Is Tele Vue going downhill?
Ed Wong
Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope
store and found out they have just decided to drop carrying the Tele Vue
line. They even posted a sign in their store to let their customers know
that this is because of the quality of Tele Vue scopes now is not up to
standard. Talking to the owner, he give me quite a few examples of poor
Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no internal baffles, cemented
objectives, poor warrenty services, semi Apo glass, poor delivery, and
lately, poor quality. I know the store owner for years and he stand by
what he sells. I assume it has to be something major for him to drop
carrying Tele Vue products.
Are these experiences shared by others? I sure like to know before I
invest in Tele Vue products.
BTW, any info on AP Traveller would be appreciated.
............ Ed
Bob Smith
quality and my recent purchases continue to confirm this. ONE STORE TAKING
THIS ACTION would lead me to believe some type of other dispute with no
connection actual quality.
I know they have been running behind on certain products, such as the TV85,
due to demand, but that should tell you something right away.
TeleVue is a very unique company in that they have 'hit' the right formula
to sell very high quality goods that appeal to all segments of the community
(budget through professional) and almost constant availability. No other
company has done this, that I know of in the field of refractors.
As a marketer myself - my appreciate Uncle Al not for his optics, but more
for his marketing ability to put a high quality instrument on the market for
an affordable price and actually have it available to buy.
Although it is the quality that drives it :)
Bob Smith
Atlanta, GA
bsmith at msn dot com
Ed Wong wrote in message <36F504...@sympatico.ca>...
howard lazarus
I cannot speak for the vendor you do business with, however, I have always
found that TV products where of excellent quality and as for their EP's I
know of no other supplier that you can send your EP to for inspection or
repair and get excellent service to boot.
As for scopes I feel the AP is better in mechnical quality and in overall
cosmetic finish. The optics is a real battle and I would say about equal
with the ones I have viewed. However, they were not current TV scopes but
current AP scopes.AP is also second to none on service however, the delivery
time is very long and requires one to have a great desire to wait out the
time to get that scope.Their mounts and scopes are worth the wait.
Byron Matthews
and all my eyepieces. I had a problem with my SkyTour computer, and
warranty service was exemplary. I can't comment on this dealer's
experiences, obviously, but he complains about design, materials,
workmanship, delivery, and service -- what else is there?? The worst
company in the world usually does SOMETHING right! That, and the
posting of a sign like you describe makes it sound to me like there is
more to this story. Who in his right mind would cut himself out of
selling TV eyepieces?
Byron
Gerh3150
performancs with a very good star test...I feel like others something else is
at hand...
Chris Gerh...@aol.com
Chris Marriott
>Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller.
Why restrict yourself to those? Both Takahashi and Vixen also make excellent
refractors; I have the Vixen 4" Fluorite which is superb.
The advantage of both Tak and Vixen is that they're available "off the
shelf"; there's no doubt that the AP Traveller is a great scope, but you're
in for a LONG wait if you want one. The main benefit of the Traveller is
that it's considerably cheaper than either than Tak or the Vixen.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com)
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
Eric Jensen
respect to color correction and overall optical quality? Is a 2" focuser
included with the Vixen?
-Eric
Paul Gustafson
>The main benefit of the Traveller is
> that it's considerably cheaper than either than Tak or the Vixen.
That's definitely not true in the US. The price of the Traveler (ota only)
as of the latest production run was around $2400 US. The Tak FS-102 ota
lists for around $2300 US , and the Vixen 102 Fluorite ota lists for $1900
US.
Paul Gustafson
BTW, Chris, since you've expressed concern several times about incorrect
spelling, note the spelling of Traveler. ;-)
Chris Marriott
Eric Jensen wrote in message <01be73ce$11074960$a72c...@jensen.robin.no>...
>I am curious, how does the 4" Vixen directly compare to the TV-101 with
>respect to color correction and overall optical quality?
I've never used the TV-101, but I'd imagine that the Vixen Fluorite should
be a lot better; it's an Apochromat, whereas I believe (and please correct
me if I'm wrong) that the TV is an achromat. The Vixen costs considerably
more than the TV.
>Is a 2" focuser
>included with the Vixen?
Yes, it has a 63mm diameter drawtube which can take either 1.25 or 2"
eyepieces.
Chris Marriott
Paul Gustafson wrote in message <7d3mg8$mff$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>Chris Marriott wrote:
>
> >The main benefit of the Traveller is
>> that it's considerably cheaper than either than Tak or the Vixen.
>
>That's definitely not true in the US. The price of the Traveler (ota only)
>as of the latest production run was around $2400 US. The Tak FS-102 ota
>lists for around $2300 US , and the Vixen 102 Fluorite ota lists for $1900
>US.
Wow - $2300 for the Tak FS-102? Here in the UK it costs the equivalent of
about US$3300! I'm not sure what the Vixen Fluorite sells for (I didn't buy
mine through "normal" channels), but I think it's probably somewhere in the
same price bracket. You can't buy the Traveler here, at all - AP don't have
a UK dealer.
>BTW, Chris, since you've expressed concern several times about incorrect
>spelling, note the spelling of Traveler. ;-)
Thank you; I stand corrected. Is that the normal spelling of the word in the
US? In British English, if a word ends in "L", you replace it with "LL" when
adding endings to the word - travel, traveller. Does that not happen in US
English?
Eric Jensen
-Eric Jensen
Clive Gibbons
Chris Marriott <ch...@NOSPAM.skymap.com> wrote:
>
>I've never used the TV-101, but I'd imagine that the Vixen Fluorite should
>be a lot better; it's an Apochromat, whereas I believe (and please correct
>me if I'm wrong) that the TV is an achromat. The Vixen costs considerably
>more than the TV.
Hi Chris.
The TV-101 is very much an apochromat (or, at least a darn good
approximation <g>).
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons
Technician, McMaster University,
School of Geography and Geology.
Ed Wong
I didn't realize Tak FS-102 is only around $2300. I always
thought Tak is out of my price range. Can you recommend couple reputable
Takahashi dealers? Thanks.
................ Ed
Paul Gustafson wrote:
>
> Chris Marriott wrote:
>
> >The main benefit of the Traveller is
> > that it's considerably cheaper than either than Tak or the Vixen.
>
> That's definitely not true in the US. The price of the Traveler (ota only)
> as of the latest production run was around $2400 US. The Tak FS-102 ota
> lists for around $2300 US , and the Vixen 102 Fluorite ota lists for $1900
> US.
>
> Paul Gustafson
Sue and Alan
I am really puzzled. Why would you speculate about a telescope you have
never seen and are obviously unfamiliar with? Your comments were absolutely
no help to the person asking how a 4" Vixen and a TV101 compare.
BTW, the Vixen fluorite OTA lists at $1849 in the current Orion catalog.
The TV101 OTA lists at $2475 in my latest Pocono Mountain Optics catalog.
The TV101 is an APO. It sounds like you are really confused.
Clear skies, Alan
Chris Marriott wrote in message
<922051015.1912.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Eric Jensen wrote in message
<01be73ce$11074960$a72c...@jensen.robin.no>...
>>I am curious, how does the 4" Vixen directly compare to the TV-101 with
>>respect to color correction and overall optical quality?
>
Paul Gustafson
Paul Gustafson
Ed Wong <ed....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:36F57D...@sympatico.ca...
Kevin Wenker
www.astromart.com.
Kevin
Ed Wong wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I didn't realize Tak FS-102 is only around $2300. I always
> thought Tak is out of my price range. Can you recommend couple reputable
> Takahashi dealers? Thanks.
>
Sue and Alan
Exactly who are we talking about here? Since the owner posted a sign in his
store, thereby making his comments public, it seems it would be appropriate
to mention names here. You did feel free to pass on negative comments
someone told you about TV.
Some of the issues the dealer raised puzzle me. Cemented lenses should not
be an issue. Many scopes made today using ED glasses are not true APOs, but
they have better color correction than a achromat. Has he given up selling
entry level refractors?
Personally, I would not hesitate to recommend TV. We have quite a few TV
eyepieces and they are just fine. The TV scopes I have looked through have
also been quite nice.
Clear skies, Alan
Ed Wong wrote in message <36F504...@sympatico.ca>...
>I'm in the market for a 4" refractor and am considering either a
>Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope
>store and found out they have just decided to drop carrying the Tele Vue
>line. They even posted a sign in their store to let their customers know
>that this is because of the quality of Tele Vue scopes now is not up to
>standard. Talking to the owner, he give me quite a few examples of poor
>Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no internal baffles, cemented
>objectives, poor warrenty services, semi Apo glass, poor delivery, and
>lately, poor quality. I know the store owner for years and he stand by
>what he sells. I assume it has to be something major for him to drop
>carrying Tele Vue products. [SNIP]
Paul Gustafson
Chris Marriott <ch...@NOSPAM.skymap.com> wrote in message
news:922051794.2395.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Wow - $2300 for the Tak FS-102? Here in the UK it costs the equivalent of
> about US$3300! I'm not sure what the Vixen Fluorite sells for (I didn't
buy
> mine through "normal" channels), but I think it's probably somewhere in
the
> same price bracket. You can't buy the Traveler here, at all - AP don't
have
> a UK dealer.
Can you buy direct from AP or from Company 7? What would a $2400 US scope
cost, shipped from the US to the UK?
> >BTW, Chris, since you've expressed concern several times about incorrect
> >spelling, note the spelling of Traveler. ;-)
>
>
> Thank you; I stand corrected. Is that the normal spelling of the word in
the
> US? In British English, if a word ends in "L", you replace it with "LL"
when
> adding endings to the word - travel, traveller. Does that not happen in US
> English?
The preferred spelling of "one who travels" in the US is "traveler" with
"traveller" listed as a variant, although I've not seen it used. AP uses the
common spelling for their scope.
Regards,
Paul Gustafson
Dave & Frani Pisak
Gerh3150 wrote in message <19990321202624...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>My TV101 has a "made in USA" sticker on it so not sure where this "import"
>comment comes from. I also heard the long wait for A/Ps are due to them not
>being able to get enough quality glass....which doesn't sound like great
>"control" to me....
The import comment comes from Al Nagler. At the last tele-Vue day sponsored
by Pocono Mt Optics (PA), I asked him where the optics are figured on the 85mm
101mm and 140mm scopes. He responded with "overseas", but that every one is
checked before being sold, making the return rate practically nonexistant.
My experience with anything Tele-Vue has been good to excellent.
Dave
Byron Matthews
> >spelling, note the spelling of Traveler. ;-)
>
> Thank you; I stand corrected. Is that the normal spelling of the word in the
> US? In British English, if a word ends in "L", you replace it with "LL" when
> adding endings to the word - travel, traveller. Does that not happen in US
> English?
You can generally get away with doing it either way. There is a
grammatical rule about when to double certain consonants in a final CVC,
depending upon which syllable is accented. TRAVeler vs. proPELler,
forGOTten, etc. Exceptions? Sure, but that just means we need to
further specify (i.e., complicate) the rule. Is it any wonder
grammarians pull down such lavish salaries?
Ah, but life is too short for this sort of thing. Let's instead focus
our energies on something important, like keeping the apostrophe out of
the possessive 'its', among other places it doesn't belong. Perhaps the
struggle against light pollution and apostrophe pollution could be
combined in some way.
Slow news day -- except for the TV-101 being demoted to an achromat and
lowered in price below the Vixen! Film at 11.
Byron
Ed Wong
Thanks for your comments. From today's replies, I've not seen one
single email that agrees with the negative opinions I got from my local
dealer. Every reply seems to vote for TV, although one privite reply I
got indicates that AP might have better control of the glass because
they are produced in US whereas TV imports them and may has less
control.
As to naming the dealer, I rather not because even though he
posted a sign in his store, it is only local here. As to whether this is
unfair to Tele Vue, I guess the replies speak for Tele Vue. If you have
good reputation then it will stand up to criticism.
.................. Ed
Reid Williams
Ed Wong wrote in message <36F504...@sympatico.ca>...
>I'm in the market for a 4" refractor and am considering either a
>Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope
>store and found out they have just decided to drop carrying the Tele Vue
>line.
Ed, when your shop notes they are dropping the TeleVue line, does it mean
they are dropping the TeleVue eyepiece business as well? If not, then why?
Try calling TeleVue, and address your questions direct to them...
Reid Williams
Gerh3150
comment comes from. I also heard the long wait for A/Ps are due to them not
being able to get enough quality glass....which doesn't sound like great
"control" to me....
ed wrote:
h one privite reply I
got indicates that AP might have better control of the glass because
they are produced in US whereas TV imports them and may has less
control.
Chris Gerh...@aol.com
WHALEN44
enough quality glass....which doesn't sound like great
"control" to me....
Chris,
If this is the case, it sounds like great quality control to me. Exotic glass
is in huge demand, and getting the quality that meets Rolands requirements is
in short supply. I think that he could probably slip in lower quality glass and
most would never know the difference (other than himself). It is however, a
tribute to his integrity that he will not put out a scope with inferior or
sub-standard materials.
So as producer of the product, he has absolute control over what leaves his
shop. From what I have heard, most other APO's or simi APO's use a cheaper
grade of glass.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
Derek Wong
>
>...Talking to the owner, he give me quite a few examples of poor
> Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no internal baffles, cemented
> objectives, poor warrenty services, semi Apo glass, poor delivery, and
> lately, poor quality.
Ed:
Are you the same Ed Wong that asked a question on Ask-Al about a
Pronto? If so, you should have read at least some of the Televue
website.
I'm NO optical expert, but I do own a TV 140, have looked through a few
Rangers, Prontos, and TV 85's and can make some comments:
1. Cemented objectives--I don't know where this came from--I think all
the objectives are air-spaced. Quoting from the reviews of the three
scopes listed on the TV website:
PRONTO: "OBJECTIVE: Air-spaced, two-element semi-apochromat.
Front element: crown ED;
Rear element: high-index flint.
According to Tele Vue, airspace between the lenses is maintained by a
ring individually sized to optimize each objective's corrections."
TV 85: "Its objective is an air-spaced doublet of 600-mm focal length
made from 'special-dispersion glasses.'"
GENESIS SDF: "Nagler points out that a benefit of the Genesis design is
that he can fine-tune each unit's performance by varying the roughly
12mm air space between the front elements or 1 mm air space between the
rear elements. Tweaking each telescope's lenses helps correct for
variations in the final lens curves or characteristics of the batch of
glass used to make those lenses.
<BTW this addresses your point in the other post about glass
variability>
I know my TV 140 has an air spaced objective (David Nagler said so), and
the TV 101 is an updated Genesis SDF and would share the same air spaced
design.
2. Baffles--My TV 140 does have some baffles after the objective. It
is true that much of the middle portion of the tube has a rough flat
black finish rather than baffles, as stated by Al Nagler in Ask-Al--he
states that he tried various designs including with baffles. Some of
the astrophotographers may not agree with this, although it seems that
most photos taken with these scopes are very nice.
Also, there IS a large baffle in both the TV 101 and TV 140--it occurs
right before the corrector lens and does block some of the stray light.
3. Poor warranty services--I never had warranty service, but I have had
my scope into the factory recently, and judging by the service I
received and others' experiences I can't believe that this would be the
case. There are only a few people that you deal with. David Nagler
(Al's son) and Al answer many of the technical questions. Judy Nagler
(Al's wife) dealt with the details. The technician I spoke with (Joe)
wrote me a PERSONAL note and spoke to me on the phone. Try getting this
kind of service from some of the larger companies!
4. Semi Apo glass--this is confusing, since I'm not sure that Televue
informs anyone of their designs, and the scope, not the glass is
labelled as APO or semi-APO. Some scopes (ie. Pronto) are semi-APO, but
the TV 101 and 140 are claimed to be true APO's--in fact, Al claims no
color on Venus in the 101 at 200x. Venus is tough due to atmospheric
dispersion, and you have to be careful to use the right eyepieces and
center the planet to avoid eyepiece aberrations, but I didn't see any
color at 300x in my 140. There was some color on Vega out of focus, but
not in focus at 300x. Again, I'm never going to be an experienced
refractor tester, so there may have been the slightest amount of color
which I missed. At 750x there was a small amount of color on Vega and
Capella. BTW on Saturn, at 2500x (5x and 2x barlows + 2.8mm ortho) I
lost Cassini's division (it was clear at 1250x).
5. Poor delivery--this is a problem with other companies too--look at
Astrophysics (which by the way also has outstanding service). Try to
order a custom Dob--most quality scopes take time, and the more popular
ones are backordered.
6. Poor quality--since many of us can't test our scopes with an
interferometer and cannot quanititate startests accurately, this is hard
to refute. But I highly doubt that TV would show poor quality--I don't
think the Naglers would tolerate this. There will always be some debate
as to whether other scopes like Tak/AP have lower levels of spherical
aberration, but all the scopes under discussion would have nice optics.
It's too bad your dealer is no longer selling TV products, because some
of the eyepieces and accessories they are coming out with (such as the
Nagler 4's, Radians, and Powermates) are great products.
Last, before you get that Tak 102, remember that a TV 101, Traveller, or
TAK 106 FSQ all give wider fields of view, which is a very nice feature
of these scopes. An 8" scope can surpass them in planetary performance
but getting a 4+ degree field is one thing the larger scope can never
do.
Good luck, and I hope you contact Televue.
Derek Wong
daw...@earthlink.net
Rich N.
through lately seemed to be very well made.
I've always found Tele Vue's customer service to be excellent.
Ed do you want a very fast 4" APO? The TV-101 is fast but
about the same size as a Tak FS-102. The Traveler is very
good, both fast and compact, but the production runs sell out very quickly.
The Tak FSp-102 is an f/8.1 and the Vixen GP-102F is around f/8.
I think the Vixen is about $2500 with the GP mount.
Rich
Ed Wong wrote in message <36F504...@sympatico.ca>...
>I'm in the market for a 4" refractor and am considering either a
>Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope
-snip
Rich N.
not
>being able to get enough quality glass....which doesn't sound like great
>"control" to me....
The AP "control" is they don't pass on the not so good glass
to their customers. AP makes their own objective lenses.
Rich
Todd Gross
policy more likely. As an example, the Televue 85mm is outstanding. Their
new eyepiece designs have been top notch. Post the name of this person
Todd G
>I'm in
the market for a 4" refractor and am considering either a>Tele Vue 101 or
Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope>store and found out
they have just decided to drop carrying the Tele Vue>line. They even posted a
sign in their store to let their customers know>that this is because of the
quality of Tele Vue scopes now is not up to>standard. Talking to the owner, he
give me quite a few examples of poor>Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no
internal baffles, cemented>objectives, poor warrenty services, semi Apo glass,
poor delivery, and>lately, poor quality. I know the store owner for years and
he stand by>what he sells. I assume it has to be something major for him to
drop>carrying Tele Vue products.
> Are these experiences shared by others? I sure like to know before I
Joseph O'Neil
wrote:
>no, he must have a hidden agenda, or doesn't like the new Televue pricing
>policy more likely. As an example, the Televue 85mm is outstanding. Their
>new eyepiece designs have been top notch. Post the name of this person
>Todd G
Hi Todd;
I agree, there must be something else at play here. One
little point I would disagree is about the Radian designs, optically
they are fantastic, excellent, etc, but ergonomically I've had some
people dislike the "blackout" effect (for lack of better words) that
you have with Radians if you move your eye a bit off centre. I've
been taking a Radian out ot local star nights and letting people try
it out, and while optically it receives excellent marks from anyone
who tests it out, I've had a number of people comment (sometimes
negatively) on that "blackout effect" if you are not centred
perfectly, adjustable barrell notwithstanding..
This has not turned people off Tele Vue products mind you, but
I do find that people who were seriously thinking of a Radian are now
having second thoughts and considering a Nagler or Panoptic, or in one
case, a couple of Tele Vue plossls and barlow. The thing is though,
at least in my limited experience, from an ergonomic point of view,
the radian is not the winner I thought it would be.
But in the case of a dealer dropping an entire product line
over a supposed overall drop in quaility, that is a bunch of bunk,
IMO. Perhaps the competition in some quarters is catching up to Tele
Vue, but still, there is something else going on here.
Anyhow, about my comments on the Radians - please people, no
flames, it is not my intention to start a flame war or attack anyone's
sacred cow, and I love Tele Vue - the product, the company, the
people, but as the saying goes "the devil is in the details" and that
little "blackout effect" is playing devil in my little corner of the
world.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Large Format Images From Southern Ontario
Chuck Gulker
Joe, last Friday night under the dark, clear, steady skies of Hidden Hollow
(Mansfield, Ohio), I had an opportunity to use (and let others) use my
Radian 14 from 8:00-3:00 AM. Four very experienced observers viewed
extensively through my Radian on the following telescopes: 7 inch F5.4
Starmaster, 13 custom figured F4.5 Newtonian, 4 1/4 inch F4 RFT. We
observed a wide variety of deep sky objects (M42, NGC 4565, M81/82, M104,
M35, M46, just to name a few objects). Not one person commented unfavorably
in any fashion. No person mentioned any darken effect. I'll make a point,
however, to look for the darkening next time out.
Chuck
Russ Durkee
the Tele Vue line as well. I asked why and he stated
that he was not selling enough to justify the
minimum order that he would be required to have.
My experience with TV has been very good. I recently
purchased a Pronto second hand and called TV to ask some
questions about their Tele-pod. The person I spoke with
was very helpful and could answer very specific questions
about performance...indicating to me he was an experienced
observer himself. He also wished me well and said "I hope
you enjoy the scope.." ...as if I purchased it from TV
directly.
Russ
Bob May
spaced lens that has been cememted will, of course, have problems all over
the place and color errors would only be one of them. I prefer to use
reflectors as they are naturally colorfree and can be made lighter and
simpler than refractors, and of course are a LOT cheaper. I could probably
make a nice shiefspiegler for less than any of the refractors and you would
love it better.
Bob May
Bill McHale
: What's wrong with a cemented lens? depends upon the design of the lens. A
Don't Shiefspiegler's require long focal lengths? (F/15 and above?)
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Ed Wong
Yes, I did ask Al about getting a ivory Pronto when they just
change the tube color over to green. Since then, I decided to get
something a bit bigger, like a 4" :-).
Thanks also for the informative synopses on various TV scope
attributes. Your very last point about getting a wider field is of
interest to me. I do own a 8" SCT already and am longing for a good
refractor. That is why I'm looking at TV101 or Travel(l)er. Checking the
Anacortes site last nite on the Takahashi FS102, they show a matching
reducer that turns the FS102 f9 to f5.6 with 4.8 degree view. I wonder
if anybody has any experience with such combination and whether the
image quality will match a straight f5, like TV101.
.................. Ed
Derek Wong wrote:
>
> Ed Wong wrote:
> >
> >...Talking to the owner, he give me quite a few examples of poor
> > Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no internal baffles, cemented
> > objectives, poor warrenty services, semi Apo glass, poor delivery, and
> > lately, poor quality.
>
Ed Wong
Yes, I'm interested in a fast APO, that is why I'm considering
the TV101 or AP Traveler. The Tak 102 with a reducer is suppose to give
f5.9 with 4.8 degree view too. Does anybody has any experience with this
combination?
................. Ed
Rich N. wrote:
>
> A relatively new TV-101, a new TV-85 and Pronto I've looked
> through lately seemed to be very well made.
>
> I've always found Tele Vue's customer service to be excellent.
>
> Ed do you want a very fast 4" APO? The TV-101 is fast but
> about the same size as a Tak FS-102. The Traveler is very
> good, both fast and compact, but the production runs sell out very quickly.
>
> The Tak FSp-102 is an f/8.1 and the Vixen GP-102F is around f/8.
>
> I think the Vixen is about $2500 with the GP mount.
>
> Rich
>
> Ed Wong wrote in message <36F504...@sympatico.ca>...
> >I'm in the market for a 4" refractor and am considering either a
> >Tele Vue 101 or Astro Physics Traveller. Talking to my local telescope
> -snip
Rich N.
Why a fast APO? Are you doing photography?
If you aren't going to be doing photography a Fujinon
10x70 Polaris binocular will give you a very nice 5+ deg field.
I would guess the Tak focal reducer performs very well.
Rich
Ed Wong wrote in message <36F6D8...@sympatico.ca>...
Bonnie Lo
Gerh3150
Chris Gerh...@aol.com
RAnder3127
>Talking to the owner, he give me quite a few examples of poor
>Tele Vue designs and experiences, e.g. no internal baffles,
His refractors might benefit from baffles in addition to
the well done blackening he already does.
>cemented objectives,
Only the Oracle, long out of production.
>poor warrenty services,
That sounds like a new one. Up to now, his reputation for
this has been very good.
>semi Apo glass,
I'd describe the Pronto-Ranger as achro-achro-apo. Sort of more
achro than apo.
>poor delivery,
Up until about three months ago, but I thought it had picked up
lately.
and
>lately, poor quality.
I saw one 101 that wasn't so great, and my TV85 had some problems,
so you may have a point.
-Rich
RAnder3127
<sue_and_a...@msn.com> writes:
>BTW, the Vixen fluorite OTA lists at $1849 in the current Orion catalog.
>The TV101 OTA lists at $2475 in my latest Pocono Mountain Optics catalog.
>The TV101 is an APO. It sounds like you are really confused.
Don't forget to subtract the value of the 2" diagonal, case, stopdown
and 26mm Plossl from the 101. That brings it's price close to
$1900, very much in-line with the Vixen, plus the construction of the
101 is far better since it uses billet machining rather than cheap
aluminum castings..
-Rich
RAnder3127
O'Neil) writes:
>I've had a number of people comment (sometimes
>negatively) on that "blackout effect" if you are not centred
>perfectly, adjustable barrell notwithstanding..
Then tell the people looking through it to use the adjustable
eyecup which was DESIGNED in part to alleviate the black
out problem.
-Rich
RAnder3127
writes:
>What's wrong with a cemented lens? depends upon the design of the lens. A
>spaced lens that has been cememted will, of course, have problems all over
>the place and color errors would only be one of them.
Differential of expansion between the two (three) glass types used
can cause problems with stress if the lens is very large (over
three inches). Plus, there can be more chromatic and spherical
aberration than with an air or oil-spaced lens.
-Rich
RAnder3127
writes:
>What about the coming Tak FSQ-106 f/5?
$2500 vrs. $4000.
-Rich
Ed Wong
This is very useful info. I would never be able to get this from
reading the brochure. I'm very glad you point this out.
................... Ed
ddd wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:54:22 GMT, Ed Wong <ed....@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Rich,
> > Yes, I'm interested in a fast APO, that is why I'm considering
> >the TV101 or AP Traveler. The Tak 102 with a reducer is suppose to give
> >f5.9 with 4.8 degree view too. Does anybody has any experience with this
> >combination?
>
> I have the FS102 and used to own the reducer.
>
> The reducer/field flattner is for medium format photography.
> You don't have enough back focus with it for a diagonal.
>
> A 50mmTak LE is much cheaper, 35mmTV Panoptic is somewhat
> cheaper than the reducer, plus you can use them on other scopes.
>
> Unless you are planning photography I would not include the reducer
> in your comparisons.
>
> Gene Horr
> trarubee ng fjoryy qbg arg
Todd Gross
>little point I would disagree is about the Radian designs, optically
>they are fantastic, excellent, etc, but ergonomically I've had some
>people dislike the "blackout" effect (for lack of better words) that
>you have with Radians if you move your eye a bit off centre. I've
>been taking a Radian out ot local star nights and letting people try
>it out, and while optically it receives excellent marks from anyone
>negatively) on that "blackout effect" if you are not centred
>perfectly, adjustable barrell notwithstanding..
I agree with this, and mentioned it in my reviews.. I have since gotten quite
used to it.. it's pretty minimal, but is more noticeable when using it in a
binoviewer. I mentioned it when I first tried it out to the Naglers. I don't
think it is anywhere close to as bad as the 13mm Nagler K.Bean effect
though..it's more like using a 32mm plossl. Part of getting rid of that
blackout is perfectly positioning the eyecup
> This has not turned people off Tele Vue products mind you, but
>I do find that people who were seriously thinking of a Radian are now
>having second thoughts and considering a Nagler or Panoptic, or in one
>case, a couple of Tele Vue plossls and barlow. The thing is though,
>at least in my limited experience, from an ergonomic point of view,
>the radian is not the winner I thought it would be.
> But in the case of a dealer dropping an entire product line
>over a supposed overall drop in quaility, that is a bunch of bunk,
>IMO. Perhaps the competition in some quarters is catching up to Tele
>Vue, but still, there is something else going on here.
> Anyhow, about my comments on the Radians - please people, no
>flames, it is not my intention to start a flame war or attack anyone's
>sacred cow, and I love Tele Vue - the product, the company, the
>people, but as the saying goes "the devil is in the details" and that
>little "blackout effect" is playing devil in my little corner of the
>world.
>joe
hey.. you are just speaking the truth.. it's a dynamite eyepiece, but not
perfect. I have the 10 and 14, (2 14s, ) planing on getting a 3 or 4
Todd Gross
><< Anyhow, about my comments on the Radians >>
>Joe, last Friday night under the dark, clear, steady skies of Hidden Hollow
>Chuck
it's not a darkening..it's that it is hard to hold the view if you are not
paying close attention to the eyecup postions, etc.. mostly a problem for a
newcomer. It's minimal, and not of great concern for anyone with any kind
of experience.
For instance, I wouldn't have a child who never looked in a
scope before try to look in it for their first shot.
Todd Gross
dealers that have themselves convinced (biased) that things are one way, when
indeed they aren't.
Example.. a local dealer really believed that the TV Genesis
outperformed the A/P Traveler. Now the Televue 101 would have been another
story entirely, at least that is apparently a comparable scope, but the
Genesis? He wasn't even talking SDF. (he doesn't carry astrophysics, only
company 7 is an A/P dealer in the US)
He's also convinced that Takahashi is far better than A/P, when as you know..
I believe the two comparable. (see www.weatherman.com)
Anyway. . . I believe Televue may have a new pricing policy, in which case,
many dealers may not want to carry the line for whatever reason. They should
be more honest as to why they drop Televue, instead of making things up like
customer service...or lack of quality (hogwash) I can't imagine the customer
service being any better. Turn-around time in just days. Eyepieces repaired.
Odds and ends like screws sometimes sent w/o charge. Just stupendous. Shame
on the dealer in question. - TG
Joseph O'Neil
wrote:
>I agree with this, and mentioned it in my reviews.. I have since gotten quite
>used to it.. it's pretty minimal, but is more noticeable when using it in a
>binoviewer. I mentioned it when I first tried it out to the Naglers. I don't
>think it is anywhere close to as bad as the 13mm Nagler K.Bean effect
>though..it's more like using a 32mm plossl. Part of getting rid of that
>blackout is perfectly positioning the eyecup
I was talking to a friend through private e-mail about this
effect on the Radians, and his replay to me was "people scream they
want long eye releif, and when they get it, they complain about the
side effects of long eye relief".
I think he was right on the mark with that comment. I am also
finding that even though it say right up front just about everywhere
you look that Radians are only a 60 degree FOV, a lot of people seem
to be expecting the Radians to be a wider feidl fo view when they
actually look through them. Maybe they are so used to the wider
fields of the Panoptic, Nagler, and the competing Pental XL's and
Vixen SW's that they don't think it through. Who knows.
The one other thing I find, up here in Canada, with our poor
exchange on the dollar, and our ultra high sales taxes (often around
15% in most provinces), the average price of a Radian often breaks
over $400 Cdn by the time all the dust settles. At those prices, I
find people are a lot more critical than they would be if they were
spending around a couple hundred dollars.
To be fair this is true for all of the top end eyepiece -
example, the Pentax XL line would average around $460 Cdn or more
each.
As for the 13mm Nagler, you know something, I never thought
the kidney been effect was all that bad myself, and I always thought
it had a bit of a bad rap that was undeserved. I still ahve epople
asking me often if I ever come accross a used one to let them know.
Not because they are collectors, but because they wear eyeglasses for
observing.
>hey.. you are just speaking the truth.. it's a dynamite eyepiece, but not
>perfect. I have the 10 and 14, (2 14s, ) planing on getting a 3 or 4
Two 14's - binoviewer, eh? The 6 to 3mm range should prove
to be a phenominal planetary eyepiece. correct me if I am wrong,
but I find the Radians have the contrast and light transmission
similar to a 4 element plossl or ortho.
Joseph O'Neil
<cgu...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>Joe, last Friday night under the dark, clear, steady skies of Hidden Hollow
>(Mansfield, Ohio), I had an opportunity to use (and let others) use my
>Radian 14 from 8:00-3:00 AM. Four very experienced observers viewed
>extensively through my Radian on the following telescopes: 7 inch F5.4
>Starmaster, 13 custom figured F4.5 Newtonian, 4 1/4 inch F4 RFT. We
>observed a wide variety of deep sky objects (M42, NGC 4565, M81/82, M104,
>M35, M46, just to name a few objects). Not one person commented unfavorably
>in any fashion. No person mentioned any darken effect. I'll make a point,
>however, to look for the darkening next time out.
Hi Chuck;
Well there two things different in my situation from yours,
that have more to do with human nature than the product itself or
anything else.
First, as I was telling Todd, the poor exchange on the Cdn
dollar and our high sales taxes tend to push the average price of a
Radian over $400 for us. Street price of a Radian in the USA is what
- $228? Some states have sales taxes, but I reckon none have 15%
sales taxes like I do.
Well, I would hazard to guess that if you or your friends had
to pay an average total price of over $400 each instead of around say
around $250 each per Radian, you guys would be more hypercritical of
every little detail before you bought one.
Secondly, I find in human nature, once a person has spent some
major coin on any kind of item (telescope, car, computer, etc) a
person tends to - what's the right way to put it - "brag" a bit about
how good of a purchase you have made. In my case, I am dealing with
potential customers, whom I am trying to finagle over $400 out off.
So it is a lot easier to be critical of something that you haven't
bought yet, than something you already paid good coin on.
To be fair, and carry on the example, I had a pair of 10x70
Fujinons out the same night I had the radian and other eyepieces out.
People loved the Fujinons, but I had a couple people point out that
stars where not as pinpoint to the edge as they expected them to be.
But again, up here, with sales taxes, a pair of 10x70 FMT's will knock
you back close to a thousand dollars Cdn, so people go real slow on
that kind of coin.
Michael Edelman
Ed Wong wrote:
> ....Talking to my local telescope
> store and found out they have just decided to drop carrying the Tele Vue
> line. They even posted a sign in their store to let their customers know
> that this is because of the quality of Tele Vue scopes now is not up to
> standard...
Sounds like a store that was dropped by TeleVue! I've owned three TV scopes
and numerous eyepieces, and if anything, they've continuously improved their
scopes.
Todd Gross
>>perfect. I have the 10 and 14, (2 14s, ) planing on getting a 3 or 4
> Two 14's - binoviewer, eh? The 6 to 3mm range should prove
>to be a phenominal planetary eyepiece. correct me if I am wrong,
>but I find the Radians have the contrast and light transmission
>similar to a 4 element plossl or ortho.
>joe
Yes, my experience has been very positive so far.. I do use the 10mm as a
planetary eyepiece now.
Michael Edelman
Chris Marriott wrote:
> ...I've never used the TV-101, but I'd imagine that the Vixen Fluorite should
> be a lot better; it's an Apochromat, whereas I believe (and please correct
> me if I'm wrong) that the TV is an achromat...
No, the TV-101 is a classic Apochromatic design- the Petzval 4-element.
Ten years ago, in a review of fluorite refractors, S&T gave the Vixen the edge
over the original TV Genesis- but TV has improved their design twice since then.
-- mike http://www.mich.com/~mje/scope.html
Chuck Gulker
this, none of us had a problem using the Radian, but like I indicated
before, I'll make a point to look for the darken effect next time out. We
were observing under a pretty dark sky (6.2 at zenith) and each of us
properly used the eyecup. Possibly under very light polluted skies with no
eyeguard, the situation might be different.
Chuck
Joseph O'Neil wrote in message <36f8ed78...@news.multiboard.com>...
Chuck Gulker
I wouldn't let a child look through my Radian even on their second or third
or fourth shot <g>.
Chuck
Gordo
news:uIvJ2.952$NB5.2...@storm.twcol.com...
> << Anyhow, about my comments on the Radians >>
>
Hollow
> (Mansfield, Ohio), I had an opportunity to use (and let others) use my
> Radian 14 from 8:00-3:00 AM. Four very experienced observers viewed
> extensively through my Radian on the following telescopes: 7 inch
F5.4
> Starmaster, 13 custom figured F4.5 Newtonian, 4 1/4 inch F4 RFT. We
> observed a wide variety of deep sky objects (M42, NGC 4565, M81/82,
M104,
> M35, M46, just to name a few objects). Not one person commented
unfavorably
point,
> however, to look for the darkening next time out.
First, apologies to Boulder/Denver astronomers for the rain clouds
tonight. My 10mm Radian arrived today!
Since it was beginning to rain, I tried out my new toy from the living
room in daylight, aiming at a mountain ridge about 3/4 mile away. While
not at all a critical test since I was viewing through a window, the
Radian worked well with no "blackouts". I do get blackouts in daylight
with my 35mm Orion Ultrascopic, and especially so when the 35mm is
barlowed, and the barlowed 35mm has blackouts at night.
The Radian shipped with a little plastic "pupil guide" and a page of
instructions for people who don't wear eyeglasses. I wear glasses and
the Radian seemed perfect for me with the barrel clicked all the way
out. The instructions do state that you must determine the proper
click-stop position. I would guess the people complaining about the
darkening have not adjusted the click-stop barrel.
(All comments above subject to change when I get a chance to do some
nighttime observing.)
--
Alan Bland
gordo[at]pcisys.net
http://www.pcisys.net/~gordo
N40.027 W105.318 Elev 6100'
Chuck Gulker
Christmas. Wonder why I never got one? Chuck
Gordo wrote in message <7dc37d$a4d$1...@newman.pcisys.net>...
RAnder3127
(Joseph O'Neil) writes:
>The one other thing I find, up here in Canada, with our poor
>exchange on the dollar, and our ultra high sales taxes (often around
>15% in most provinces), the average price of a Radian often breaks
>over $400 Cdn by the time all the dust settles. At those prices, I
>find people are a lot more critical than they would be if they were
>spending around a couple hundred dollars.
> To be fair this is true for all of the top end eyepiece -
>example, the Pentax XL line would average around $460 Cdn or more
>each.
Currently, the tax included price of Radians in Toronto varies
from $414 or $493 Can, depending on which dealer you go to.
The Pentax XLs are between $516 and $528 each.
-Rich
It "Serbs" them right.
RAnder3127
(Joseph O'Neil) writes:
> Well, I would hazard to guess that if you or your friends had
>to pay an average total price of over $400 each instead of around say
>around $250 each per Radian, you guys would be more hypercritical of
>every little detail before you bought one.
> Secondly, I find in human nature, once a person has spent some
>major coin on any kind of item (telescope, car, computer, etc) a
>person tends to - what's the right way to put it - "brag" a bit about
>how good of a purchase you have made.
In case someone is wondering:
Price to import a Radian to Canada:
$225 + $10 shipping. Converted = $364.00 plus 7% GST = $389
plus $5 (postal handling fee if mailed from U.S.) = $394
Locally, from one store, $414 tax included. It really doesn't make
much difference if you import or buy locally, our dollar is the killer.
Eric Faust
I was thinking the Radian might be a good star party eyepiece. If you leave the
"instajust" out about 10mm, it should help provide some protection. The 13mm
nagler on the other hand, will stay put away when kids are around!
Eric
Joseph O'Neil
<see_a...@end.of.message> wrote:
>The Radian shipped with a little plastic "pupil guide" and a page of
>instructions for people who don't wear eyeglasses. I wear glasses and
>the Radian seemed perfect for me with the barrel clicked all the way
>out. The instructions do state that you must determine the proper
>click-stop position. I would guess the people complaining about the
>darkening have not adjusted the click-stop barrel.
Part of it is the old story that ten people at the same scope
will render 20 different opinions. :)
Seriously I love the radian for it's planetary views more than
anything else. I did have one person who perfered the 9mm Nagler
because on his dob he perfered the larger FOV.
I think the click stop barrel works fine - in some ways, i
wish more eyepieces had them (or the adjustable barrell like the
Pentax XL's have).
The other part of the equation is for everyone who likes long
eye releif, there is somebody who does not.
...and then there are days when you are the windsheild,a nd
days when you are the bug. Today I was more bug than windsheild. :)
Had somebody looking at 8mm TV plossl. They found the eye
relief very low, hard to use. No problem, dropped in the Radian.
Nope, eye releif was too long. Okaaaay, so i drop in a 9mm Nagler.
It was fine, but too much money.
I think what we really need is a lanthanum eyepiece that has a
90 degree FOV, adjustable eye relief, pinpoint sharp stars to the edge
in scopes up to F2, and a price of under $50. :)
One last weird thought to leave you with, all this talk about
long eye releif and people who have trouble with it in some cases - my
best selling TV eyepiece is the 32mm plossl. Personally I think it is
a highly underrated piece of glass, overshadowed by it's "big
brothers" panoptics, naglers, etc. Anyhow I have people who like it
over the Radian in terms of comfortable eye relief, even when you
couple the plossl with a barlow for a smaller exit pupil.
W4LA
like to come up to speed on the terms regarding eyepieces, etc. Eye releif,
FOV, AF, etc. When I was involved 25 years ago, eye relief was not a concern,
but I find that these 55 year old eyes are a lot different! Here is my
question, any suggestions for reading and reference material that will give a
good brush up and refresher on the above. I don't mind a little technical, but
don't want to get in to the heavy theory. Leave response here or e-mail.
Regards,
Todd Salyards
w4...@aol.com
Newton, NC 28658
Brian Tung
> Thank you; I stand corrected. Is that the normal spelling of the word in the
> US? In British English, if a word ends in "L", you replace it with "LL" when
> adding endings to the word - travel, traveller. Does that not happen in US
> English?
Spellings such as "traveler" and "modeling" are definitely U.S. I've
seen the single "l" elsewhere, but it's primarily U.S. only. The double
"ll" (should that be single "ll"?) is used in both U.K. and U.S., but I
believe AP style (which governs U.S. newspapers) and most U.S. publishers
recommend single "l" for their copy editors.
I personally prefer the double, but I got corrected by my book editor.
We also say "gotten" on this side of the pond, as in, "I've gotten a
bit wet." Does that sound odd to you, Chris? :)
Brian Tung / byron elbows
br...@isi.edu (What, me worry about spam?)
Astronomy Corner at http://gost.isi.edu/brian/astro/
C5+ Home Page at http://gost.isi.edu/brian/astro/c5plus/
Todd Gross
>From: w4...@aol.com (W4LA)
>Subject: Re: Is Tele Vue going downhill?
>Date: 25 Mar 1999 15:41:57 GMT
>Todd Salyards
>w4...@aol.com
todd.. have you checked out http://www.weatherman.com ?
Chuck Hovatter
Ed Wong <ed....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>Checking the Anacortes site last nite on the Takahashi FS102, they show a
matching
> reducer that turns the FS102 f9 to f5.6 with 4.8 degree view. I wonder
> if anybody has any experience with such combination and whether the
> image quality will match a straight f5, like TV101.
Matching reducer? What do you think makes the TV 101 a "Straight" F/5?
Reducer.
-Chuck
Gerh3150
Chris Gerh...@aol.com