SW Esprit 80 or WO 80/480 LOMO?

[wuthton]

After a few years with my trusty WO ZS80 I'm fancying an upgrade and something a smidge faster to go with my Atik 314l.

I was all set on the Skywatcher Esprit 80 but I've seen a WO 80/480 Lomo, a scope I've always fancied.

Both similar money but should I go with the classic William Optics or the sparkly new Skywatcher?

Your options would be greatly appreciated.

[ronin]

Myself I would take a shot at the WO.

Those lens are good and I assume that if sold on you could get the same back for it as the outlay now.

The drawback of a WO is the focuser, that seems to have been their weak area, and if to be used for imaging a better focuser could be wanted and that adds to the cost.

[wuthton]

Myself I would take a shot at the WO.Those lens are good and I assume that if sold on you could get the same back for it as the outlay now. The drawback of a WO is the focuser, that seems to have been their weak area, and if to be used for imaging a better focuser could be wanted and that adds to the cost.

Good point on the resale value, even though I don't tend to swap and change much it is a consideration. I've had the ZS80 for 4 years and only 3 scopes in the 6 years prior.

[jnc71106]

The Lomo is one of the best 80mm scopes ever made. It's lens isn't good it's world class

[Stu_2011]

I have both! I don't have any pictures but I did a back to back visual comparison a few months ago. One is F6 one is F5 so not a direct comparison. Both gave excellent visual images but the Lomo definitely had the edge. The stars just seemed a little bit sharper and the general view had slightly more contrast compared to the Esprit. The Lomo has absolutely no colour from CA whereas the Esprit once in a while has a little glimpse of CA on very bright objects.

Tough choice - the Lomo 80 lens is about as good as it gets. As good as if not better than Takahashi if you believe the guys over on Cloudy nights!

Are you looking at the one on eBay? I bought my Lomo from the same guy. He sold a Lomo 80/600 the other month which is rumoured to be even better than the 480 albeit with a longer F ratio

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wuthton]

I have both! I don't have any pictures but I did a back to back visual comparison a few months ago. One is F6 one is F5 so not a direct comparison. Both gave excellent visual images but the Lomo definitely had the edge. The stars just seemed a little bit sharper and the general view had slightly more contrast compared to the Esprit. The Lomo has absolutely no colour from CA whereas the Esprit once in a while has a little glimpse of CA on very bright objects.

Tough choice - the Lomo 80 lens is about as good as it gets. As good as if not better than Takahashi if you believe the guys over on Cloudy nights!

Are you looking at the one on eBay? I bought my Lomo from the same guy. He sold a Lomo 80/600 the other month which is rumoured to be even better than the 480 albeit with a longer F ratio

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for that, you made my mind up, procrastination at an end, I've bought it. Good communication from Ensoptical (Steve) and he gave me a good bit of discount for going direct.

Have you changed the focuser, it doesn't look the best?

[Stu_2011]

I hope you will be pleased, Ensoptical seems like a decent enough outfit, he seems to charge top dollar for stuff (we all need to make a living I guess) but a pleasant guy to deal with.

The single speed Crayford was ok, I actually quite like it. The single speed Crayfords seem to work well because the shaft that pushes against the flat on the draw tube if free at both ends so it floats and finds its own natural position against the flats. Two speed Crayfords are pinned on one side (on the two speed geared side so it takes more adjustment to get the setup working well I find.

I have changed the WO single speed Crayford for a Skywatcher 2 speed Crayford. Now it's setup it works well and it's easy to motorise with the Skywatcher kit. One day a feather touch will find its way onto the scope.

The Lomo lenses are hand finished so you MIGHT see some faint curved polishing lines if you shine a bright line down the tube. Mine has a few and this will put some people off. They seem to be on the centre ED lens which is the slightly softer fluorite ED glass element I think. It does not seem to affect the performance in any way. I think I would prefer a perfect figure with a couple of odd fine polishing lines compared to pristine machine polished lens with a slightly compromised figure.

The Lomo is a keeper and will hold its price.

Thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jnc71106]

I changed the focuser on mine the stock one is serviceable but I didn't want any issues so bought a feathertouch.

Just to say as far as I'm aware the lomo doesn't have a fluorite element. It was originally designed to have fluorite and a few were made that way but Lomo changed the design as they thought they could produce a better lens without the flourite. If the lomo you have bought does have fluorite then it's worth more than the £950 you have paid, not because it's better but because it's rarer

[wuthton]

I changed the focuser on mine the stock one is serviceable but I didn't want any issues so bought a feathertouch.

Just to say as far as I'm aware the lomo doesn't have a fluorite element. It was originally designed to have fluorite and a few were made that way but Lomo changed the design as they thought they could produce a better lens without the flourite. If the lomo you have bought does have fluorite then it's worth more than the £950 you have paid, not because it's better but because it's rarer

This is my understanding too.

[jnc71106]

this should help clarify it for you http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4330957/Main/4262519

[alan potts]

If it has LOMO objective I would go for that every time, though the SW is a fine scope I do not think it is up there with Lzos and Lomo and both these will hold money better in my view.

[Stu_2011]

I changed the focuser on mine the stock one is serviceable but I didn't want any issues so bought a feathertouch.

Just to say as far as I'm aware the lomo doesn't have a fluorite element. It was originally designed to have fluorite and a few were made that way but Lomo changed the design as they thought they could produce a better lens without the flourite. If the lomo you have bought does have fluorite then it's worth more than the £950 you have paid, not because it's better but because it's rarer

Hi

Yes that's correct mine doesn't have s CaF crystal element but it has ED glass that contains a high degree of fluorite (like all top end ED glasses). Fluorite glass is much easier to make and work with compared to Fluorite crystal.

Big difference between Fluorite crystal and Fluorite containing glass.

Thanks

[jnc71106]

Your going to need a flattener. I have tried 3 different ones with the scope. The first was a cheap 0.8x reducer/flattener that did a good job considering its price but still left me with a 15% curvature in the field. I then tried the Televue TRF-2008 and William Optics 6 reducer/flatteners on successive nights

The best I could get with the TRF was 9% curvature the WO 6 on the other hand was only 3% curvature so I sold the TRF and use the WO 6

You can also use the Borg 7887 reducer/flattener and the Takahashi flattener only for the fs-60 to good effect

[jnc71106]

Hi

Yes that's correct mine doesn't have s CaF crystal element but it has ED glass that contains a high degree of fluorite (like all top end ED glasses). Fluorite glass is much easier to make and work with compared to Fluorite crystal.

Big difference between Fluorite crystal and Fluorite containing glass.

Thanks

OK-4 glass as used in this lens contains a high degree of fluoride not fluorite

[wuthton]

Your going to need a flattener. I have tried 3 different ones with the scope. The first was a cheap 0.8x reducer/flattener that did a good job considering its price but still left me with a 15% curvature in the field. I then tried the Televue TRF-2008 and William Optics 6 reduc GT81er/flatteners on successive nights

The best I could get with the TRF was 9% curvature the WO 6 on the other hand was only 3% curvature so I sold the TRF and use the WO 6

You can also use the Borg 7887 reducer/flattener and the Takahashi flattener only for the fs-60 to good effect

I have a skywatcher field flattener (f5.5 to f6) which will do for now. The TRF was high on my shopping list but I haven't looked at the WO 6 and I certainly will as it's nearly half the price. GT81 version?

[wuthton]

You wouldn't be able to share your spacing as well would you. 55-57mm is recomended but a mm either way makes a lot of difference on past experience.

[Stu_2011]

OK-4 glass as used in this lens contains a high degree of fluoride not fluorite

Yeah sorry, my phone kept changing fluoride back to fluorite.....

[jnc71106]

I have a skywatcher field flattener (f5.5 to f6) which will do for now. The TRF was high on my shopping list but I haven't looked at the WO 6 and I certainly will as it's nearly half the price. GT81 version?

yes the gt81 version although they are all the same flattener its just a different spacing collar that comes with the different versions, There are images on my website taken with the Lomo and Atik 314

[jnc71106]

Yeah sorry, my phone kept changing fluoride back to fluorite.....

lol after i posted my reply i did wonder if that was the case as my phone did the same thing

[wuthton]

yes the gt81 version although they are all the same flattener its just a different spacing collar that comes with the different versions, There are images on my website taken with the Lomo and Atik 314

Many thanks for the advice!

[jnc71106]

You wouldn't be able to share your spacing as well would you. 55-57mm is recomended but a mm either way makes a lot of difference on past experience.

from memory i had it at 55mm i think but i've since upgraded my CCD so i can't measure it and i haven't set everything up since the new camera arrived

[wuthton]

I had a look at your website, I'd actually previously found it during my Lomo research. Very impressive!

I've been toying with a photo-blog with some spare hosting I've got at work.

[jnc71106]

I had a look at your website, I'd actually previously found it during my Lomo research. Very impressive!

I've been toying with a photo-blog with some spare hosting I've got at work.

thanks very much that's nice of you to say so

[wuthton]

The ZS80 sang it's swan song last night with the Veil, new telescope comes tomorrow. 

[Jose Auger]

Although I agree with the quality of the Lomo optics, I understand that there are many other factors that weight on the quality of a telescope. These include the appropriate use of the optics, the design, the construction, the tube, the focuser, etc. That a telescope uses FLP53 (as is the case of three of my telescopes) vs a one that uses FLP51, will depend on the quality of the aforementioned factors. So, having FLP53 or any other type of lenses does no guarantee optimal performance. The same goes with triplets vs doublets. An excellently designed and built doublet may perform better than a poorly designed and built triplet. Thus, the type of lens and the amount of lenses foes not necessarily guarantee excellent optical performance.

The other (and I am not mentioning a lot of other factors) factor is the observer/photographer. I am into visual and plan to enter astrophotography. I know that my photos will not be of the same quality of other highly experienced photographers. I have seen many photos taken with telescopes of exceptional quality and renown, and the photos are really bad. And I have seen photos taken with commercial quality telescopes of no renown at all, that really shine in their artistic and precision. 

I am new to astrophotography, as I already mentioned, but I have been reading, studying and consulting about the hobby a lot. I mentioned three of my telescopes, bit I own two other that I consider of exceptional quality. One is a William Optics FLT-123 which uses Lomo optics, which I obtained on the used market (exceptionally mint and clean). The other is a Takahashi FSQ 106, acquired from a friend. BTW, my other telescopes, which I acquired prior to these two are: SkyWatcher Esprit 120 and SW Esprit 80, and a WO FLT98. This week I ordered a TS APO65Q just for the fun of having a small scope. Now, I know that my photos, even with the WO FLT-123 and the Takahashi, are not going to be better than those of a friend using an Orion 80ED, because he has more talent and experience than I have, at least at the present time.

I hope these words contribute to the ongoing dialog here at SGL.