HT review, and my 10x42 quest...
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
mskb
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top