Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep2_banner.thumb.jpg.e37c929f88100393e885b7befec4c749.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
Lee

Better than William optics????

Recommended Posts

Has anyone had any experience or heard anything about A&M Advanced telescopes?

4038_normal.jpeg

(click to enlarge)

Model A&M 1107K4

Optical Design Triplet air-spaced Super SD Apochromat

Lens A&M/TMB

Clear Aperture 110mm

Focal Length 815mm

Focal Ratio F/7

Optical Quality RMS 0.03 or better; Strehl number 0.95 or better

Optical design Triplet APO, Air-spaced, fully multi-coated

Construction Carbon fiber and CNC aliminium

Baffles 3

Focuser 4" dual-speed, 360° rot. (2"/1.25")

Tube Diameter TBC

Dewcap Diameter TBC

Tube Length 645mm closed, 815mm extended

Tube Weight 5.5 kg

Dia. Tuberings 115mm

I have been surfing the net today and came across them on Opticstar’s web site. Like for like they are a little more expensive than WO, but do they look special. They seem to use TMB lenses and a mixture of feather touch or William optics focuser with carbon fibre OTAs

Would the A&M 110’s optics any better than that on a scope like the WO FLT110?

I can’t find much on the net or any other retailer supplying them.

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a WO flt 110, it would have been nice to have some sort of quantative definition of the scope rather than the advertising puff that seems so prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted with my WO and there is no way that this is leaving this house but why are good manufacturers so very coy about revealing their quality, perceived or otherwise. Your example at least gives some numbers.

Dave Cooke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A&M and the APM stuff uses TMB lenses and to be frank they wipe the floor with William optics. They also have the best focusers know to man - the starlight instruments feathertouch focusers

Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, you are thinking along the same lines as me.

Perhaps the detail of CNC machined quality, carbon fiber, etc is just a smoke screen to give us the perseption of superlative optical quality. I do not know enough about optics to comment, but when ever we see William optics refractors we are mesmerised by the quality of the OTA. This allows us to perhaps forgive a little colour or distorsion around the edges...?

I have today had a chat with a guy who owns the 80mm version of the A&M scope. He says, quite happly that the views of DSO and planets are the best he has seen through any scope up-to 100mm.

I have owned WO scopes in the past and have recently purchased the Megrez72 and like you, are very happy. But I do wonder... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, you are thinking along the same lines as me.

Perhaps the detail of CNC machined quality, carbon fiber, etc is just a smoke screen to give us the perseption of superlative optical quality. I do not know enough about optics to comment, but when ever we see William optics refractors we are mesmerised by the quality of the OTA. This allows us to perhaps forgive a little colour or distorsion around the edges...?

I have today had a chat with a guy who owns the 80mm version of the A&M scope. He says, quite happly that the views of DSO and planets are the best he has seen through any scope up-to 100mm.

I have owned WO scopes in the past and have recently purchased the Megrez72 and like you, are very happy. But I do wonder... :D

Firstly let me say "nice thread".

Ok now to business

I don't know in what way you are comparing the A&M scopes with the WO ones.

The A&M 80mm doublet cost (give or take a couple of £££) about £270.00 more than the WO equivalent (and it clearly states that its the "80mm refractor, f/6.9 with William Optics doublet lens co-designed by TMB. Carbon fiber tube and CNC aluminium, internal baffles. 2" Feather Touch focuser." )

So this would lead me to believe that A&M just charge more for this scope because it has a carbon fibre body. (not worth it IMHO)

Plus if you want a hard carry case (as is supplied as standard with the WO FD80) its another £100.

So lets just run down the differences on the 80mm doublet version.

WO uses an aluminium body. (roughly costs about £630.00 with a hard carry case included in the price)

A&M uses a carbon fiber body. (roughly costs about £1000.00 with a hard carry case included in the price)

Other than the price and body materials there is no difference in these scopes and IMHO you would be mad to buy the dearer one.

So lets talk about the scope you asked about the 110.

Again both scopes are near on identical as in the optical train. (both appear to use the same TMB designed lenses)

Again one is made of aluminium and the other is made of carbon fiber. (focuser is identical)

The WO cost about £1900.00 with tube rings and a hard carry case included in the price.

The A&M costs about £2400.00 with rings and a carry case.

Once again i think you would be mad to pay in the region of £500.00 more with nothing to show for it.

I must admit to having a WO scope myself "the 105" and i find the views through this to be the best i have ever had through any refractor No colour distortion anywhere on this scope. (and i have looked through the best of them)

I also owned the 80mm FD refractor till recently. This also had no colour distortion.

Eddie

To say that those A&M lenses would wipe the floor with the WO ones is a bit OTT mate seeing as they are more or less the same lenses....

And the focuser's that you speak of are a very expensive optional extra as most A&M refractors come with WO focuser as standard.

Don't get me wrong here i do think that the A&M range of refractors are a sight to behold, but if you are comparing like for like with WO, A&M are just not worth the extra money as you get nothing for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input Jamie, very interesting points :lol:

To clarify, my interest is in the optical comparison of the scopes in question.

I totally agree with you with regards to the WO FLT. Both scopes appear to be identical.

The 80mm A&M scope that the guy I was talking to yesterday uses, is the triplet. Which uses the A&M/TMB triplet lens Available for £1500 with rings etc.

So to put both your points together, why not wait, save and spend an extra £400 and get the FLT with 30mm extra aperture?

I see rave reviews regarding the APM TMB 115 mm F7 (115/805) LW APO Telescope this is a similar price to the WO FLT at £2100 only £200 more. (OK you don’t get a fancy case)

how would this fair against the FLT? It certainly gains no marks for appearances and the OTA feels quite cheaply made. But it has the famous feather touch focuser, more aperture, rings, plate, finder bracket and the simular TMB designed optics. (See pic below)

4045_normal.jpeg

(click to enlarge)

I find it interesting that A&M and APM give information on the quality of the optics “RMS 0.03 or better; Strehl number 0.95 or better” but William optics don’t. Surely if the WO scopes had similar quality they would advertise it… Wouldn't they? :scratch:

It is this thought that has made me start the topic. Could William optics use the same design of lenses but have lesser quality? Would the difference be noticeable?

If the above concerns are valid would it be mad to spend the extra?

Sorry to rant but, I am looking to purchase a quality 4” APO refractor so my questions are really for my own selfish needs. :D

The “William optics factor” is very fascinating to me because I believe they have a very good, and well deserved reputation for quality.

But is there better to be had for a little more cash and a lower expectation of how dazzling the OTA looks?

It seems it all comes down to personal choice, beliefs and, as always money.

So the next question is guys and gals… if it were your money what would you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lee

My take on all this is as follows-

The difference in lens quality (when you get to WO/TMB quality) would only be noticeable when using a dedicated machine to measure such things.

Your eye wouldn't be able to tell the difference and neither would most cameras.

I think when buying a scope be it APO or not would basically come down to what YOU expect for your money and the "Can you sleep at night knowing what you just bought?" scenario.

Lee i am positive you would be happy with the performance of a WO scope but if your heart is set on a TMB or a A&M you will be just as happy with their performance too (your wallet would just be a little lighter buying the latter)

My money would go with the WO scopes to answer your question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the next question is guys and gals… if it were your money what would you choose?

Equinox 100mm for about £800 for me if it had to be a 100mm APO, but really I'd get a 200mm f/5 Skywatcher Newt. as its loads cheaper, bigger aperture, higher magnification possibilities, better for DSOs, doesn't need a dew heater.....

Kaptain Klevtsov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equinox 100mm for about £800 for me if it had to be a 100mm APO, but really I'd get a 200mm f/5 Skywatcher Newt. as its loads cheaper, bigger aperture, higher magnification possibilities, better for DSOs, doesn't need a dew heater

And really IS by all means FREE from CA!! 8)

Just MHO but sometimes I think all this CA stuff is a bit blown out of proportion. I'm vary happy with my ED80 and don't see the value in getting any less CA than it's got, cause I've never even seen CA in it, or getting better optically, cause I've never seen its flaws*...

Please don't hit me about this though, because it's purely my opinion, and I'm by no means an expert...

Andrew

*actually once on the moon I saw a very slight barely noticeable bluish tinge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'd get a 200mm f/5 Skywatcher Newt. as its loads cheaper, bigger aperture, higher magnification possibilities, better for DSOs, doesn't need a dew heater.....

Kaptain Klevtsov

240.00 quid at FLO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK . reasons I bought the A&M 130mm APO ,

1. Came with a test certificated 130mm F6 TMB optics.I was not going to spend this amount of money without getting such a certificate. If I ever sell this scope ( don't think I ever will) the prospective buyer would be sure of its optical quality.

2. The firm made the scope to my specifications - everything comes to focus from 0.8X focal reducers to 5X barlows.

3. It only weighs just over 7kg - must be the lightest 130mm APO made.

4. The focus does not seem to change much even when the air temp changes - carbon fibre tube?

5. I managed to negotiate a substantial discount.

oh - I got a sexy blue/black colour.

John

PS - I could go one with things like the Feather Touch Focuser is the reason I can focus the planetary DMK images so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in the market for a 'posh' refractor again with a budget to match, I'd apply the 'law of diminishing returns' whereby if you bought the cheaper WO, would you actually notice the difference over the more expensive A&M? Moreso, if you can notice a difference, is it several hundered pounds' worth?

I think for the vast majority of us, when you get to your Takahashis, Televues, A&M's etc etc, you're talking about minor details that only an experienced and/or demanding user would be able to discern. Most of us wouldn't be able to see any difference at all.

Tony..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make everything clear. I am not comparing my scope to any other. I am only giving the reasons why I bought it.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the next question is guys and gals… if it were your money what would you choose?

Personally I would go for the APM scope (well I did!) the feathertouch legendary status is just! The scopes have TMB lenses, not TMB designed lenses. At the end of the day you get what you pay for. I know there are a lot of william optics fans out there. I just don't see it, I've had WO scopes, I just did not like it. Best advice is to try out each of these scopes, as whichever way you look at it is a hell of a lot of money! Good luck!

Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would go for the APM scope (well I did!) the feathertouch legendary status is just! The scopes have TMB lenses, not TMB designed lenses.

Not wishing to start a row here but TMB (as in Thomas M Back RIP) was a lens designer, he never made any of the lenses himself. The production is contracted out to manufacturers (I think LZOS in Russia make a lot of them), made to his design and to the scope company's spec.

Tony..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this in a review of the 80mm A&M:

And let’s be honest – if you’re buying this scope, instead of a competitors less expensive Russian triplet you’re buying it (at least in part) for the looks. And it’s striking. I’ve never seen anything to match it. In this case, I’d recommend you consider matching it with one of the new WO carbon fiber diagonals. They look like they were designed to be together.

In a nutshell, the A&M offers nothing really extra in the optical department over the Lomo equipped WO 80mm but is in another league for its build quality and looks. The author also says you shouldn't be thinking bang for buck when considering the A&M as it's simply the Ferrari of telescopes.

So if you have the money and want the best looking scope out there, the A&M beats a WO hands down.

But if you are in the majority and value for money does matter, then there's probably no reason to choose the A&M over the WO.

Russ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

in my opinion a certificate with a scope doesn't mean a great deal they just issue them to help with buyers remorse so you can reassure your self that the £1000 you've just spent was worth it because the certificate says so and that £300 scope you was going to buy just wouldn't cut the grade.

a scope can only ever be as good as your eyesight no matter how optically perfect the certificate says it is.So to echo the words of kk the 200mm skywatcher explorer really does take some beating i own both a Williams optics scope and the explorer 200mm and i find i use the explorer much more even though its bigger and a bit more cumbersome to set up.So its not always the case that the more a scope costs the better it will perform as learned the hard way.

regards Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.