Can I have a honest opinion on these scopes.

[simmo39]

In the near future Im looking for a scope to compliment my SW 72ED. I luv my SW 72ED wider field views and it works well with my Zwo 1600mm. Im looking for a scope that will do a good job on Planetary nebs and gallaxies. I have a belt modded HEQ5 and dont want to overload it to much. Im looking at spending about £1000. I have done a little resarch and have drawn a short list of scopes.

TS optics Photoline 102

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p9868_TS-Optics-PhotoLine-102mm-f-7-FPL-53-Doublet-Apo-with-2-5--Focuser.html

William Optics Zenithstar 103

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/william-optics/william-optics-zenithstar-103-apo.html

and the cheaper outsider

Ascent 102ED F7

https://www.altairastro.com/ASCENT-102ED-F7-Refractor-Telescope-Geared-Focuser.html

 

Whats your opinion on these and is there any others I should consider? Im only after a good imaging scope and although I have a SW 130 PDS I would like to move away from reflectors as I have found the SW 72ED so easy to use.

Thanks Andy

Edited October 27, 2019 by simmo39

[joe aguiar]

So 1st I'll say I'm not into ap much at but from all my knowledge I say all 3 are ok but not perfect.

All r doublets 53 which good but alot serious imagers say get a triplet, as even doublets give bit colour since camera is more sensitive. 

Most those r f7 so just abit long f5 to f6 is what's most get or u may not fit all in the frame but depends on your camera too.

U could just buy  a focal reducer on any the 3 and that solves that.

Besides that all 3 look pretty good

But last have u pushed the 73? With imaging?

95% of the work comes from the camera will larger aperture help well sure abit but is it working spending that much when u could just take another 1 or 2 min longer expisure to capture more light detail? Verses the 102 guess that depends on u.

Joejaguar 

Edited October 27, 2019 by joe aguiar

[simmo39]

Hi Joejaguar. Thanks for the reply. The sw72 works well but for small stuff it's really pushing it. Think a bit more aperture would help and with a focal reducer it would be ideal. 

[joe aguiar]

Ok I see since u have pushed that little scope, and if you were planning getting focal reducer them a way then go for it.

Really all 3 are similar just depends on your preference.

Joejaguar 

[John]

The TS and the Altair scopes are probably the same item under different brandings with slightly different detailing.

 

[simmo39]

44 minutes ago, John said:

The TS and the Altair scopes are probably the same item under different brandings with slightly different detailing.

 

Hi John, I was wondering about that. I cant find what glass the Altair use. The TS say they use 53 glass but cant find anything to say what the Altair use.

[John]

If it's not specified then assume FPL-51 or equivilent. If it's FPL-53 they will say - it's a lot more expensive than FPL-51 !

Still probably made in the same factory though.

 

[JamesF]

1 hour ago, John said:

If it's not specified then assume FPL-51 or equivilent. If it's FPL-53 they will say - it's a lot more expensive than FPL-51 !

Still probably made in the same factory though.

I'm inclined to agree.

Also, I have the f/6 Photoline 72.  The field is obviously a long way from flat even with an IMX174 sensor.  If the 102 is anything like the same then with your 1600MM you will almost certainly need the flattener or flattener/reducer that goes with it.  That may be an issue however as I seem to recall @alan potts posting recently about internal reflection problems with one of the TS flatteners.  It would be worth doing a bit of research there, certainly.

In terms of build quality though, I really like the Photoline 72.  I'd hope the 102 is similar.

James

[alan potts]

4 hours ago, JamesF said:

I'm inclined to agree.

Also, I have the f/6 Photoline 72.  The field is obviously a long way from flat even with an IMX174 sensor.  If the 102 is anything like the same then with your 1600MM you will almost certainly need the flattener or flattener/reducer that goes with it.  That may be an issue however as I seem to recall @alan potts posting recently about internal reflection problems with one of the TS flatteners.  It would be worth doing a bit of research there, certainly.

In terms of build quality though, I really like the Photoline 72.  I'd hope the 102 is similar.

James

Yes I indeed had a problem with my APM 115mm and a 379Red flattener, I am not totally sure we ever got to bottom of it, there was some paint off the inside of this flattener which I covered but the reflection continued after, it seem to go away though. Now though because I cannot get a 2 inch IR/UV filter in the optic path I have tended not to use it with my 071 camera. I did take a number of shots with my other camera 183MC and also with the same flattener. I never saw any internal reflection problem on these few hunderd subs, so what the issue was I don't know.

Alan

[Trikeflyer]

I have an Altair starwave 80mm Ed and that has 53 glass - it cost more than the 102 above so I think yes this must be 51 glass. 

Here is the 53 glass version

https://www.altairastro.com/Starwave-102ED-FPL53-Refractor.html

Steve 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Trikeflyer

[Rob Sellent]

The Ascent 102ED F7 seems to be very similar to TS Optics 102ED, the Astro Tech 102ED, the Lunt 102ED, the StellarVue 102ED, and the Orion 102. These scopes appear to use FPL-51 or H-FK-61 ED glass. No idea what that is but a little hunting suggests it "mimics FPL-51 ...but is considerably less costly." There's a nice review on the Ascent type scopes here. Other links of interest might include: Choosing Between WO ZS103, SV102 Access and TS-Optics PhotoLine 102mm, New Ts 102 F/7 apo etc.

With a little sleuth work, you should be able to find a wealth of info on these scopes

Edited October 28, 2019 by Rob Sellent

[Limerick John]

I have the Zenithstar 103. It's a nice instrument and gives very pleasing views, especially on wide field stuff. Nice sharp optics. Its a bit more expensive that the others but the fit and finish are very good. I suspect the optics are similar to the other scopes mentioned but in FL53.

Not mad about the focuser though. I haven't tried any astrophotography with it yet . Like yourself, I got it to complement my 72mm Megrez refractor.

[simmo39]

14 hours ago, JamesF said:

I'm inclined to agree.

Also, I have the f/6 Photoline 72.  The field is obviously a long way from flat even with an IMX174 sensor.  If the 102 is anything like the same then with your 1600MM you will almost certainly need the flattener or flattener/reducer that goes with it.  That may be an issue however as I seem to recall @alan potts posting recently about internal reflection problems with one of the TS flatteners.  It would be worth doing a bit of research there, certainly.

In terms of build quality though, I really like the Photoline 72.  I'd hope the 102 is similar.

James

Thanks for the pointer James.

9 hours ago, alan potts said:

Yes I indeed had a problem with my APM 115mm and a 379Red flattener, I am not totally sure we ever got to bottom of it, there was some paint off the inside of this flattener which I covered but the reflection continued after, it seem to go away though. Now though because I cannot get a 2 inch IR/UV filter in the optic path I have tended not to use it with my 071 camera. I did take a number of shots with my other camera 183MC and also with the same flattener. I never saw any internal reflection problem on these few hunderd subs, so what the issue was I don't know.

Alan

Hi Alan, I have already got a 279Red flattener for use with mt SW 72ED and have vfound it very good, No problems with reflections so hopefully it will be ok with what ever scope I get.

8 hours ago, Trikeflyer said:

I have an Altair starwave 80mm Ed and that has 53 glass - it cost more than the 102 above so I think yes this must be 51 glass. 

Here is the 53 glass version

https://www.altairastro.com/Starwave-102ED-FPL53-Refractor.html

Steve 

Hi Steve, I had seen that but the item has been unavailable for a long time. If it ever came into stock I would consider it.

 

7 hours ago, Rob Sellent said:

The Ascent 102ED F7 seems to be very similar to TS Optics 102ED, the Astro Tech 102ED, the Lunt 102ED, the StellarVue 102ED, and the Orion 102. These scopes appear to use FPL-51 or H-FK-61 ED glass. No idea what that is but a little hunting suggests it "mimics FPL-51 ...but is considerably less costly." There's a nice review on the Ascent type scopes here. Other links of interest might include: Choosing Between WO ZS103, SV102 Access and TS-Optics PhotoLine 102mm, New Ts 102 F/7 apo etc.

With a little sleuth work, you should be able to find a wealth of info on these scopes

 

Thanks Rob for the links.

2 hours ago, Limerick John said:

I have the Zenithstar 103. It's a nice instrument and gives very pleasing views, especially on wide field stuff. Nice sharp optics. Its a bit more expensive that the others but the fit and finish are very good. I suspect the optics are similar to the other scopes mentioned but in FL53.

Not mad about the focuser though. I haven't tried any astrophotography with it yet . Like yourself, I got it to complement my 72mm Megrez refractor.

Thanks for the reply John, I luv the look of the scope and the FL 53 glass is a boon.

[Rob Sellent]

2 hours ago, simmo39 said:

Thanks Rob for the links

Let us know how you get along

[simmo39]

22 hours ago, Rob Sellent said:

Let us know how you get along

Will do, decisions decisions.

[MartinB]

If you are after planetary nebs and galaxies I think you could do with something a little larger.  It is a little over your stated budget but "about" £1000 might give you a little leeway but a skywatcher ED pro 120 would be excellent for PNs and larger galaxies.  It would also be comfortably manageable for your HEQ5

[simmo39]

16 hours ago, MartinB said:

If you are after planetary nebs and galaxies I think you could do with something a little larger.  It is a little over your stated budget but "about" £1000 might give you a little leeway but a skywatcher ED pro 120 would be excellent for PNs and larger galaxies.  It would also be comfortably manageable for your HEQ5

Thanks for the pointer, I will have a look.