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

RE: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener

Expand Messages
  • Terry Tuggle
    Terry, I think I would take a wait and see approach. No need of getting something you really do not need; give the 2 inch flattener a whirl and see what
    Message 1 of 15 , May 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Terry,

      I think I would take a "wait and see" approach. No need of getting
      something you really do not need; give the 2 inch flattener a whirl and see
      what happens!

      HTH,



      All the best,

      Terry



      _____

      From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Terry
      Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:05 AM
      To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener





      Hi Terry, All

      I have been using an AT 2" flattener up until now with the QHY8 for use on
      my TMB 130SS. I will be taking delivery of a Canon 5D Mark II and I am quite
      certain I will need to go for a 2.5" or larger FF.

      I have been coinsidering either the TS Optics 2.5" FF or perhaps the WO 2.5"
      FF here: http://www.williamo
      <http://www.williamoptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.php>
      ptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.php

      Could you recommend either of the above or any others you know would work
      for a full frame camera?

      Thanks and clear Skies

      Terry Hancock
      http://www.flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/terryhancock/>
      com/photos/terryhancock/

      --- In tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,
      "Terry Tuggle" <tlt284@...> wrote:
      >
      > Peter,
      >
      > You will have to ask them that specifically, It does not say anything
      > on the website about flattening. Again about the AO8, it is not needed at
      > all for scopes of these focal lengths. It only becomes useful for scopes
      > with a FL of 2000mm or more. (C9.25 and up)
      >
      >
      >
      > All the best,
      >
      > Terry
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com
      [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com]
      On
      > Behalf Of pmlogg@...
      > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 AM
      > To: tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com
      > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Terry
      >
      > Thanks for that advice. It looks as if reducing, with the 100/800 and my
      CCD
      > is not a good idea. That neatly fits with SBig's advice regarding use of
      its
      > AO-8 adaptive optics unit (e.g. too far from reducer to imager). I note
      that
      > TV lists the NPR1073 as a reducer rather than the reducer/flattener, its
      > description for the RFL-1074. Does the NPR1073 flatten as well as the
      > RFL-1074?.
      >
      > With my Canon DSLR then I'm uncertain. I've looked at the TS 2" field
      > flattener (not reducer) which seems to have enough back focus for the CCD
      > plus AO-8 and is also claimed to be useable with shorter focal lengths (I
      > have a Tak FS-60C too). I see that it has been discussed as an option to
      use
      > with the TMB 105mm. It would not of course provide reduction - so back to
      > the TV NPR1073/RFL-4087?
      >
      > Thaks
      >
      > Peter
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Terry Hancock
      Hi Terry Thanks for the response, I wrote that email in January..LOL, not your fault but I guess if I am not mistaken this group has been down since January
      Message 2 of 15 , May 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Terry

        Thanks for the response, I wrote that email in January..LOL, not your fault
        but I guess if I am not mistaken this group has been down since January 20th
        for some reason?. Anyhow I did take your advice (without knowing your
        answer) the AT 2" FF works great except close to the edges of the field
        where there is significant vignetting but by adding flats this is easily
        cancelled out. This is the only image I have so far
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/terryhancock/4445984428/ and I didn't add flats
        or darks!!, I was very happy with the results.



        I have been playing around with an ATRC8 for the past couple of months, just
        put the TMB 130 back on the mount yesterday. I am hoping to shoot M31 soon,
        I will keep you posted.



        All the best and Clear Skies

        Terry Hancock

        http://www.downunderobservatory.com/

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/terryhancock/







        From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Terry Tuggle
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:21 AM
        To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener





        Terry,

        I think I would take a "wait and see" approach. No need of getting
        something you really do not need; give the 2 inch flattener a whirl and see
        what happens!

        HTH,

        All the best,

        Terry

        _____

        From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com>
        [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ]
        On
        Behalf Of Terry
        Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:05 AM
        To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener

        Hi Terry, All

        I have been using an AT 2" flattener up until now with the QHY8 for use on
        my TMB 130SS. I will be taking delivery of a Canon 5D Mark II and I am quite
        certain I will need to go for a 2.5" or larger FF.

        I have been coinsidering either the TS Optics 2.5" FF or perhaps the WO 2.5"
        FF here: http://www.williamo
        <http://www.williamoptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.php>
        ptics.com/accessories/TMBflattener_features.php

        Could you recommend either of the above or any others you know would work
        for a full frame camera?

        Thanks and clear Skies

        Terry Hancock
        http://www.flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/terryhancock/>
        com/photos/terryhancock/

        --- In tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,
        "Terry Tuggle" <tlt284@...> wrote:
        >
        > Peter,
        >
        > You will have to ask them that specifically, It does not say anything
        > on the website about flattening. Again about the AO8, it is not needed at
        > all for scopes of these focal lengths. It only becomes useful for scopes
        > with a FL of 2000mm or more. (C9.25 and up)
        >
        >
        >
        > All the best,
        >
        > Terry
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com
        [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com]
        On
        > Behalf Of pmlogg@...
        > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 AM
        > To: tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com
        > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Reducer/Flattener
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Terry
        >
        > Thanks for that advice. It looks as if reducing, with the 100/800 and my
        CCD
        > is not a good idea. That neatly fits with SBig's advice regarding use of
        its
        > AO-8 adaptive optics unit (e.g. too far from reducer to imager). I note
        that
        > TV lists the NPR1073 as a reducer rather than the reducer/flattener, its
        > description for the RFL-1074. Does the NPR1073 flatten as well as the
        > RFL-1074?.
        >
        > With my Canon DSLR then I'm uncertain. I've looked at the TS 2" field
        > flattener (not reducer) which seems to have enough back focus for the CCD
        > plus AO-8 and is also claimed to be useable with shorter focal lengths (I
        > have a Tak FS-60C too). I see that it has been discussed as an option to
        use
        > with the TMB 105mm. It would not of course provide reduction - so back to
        > the TV NPR1073/RFL-4087?
        >
        > Thaks
        >
        > Peter
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [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]
      • galaxyscientific
        Dear Frank, I am using 80/600 also, and test against these flattener / reducers with my Canon 5D Mark II (full frame) - TS optics 2 flattener - TS optics 2.5
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Frank,

          I am using 80/600 also, and test against these flattener / reducers with my Canon 5D Mark II (full frame)

          - TS optics 2" flattener
          - TS optics 2.5" flattener
          - BORG 7887 0.85x reducer / flattener
          - Sky Watcher ED80 0.85x reducer / flattener
          - Televue 0.8x reducer / flattener

          of the above, the TS optics 2" flattener is the best corrected one with stars sharp to the corner. Then for reducer / flattener, the Sky Watchter one is much better than the other 2.

          The I modify the camera connection from typical T Ring (42mm P0.75) to 48mm version, and the light drop at the corner improve a lot.

          Regards,
          Savio Fong
          Galaxy Scientific Group
          Hong Kong

          --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sackenheim GMX <frank.sackenheim@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi everyone,
          >
          > i am new to this group as i just became a TMB User a couple of weeks
          > ago. I bought a 80/600 TMB in used but perfect condition. As this was
          > my dream telescope for years i was very proud to call it my own. But
          > after the first light with my canon 350d i was disappointed. I used
          > the Tele Vue REF 3007 Reducer for Instruments of 400-800m focal
          > length. The First Light showed very heavy image field curveture in
          > the edges of the image. After some research i found out that i have
          > to increase the backfocus of my setup up to 56mm. i used some spacers
          > to get there and the second light showed some better results as can
          > be seen here: http://frank-sackenheim.de/html/bilder/Crescent_Final.jpg
          > But there is still some image field curvature in the edges, and as i
          > ´m going tu use larger chips in the future im searching for a
          > perfectly working reducer for my scope. Its too bad that TMB doesnt
          > build a Reducer/Flattener for this scopes!
          >
          > I Hope someone could help me cause i dont want to change my scope
          > again to a Takahashi Scope:-)
          >
          > CS and Kind Regards Frank
          >
          > _______________________________________
          > Frank Sackenheim
          > Försterstraße 49
          > 50825 Köln
          > Tel 0221 122121
          > Mobil 0163 3122121
          > frank@...
          > www.frank-sackenheim.de
          > www.myspace.com/sackenheim
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Frank Sackenheim GMX
          Hi Savio meanwhile Markus Ludes told me to try the Skywatcer 0.85. Well after a first test i think its the best result i´ver ever got. I will test it again as
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 12, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Savio

            meanwhile Markus Ludes told me to try the Skywatcer 0.85. Well after a
            first test i think its the best result i�ver ever got. I will test it
            again as soon as the weather conditions allow to do so. But i think
            full frame is the largest chip, i dont believe it would fit with a
            11000 chip.

            I cant really follow you about the modification, you did what? And how
            did it aprove your pictures?

            Cheers Frank


            Am 12.06.2010 um 05:13 schrieb galaxyscientific:

            > Dear Frank,
            >
            > I am using 80/600 also, and test against these flattener / reducers
            > with my Canon 5D Mark II (full frame)
            >
            > - TS optics 2" flattener
            > - TS optics 2.5" flattener
            > - BORG 7887 0.85x reducer / flattener
            > - Sky Watcher ED80 0.85x reducer / flattener
            > - Televue 0.8x reducer / flattener
            >
            > of the above, the TS optics 2" flattener is the best corrected one
            > with stars sharp to the corner. Then for reducer / flattener, the
            > Sky Watchter one is much better than the other 2.
            >
            > The I modify the camera connection from typical T Ring (42mm P0.75)
            > to 48mm version, and the light drop at the corner improve a lot.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Savio Fong
            > Galaxy Scientific Group
            > Hong Kong
            >
            > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sackenheim GMX
            > <frank.sackenheim@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi everyone,
            > >
            > > i am new to this group as i just became a TMB User a couple of weeks
            > > ago. I bought a 80/600 TMB in used but perfect condition. As this
            > was
            > > my dream telescope for years i was very proud to call it my own. But
            > > after the first light with my canon 350d i was disappointed. I used
            > > the Tele Vue REF 3007 Reducer for Instruments of 400-800m focal
            > > length. The First Light showed very heavy image field curveture in
            > > the edges of the image. After some research i found out that i have
            > > to increase the backfocus of my setup up to 56mm. i used some
            > spacers
            > > to get there and the second light showed some better results as can
            > > be seen here: http://frank-sackenheim.de/html/bilder/Crescent_Final.jpg
            > > But there is still some image field curvature in the edges, and as i
            > > �m going tu use larger chips in the future im searching for a
            > > perfectly working reducer for my scope. Its too bad that TMB doesnt
            > > build a Reducer/Flattener for this scopes!
            > >
            > > I Hope someone could help me cause i dont want to change my scope
            > > again to a Takahashi Scope:-)
            > >
            > > CS and Kind Regards Frank
            > >
            > > _______________________________________
            > > Frank Sackenheim
            > > F�rsterstra�e 49
            > > 50825 K�ln
            > > Tel 0221 122121
            > > Mobil 0163 3122121
            > > frank@...
            > > www.frank-sackenheim.de
            > > www.myspace.com/sackenheim
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >

            _______________________________________
            Frank Sackenheim
            F�rsterstra�e 49
            50825 K�ln
            Tel 0221 122121
            Mobil 0163 3122121
            frank@...
            www.frank-sackenheim.de
            www.myspace.com/sackenheim





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Savio Fong
            Dear Frank, this is how we do indoor test (the thread show how we test a Sky Watcher Equinox 80), the merit of Sky Watcher is the camera connect is M48, bigger
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 14, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Frank,


              this is how we do indoor test (the thread show how we test a Sky Watcher
              Equinox 80), the merit of Sky Watcher is the camera connect is M48,
              bigger than T2 and improve vignetting, my own corridor is longer than
              here, at 25m there may be tiny bit of spherical abberation left, but
              usually a good indicator of the performance under real sky test, i.e.,
              if it perform poor under indoor test, we don't test it under real sky,
              if it perform good then usually the real sky test won't be bad.

              I made a custom adaptor to connect the flattener to a Borg 2" tube,
              http://www.astrocafe.hk/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=243&p=1785&hilit=skywatcher+0.85x#p1785

              This is a real setup of my APM-LOMO 80/600 with TS2 zero power
              flattener, I used a Sky Watcher 48mm camera connect to minimize the
              vignetting, at 100% crop of centre and 4 corners, all stars are sharp to
              the corner of Canon 5D Mark II with 135 full frame and 6.4um pixel, so
              you expect it 40% sharper with 9um pixel from STL11000M.

              http://www.astrocafe.hk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=333

              Only the lower left is a bit off focus due to my poor adaptor made, now fixed.

              this is a earlier NGC7000 made under very poor transparency sky, the vignetting is noticeable using M42 T ring, now much improved with M48 camera connect.
              http://www.astrocafe.hk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=302&p=2595&hilit=NGC7000#p2595

              a side discussion, this is my Jupiter through my own APM-TMB 203 APO, you can see the transit of Ganymede with surface mark visible.
              http://www.astrocafe.hk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=43

              regards,
              Savio
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.