The TS 65mm Astrograph Quadruplet Review

[Deneb]

mmmm, I think you be better of getting a decent flattener, but then again i would think what your planning to image in that combo ?

Im wandering if TV do just a flattener for something like f/6 scopes...?

Nadeem.

[riklaunim]

Nebulae in many narrow bands. The field on the edges doesn't has to be super flat, just flat enough to not give a big disaster. I've seen images take with DSLR and INED70 the curvature is noticeable, but when I crop the image to the Atik FOV it doesn't seems to be that bad

There are generic field flatteners, but the price is high. Scope is ~289/378 EUR, flattener is ~200 EUR.

[RobH]

My 16HR is fine with my WO ZS80 F6.9....no flattener needed.

With my TMB80/480 F6, there's a slight amount of curvature showing at the edge of the FOV, but not much.....the 16HR chip is the same as yours.

Cheers

Rob

[Deneb]

Have you thought about maybe a Hotech SCA Field Flattener, they say it should work between f/5 - f/8 refractors... The only thing is are they available in Poland or the UK as I want to try one out....

Nadeem.

[riklaunim]

This one: First Light Optics - HoTech SCA Field Flattener ?

[Deneb]

thats the one....last time I heard it was on back order & ian king was either sold out or waiting for stock still...

[DJ N]

Hi guys,

If it helps, I actually purchased a Hotech SCA field flattener just last week (here in Australia). I purchased the flattener specifically for my ED120, but I have taken an image with my ED80 as well. Initial tests seem quite promising. However, I could not achieve the correct 55mm spacing from my QHY8L to the flattener. My tests were done at 53mm, but yesterday I did recieve the spacers I ordered so hopefully later in the week I will have another go with the correct 55mm spacing.

I have the sample photos at the following link (I hope that it is OK for me to do this, if not, let me know and I will put the photos up on SGL).

First Light - Hotech SCA Field Flattener - IceInSpace

Cheers,

Daniel

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Nice images, looking very good indeed!!

[riklaunim]

Well... I got the quad:

From what I've heard now they are checking all OTAs if the optics isn't to tight in the cells (which was causing some problems before)

[Deneb]

Please let us know how it performs, as winter is nearly here or in Poland it has arrived.

I want to see corner crops of your images please....

[riklaunim]

I'll try something this weekend, but Atik 314L+ isn't as big as DSLR, but APS-C shots are on Jod?owskie irysy (z quadruplet TS APO 65Q) - Astronomia i Astrofotografia - Astropolis.pl and something on Foto z TS APO 65Q na zlocie w Jod?owie - Astronomia i Astrofotografia - Astropolis.pl

[Deneb]

the second link, still shows triangle stars & the 1st link image looks good but the star shapes still look a bit odd....

Nadeem.

[riklaunim]

It still may be the to tightly hold flattening element or some guiding/no guiding problem shown by sharpening (as the FL is small resolution those big pixels may give squared stars). Deconvolved image shows how the stars sharpen to non-square objects (and the bottom left corner looks bad so the camera may be even tilted).

All in all it should work without problems in my case of small camera.

[riklaunim]

Only star test for today. Clouds rolled in. Basler Ace with 2x TX, MS Lifecam with no TeleXtender. Both with IR/UV cut filter.

[Interested]

Guys,

I was thinking of buying the TSAPO65Q for use with my Atiks & EFW 2 and came across this thread on the Internet. My concern was chip to flattener distance (and if it was a concern) what with the flattener being fixed?

Decided on reading this thread that the scope might not be such a good purchase after all.

Can anyone recommend a good triplet in the 66-80mm range (I have a 0.8 reducer/flattener in my bag anyway)?

Many thanks

[riklaunim]

The quadruplet design has no specific distance. Every one is correct. As for star problems - the lenses in the cell and the flattening lens may not be hold tightly - then it works... or you have to demand a replacement There is a new 80mm quadruplet so this seems to work as of optical design.

As for normal triplets - there is plenty in APM ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$) or TS Or the good old WO scopes which are also in FLO.

[Deneb]

You really can't beat a ED80/314 combo... & I would not give even 1p for one of those refractors again ...

[Interested]

Thanks to both of you for giving me your opinions. The TS 65Q would have been an ideal solution for me going forward, but with differing opinions I think I will 'pass' on the 65Q for now.

I've managed to adjust the ED80 focuser now to take the weight of the 383L & filterwheel but not had an opportunity to try it out as yet. Will see what results I get but feel a quad or triplet will have better optics than the ED.

Started this hobby in Feb 2011 and it has been a long road of learning - hoping that in 2012 I start getting some results!

Again, many thanks - has been a really interesting thread for me

[swag72]

Why not just get a focuser upgrade Pete? My Moonlite holds the Atik 314, filter wheel and reducer just fine.

[Interested]

Hi Sara,

I have considered upgrading the focuser for a moonlite but at £350+ it is almost as much as the ED 80 I wonder if the money is better spent on optics?

Using ccdCalc to compare the FOV of the ED 80 with the 0.8 focal reducer/flattener I use and the TS 65Q, the TS looks to have the ideal FOV for capturing just about every target I would want to image using either the 314L+ or the 383L+.

I spoke to Bernard at Modern Astronomy today and he reckons the TS 65Q had teething problems but he sells them on a regular basis and has had no returns.....so I might take the plunge

I probably will end up buying the moonlite focuser at some point though

[Deneb]

I have considered upgrading the focuser for a moonlite but at £350+ it is almost as much as the ED 80 I wonder if the money is better spent on optics?

Using ccdCalc to compare the FOV of the ED 80 with the 0.8 focal reducer/flattener I use and the TS 65Q, the TS looks to have the ideal FOV for capturing just about every target I would want to image using either the 314L+ or the 383L+.

I spoke to Bernard at Modern Astronomy today and he reckons the TS 65Q had teething problems but he sells them on a regular basis and has had no returns.....so I might take the plunge

Hi

I make a personal appeal to you, please do not spend your money on this Dog Doo Doo & I do not apologise for using those terms. Believe me, I had the same conversation with Bern about these scopes, I was not convinced about the scope when I bought it directly from TS even though they told me it was optically tested on a bench.

Regarding the comments about the teething problems, I was not convinced when I spoke to Bern & still not (even though he meant well). It's more likely they are still using the same lens cell in that scope & the optics are cemented in. Trying to manufacture something like this on this scale & get it corrected to a high degree is extremely difficult, especially when you start adding reducers into the framework, no way is that scope going to be corrected in it's optical wavelengths at the focal ratio. Anyway is it not meant to have a reducer element within the scope ?

You really can't beat a really good ED80, regardless of any QC problems the optics are sound. On a good night, the scope will perform just as good compared to a 80mm triplet, but with less curvature issues. On the last ED80 I had, using the stock focuser I had the following hanging off it. A Televue TRF2008 Reducer + Spacers + Manual Filterwheel & a Atik 314L+.

The key thing to remember those stock focusers do need an extra tweak that can be done by taking them apart & retensioning them & they do not take long to do.

The last one I had - I tweaked the focuser, so when I locked the focuser nothing on the imaging train moved, it was that much refined without any flexure issues.

However I will be adding this info. into my review of the Skywatcher ED80 DS Pro. If you are in the market for a new scope with that type of aperture size, I know it's early days, but you might want to consider the new William Optics ZS70 offered without that inadequate DDG Focuser only to be replaced with a rack & pinion focuser, thats a welcome change... with a 0.8x reducer that will bring the scope down to f4.8. At least WO will give you a 2 year warranty.

I have only given you my serious unbiased opinion here & open to Critiscm / Debate if I have mis-interpreted anything on this thread.

Cheers

Nadeem.

[RobH]

I agree 100% with Nadeem.

If you spend your money on the 65 quad then, no apologies, you have rocks in your head

The main issue, pinched optics, only shows up on these in cold conditions....when they are 'tested', it's done inside on an optical bench in a warm room.

Ian King sent his entire stock back to TS, Astrotech admitted to me that there was a problem, Olly Penrice has heard the same stories from several of his contacts too.

I can't say it strongly enough.....don't do it!!

The WO 70mm will be a much better bet.

Cheers

Rob

[ollypenrice]

Confirmed. I had one here for its first light and it gave stars the shape of Toblerone segments. Its owner sent it straight back. The stars, as well as being triangular, showed considerable blue bloat but whether eliminating the pinching would have cured that is anybody's guess. I very much doubt it myself.

Doublet and triplet and quadruplet are just words. Manufacturers are dead keen to exploit them so they want to produce a magic quadruplet for the price of a doublet. This kind of junk is the result. In reality a good doublet beats (resoundingly) a bad triplet or quadruplet.

If you want a flatfield quadruplet they are out there and they are truly fantastic. Ours is a Takahashi ( I've owned a Mk1 TeleVue Genesis as well) and I have seen the talented Pieter Vandevelde working with his modern TeleVue many times here. But they cost! No free lunch. They have eight optical surfaces to prepare instead of four and require more complex collimation and manufacturing procedures as well. As many FSQ106 owners know, they can be very sensitive to temperature change so the design does not lend itself to cheap mass production.

Meade and Skywatcher make competing scopes in doublet and triplet format. As far as I can see (I had a Meade 127) they are both honest, good value scopes, bar their Crayfords - but I won't get going on that one again.

I'm afraid that a number of threads on here would make me nervous about ordering a budget apo from TS, though there is much that is good about the firm.

Olly

[Interested]

Nadeem,

Given your experiences (and a similar conversation with Bern) I will definately not be buying a TS 65Q, especially as your concerns are backed up by RobH and Olly!!

I have now dismantled and re-assembled the focuser on the ED 80 with the result that it will now support the 383L+ and EFW 2 - not had a chance to try it out since adjusting the focuser, so will wait to see what results I get before looking at other scopes.

Olly, appreciate what you say about optics. The optics on my Meade 127 ED Apo are very good, which was the reason I was considering another triple.

The new WO Zenithstar 70 looks promising but I would probably go for a flattener rather than a reducer/flattener. f4.8 sounds great but I am using 1.25 filters and think I would probably get in to vignetting issues with the 383, even using the EFW 2 filterwheel. I accept that I might have to eventually buy new filters.

I also use a finderscope(from the ED 80) for guiding so would need to look at how I am going to attach the finder to the WO (more expense I expect!).

Nothing's easy is it?

I am begining to think scope manufacturers purposely mis-align their products so that users have to continually spend money to get round setting-up issues

[Earl]

Nadeem,

I am begining to think scope manufacturers purposely mis-align their products so that users have to continually spend money to get round setting-up issues

This is especial relevant to Focusers, all 4 of my scopes need real focusers on them I share a Featherouch with my SCT and MAK, I have a Steeltrack upgrade for my Newt, and im currently considering my options for my Meade.

If the Baader steeldrive is easy to transfer between scopes ill get a steel track for it, if not it will probably be a feathertouch, as ill motorise both and share the handset between them.