Orion 80mm ED--in my hands--tested!

"Doug Peterson" wrote in message
om...
"Gin" wrote in message
...
Hi Doug,

Do try to test it with a heavy load behind if you have a chance. Does it
have a lock screw to "lock" the focuser? I am sure some will be thinking
if
the focuser is heavy-duty enough to handle a camera and eyepiece behind.

Do give us more reports from time to time. I am keeping tab on this
thread
every single moment.

I just hoisted a 31mm SchwarzeNagler in a 2" Tele Vue diagonal with
the scope vertical. This was with the same tension as the 1.25"
diagonal installed.

Wow, with such heavy load behind, no slippage at all???

Thanks for all your reports so far. Hope you are not too "stress out" by all
the expectations from us for you to review this scope.

Cheers
Gin

Pierre Vandevenne wrote in message .180...

4", 5", 6", 7", 8" achromats is MUCH more difficult than make a 80mm
ED APO doublet.

OK, I'll take your word for it. Is the US version less difficult to make
than the European one? Because there is a 50-60% price difference between
them...

What did you meant? Chromacor or 80mm ED APO or what?

If a Chromacor, then I can tell you - the prices are the same for
all distributers. The difference can be in price reduction for a
quantity.
As for final prices, I never saw such a difference in 5--60%!


V.D.

Pierre Vandevenne wrote in message .180...

4", 5", 6", 7", 8" achromats is MUCH more difficult than make a 80mm
ED APO doublet.

OK, I'll take your word for it. Is the US version less difficult to make
than the European one? Because there is a 50-60% price difference between
them...

What did you meant? Chromacor or 80mm ED APO or what?

If a Chromacor, then I can tell you - the prices are the same for
all distributers. The difference can be in price reduction for a
quantity.
As for final prices, I never saw such a difference in 5--60%!


V.D.

Right now the temptation to pick up the phone and order one is overwhelming.
I've spent $400 on worse things. After all dont we all get off on playing
around with different telescopes. The curiosity in me is killing me. Too bad it
wasnt a 90mm for a couple hundred $$ more. Be easier to swallow.

Even though they know exactly what it is, the curiosity must be eating at
Roland, Valery and the others as well. In their case its a business expense.
Who knows maybe they already have one and are keeping quiet so suckers like me
find out you get what you pay for.

Tony

Right now the temptation to pick up the phone and order one is overwhelming.
I've spent $400 on worse things. After all dont we all get off on playing
around with different telescopes. The curiosity in me is killing me. Too bad it
wasnt a 90mm for a couple hundred $$ more. Be easier to swallow.

Even though they know exactly what it is, the curiosity must be eating at
Roland, Valery and the others as well. In their case its a business expense.
Who knows maybe they already have one and are keeping quiet so suckers like me
find out you get what you pay for.

Tony

I'm not really curious. The size is not large enough to be interesting to me.
It is not difficult to make an 80mm color free.

I think what has upped the curiosity level here would not be a question of
color but the fact that a well respected person on this group has stated the
$400 scope keeps up with some heavy hitters (or at least heavier) in other
aspects besides color. If one does not need or desire the fine craftmanship
(read cant afford as in my case) of those heavy hitters mentioned, this may be
a real bargain - even if its only 80mm.

Tony

I'm not really curious. The size is not large enough to be interesting to me.
It is not difficult to make an 80mm color free.

I think what has upped the curiosity level here would not be a question of
color but the fact that a well respected person on this group has stated the
$400 scope keeps up with some heavy hitters (or at least heavier) in other
aspects besides color. If one does not need or desire the fine craftmanship
(read cant afford as in my case) of those heavy hitters mentioned, this may be
a real bargain - even if its only 80mm.

Tony

On 20 Aug 2003 19:43:44 GMT, obs (Tony) ...reflected:

Right now the temptation to pick up the phone and order one is overwhelming.
I've spent $400 on worse things.

I spent about that on an ambulance trip once, and one that could've been
easily avoided, not to mention the $500 extra once I arrived.

After all dont we all get off on playing
around with different telescopes. The curiosity in me is killing me. Too bad it
wasnt a 90mm for a couple hundred $$ more. Be easier to swallow.

I know what you mean, as I'm pacing about in my mind, too.

Even though they know exactly what it is, the curiosity must be eating at
Roland, Valery and the others as well. In their case its a business expense.
Who knows maybe they already have one and are keeping quiet so suckers like me
find out you get what you pay for.

Tony

Alan

On 20 Aug 2003 19:43:44 GMT, obs (Tony) ...reflected:

Right now the temptation to pick up the phone and order one is overwhelming.
I've spent $400 on worse things.

I spent about that on an ambulance trip once, and one that could've been
easily avoided, not to mention the $500 extra once I arrived.

After all dont we all get off on playing
around with different telescopes. The curiosity in me is killing me. Too bad it
wasnt a 90mm for a couple hundred $$ more. Be easier to swallow.

I know what you mean, as I'm pacing about in my mind, too.

Even though they know exactly what it is, the curiosity must be eating at
Roland, Valery and the others as well. In their case its a business expense.
Who knows maybe they already have one and are keeping quiet so suckers like me
find out you get what you pay for.

Tony

Alan

On 20 Aug 2003 18:16:18 -0700, (Doug
Peterson) wrote:

"Edward" wrote in message ink.net...
Here's another review:
http://www.astromart.com/messages.as...d=105367&page=


I'm glad I am not the only one with the good news, also the comparison
to the TV-76 is in line with my observation. What will be interesting
to see is if the consistency of QA is there, and this 2nd hard review
is encouraging.

Looking at the Orion and the TV-76 side by side, it is not all a free
lunch: the 76 takes up about half the volume of the 80.

As far as the ED vs. APO debate, I think of a color-correction
continuum from achromats, thru semi-EDs, true-EDs, the fluorite
doublets, and finally APOs. There will always be controversy, but here
goes:

The Pronto I had had very nice wavefront, but the color correction was
what I would call semi-ED, compared to say the Nikon Fieldscope ED
triplet and other well corrected scopes identified as EDs. I would
class the TV 76 and 85 as solid ED performers, and the Orion is in
this group. The Sky 90 is fast enough that its color should place it
more in the ED camp. The TMB EDStar 180, the Meade EDs and Vixen EDs I
would place also in this group.

The fluorite doublets and the FSQ occupy a higher level of correction.

However, the true color-free triplet apochromats from AP, TMB,
Takahashi, Aries, the NP101 quad, etc., are a whole other ball game.
As apparently color-free as the FSQ is on its own, in a direct
head-to-head the TMB105/6 gave a more color free presentation.

The last thing to "go" when it comes to colour error is the colour
shading a "less than apo apo" imparts to the moon or planets. Through
an AP130 apo, Jupiter was colour pure, no added colour that I could
see. Through my Tak FS-102, it was yellowish. My FS-78 had less
colour, obviously because it had a smaller diameter objective but the
same focal ratio as my 102. But neither displayed the colour fringing
seen in lesser scopes like the 2 element EDs from
Meade or worse yet, older TeleVue hybrids like the Genesis and Genesis
SDF. They fringe bright stars and Jupiter in blue. Crater shadows at
high power on the moon have a bluish tint.
Further down the list are things like the Pronto, which IMO, is little
better than a standard achromat and finally, the regular achromats.

What would really be good is if some apo maker could do a test
between specific lenses to correlate how colour and other corrections
effect visible detail on a planet.
For instance, does a 5" f13 achro with 1/10 wave optics show more
detail on planets than a triplet apo of say f8 focal length and 1/4
wave optics? There has to be a crossover point on a graph between
colour error and overall lens correction and how they relate to
visible detail on planets and the moon.
-Rich