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

Re: [tmboptical] Re: Field Flattener for APM/TMB 130mm f/6

Expand Messages
  • Ivan Eder
    I would like to know it, also... Does anybody tried the Vixen 0.67x ED reducer/flattener? Ivan
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I would like to know it, also...

      Does anybody tried the Vixen 0.67x ED reducer/flattener?

      Ivan


      At 18:30 2007.10.06., you wrote:
      >Hi
      >
      >On a similar theme, what FR would fit a TMB 130f6 scope ?
      >
      >Thanks David
      >
      >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Looks like there is one for sale on Astromart right now for $500
      >(if
      > > you were looking for the #67PF56 and don't mind used gear)
      > >
      > > Mike
      > >
      > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "hewholooks" <hewholooks@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > To update everyone on this issue.
      > > >
      > > > I thought I had it all resolved by deciding to go after the Astro-
      > > > Physics flattener for their 130 f/6 Starfire Refractor. Even got
      > > > Astro-Physics to confirm the match.
      > > >
      > > > I went to order the flattener and in true Astro-Physics fashion,
      >I
      > > > was informed that none were in stock and the they would not make
      > > any
      > > > new ones for the next "few months". Both US dealers have nothing
      > > in
      > > > stock.
      > > >
      > > > Dang! Back to square one.
      > > >
      > > > I guess I will try a few shots with the scope unflattened and see
      > > > what I get before moving ahead with the flattener. I just hate
      >to
      > > > waste ANY dark time at all, as infrequent as it is.
      > > >
      > > > Hunter
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • williamopticsmarketing
      The 68mm William Optics FF was designed by TMB for the FLT-110 triplet TMB lens. It is a compromise for the FLT-132, but still works very well. We do not
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The 68mm William Optics FF was designed by TMB for the FLT-110
        triplet TMB lens. It is a "compromise" for the FLT-132, but still
        works very well.

        We do not know anyone who reported usage of our TMB ff with non-WO
        scopes, but there was at least one customer who tried it (I do not
        remember the scope though, but it was a TMB).


        Daniel

        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Rich Wood" <astronut1001@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Terry;
        >
        > As I recall the WO FF is sold for both their 110 and 132 scopes.
        > Per Yuri at TEC an ideal FF is designed for a specific scope design
        > and focal length. This would mean, I suspect, that the WO unit is
        a
        > compromise for one scope or the other, just like the TV ones.
        >
        > I know TEC 140 owners have used various flattener/reducer units
        > other than TEC as all of TEC's units are FF only with no focal
        > reduction.
        >
        > Rich Wood
        >
        >
        > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Tuggle" <tlt284@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hunter,
        > >
        > > I am not sure about the WO flattener; the reason is the back
        > cone
        > > shaped adapter. If there is not a baffle at the front of this
        > cone, it will
        > > have light reflection problems. With the light coming in from the
        > larger
        > > aperture; it will hit the angled cone and reflect into the light
        > path
        > > causing reflections.
        > >
        > > Any adapter you get for what ever choice you make, you must
        > make sure
        > > there is no reflected light because of the reduction. A baffle
        > will reflect
        > > the back towards the source; a cone with reflect into the light
        > path.
        > >
        > > Hutech makes a .85 reducer for there scopes for DSLR's you may
        > want to
        > > consider also:
        > >
        > > http://www.hutech.com/redtelecon.htm
        > >
        > > HTH,
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Terry
        > > http://www.geocities.com/tlt284@/terryshuntofthemonth/index.htm
        > >
        > >
        > > _____
        > >
        > > From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] On
        > > Behalf Of hewholooks
        > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:15 PM
        > > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Field Flattener for APM/TMB 130mm f/6
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Don't mean to reply to my own post, but have read a couple more
        > bits of
        > > info and would like to throw out some more info.
        > >
        > > Here's another couple possibilities to mull over:
        > >
        > > Would this be a proper fit with the right connedting hardware?
        > > http://www.williamo
        > >
        > <http://www.williamoptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.htm>
        > > ptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.htm
        > >
        > > Also, what about the Astrophysics version (67PF56) with an
        adapter
        > that
        > > would convert the feathertouch 3.5" focuser to a 2.7"?
        > >
        > > Again, if it must be the APM dedicated flattener, then fine, but
        > which
        > > one is it and how exactly does one acquire one?
        > >
        > > Thanks again,
        > >
        > > Hunter
        > >
        > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com>
        > ups.com,
        > > "joe.breault" <joebreault@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hunter,
        > > > I don't know the answer but am interested in the identical
        > question
        > > > for the APM 152/1200 I'm expecting in a few weeks and my Canon
        > 350
        > > > (rebel XT). SO if I can expand your question to this similar
        > scope
        > > > would love to hear people's comments.
        > > > Joe
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.