Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Which is better 105ed or 110 fluorite?

Expand Messages
  • Brian Schilt
    Hi David. When you say binoviewer friendly, is that with what brand of binoviewers? Will a Denkmeier come to focus in it with out a corrector lens? Thanks!
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 8, 2006
      Hi David.

      When you say binoviewer friendly, is that with what brand of
      binoviewers? Will a Denkmeier come to focus in it with out a
      corrector lens? Thanks!

      Brian S.
    • williamopticsmarketing
      I meant WO Binoviewers of course... but I believe no prob. with the Denk. either. Anyone tried?
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 9, 2006
        I meant WO Binoviewers of course... but I believe no prob. with the
        Denk. either. Anyone tried?


        --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Schilt" <brianschilt@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Hi David.
        >
        > When you say binoviewer friendly, is that with what brand of
        > binoviewers? Will a Denkmeier come to focus in it with out a
        > corrector lens? Thanks!
        >
        > Brian S.
        >
      • Tom Trusock
        David, I ve used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports section. I m working on a review of the 105. If price is an object, the 105 is a nice
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 9, 2006
          David,

          I've used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports
          section. I'm working on a review of the 105.

          If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing some
          very nice images coming out of it. If price is no object - the
          FLT-110 takes no prisoners. Seriously - the sample I was shipped for
          review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with anything -
          *anything* else on the market for visual use.

          Tom T.

          --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse" <climber@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY in
          > astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way filter
          > wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking of using
          > the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit lower as
          > well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour imaging.
          >
          > I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be used as a
          > piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have two top
          > quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about this
          > aspect.
          >
          > Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
          >
          > Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice the amount
          > of money?
          >
          > Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you think.
          > Either that or links to pics taken on both.
          >
          > Dave Moorhouse
          >
        • Scott Walker
          Look at the chromatic aberration graph from the ZS 105 (given under specification on website). It shows a fair amount of spherical aberration in the lens. This
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 9, 2006
            Look at the chromatic aberration graph from the ZS 105 (given under specification on website). It shows a fair amount of spherical aberration in the lens. This is not surprising given it f/7 and large 105 aperture, and price of the scope. I would expect the FLT 110 to have a tighter chromatic aberration graph more like that shown for the Megrez 80 super APO. TEC may be also be using one aspheric surface to reduce higher order spherical aberration. Also the FLT may be using a better glass, fluorite or FPL53, compared to the ZS105 that may be using FPL51 to reduce cost.This is a guess on my part. Maybe WO or Tom Trusock could comment on the glasses used? Anyway it looks like the ZS 105 is a solid performer where as the FLT110 is more state of the art.
             
            Scott Walker
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:55 AM
            Subject: [William-Optics] Re: Which is better 105ed or 110 fluorite?

            David,

            I've used both.  My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports
            section.  I'm working on a review of the 105.

            If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing some
            very nice images coming out of it.  If price is no object - the
            FLT-110 takes no prisoners.  Seriously - the sample I was shipped for
            review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with anything -
            *anything* else on the market for visual use.

            Tom T.

            --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse" <climber@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY in
            > astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way filter
            > wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking of using
            > the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit lower as
            > well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour imaging.
            >
            > I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be used as a
            > piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have two top
            > quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about this
            > aspect.
            >
            > Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
            >
            > Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice the amount
            > of money?
            >
            > Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you think.
            > Either that or links to pics taken on both.
            >
            > Dave Moorhouse
            >




          • David Moorhouse
            Thanks Tom I think what you say is right about the 105mm being a solid performer. I don t really care about visual use as I m only thinking about mounting it
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 9, 2006
              Thanks Tom

              I think what you say is right about the 105mm being a solid performer.
              I don't really care about visual use as I'm only thinking about
              mounting it alongside a larger OTA on a solid good tracking mount for
              (RGBC ST-2000) photographic use.

              What I don't have is the experience to know just how perfect a OTA
              needs to sensibly be, to be capabile of stunning images with stars that
              don't show blue halo's etc.

              As a stop gap measure I'm now looking at the 80mm Zenithstar Fluorite
              Doublet Limited edition, to get me into the swing of things with a
              lower price. Then after some more advice buy a top end refractor at a
              later date. Is this a good idea???

              BTW have a look at my 16" binocular visual instrument at my webpage,
              you may be surprised!

              David Moorhouse
              Auckland
              New Zealand

              http://www.binoscope.co.nz



              Quoting Tom Trusock <tomt@...>:

              > David,
              >
              > I've used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports
              > section. I'm working on a review of the 105.
              >
              > If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing some
              > very nice images coming out of it. If price is no object - the
              > FLT-110 takes no prisoners. Seriously - the sample I was shipped for
              > review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with anything -
              > *anything* else on the market for visual use.
              >
              > Tom T.
              >
              > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse"
              > <climber@...>
              > wrote:
              >>
              >> I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY in
              >> astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way
              > filter
              >> wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking of
              > using
              >> the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit lower as
              >> well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour imaging.
              >>
              >> I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be used as
              > a
              >> piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have two
              > top
              >> quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about this
              >> aspect.
              >>
              >> Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
              >>
              >> Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice the
              > amount
              >> of money?
              >>
              >> Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you
              > think.
              >> Either that or links to pics taken on both.
              >>
              >> Dave Moorhouse
              >>
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              >
              > Astronomy telescope[1] Fun[2] Telescope[3]
              >
              > -------------------------
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              > * Visit your group "William-Optics[4]" on the web.
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > William-Optics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com[5]
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service[6].
              >
              > -------------------------
              >
              >
              > Links:
              > ------
              > [1]
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astronomy+telescope&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope&c=3&s=49&.sig=syKMXNixDs0j1roHrGSFJw
              > [2]
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fun&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope&c=3&s=49&.sig=n9n2MCWvsoVzrAJqVYEODg
              > [3]
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Telescope&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope&c=3&s=49&.sig=rPLphHzymNbywca3_P8-5w
              > [4] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics
              > [5] mailto:William-Optics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
              > [6] http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
            • Barry Carter
              Well, the 105mm has VG color correction. I have not seen any star halos on this telescope using a DSLR for imaging. The 105mm has the ability to show smaller
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 9, 2006
                Well, the 105mm has VG color correction. I have not seen any star
                halos on this telescope using a DSLR for imaging. The 105mm has the
                ability to show smaller stars, probe deeper, and show more detail
                because of the larger aperture; photographically or visually.

                http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html

                Ciao...Barry


                --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, David Moorhouse <climber@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Thanks Tom
                >
                > I think what you say is right about the 105mm being a solid
                performer.
                > I don't really care about visual use as I'm only thinking about
                > mounting it alongside a larger OTA on a solid good tracking mount
                for
                > (RGBC ST-2000) photographic use.
                >
                > What I don't have is the experience to know just how perfect a OTA
                > needs to sensibly be, to be capabile of stunning images with stars
                that
                > don't show blue halo's etc.
                >
                > As a stop gap measure I'm now looking at the 80mm Zenithstar
                Fluorite
                > Doublet Limited edition, to get me into the swing of things with a
                > lower price. Then after some more advice buy a top end refractor
                at a
                > later date. Is this a good idea???
                >
                > BTW have a look at my 16" binocular visual instrument at my
                webpage,
                > you may be surprised!
                >
                > David Moorhouse
                > Auckland
                > New Zealand
                >
                > http://www.binoscope.co.nz
                >
                >
                >
                > Quoting Tom Trusock <tomt@...>:
                >
                > > David,
                > >
                > > I've used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports
                > > section. I'm working on a review of the 105.
                > >
                > > If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing
                some
                > > very nice images coming out of it. If price is no object - the
                > > FLT-110 takes no prisoners. Seriously - the sample I was
                shipped for
                > > review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with anything -
                > > *anything* else on the market for visual use.
                > >
                > > Tom T.
                > >
                > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse"
                > > <climber@>
                > > wrote:
                > >>
                > >> I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY in
                > >> astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way
                > > filter
                > >> wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking of
                > > using
                > >> the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit lower
                as
                > >> well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour imaging.
                > >>
                > >> I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be
                used as
                > > a
                > >> piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have two
                > > top
                > >> quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about
                this
                > >> aspect.
                > >>
                > >> Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
                > >>
                > >> Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice the
                > > amount
                > >> of money?
                > >>
                > >> Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you
                > > think.
                > >> Either that or links to pics taken on both.
                > >>
                > >> Dave Moorhouse
                > >>
              • Tom Trusock
                David, If I were you I d be looking for images from each telescope. I know there are some from the 105 over on the CN forums, and they look very good. While I
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 10, 2006
                  David,

                  If I were you I'd be looking for images from each telescope. I know
                  there are some from the 105 over on the CN forums, and they look
                  very good.

                  While I use it visually, I'm told the 80mm fluorite is a very solid
                  performer photographically. You might ask John Crilly (jrcrilly)
                  over on the CN forums his opinion of the telescope. I know he's
                  done some photographic work with it - as have many of the members of
                  this forum.

                  If I were planning multiple scopes for astrophotography, I'd
                  probably want to ensure that my focal lengths were fairly different -
                  assuming I planned on keeping both of them.

                  Tom T.

                  --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, David Moorhouse <climber@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks Tom
                  >
                  > I think what you say is right about the 105mm being a solid
                  performer.
                  > I don't really care about visual use as I'm only thinking about
                  > mounting it alongside a larger OTA on a solid good tracking mount
                  for
                  > (RGBC ST-2000) photographic use.
                  >
                  > What I don't have is the experience to know just how perfect a OTA
                  > needs to sensibly be, to be capabile of stunning images with stars
                  that
                  > don't show blue halo's etc.
                  >
                  > As a stop gap measure I'm now looking at the 80mm Zenithstar
                  Fluorite
                  > Doublet Limited edition, to get me into the swing of things with a
                  > lower price. Then after some more advice buy a top end refractor
                  at a
                  > later date. Is this a good idea???
                  >
                  > BTW have a look at my 16" binocular visual instrument at my
                  webpage,
                  > you may be surprised!
                  >
                  > David Moorhouse
                  > Auckland
                  > New Zealand
                  >
                  > http://www.binoscope.co.nz
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Quoting Tom Trusock <tomt@...>:
                  >
                  > > David,
                  > >
                  > > I've used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN reports
                  > > section. I'm working on a review of the 105.
                  > >
                  > > If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing
                  some
                  > > very nice images coming out of it. If price is no object - the
                  > > FLT-110 takes no prisoners. Seriously - the sample I was
                  shipped for
                  > > review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with anything -
                  > > *anything* else on the market for visual use.
                  > >
                  > > Tom T.
                  > >
                  > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse"
                  > > <climber@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY in
                  > >> astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way
                  > > filter
                  > >> wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking of
                  > > using
                  > >> the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit lower
                  as
                  > >> well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour imaging.
                  > >>
                  > >> I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be
                  used as
                  > > a
                  > >> piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have two
                  > > top
                  > >> quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about
                  this
                  > >> aspect.
                  > >>
                  > >> Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
                  > >>
                  > >> Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice the
                  > > amount
                  > >> of money?
                  > >>
                  > >> Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you
                  > > think.
                  > >> Either that or links to pics taken on both.
                  > >>
                  > >> Dave Moorhouse
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > > SPONSORED LINKS
                  > >
                  > > Astronomy telescope[1] Fun[2]
                  Telescope[3]
                  > >
                  > > -------------------------
                  > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  > >
                  > > * Visit your group "William-Optics[4]" on the web.
                  > >
                  > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > William-Optics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com[5]
                  > >
                  > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > > Service[6].
                  > >
                  > > -------------------------
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Links:
                  > > ------
                  > > [1]
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                  t=ms&k=Astronomy+telescope&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope
                  &c=3&s=49&.sig=syKMXNixDs0j1roHrGSFJw
                  > > [2]
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                  t=ms&k=Fun&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope&c=3&s=49&.sig=n
                  9n2MCWvsoVzrAJqVYEODg
                  > > [3]
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                  t=ms&k=Telescope&w1=Astronomy+telescope&w2=Fun&w3=Telescope&c=3&s=49&
                  .sig=rPLphHzymNbywca3_P8-5w
                  > > [4] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics
                  > > [5] mailto:William-Optics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
                  subject=Unsubscribe
                  > > [6] http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  >
                • Tom Trusock
                  Some VERY nice photos Barry. T ... the ... mount ... OTA ... stars ... a ... reports ... anything - ... in ... of ... lower ... imaging. ... two ... the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 10, 2006
                    Some VERY nice photos Barry.

                    T

                    --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
                    <chiron666@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Well, the 105mm has VG color correction. I have not seen any star
                    > halos on this telescope using a DSLR for imaging. The 105mm has
                    the
                    > ability to show smaller stars, probe deeper, and show more detail
                    > because of the larger aperture; photographically or visually.
                    >
                    > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
                    >
                    > Ciao...Barry
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, David Moorhouse <climber@>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Thanks Tom
                    > >
                    > > I think what you say is right about the 105mm being a solid
                    > performer.
                    > > I don't really care about visual use as I'm only thinking about
                    > > mounting it alongside a larger OTA on a solid good tracking
                    mount
                    > for
                    > > (RGBC ST-2000) photographic use.
                    > >
                    > > What I don't have is the experience to know just how perfect a
                    OTA
                    > > needs to sensibly be, to be capabile of stunning images with
                    stars
                    > that
                    > > don't show blue halo's etc.
                    > >
                    > > As a stop gap measure I'm now looking at the 80mm Zenithstar
                    > Fluorite
                    > > Doublet Limited edition, to get me into the swing of things with
                    a
                    > > lower price. Then after some more advice buy a top end refractor
                    > at a
                    > > later date. Is this a good idea???
                    > >
                    > > BTW have a look at my 16" binocular visual instrument at my
                    > webpage,
                    > > you may be surprised!
                    > >
                    > > David Moorhouse
                    > > Auckland
                    > > New Zealand
                    > >
                    > > http://www.binoscope.co.nz
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Quoting Tom Trusock <tomt@>:
                    > >
                    > > > David,
                    > > >
                    > > > I've used both. My review of the FLT in on CN in the CN
                    reports
                    > > > section. I'm working on a review of the 105.
                    > > >
                    > > > If price is an object, the 105 is a nice scope, and I'm seeing
                    > some
                    > > > very nice images coming out of it. If price is no object - the
                    > > > FLT-110 takes no prisoners. Seriously - the sample I was
                    > shipped for
                    > > > review had absolutly supurb optics, and competes with
                    anything -
                    > > > *anything* else on the market for visual use.
                    > > >
                    > > > Tom T.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "David Moorhouse"
                    > > > <climber@>
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > >>
                    > > >> I'm thinking of buying a WO ZS 105mm Triplet APO for use ONLY
                    in
                    > > >> astrophotography. I want to use a SBIG ST-2000 with a ten way
                    > > > filter
                    > > >> wheel I'm thinking of the Astrodon filter set. I was thinking
                    of
                    > > > using
                    > > >> the 0.8x focal reducer to get the exposure times that bit
                    lower
                    > as
                    > > >> well. I will definetly be doing colour and false colour
                    imaging.
                    > > >>
                    > > >> I have a dome housed mount at a fairly dark sky. It will be
                    > used as
                    > > > a
                    > > >> piggyback on a C-14 fork mount as a second telescope. I have
                    two
                    > > > top
                    > > >> quality telescopes for visual use so don't really care about
                    > this
                    > > >> aspect.
                    > > >>
                    > > >> Then I see this 110 fluorite APO at about twice the price.
                    > > >>
                    > > >> Am I going to actually see any improvement by spending twice
                    the
                    > > > amount
                    > > >> of money?
                    > > >>
                    > > >> Anyone who has played with both I really want to hear what you
                    > > > think.
                    > > >> Either that or links to pics taken on both.
                    > > >>
                    > > >> Dave Moorhouse
                    > > >>
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.