John

1 hour ago, cotterless45 said:

I heartily agree with Jules , I had two such size scopes and they didn't fit in with the targets that I love under grotty skies. For maximum impact and punching above its weight , my C6r with 2" semi app filter eats peashooters for breakfast , old Nick,?

 

I've had just the opposite experience Nick. So there we go

58 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

imagine such a thing!  Do wish they would do an SW ED140 though  

I guess the APM 140 FPL-53 doublet is the next best thing ?

6 minutes ago, Piero said:

...Eventually, what matters is that we spend a lovely night out independently of what we have. Analysis and reporting details are interesting parts of course, but certainly don't substitute the joy of standing under the stars, planets, and moon.

Very true Piero

I've just spent a very enjoyable hour viewing Jupiter, Comet V2 Johnson and a few other bits and pieces. Thats what it's all about.

Mind you, the scope of choice tonight was my ED120 ........ 

11 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

...To not mention a scope's limitations in a review would be doing a disservice to the readers. 

 

Absolutely

1 hour ago, Alien_Photons said:

.... Why go the extra a take possession of a TAK but not the same approch with the mount....

One reason might be that saving a few £'s on a less premium but still capable mount enables the Tak to be afforded !

My Tak and my LZOS refractors don't complain when I bolt them onto Skywatcher mounts - the views still look excellent

29 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

Sorry chaps, but I thought that the original writup was balanced, fair and entertaining!

I guess that different folks read things different ways.....

My ED120 makes me grin for all of the reasons mentioned by Jules. Jupiter on a good night. Wow!!!!! Being used to 10/16" Dob views, smaller fracs make it feel like someone turned the lights down. The ED120 has enough punch to get round this.

Thanks for posting.

Paul

I know what you mean Paul but when considering scope options last time around, it was suggested a few times that a nice dob might be a great option but as I recall Jules just does not like them

The ED120 seemed to tick more boxes at that time than any other option but maybe more boxes are available now ?

5 hours ago, nightfisher said:

John, where in my post do i make any comment or quip relating to the hobby, this is the second time you have suggested that my interest/enthusiasm is waning (yes good memory), i can assure you that i am still just as keen on the hobby 

Glad I've got this wrong then Jules

If you are still very interested in observing the moon and planets then you have a great tool for the job.

If your interests are changing more towards deep sky stuff then you might need to re-think your choice of scope.

Very honest and interesting report and appraisal of this scope Jules - thanks for posting it

I'm left wondering if your reactions are perhaps more a comment on your current feelings towards the hobby though, rather than on the instrument ?

I've no doubts that the ED120 is, optically at least, one of the finest near-5" refractors available at any price (having now compared mine directly with much, much more expensive instruments) so I don't believe the scope is hyped up at all.

Maybe though, what you are looking for cannot be delivered by any 5" class scope, what ever the cost

Very, very, very nice Dave (both of them)

Jupiter is ruling here right now

GRS is showing really well !

Hope you have some clear skies with you Dave

3 hours ago, Paul73 said:

Splendid splendid setup! I wouldn't do any of this side by side comparison mallarky. Just enjoy!

Which will be your first targets?

Paul

I was only suggesting that it would be very nice to get 2 great 5 inch refractors together. Not a "competition" in any way 

The same way that the dob mob do - they seem to complement each others scopes rather than compete with them.

I realise that this probably can't happen but it would be so interesting to put the FS128 alongside the TMB / LZOS 130 F/9.2.

I was looking hard for a FS128 when the TMB / LZOS came up nearby and at a good price but the impression that I gained in doing my research is that both scopes are right at the top of what has been produced for amateurs for the purposes of visual astronomy in the 5 inch refractor category over the past decade or so.

I'm really looking forward to reading your reports on using this scope Dave

Excellent Dave - congratulations !

A lifetime scope if I ever saw one

Now don't for goodness sake ever get rid of it

49 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

..... You catch more flies with honey or something like that  Hopefully I'll get it today? 

 

Another saying is "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"

6 hours ago, paulastro said:

 

 

This is the Takahashi FC 100 DL on my GP mount, the ex-demo version, with 'DEMO' on the label where the serial number usually is.  (I think Mike previously posted a pic of this)Interestingly, it also has the wrong writing on the ring around the lens - it's the ring with the focal length and focal ratio of the f7.4 version rather than the f9 version.  Perhaps when this one was turned out they hadn't yet produced the ring for the f9 version - or someone put on the wrong one!  .

The diagonal is the WO 2inch right-way-round 90 degree version which I like to sweep with at low power.

An even more limited edition version then ? - limited to one of a kind !

2 hours ago, spaceboy said:

Blimey John I can now see why you've been through a few mounts with the TMB. I assume they are x2 5.3KG CW's ? Some way down the CW bar as well. I assume they are like the AR127L fraks with a thick wall aluminium tube making them heavier than you'd think ???

 Looks a great set up John and like how you went with the black HEQ5 to match the Berlebach. I find  it's possible to use high mag ortho with an AZ mount but there are times I can't be with out an EQ mount. The 130mm on sturdy HEQ5 will sure will make splitting those super tight doubles on nights of good seeing a pleasure.

Thanks

The optical tube weighs around 9kg all up. The tube used is made of a material called Kruppax 50 which is light, strong and interestingly has proved totally resistant to dewing

A lot of the weight is at the objective / lens cell end of course - it's a triplet after all.

It seems to need both the CW's to balance soundly.

Here are some more details of the OTA if anyone is interested:

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/telescopes/refracting-telescopes-ota/apochromates/apm-lzos-telescope-apo-refractor-130-1170-lw-photo.html

The scope is going out of production very soon - 114 units made in total since it's introduction in 2006.

There is a Skywatcher 130mm F/5 newt OTA on Astroboot at the moment for £35 + P&P. Lot of scope for very little dosh IMHO. Not even the price of a low cost eyepiece !

Fingers crossed here Chris

My 30mm Widescan III showed me excellent views of larger DSO's when I used F/10 scopes

Very nice Gordon

I've not seen one of those Widescan III's for ages - I used to have a set of those !

Good news Chris

I suspect the logical part of your brain is the one to listen too !

16 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I'd agree, my 150PL is a 1200mm Newtonian weighs 5.9 kilos and is quite happy on my EQ3-2.

I guess we all must have different views / experiences on this. I had a Skywatcher Evostar 120 F/8.3 refractor on an EQ3-2 once, with the HEQ5 steel tube tripod, and the scope vibrated a lot when the magnfication got over 120x or so. It took ages to settle down which got in the way of observing at high power. 

A 5" SCT on the same mount was really solid.

I'm wondering if Bresser had a challenge with the 90mm. Produced to the same fittings and finish standard as the 102mm I reckon the production costs of the two scopes would have been very nearly the same. Bresser realised that pricing the 2 scopes close to each other would mean that most folks would go for the 102mm and the 90mm would stuggle to sell in any volume. So they had to reduce the production cost of the 90mm to get a more attractive price differential.

Celestron faced the same problem with the C5 sct. Apparently it's production costs were pretty much the same as the C8 but the retail price had to be quite a bit less otherwise it would not sell so the margin in the C5 was very slim. Celestron stuck with the same production quality / fit and finish on both scopes and lived with the C5 not being a money spinner for them.

Bresser wanted to avoid this, hence the differences between the 90mm and the 102mm.

FLO's message is a little "warmer" though

12 minutes ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

I agree Derek and I did fancy the 102L model simply because I currently don't have a refractor and the f13.3 frac and its price seemed a good deal. I am going to wait until the IAS in October when hopefully I will see it in the fresh. In making this decision I hope TH attend which was not the case at Astrofest.

Do you recall seeing these scopes at the Stoneleigh show Mark ?

They looked from a distance like two giant white chopsticks