TEC APO 160 costs $12,000 ??

"Ratboy99" wrote in message
...


Well that makes sense. The APO 200 F8 (with Fluorite) is more like $24k,
or is
it $28k now? All I know is I'm getting ready to take the 200 F9 out
tonight.
Whoooweee!!
rat
~( );


I'm jealous... but mostly because it's raining here g. My APO140 is a
blast, but I can imagine what an APO200 must be like. Congratulations on
what I'm sure is an outstanding scope!

John

rander3127 says...

So does the extra $4000 account for the cost of the fluorite compared
to FPL-53 or is the fluorite that much harder to work?

It's worth the extra cost to avoid tooth decay.

This information now begs the question, "Why will the Flourite ED be
superior to Ohara FPL-53? In what ways will the Flourite triplet
outperform, or have advantages over a properly designed, and properly
figured FPL-53 triplet?

Is Yuri perhaps striving for an f5 highly corrected Triplet with the use
of Flourite, or am I missing something here?

I would assume that even lower grades of Ohara ED (FPL-51 FPL-52) can be
utilized into fantastic triplet designs, but perhaps with longer FL's?

I know FPL-53 is not cheap by no means, but really, is it worth this
increase in cost to utilize Flourite. Will the Human eye, or the CCD
Sensor "See" the difference?
Will the use of Flourite ED have any downsides in I assume an oil
contacted design? Mark D.

Is the TEC 8" apo really worth it?

Yes.
rat
~( );

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

I'm jealous... but mostly because it's raining here g. My APO140 is a
blast, but I can imagine what an APO200 must be like. Congratulations on
what I'm sure is an outstanding scope!

I don't blame you. Hell, I'm even jealous of myself!
rat
~( );

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

This information now begs the question, "Why will the Flourite ED be
superior to Ohara FPL-53? In what ways will the Flourite triplet
outperform, or have advantages over a properly designed, and properly
figured FPL-53 triplet?

I think I know the answer to this question. The Fluorite is an F8, it is a
shorter OTA than the F9. It also has better color correction in the
photographic wavelengths. So it will exhibit less color in photographs.

The F9 is optimized for visual use, due to the the narrow sensitivity of the
human eye to the visual spectrum. I can see a bit of color out of focus on
bright objects, but even on bright objects, such as Vega, I have to work to see
the false color when the scope is in focus. For example there is no false color
in focus on the edge of the Moon. Vega is the only single object that I have
been able to detect a fleeting purple fringe on, and I mean fleeting. Any other
color I've seen in it (such as on Venus) has plainly been due to atmospheric
refraction, not false color in the objective. I think with perfect seeing I
would be able to focus the color on Vega right out of view.

It outperforms myTak 6" in this respect by leaps and bounds, and trust me, the
Tak is no slouch. It also gobbles up eyepieces better than the Tak. What is
amazing is splitting .53 arcsec doubles to the Dawes limit at 600x. This scope
does things performance-wise that none of the other 12 scopes that I have
owned have been able to even approach, regardless of aperture or optical
figure.
rat
~( );

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

Hi,


As another Tec 200mm apo. owner I can say resoundingly, Yes!, it is
worth it. In fact at 16K., it may even be a bargain if you look at
what the AP 180 F9 sells for and the Tak is over 100K, and the TMB
21K. I think Yuri is underpricing these scopes.
I have owned many other fine scopes, including apo's, newts, and
maks. The Tec 200 is the finast scope I have ever looked through. It
splits sub-arc second doubles with ease, something I have never been
able to do before with my average N.J. seeing. Saturn is breathtaking.
A work of art.


Marc Zukoff






"JJK" wrote in message ...
Ed T wrote?
From what I hear, the TEC 160 is now going to be an ultra high end scope
with a different set of specs. The scope was announced as $8000
originally
when it was to be an upscaled 140.

Ratboy99 wrote
I also somehow doubt (though I am not an insider by any means), that there
will
be too many more 200's sold at only $15,999, either. I'd get it right now
if
you are even remotely thinking about it.


Is the TEC 8" apo really worth it?

Subject: TEC APO 160 costs $12,000 ??
From: (Marc Zukoff)
Date: 10/16/2004 9:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:



Hi,


As another Tec 200mm apo. owner I can say resoundingly, Yes!, it is
worth it. In fact at 16K., it may even be a bargain if you look at
what the AP 180 F9 sells for and the Tak is over 100K, and the TMB
21K. I think Yuri is underpricing these scopes.
I have owned many other fine scopes, including apo's, newts, and
maks. The Tec 200 is the finast scope I have ever looked through. It
splits sub-arc second doubles with ease, something I have never been
able to do before with my average N.J. seeing. Saturn is breathtaking.
A work of art.


Marc Zukoff






"JJK" wrote in message
...
Ed T wrote?
From what I hear, the TEC 160 is now going to be an ultra high end scope
with a different set of specs. The scope was announced as $8000
originally
when it was to be an upscaled 140.

Ratboy99 wrote
I also somehow doubt (though I am not an insider by any means), that
there
will
be too many more 200's sold at only $15,999, either. I'd get it right now
if
you are even remotely thinking about it.


Is the TEC 8" apo really worth it?
********************************
Maybe i should buy one! I have the seeing that would make owning a 8" APO
worth while. Now if i could only find a good AP-1200 mount...

Chas P.

Chris1011 wrote:

superior to Ohara FPL-53? In what ways will the Flourite triplet


outperform, or have advantages over a properly designed, and properly
figured FPL-53 triplet?



I think I know the answer to this question. The Fluorite is an F8, it is a
shorter OTA than the F9. It also has better color correction in the
photographic wavelengths. So it will exhibit less color in photographs.

No, the real answer is that you cannot get FPL53 in that size. Ohara refuses to
make it larger than 7". I have tried for years to get it, and they refuse
because they say their yield drops rapidly above that point.


How about using N-FK56, then?


Roland Christen



--

Rick S.

http://users.rcn.com/rflrs

That's because the APO 160 will have a fluorite center element, not the
FPL-53 used in the APO 140 and most of the APO 200's.

Well that makes sense. The APO 200 F8 (with Fluorite) is more like $24k, or is
it $28k now? All I know is I'm getting ready to take the 200 F9 out tonight.
Whoooweee!

Do you think adding fluorite would make your scope any better? Yours does not
even have FPL53 in it.

Roland Christen