The Ranger and the Pronto Are No More

This may be old hat here but I got the word this past Saturday at the
Tele Vue Day at Skies Unlimited that Tele Vue is dropping the Ranger
and the Pronto refractors from their product line. Uncle Al mentioned
this fact to me in person but didn't offer an explanation. One might
speculate that competition from the Orion 80ED and perhaps the small
Stellarvue refractors may be to blame.

Dave Mitsky

One might
speculate that competition from the Orion 80ED and perhaps the small
Stellarvue refractors may be to blame.

Maybe its because the TV 76 kicks their ass.
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

Orion 80ED and perhaps the small
Stellarvue refractors may be to blame.

Maybe its because the TV 76 kicks their ass.

Or, yeah, maybe when the Orion 100 gets here, TV, TMB and AP will have to drop
their 4"er line. Ha Ha ha!
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

The competition is moving toward more affordable APO-like refractors that
offer good views to the unwealthy and non-discriminating eye. I have always
thought that
paying 1000's of dollars US for 76mm of aperture, portability and wide
FOV's with accessories
that break the bank of the average person is borderline hare-brained. IMHO

The competition is moving toward more affordable APO-like refractors that
offer good views to the unwealthy and non-discriminating eye. I have always
thought that
paying 1000's of dollars US for 76mm of aperture, portability and wide
FOV's with accessories that break the bank of the average person is borderline
hare-brained. IMHO

A couple of thoughts:

1. $1000 or $2000 is a good deal of money. But many people think nothing of
spending $5000 or $10,000 extra for a fancier car that will be history in a
decade or so and yet seem to thing that $2000 for a telescope which will last
at least one lifetime is hair-brained. For many folks, a TV-76 is out of the
question, but for many it is just a matter of rearranging priorities.

2. The advantage of the TV-76 over scopes like the ED-80 is that it is small
enough to be useful as a general purpose scope and bird watching scope. While
achromats do OK, false color can be very evident under many circumstances when
birding.

jon

Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
The competition is moving toward more affordable APO-like refractors that
offer good views to the unwealthy and non-discriminating eye. I have
always
thought that
paying 1000's of dollars US for 76mm of aperture, portability and wide
FOV's with accessories that break the bank of the average person is
borderline
hare-brained. IMHO

A couple of thoughts:

1. $1000 or $2000 is a good deal of money. But many people think
nothing of
spending $5000 or $10,000 extra for a fancier car that will be history in
a
decade or so and yet seem to thing that $2000 for a telescope which will
last
at least one lifetime is hair-brained. For many folks, a TV-76 is out of
the
question, but for many it is just a matter of rearranging priorities.

2. The advantage of the TV-76 over scopes like the ED-80 is that it is
small
enough to be useful as a general purpose scope and bird watching scope.
While
achromats do OK, false color can be very evident under many circumstances
when
birding.


Ya, a couple of thoughts for sure that hold no water. For one thing, I
didn't say anything about achromats.
I said "APO-like".

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
The competition is moving toward more affordable APO-like refractors
that
offer good views to the unwealthy and non-discriminating eye. I have
always
thought that
paying 1000's of dollars US for 76mm of aperture, portability and
wide
FOV's with accessories that break the bank of the average person is
borderline
hare-brained. IMHO

A couple of thoughts:

1. $1000 or $2000 is a good deal of money. But many people think
nothing of
spending $5000 or $10,000 extra for a fancier car that will be history
in a
decade or so and yet seem to thing that $2000 for a telescope which
will last
at least one lifetime is hair-brained. For many folks, a TV-76 is out
of the
question, but for many it is just a matter of rearranging priorities.

Indeed... I have a neighbor who has a boat that gets used maybe 10 times
a year... and was at least triple the cost of my most expensive scope.
Takes up a lot more storage space, too. g

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
The competition is moving toward more affordable APO-like refractors that
offer good views to the unwealthy and non-discriminating eye. I have always
thought that
paying 1000's of dollars US for 76mm of aperture, portability and wide
FOV's with accessories that break the bank of the average person is borderline
hare-brained. IMHO

A couple of thoughts:

1. $1000 or $2000 is a good deal of money. But many people think nothing of
spending $5000 or $10,000 extra for a fancier car that will be history in a
decade or so and yet seem to thing that $2000 for a telescope which will last
at least one lifetime is hair-brained. For many folks, a TV-76 is out of the
question, but for many it is just a matter of rearranging priorities.

Interesting rationization, but they are hardly the same things.
If you had $1000 - $2000 to spend, very few would opt for a TV-76 over the
bigger scopes available for the same price. Cars and houses have a way of
dominating over most everything else, so realigning priorities doesn't
apply. I've never heard of someone say, "lets get a cheaper house so
I can buy a better telescope." But I suppose anything is possible.
-Rich

"Ratboy99" wrote in message
...
Orion 80ED and perhaps the small
Stellarvue refractors may be to blame.

Maybe its because the TV 76 kicks their ass.

Or, yeah, maybe when the Orion 100 gets here, TV, TMB and AP will have to
drop
their 4"er line. Ha Ha ha!

Certainly not at F9. If they can get it down to F6, with 2" crayford, for
under $1k, and also perform well at 200x, then they'll have something at
least to consider.

The main reason I know of to get an ED refractor, is to have both wide
fields, and high power out of the same scope. For wide fields of view, the
achromat 102mm F5's and F6's are good enough for us lowly amateurs. If they
can't get it down to near 600mm, then it seems like a waste of effort. At
near 900mm, I'd rather have a DGM Optics OA4, or a similar performing
standard newt on Dob mount with no color whatsoever at any power.

I find it amusing that you mention the name Tasco, and everyone groans, but
you mention Synta, and nobody flinches. The only Tasco I ever owned, came
from Synta. Go figure. Synta builds okay stuff, but not great. Heck, I have
one of the ST102's now, and I'm struggling to _not_ by a William Optics 2"
crayford for it. Optically it does what an F5 achromat does well. Low power,
wide field, but focusing the damn thing should be effortless. What's
stopping me is that the WO crayford cost as much as I paid for the scope.
Not that that makes the WO focuser too expensive.. g

Stephen Paul
Shirley, MA

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...


The main reason I know of to get an ED refractor, is to have both wide
fields, and high power out of the same scope. For wide fields of view, the
achromat 102mm F5's and F6's are good enough for us lowly amateurs. If
they
can't get it down to near 600mm, then it seems like a waste of effort. At
near 900mm, I'd rather have a DGM Optics OA4, or a similar performing
standard newt on Dob mount with no color whatsoever at any power.


The OA4 is still the best deal out there. Far better than what Orion is
offering and I haven't even looked through it! The OA4 dob mounted is less
than $1000. It's going to cost you $1500+ to fully outfit the Orion scope.
Your done with OA for under $1000. Not only that, absolutely no color,
unobstructed views that will knock your socks off. And I've actually only
looked through a 92mm scope not even the full 4" OA!

Mike.