TS Optics 130mm f7 (or APM 107 super APO)?

[Richard136]

Looking for advice.

It's one of the above, for visual observing only. Will ride on a SkyTee2 with upgraded saddles.

Obvious questions - is the APM actually better quality? Is the 130 that unwieldy? Optically, will one outperform the other?

Targets would be all sky, i.e. it'd be an open scope. Possibly supplemented with a small Mak.

[mikeDnight]

There's a very noticeable jump in performance between a good 5" and a 4" refractor, but if the 130mm demands more effort to set up, would that potentially mean it would be used less? Also, a top quality 107mm apo is a formidable scope in the right hands, and would be so much easier to set up and take down at a moment's notice. APM have a well deserved reputation and that should be considered carefully before deciding on the 130 just because its more aperture. My old FS128 would take around ten minutes to set up on its permanent pier in my garden. I'd have to uncover the mount and carry out the power pack, then go back in for the refractor which was big and looked more like a 6" in its build, then I'd go back in for my eyepiece case; then when I was tired and frozen I'd have to go through the whole process in reverse.  As a consequence,  there would be times when I'd look for excuses why not to observe. Conversely,  since I've had my FC100DC, I've done more observing over the course of each year than I've ever done. The 100mm can be set up in two to three minutes and I'm observing. It's quite liberating really, and despite the smaller aperture I'm still seeing amazing things and having a great time.

You may find with the 107mm APM that you wouldn't use a Mak much.

Edited February 23, 2020 by mikeDnight

[Richard136]

Thanks for the input.

Wouldn't the focal length of the Mak mean it's always needed in addition to whichever refractor?

[Richard136]

The best scope is the one you use. Agreed.

Should add that the WO110 FLT I used to own was no problem to whip outside at a moments notice.

My other question is why the similarity in price for a significant difference in aperture between the 107 and the 130?

The TSOptics 107 (or the SharpStar for that matter) are also comparable price to the 130. So the 130 is either a bargain, or perhaps priced to reflect it's narrower appeal due to portability limitations. (?)

[mikeDnight]

The Mak is a great scope, but the refractor should be able to deliver equally high mag views with even sharper star images, along with great definition and contrast. But Mak's are relatively low cost, so there'd be no harm in having one as a complementary scope.

Generally the price of a refractor can be viewed as a measure of its optical quality or complexity. Often, the better optic will be able to be pushed to a higher level of performance, where the lower quality lens will generally begin to lag behind by comparison. 

[Richard136]

All other points of view welcome...

[x6gas]

I have a TS 130, but the f/6.6 super apo version that is no longer available.  I use it primarily for imaging but it delivers spectacular views on the occasions that I have used it for visual.  It's not too unwieldly in my view and the manufacturer provides a very handy carrying handle that bridges across the tube rings.  I also have a 90mm TS carbon fibre APO and that is also an absolutely awesome scope.

As has been alluded to above, these are made by SharpStar.  365 Astronomy are UK dealers for SharpStar, and although they don't routinely stock the 130 it might be worth contacting Zoltan to get a price - you might find it considerably cheaper that the TS branded scope.

[Richard136]

I didn't know there was a SharpStar 130.

365 Astronomy currently have offer proce on the 107. 

[Adam J]

Wow did not think it possible to make a 130mm FLP53 triplet for the same price i paid for my Esprit 100 (with flattener). I am not going to dismiss it just because of its price but i would be looking on astrobin for example images prior to purchase.

Adam

[Richard136]

Anyone got first hand experience of the TS Optics 130mm f7?

[joe aguiar]

That's the same optics as meade 130mm 6000 triplet I think?

If so it's a really good scope colour is as good as any good apo dont always worry about glass. My meade is a triplet 51 and comparing it to best 53 glass was no difference but that was only 1x more extensive comparing needs to be done on different night to get a final results.

Focuser is really good too I wouldn't upgrade it at all even for ap /imaging. 

Its semi big but not too big semi heavy but not too heavy 19 lbs

If your serious about planetary viewing or getting semi large or as big apo as u can get that's still semi portable then I think 130 is way to go

I have a 102 tak too which is also amazing but if I had to pick a size it may be 130 but a 4 size is so slouch either.

It depends if u really want portable or semi portable?

For Instance my 102 TSA Takahashi is 15 lbs that's just 4 less then the 130.

Also depends which scope my skywatcher evostar 100f9 apo was only 7 lbs but the quality compared to the 102 Takahashi TSA doesnt come close to the evostar. That's y I sold the 100 evostar 

Anyway u cant go wrong in the 4 to 5 inch range depends weight size u want and cost

J

[drjolo]

I had TS130 f/7 for about two years. I used it mainly for imaging ( https://astrojolo.com/tag/ts-apo130/ ) but also had few observing sessions. I remember once we compared views from APO130 and SCT 8". APO provided excellent and contrasty views, very pleasant. But when we moved scopes to Jupiter, then SCT 8" showed noticeably more detail. 

And APO130 is heavy beast, significantly heavier than SCT 8". I think it is more comparable to SCT 10", but still longer. 2/3 of its mass is located in the front cell, so apparently there is lot of glass  It requires two hands to carry, unless you will equip it with some comfortable handle. As I remember with rings and dovetail it was already over 10kg. 

Here is mounted onto EQ6 and with SW 80/400 as guidescope: