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

130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic

Expand Messages
  • esotar330
    Hello all! Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet. Both of the optics are
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 11, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all!

      Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.

      Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.

      ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.

      See for yourself.

      Percy
    • Pete Lardizabal
      Hi Percy, Pretty neat stuff. The weather is calming down a little is the south. Hope to get out more with the GT over the next few months. Post more side by
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 11, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Percy,

        Pretty neat stuff. The weather is calming down a little is the south. Hope to get out more with the GT over the next few months. Post more side by side pix if you get the chance! :D

        The contrast afforded by the GT and other AP tubes and optics is perhaps unmatched by any other optic in their classes.

        STS-134 Endeavour was all but invisible to others near the booster separation phase. The GT had no problem! Another photographer with a name brand very nice 500mm lens and a pro-DSLR wanted to know what incantation I had invoked to be able to capture the craft under such poor conditions! :)

        http://www.buytelescopes.com/Gallery/ViewPhoto.aspx?g=&sg=&s=&d=&t=&p=&m=&c=47420&pid=45195

        Pete



        On Sep 11, 2011, at 3:21 PM, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:

        > Hello all!
        >
        > Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.
        >
        > Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.
        >
        > ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.
        >
        > See for yourself.
        >
        > Percy
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Percy Mui
        Pete,   The ONLY optical AP tube that the $14k optic beat out was the older AP 102.  But then that s a 21 year old optic with pre ED glass.  Not really a
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 11, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Pete,
           
          The ONLY optical AP tube that the $14k optic beat out was the older AP 102.  But then that's a 21 year old optic with pre ED glass.  Not really a fair comparison.  Wanted to find out current vs current design.
           
          Percy

          --- On Sun, 9/11/11, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:


          From: Pete Lardizabal <p14@...>
          Subject: Re: [ap-ug] 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
          To: "ap-ug@yahoogroups.com" <ap-ug@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Sunday, September 11, 2011, 4:15 PM


           



          Hi Percy,

          Pretty neat stuff. The weather is calming down a little is the south. Hope to get out more with the GT over the next few months. Post more side by side pix if you get the chance! :D

          The contrast afforded by the GT and other AP tubes and optics is perhaps unmatched by any other optic in their classes.

          STS-134 Endeavour was all but invisible to others near the booster separation phase. The GT had no problem! Another photographer with a name brand very nice 500mm lens and a pro-DSLR wanted to know what incantation I had invoked to be able to capture the craft under such poor conditions! :)

          http://www.buytelescopes.com/Gallery/ViewPhoto.aspx?g=&sg=&s=&d=&t=&p=&m=&c=47420&pid=45195

          Pete

          On Sep 11, 2011, at 3:21 PM, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:

          > Hello all!
          >
          > Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.
          >
          > Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.
          >
          > ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.
          >
          > See for yourself.
          >
          > Percy
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • esotar330
          More comparison pics are up. Downtown Chicago. Camera brand name optics really have much to improve upon. Percy
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 11, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            More comparison pics are up. Downtown Chicago. Camera brand name optics really have much to improve upon.

            Percy

            --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Percy,
            >
            > Pretty neat stuff. The weather is calming down a little is the south. Hope to get out more with the GT over the next few months. Post more side by side pix if you get the chance! :D
            >
            > The contrast afforded by the GT and other AP tubes and optics is perhaps unmatched by any other optic in their classes.
            >
            > STS-134 Endeavour was all but invisible to others near the booster separation phase. The GT had no problem! Another photographer with a name brand very nice 500mm lens and a pro-DSLR wanted to know what incantation I had invoked to be able to capture the craft under such poor conditions! :)
            >
            > http://www.buytelescopes.com/Gallery/ViewPhoto.aspx?g=&sg=&s=&d=&t=&p=&m=&c=47420&pid=45195
            >
            > Pete
            >
            >
            >
            > On Sep 11, 2011, at 3:21 PM, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Hello all!
            > >
            > > Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.
            > >
            > > Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.
            > >
            > > ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.
            > >
            > > See for yourself.
            > >
            > > Percy
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Pete Lardizabal
            This is rather dramatic comparison and study in contrast. Do you think some people are too picky? Ha! Autofocus has it s price. Thanks Percy! Pete ...
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 12, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              This is rather dramatic comparison and study in contrast. Do you think some people are too picky? Ha! Autofocus has it's price.

              Thanks Percy!

              Pete


              On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:

              > More comparison pics are up. Downtown Chicago. Camera brand name optics really have much to improve upon.
              >
              > Percy
              >
              > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi Percy,
              > >
              > > Pretty neat stuff. The weather is calming down a little is the south. Hope to get out more with the GT over the next few months. Post more side by side pix if you get the chance! :D
              > >
              > > The contrast afforded by the GT and other AP tubes and optics is perhaps unmatched by any other optic in their classes.
              > >
              > > STS-134 Endeavour was all but invisible to others near the booster separation phase. The GT had no problem! Another photographer with a name brand very nice 500mm lens and a pro-DSLR wanted to know what incantation I had invoked to be able to capture the craft under such poor conditions! :)
              > >
              > > http://www.buytelescopes.com/Gallery/ViewPhoto.aspx?g=&sg=&s=&d=&t=&p=&m=&c=47420&pid=45195
              > >
              > > Pete
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > On Sep 11, 2011, at 3:21 PM, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > > Hello all!
              > > >
              > > > Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.
              > > >
              > > > Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.
              > > >
              > > > ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.
              > > >
              > > > See for yourself.
              > > >
              > > > Percy
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • lmbuck2000
              plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb. i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance. Lee
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 12, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.

                i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.

                Lee

                --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:
                > Autofocus has it's price.
              • Percy Mui
                Lee, Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called pros in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 13, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lee,

                  Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.

                  A quote from a famous birding photographer about the $14k lens.  Not putting the name as we can probably tell who this is.

                  "It is reputed to be the sharpest super telephoto lens ever manufactured and I would not argue that for a second.  Many of the images are astoundingly sharp.  Color rendition and edge to edge sharpness are superb and assuming no operator error images are exceedingly sharp."

                  He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. 

                  Percy

                  --- On Mon, 9/12/11, lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...> wrote:

                  From: lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...>
                  Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                  To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 6:40 PM
















                   









                  plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.



                  i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.



                  Lee



                  --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:

                  > Autofocus has it's price.



























                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • observe_m13
                  Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn t. It is nice to hype up the
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 13, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a very difficult and extremely lengthy process.

                    --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Lee,
                    >
                    > Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.
                    >
                    > A quote from a famous birding photographer about the $14k lens.  Not putting the name as we can probably tell who this is.
                    >
                    > "It is reputed to be the sharpest super telephoto lens ever manufactured and I would not argue that for a second.  Many of the images are astoundingly sharp.  Color rendition and edge to edge sharpness are superb and assuming no operator error images are exceedingly sharp."
                    >
                    > He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. 
                    >
                    > Percy
                    >
                    > --- On Mon, 9/12/11, lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > From: lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...>
                    > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                    > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                    > Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 6:40 PM
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Lee
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Autofocus has it's price.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Percy Mui
                    This was based on a optical quality criteria.  Not any others.  Plenty of other options in the t-scope world.  Older 130/6 AP can be found used from time to
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 13, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This was based on a optical quality criteria.  Not any others.  Plenty of other options in the t-scope world.  Older 130/6 AP can be found used from time to time on the famous 'mart.

                      Percy

                      --- On Tue, 9/13/11, observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:

                      From: observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...>
                      Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                      To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10:56 PM
















                       









                      Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a very difficult and extremely lengthy process.



                      --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@...> wrote:

                      >

                      > Lee,

                      >

                      > Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.

                      >

                      > A quote from a famous birding photographer about the $14k lens.  Not putting the name as we can probably tell who this is.

                      >

                      > "It is reputed to be the sharpest super telephoto lens ever manufactured and I would not argue that for a second.  Many of the images are astoundingly sharp.  Color rendition and edge to edge sharpness are superb and assuming no operator error images are exceedingly sharp."

                      >

                      > He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. 

                      >

                      > Percy

                      >

                      > --- On Mon, 9/12/11, lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...> wrote:

                      >

                      > From: lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@...>

                      > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic

                      > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com

                      > Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 6:40 PM

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >  

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > Lee

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@> wrote:

                      >

                      > > Autofocus has it's price.

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      >



























                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • observe_m13
                      My response was based directly on He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. Even if the AP130GT or the slightly less elusive AP130EDF comes up second
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 13, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        My response was based directly on "He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT." Even if the AP130GT or the slightly less elusive AP130EDF comes up second hand every so often, these reviewers are there to describe, test and sell the latest and greatest of what IS available off the shelf. I doubt you would get a second glance from a photomag editor if you tried to submit an article, no matter how well written, about how an Astro-Physics telescope, which might possibly be acquired second hand by lurking on Astromart over the next 6 to 12 months if you are really lucky, bested the latest and greatest Canon 'xyz' telephoto.

                        Yes, there are telescopes other than AP's available, but there are limitations on production and accessibility there as well, and some of them are large, and/or heavy, and/or cumbersome. Maybe a Tak FSQ would be feasible?


                        --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > This was based on a optical quality criteria.  Not any others.  Plenty of other options in the t-scope world.  Older 130/6 AP can be found used from time to time on the famous 'mart.
                        >
                        > Percy
                        >
                        > --- On Tue, 9/13/11, observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > From: observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...>
                        > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                        > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10:56 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a very difficult and extremely lengthy process.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@> wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Lee,
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > A quote from a famous birding photographer about the $14k lens.  Not putting the name as we can probably tell who this is.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > "It is reputed to be the sharpest super telephoto lens ever manufactured and I would not argue that for a second.  Many of the images are astoundingly sharp.  Color rendition and edge to edge sharpness are superb and assuming no operator error images are exceedingly sharp."
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. 
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Percy
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > --- On Mon, 9/12/11, lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@> wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > From: lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@>
                        >
                        > > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                        >
                        > > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > > Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 6:40 PM
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >  
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Lee
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@> wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > > Autofocus has it's price.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Percy Mui
                        I use both a FSQ ED with the 1.6x and the APGT.  They are both outstanding optics.  Article has already been published back in 2009.  Nature Photographer. 
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I use both a FSQ ED with the 1.6x and the APGT.  They are both outstanding optics. 

                          Article has already been published back in 2009.  Nature Photographer.  They featured the FSQ106N for the setup page.  AP, TEC and Tak were mentioned in the article as high end scopes that I use for terrestrial and nature photography on a regular basis.

                          Percy

                          --- On Wed, 9/14/11, observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:

                          From: observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...>
                          Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                          To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 12:02 AM
















                           









                          My response was based directly on "He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT." Even if the AP130GT or the slightly less elusive AP130EDF comes up second hand every so often, these reviewers are there to describe, test and sell the latest and greatest of what IS available off the shelf. I doubt you would get a second glance from a photomag editor if you tried to submit an article, no matter how well written, about how an Astro-Physics telescope, which might possibly be acquired second hand by lurking on Astromart over the next 6 to 12 months if you are really lucky, bested the latest and greatest Canon 'xyz' telephoto.



                          Yes, there are telescopes other than AP's available, but there are limitations on production and accessibility there as well, and some of them are large, and/or heavy, and/or cumbersome. Maybe a Tak FSQ would be feasible?



                          --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@...> wrote:

                          >

                          > This was based on a optical quality criteria.  Not any others.  Plenty of other options in the t-scope world.  Older 130/6 AP can be found used from time to time on the famous 'mart.

                          >

                          > Percy

                          >

                          > --- On Tue, 9/13/11, observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:

                          >

                          > From: observe_m13 <JunkMailGoesHere@...>

                          > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic

                          > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com

                          > Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10:56 PM

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >  

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          > Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a very difficult and extremely lengthy process.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@> wrote:

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > Lee,

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > Absolutely.  Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature / bird field which will hype otherwise.  Perhaps due to lack of side by side comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > A quote from a famous birding photographer about the $14k lens.  Not putting the name as we can probably tell who this is.

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > "It is reputed to be the sharpest super telephoto lens ever manufactured and I would not argue that for a second.  Many of the images are astoundingly sharp.  Color rendition and edge to edge sharpness are superb and assuming no operator error images are exceedingly sharp."

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > He has obviously never tried an Astro Physics GT. 

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > Percy

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > --- On Mon, 9/12/11, lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@> wrote:

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > From: lmbuck2000 <lmbuck2000@>

                          >

                          > > Subject: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic

                          >

                          > > To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com

                          >

                          > > Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 6:40 PM

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >  

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > plus IS, 18in length, and weighs 10lb.

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > i think photo lenses with 18 elements will often suffer vs. quality APOs with 3-4 elements - especially at distance.

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > Lee

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Pete Lardizabal <p14@> wrote:

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > > Autofocus has it's price.

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          >

                          > >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          >



























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • lmbuck2000
                          i suggest the waiting list would shrink to zero if a 130GT could be sold at $14k :-) i would also suggest the revenue on 130GTs at the current price exceeds
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            i suggest the waiting list would shrink to zero if a 130GT could be sold at $14k :-)

                            i would also suggest the revenue on 130GTs at the current price exceeds canon's revenue on their $14k lens (i.e., roland delivers 2.5x AP130GTs in a year than canon sells 800mm f/5.6 lenses.)

                            Lee

                            --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, "observe_m13" <JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a very difficult and extremely lengthy process.
                            >
                          • chris1011@aol.com
                            I think if you offered someone 14K for the 130GT, it would be available right now. In fact, if everyone offered 14K to AP, we might have it on the shelf (since
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I think if you offered someone 14K for the 130GT, it would be available
                              right now. In fact, if everyone offered 14K to AP, we might have it on the
                              shelf (since we would sell maybe one).

                              Rolando

                              In a message dated 9/13/2011 10:56:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
                              JunkMailGoesHere@... writes:


                              > Yes, but put it in perspective. The 14K optic is available right NOW, off
                              > the shelf or exceedingly close to it. The GT isn't. It is nice to hype up
                              > the capabilities of the scopes some of us own, but acquiring the same is a
                              > very difficult and extremely lengthy process.
                              >
                              > --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, Percy Mui <esotar330@...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Lee,
                              > >
                              > > Absolutely. Unfortunately there are so called "pros" in the nature /
                              > bird field which will hype otherwise. Perhaps due to lack of side by side
                              > comparison of their favorite 14 grand lens.
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • daniela daniela
                              I think it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. If the subject is far away and is still, it makes no sense to use a telephoto lens, which is designed
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I think it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. If the
                                subject is far away and is still, it makes no sense to use a telephoto
                                lens, which is designed for different applications (try going at the
                                stadium and shooting athletes with a telescope, i.e. their athletic
                                gestures, not their faces as they rest on the side). Some of us need
                                an apochromatic refractor, some of us need a high-end telephoto lens,
                                some need both. Well I suppose some need neither, but they're unlikely
                                to be on this list :)
                              • Mike C
                                Conjecture, but it would make for an interesting test. In the name of science, I will put my 130GT up for experimentation. Someone can wire me the 14k, I will
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Conjecture, but it would make for an interesting test. In the name of
                                  science, I will put my 130GT
                                  up for experimentation. Someone can wire me the 14k, I will mail them the
                                  scope, and we can
                                  nail down this hypothesis.


                                  >
                                  > I think if you offered someone 14K for the 130GT, it would be available
                                  > right now. In fact, if everyone offered 14K to AP, we might have it on the
                                  > shelf (since we would sell maybe one).
                                  >
                                  > Rolando
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Pete Lardizabal
                                  Perhaps it is only part of the process of improvement to ask... how would x hold up in a one on one comparison with y . Why would amateurs image deep sky
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Perhaps it is only part of the process of improvement to ask... how would "x" hold up in a one on one comparison with y". Why would amateurs image deep sky treasures already recorded by big $$$$ scopes in exotic locations. :)

                                    Percy's comparisons are fair because they answer a challenge. Manually tracking and focusing an athlete with the 130GT can and is being done (Hmmmm... hummingbirds come to mind... 8D). Is the GT "better"? Sure it is, within limits. At the same time, don't ask me to give up my 70-200 autofocus telephoto or macro goodies! Come on, wouldn't you like to know who would win in a match of ________vs________?

                                    By the way Roland... How is that autofocus module coming along?

                                    :)

                                    Pete

                                    On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, daniela daniela <daniela.daniela.daniela.daniela@...> wrote:

                                    > I think it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. If the
                                    > subject is far away and is still, it makes no sense to use a telephoto
                                    > lens, which is designed for different applications (try going at the
                                    > stadium and shooting athletes with a telescope, i.e. their athletic
                                    > gestures, not their faces as they rest on the side). Some of us need
                                    > an apochromatic refractor, some of us need a high-end telephoto lens,
                                    > some need both. Well I suppose some need neither, but they're unlikely
                                    > to be on this list :)
                                    >



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Percy Mui
                                    I actually use my FSQ106N for indoor sports, gymnastics.  College level.  Astounding clarity when compared to my 200 1.8L lens. With the reducer for the FSQ
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I actually use my FSQ106N for indoor sports, gymnastics.  College level.  Astounding clarity when compared to my 200 1.8L lens.

                                      With the reducer for the FSQ it should get even more interesting.  But yes, I use telescopes where the "norm" would say I shouldn't be or it isn't the norm.

                                      And that's the fun.

                                      Percy

                                      --- On Wed, 9/14/11, daniela daniela <daniela.daniela.daniela.daniela@...> wrote:

                                      From: daniela daniela <daniela.daniela.daniela.daniela@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                                      To: ap-ug@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 6:12 PM
















                                       









                                      I think it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. If the

                                      subject is far away and is still, it makes no sense to use a telephoto

                                      lens, which is designed for different applications (try going at the

                                      stadium and shooting athletes with a telescope, i.e. their athletic

                                      gestures, not their faces as they rest on the side). Some of us need

                                      an apochromatic refractor, some of us need a high-end telephoto lens,

                                      some need both. Well I suppose some need neither, but they're unlikely

                                      to be on this list :)

























                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Percy Mui
                                      Pete, Exactly.  I won t give up my AF for some of the faster moving sports events, but at times I do carry the AF optics as well as a t-scope optic with me. 
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Pete,

                                        Exactly.  I won't give up my AF for some of the faster moving sports events, but at times I do carry the AF optics as well as a t-scope optic with me.  It's a challenge, and I'm sure you can relate, there's more of a "purity" to the manual focus AP.  GT is an absolute joy to use, which is why I'm always exploring the applications and options.  FSQ is also quite fun. 

                                        Real proof in the pudding is when I look at the results on a large screen, or better yet, a 24 inch or larger print.  One of my largest prints was made with a telescope, Chicago skyline mosaic.  That measures in at 24 inches wide by 9 feet long.  Exceptional detail.  I tried this with my Canon optics and the results were not nearly as good optical wise.

                                        Percy

                                        --- On Wed, 9/14/11, Pete Lardizabal <p14@...> wrote:

                                        From: Pete Lardizabal <p14@...>
                                        Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Re: 130GT vs a $14,000 japanese optic
                                        To: "ap-ug@yahoogroups.com" <ap-ug@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 8:01 PM
















                                         









                                        Perhaps it is only part of the process of improvement to ask... how would "x" hold up in a one on one comparison with y". Why would amateurs image deep sky treasures already recorded by big $$$$ scopes in exotic locations. :)



                                        Percy's comparisons are fair because they answer a challenge. Manually tracking and focusing an athlete with the 130GT can and is being done (Hmmmm... hummingbirds come to mind... 8D). Is the GT "better"? Sure it is, within limits. At the same time, don't ask me to give up my 70-200 autofocus telephoto or macro goodies! Come on, wouldn't you like to know who would win in a match of ________vs________?



                                        By the way Roland... How is that autofocus module coming along?



                                        :)



                                        Pete



                                        On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, daniela daniela <daniela.daniela.daniela.daniela@...> wrote:



                                        > I think it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. If the

                                        > subject is far away and is still, it makes no sense to use a telephoto

                                        > lens, which is designed for different applications (try going at the

                                        > stadium and shooting athletes with a telescope, i.e. their athletic

                                        > gestures, not their faces as they rest on the side). Some of us need

                                        > an apochromatic refractor, some of us need a high-end telephoto lens,

                                        > some need both. Well I suppose some need neither, but they're unlikely

                                        > to be on this list :)

                                        >



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • jjvickers2000
                                        Hi Percy, Thank you for your comparison of the two optics. Clearly it shows the mastery of Roland s design & skill. Simply the finest. But, although many may
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 14, 2011
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Percy,

                                          Thank you for your comparison of the two optics. Clearly it shows the mastery of Roland's design & skill. Simply the finest.

                                          But, although many may ask you "what lens did you use?", "what kind of camera did you use?" "Which is better?" etc. how you captured your images speaks loads.

                                          Your eye of the subjects, skill of their capture in time, and imagination behind the EOS and the AP130GT are excellent.

                                          You have brought the best out of your equipment to share with us. Not an easy task.

                                          Good show!

                                          Jeff Vickers




                                          --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, "esotar330" <percymui@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hello all!
                                          >
                                          > Posted a couple of new pics. $14,000 optic vs the GT. These were shot with the Mark IV, target distance of over 100 feet.
                                          >
                                          > Both of the optics are in the 800mm class, one at f/6.3, the other at f/5.6 - and I'm going on ONE criteria - OPTICAL quality.
                                          >
                                          > ALL the levels such as contrast, brightness, unsharp mask were kept identical to each other. The only thing I didn't touch was the color balance to show how one optic rendered differently than the other.
                                          >
                                          > See for yourself.
                                          >
                                          > Percy
                                          >
                                        • chris1011@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 9/14/2011 8:02:07 PM Central Daylight Time, ... We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and once that is done,
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 15, 2011
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 9/14/2011 8:02:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                            p14@... writes:


                                            > By the way Roland... How is that autofocus module coming along?
                                            >

                                            We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and
                                            once that is done, all other stars will be in focus, along with the Moon and
                                            planets. It's so simple, I don't know why the camera manufacturers have not
                                            thought of this!

                                            In a related thing, being an optical designer, I woudl like to know how
                                            they achieve a fixed focus binocular where everything is in focus from near to
                                            far. Do they put in so much spherical aberration that no matter what the
                                            subject distance is, some part of the lens comes to focus? Actually, if you
                                            take a common achromat lens and flip it around, there will be severe spherical
                                            aberration, and indeed you do get a sort of universal focus.

                                            Another thing I want to know, how they accomplish those zoom binoculars
                                            that are advertised in some mail order catalogs that go from 10 x to 150x. Are
                                            they really getting 150x out of a 40mm aperture, and is the image bright
                                            enough to see at that power? Can you actually see anything?

                                            Rolando

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Pete Lardizabal
                                            Thanks for the update! ... Pete ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Sep 15, 2011
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Thanks for the update!

                                              :P

                                              Pete

                                              On Sep 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM, chris1011@... wrote:

                                              > In a message dated 9/14/2011 8:02:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                              > p14@... writes:
                                              >
                                              > > By the way Roland... How is that autofocus module coming along?
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and
                                              > once that is done, all other stars will be in focus, along with the Moon and
                                              > planets. It's so simple, I don't know why the camera manufacturers have not
                                              > thought of this!
                                              >
                                              > In a related thing, being an optical designer, I woudl like to know how
                                              > they achieve a fixed focus binocular where everything is in focus from near to
                                              > far. Do they put in so much spherical aberration that no matter what the
                                              > subject distance is, some part of the lens comes to focus? Actually, if you
                                              > take a common achromat lens and flip it around, there will be severe spherical
                                              > aberration, and indeed you do get a sort of universal focus.
                                              >
                                              > Another thing I want to know, how they accomplish those zoom binoculars
                                              > that are advertised in some mail order catalogs that go from 10 x to 150x. Are
                                              > they really getting 150x out of a 40mm aperture, and is the image bright
                                              > enough to see at that power? Can you actually see anything?
                                              >
                                              > Rolando
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Ignacio
                                              I guess you have to bring the focusing capacity of the human eye into the design, that is, from objective to retina. Just a guess. Ignacio
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Sep 15, 2011
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I guess you have to bring the focusing capacity of the human eye into the design, that is, from objective to retina. Just a guess.

                                                Ignacio

                                                --- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, chris1011@... wrote:
                                                >
                                                > In a message dated 9/14/2011 8:02:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                                > p14@... writes:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > > By the way Roland... How is that autofocus module coming along?
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and
                                                > once that is done, all other stars will be in focus, along with the Moon and
                                                > planets. It's so simple, I don't know why the camera manufacturers have not
                                                > thought of this!
                                                >
                                                > In a related thing, being an optical designer, I woudl like to know how
                                                > they achieve a fixed focus binocular where everything is in focus from near to
                                                > far. Do they put in so much spherical aberration that no matter what the
                                                > subject distance is, some part of the lens comes to focus? Actually, if you
                                                > take a common achromat lens and flip it around, there will be severe spherical
                                                > aberration, and indeed you do get a sort of universal focus.
                                                >
                                                > Another thing I want to know, how they accomplish those zoom binoculars
                                                > that are advertised in some mail order catalogs that go from 10 x to 150x. Are
                                                > they really getting 150x out of a 40mm aperture, and is the image bright
                                                > enough to see at that power? Can you actually see anything?
                                                >
                                                > Rolando
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                              • Pawel T. Lancucki
                                                ... and ... not ... Yes and some of us even know the secret of having zero spherical aberration, zero coma, zero astigmatism, 100% light transmission, no dew
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Sep 15, 2011
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and
                                                  > once that is done, all other stars will be in focus, along with the Moon
                                                  and
                                                  > planets. It's so simple, I don't know why the camera manufacturers have
                                                  not
                                                  > thought of this!
                                                  >
                                                  > ......................
                                                  >
                                                  > Rolando

                                                  Yes and some of us even know the secret of having zero spherical
                                                  aberration, zero coma, zero astigmatism, 100% light transmission, no dew
                                                  telescope... Simply remove the lenses ;-)

                                                  Best Regards

                                                  Pawel
                                                • Alan French
                                                  I assume you re excluding the eye from this picture. Otherwise, things are not perfect, especially with the dark adapted eye. Clear skies, Alan
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Sep 15, 2011
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    I assume you're excluding the eye from this picture. Otherwise, things
                                                    are not perfect, especially with the dark adapted eye.

                                                    Clear skies, Alan

                                                    On 9/15/2011 3:17 PM, Pawel T. Lancucki wrote:
                                                    >> We do have autofocus nw. You simply need to focus on a reference star and
                                                    >> once that is done, all other stars will be in focus, along with the Moon
                                                    > and
                                                    >> planets. It's so simple, I don't know why the camera manufacturers have
                                                    > not
                                                    >> thought of this!
                                                    >>
                                                    >> ......................
                                                    >>
                                                    >> Rolando
                                                    > Yes and some of us even know the secret of having zero spherical
                                                    > aberration, zero coma, zero astigmatism, 100% light transmission, no dew
                                                    > telescope... Simply remove the lenses ;-)
                                                    >
                                                    > Best Regards
                                                    >
                                                    > Pawel
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------------------------------
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-ug list
                                                    > see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-ugYahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.