APM LZOS 130 f/9

[DesertSky]

No, Sir. I have not experienced or compared LZOS or FPL53 glass before.

I proudly own a 80mm doublet scope. An identical version is available at FLO.  

I honestly believe that I will not be able to differentiate the visual qualities of the glasses FPL51, LZOS (FPL 52 similar) and FPL53 (or FCD100) because I am only a visual hobbyist and not imaging deep sky.

On the other hand, I have a strong scientific educational background and  I work hard for the money. That helps me to judge the fair market value for a product. I would not pay a price of gold for the silver. LZOS is a marketing phenomenon. If there is someone claiming that LZOS is a TAK, TEC or AP similar product, I want to see the data. not only words.

I will be happy to answer if you have any other questions.

Edited May 22, 2021 by DesertSky

[John]

21 minutes ago, DesertSky said:

No, Sir. I have not experienced or compared LZOS or FPL53 glass before....

 

I will be happy to answer if you have any other questions.

No further questions.

[Stu]

24 minutes ago, DesertSky said:

No, Sir. I have not experienced or compared LZOS or FPL53 glass before.

I proudly own a 80mm doublet scope. An identical version is available at FLO.  

I honestly believe that I will not be able to differentiate the visual qualities of the glasses FPL51, LZOS (FPL 52 similar) and FPL53 (or FCD100) because I am only a visual hobbyist and not imaging deep sky.

On the other hand, I have a strong scientific educational background and  I work hard for the money. That helps me to judge the fair market value for a product. I would not pay a price of gold for the silver. LZOS is a marketing phenomenon. If there is someone claiming that LZOS is a TAK, TEC or AP similar product, I want to see the data. not only words.

I will be happy to answer if you have any other questions.

It would perhaps seem wise not to comment on things of which you have no experience in that case.

[Deadlake]

29 minutes ago, DesertSky said:

I honestly believe that I will not be able to differentiate the visual qualities of the glasses FPL51, LZOS (FPL 52 similar) and FPL53 (or FCD100) because I am only a visual hobbyist and not imaging deep sky.

On the other hand, I have a strong scientific educational background and  I work hard for the money. That helps me to judge the fair market value for a product. I would not pay a price of gold for the silver. LZOS is a marketing phenomenon. If there is someone claiming that LZOS is a TAK, TEC or AP similar product, I want to see the data. not only words.

If you strong scientific background then look at the below numbers for 130mm/F6 lens produced by LZOS.

The main point is that the performance of a lens is theoretically until its has been placed on an optical bench and the results measured. Looking at ABBE numbers does not give you enough data.

The cost of figuring is very prohibitive. Moving all of the below lens to a Strehl >= 0.98 would require a rise in cost of the lens cell by 25% (that was the charge for the LZOS anniversary addition).

My choice of LZOS over AP was not cost but waiting 10 years.

Glad I bought when I did as LZOS current production run is bought until January 2023.

Note: The below a list of 44pc 130/6 lenses from the last two years, 2019-2020.

 

 S/N.             RMS.         PV         Strehl

346	0.034	0.231	0.955
347	0.031	0.240	0.965
348	0.034	0.224	0.956
349	0.032	0.183	0.960
350	0.035	0.198	0.953
351	0.034	0.220	0.955
353	0.034	0.217	0.956
354	0.033	0.199	0.958
355	0.029	0.174	0.968
356	0.035	0.220	0.953
357	0.032	0.176	0.960
360	0.028	0.235	0.971
361	0.033	0.239	0.957
362	0.028	0.209	0.969
363	0.027	0.151	0.973
364	0.027	0.167	0.972
365	0.025	0.155	0.976
366	0.023	0.158	0.979
367	0.026	0.146	0.973
368	0.030	0.167	0.965
369	0.022	0.184	0.981
372	0.023	0.169	0.979
373	0.029	0.173	0.967
374	0.029	0.187	0.967
375	0.033	0.169	0.957
376	0.033	0.196	0.958
377	0.035	0.217	0.953
378	0.031	0.196	0.962
379	0.032	0.223	0.961
380	0.022	0.159	0.980
383	0.030	0.218	0.966
384	0.033	0.108	0.959
381	0.021	0.156	0.983
382	0.030	0.222	0.966
385	0.028	0.183	0.970
386	0.023	0.135	0.980
387	0.026	0.159	0.974
388	0.031	0.217	0.963
389	0.156	0.023	0.978
390	0.223	0.031	0.962
391	0.235	0.033	0.958
392	0.217	0.034	0.956
396	0.134	0.022	0.980
397	0.119	0.018	0.988

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Deadlake

[DesertSky]

12 minutes ago, Stu said:

It would perhaps seem wise not to comment on things of which you have no experience in that case.

Then you should not say anything if a person says the earth is flat until you visit stratosphere... HA! 

[DesertSky]

Dear Proto Star,

This is not data but a flood. This is a  typical pattern of internet trolls. You have disclosed yourself and your sponsor, I think.

[Deadlake]

1 minute ago, DesertSky said:

Dear Proto Star,

This is not data but a flood. This is a  typical pattern of internet trolls. You have disclosed yourself and your sponsor, I think.

I have access to the data because I got to choose a lens cell.

Also vendors cannot refute claims posted on this forum. Maybe @Stu that should change?

I think you have not changed your dogma when supplied with the data, I don’t see any scientific approach in your reasoning.

[DesertSky]

I see that became nebula after my responded to STU....

C'mon STU! 

Help me to become a galaxy. HA! 

[DesertSky]

I bet John is eating pop corn and watching now (joking with respect)

[Stu]

Enough of this nonsense. I shall lock the thread for the time being until a decision is made what to do with it.