Jump to content

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The TS 65mm Astrograph Quadruplet Review

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61
riklaunim

riklaunim

    Brown Dwarf

  • Advanced Members
  • 2,838 posts
  • Location: Poland
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

Equipment: SCT C14 * TSAPO65Q * ASI120MM * Atik 314L+ * and more :)

My astro website


#62
Deneb

Deneb

    Banned User

  • Beyond The Event Horizon
  • 3,311 posts
  • Location: North London
the second link, still shows triangle stars & the 1st link image looks good but the star shapes still look a bit odd....

Nadeem.
SW Quattro 8S, SW NEQ6 Pro
Canon Self Modded 1100D,
My Website

#63
riklaunim

riklaunim

    Brown Dwarf

  • Advanced Members
  • 2,838 posts
  • Location: Poland
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 :D (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.

Edited by riklaunim, 14 October 2011 - 06:55 AM.

Equipment: SCT C14 * TSAPO65Q * ASI120MM * Atik 314L+ * and more :)

My astro website


#64
riklaunim

riklaunim

    Brown Dwarf

  • Advanced Members
  • 2,838 posts
  • Location: Poland
Only star test for today. Clouds rolled in. Basler Ace with 2x TX, MS Lifecam with no TeleXtender. Both with IR/UV cut filter.

Attached Thumbnails

  • focusx.jpg

Equipment: SCT C14 * TSAPO65Q * ASI120MM * Atik 314L+ * and more :)

My astro website


#65
Interested

Interested

    Star Forming

  • Members
  • 156 posts
  • Location: Wisbech, Norfolk
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
------------------------------------------------
Scopes: Baby 'Q', WO FLT 98/FT Focuser, ED80, ST80 Mount: HEQ5 Pro SynScan Cameras: Atik 383L+ Mono , Atik 314L+ Mono, QHY5, EOS 550D . Filterwheel: Atik EFW 2. Filters: 2": Baader LRGB CCD, Baader NB Ha/Hb/S-II/O-111

#66
riklaunim

riklaunim

    Brown Dwarf

  • Advanced Members
  • 2,838 posts
  • Location: Poland
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.

Equipment: SCT C14 * TSAPO65Q * ASI120MM * Atik 314L+ * and more :)

My astro website


#67
Deneb

Deneb

    Banned User

  • Beyond The Event Horizon
  • 3,311 posts
  • Location: North London
You really can't beat a ED80/314 combo... & I would not give even 1p for one of those refractors again ...

Edited by Deneb, 05 January 2012 - 10:29 PM.

SW Quattro 8S, SW NEQ6 Pro
Canon Self Modded 1100D,
My Website

#68
Interested

Interested

    Star Forming

  • Members
  • 156 posts
  • Location: Wisbech, Norfolk
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 :(
------------------------------------------------
Scopes: Baby 'Q', WO FLT 98/FT Focuser, ED80, ST80 Mount: HEQ5 Pro SynScan Cameras: Atik 383L+ Mono , Atik 314L+ Mono, QHY5, EOS 550D . Filterwheel: Atik EFW 2. Filters: 2": Baader LRGB CCD, Baader NB Ha/Hb/S-II/O-111

#69
swag72

swag72

    Main Sequence

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 5,968 posts
  • Location: Spain
Why not just get a focuser upgrade Pete? My Moonlite holds the Atik 314, filter wheel and reducer just fine.

Sara ---> My astro images on flickr
Visit my website http://swagastro.weebly.com/


#70
Interested

Interested

    Star Forming

  • Members
  • 156 posts
  • Location: Wisbech, Norfolk
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 :p

I probably will end up buying the moonlite focuser at some point though :o
------------------------------------------------
Scopes: Baby 'Q', WO FLT 98/FT Focuser, ED80, ST80 Mount: HEQ5 Pro SynScan Cameras: Atik 383L+ Mono , Atik 314L+ Mono, QHY5, EOS 550D . Filterwheel: Atik EFW 2. Filters: 2": Baader LRGB CCD, Baader NB Ha/Hb/S-II/O-111

#71
Deneb

Deneb

    Banned User

  • Beyond The Event Horizon
  • 3,311 posts
  • Location: North London


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 :o


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.:p

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.

Edited by Deneb, 07 January 2012 - 07:14 AM.

SW Quattro 8S, SW NEQ6 Pro
Canon Self Modded 1100D,
My Website

#72
RobH

RobH

    Global Moderator

  • Global Mods
  • 6,784 posts
  • Location: South West England
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

#73
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

    Hyper Giant

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,823 posts
  • Location: South east France, Lat 44.19N.
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

Edited by ollypenrice, 08 January 2012 - 09:31 AM.

Run Les Granges Astronomy Holidays, teach and study imaging, SE France. 20" Dob, 10"SCT, TEC140 apo, Takahashi FSQ106. Lunt LS60 solarscope TeleVue Pronto, ZS66, 6 inch achro. Mounts, Takahashi EM200, 2 x EQ6. TeleVue Gibraltar and TelePod. CCD; Atik11000 full frame, Atik 320E, Lodestar, DMK21. Leica bins. Resident here, Yves' ODK14 on Mesu Mount 200. 4 roll offs. www.sunstarfrance.com

Isn't it great that amateurs can get so close to the universe?

#74
Interested

Interested

    Star Forming

  • Members
  • 156 posts
  • Location: Wisbech, Norfolk
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 :(
------------------------------------------------
Scopes: Baby 'Q', WO FLT 98/FT Focuser, ED80, ST80 Mount: HEQ5 Pro SynScan Cameras: Atik 383L+ Mono , Atik 314L+ Mono, QHY5, EOS 550D . Filterwheel: Atik EFW 2. Filters: 2": Baader LRGB CCD, Baader NB Ha/Hb/S-II/O-111

#75
Earl

Earl

    Court Jester

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 6,319 posts

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.

Celestron CGE| Takahashi FSQ 106 Reduced | QSI 683 WSG | Baader LRGB, Ha, OIII, SII | Lodestar : Wide Angle imaging rig.


#76
Deneb

Deneb

    Banned User

  • Beyond The Event Horizon
  • 3,311 posts
  • Location: North London

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.

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.


Do a indoor run with the gear, I had a 383 with a reducer & efw2 on back of a stock focuser, no problem & re the WO70ZS with 1.25" filters, decent flats will get rid of the vignetting...

For the guidescope, for £50 you can get a WO finder shoe & bracket with rings which will fit a 9x50 guidescope,similar to what im using..

Nadeem.

Edited by Deneb, 08 January 2012 - 02:42 PM.

SW Quattro 8S, SW NEQ6 Pro
Canon Self Modded 1100D,
My Website




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users