Geez, how easy it can be!

Well, Ok! I broke down and called William Optics and talked to them about my Objective. Bottom line is!!!!! FPL53 was used on the Megrez 80mm f/6 APO Triplet and not CaF2. It was explained that marketing decided to call it a Fluorite because others were calling FPL53 a Fluorite. :S Well, I guess that is fine except that there is Fluorite (CaF2) and there is FPL53 but they are not the same chemically at all. However, as pointed out by them, FPL53 does perform very much like Fluorite, so the triplet is as color corrected as a Fluorite triplet.
I guess this settles the discussion once in for all.
Earlier Megrez APO triplets used FPL53 and the new ones use OK3, but none of them used Fluorite. 8)
Just how confusing is that? 8O

>>there is Fluorite and there is CaF2 but they are not the same chemically at all>>

Just to inform you, CaF2 and Fluorite are one and the same. CaF2 is Calcium Fluorite, or Fluorite for short.

Rolando

What we have here is pure deception on the part of William Optics, pure and simple. Just how well corrected a lens with FPL53 can be compared to a lens with Fluorite has nothing to do with the facts, the fact is that their lenses were marketd as Fluorites and they did not contain Fluorite in them, that is deception in my books, any way you look at it.

Thanks,
Vahe

Floyd Blue said:

It was explained that marketing decided to call it a Fluorite because others were calling FPL53 a Fluorite.

Floyd, this statement is discouraging. William Optics is giving themselves cart blanc to say whatever they want to make the sale. Would it not be better to point out that their competition is inaccurate in their statements? At least one American telescope company has learned that being honest and forthright with the customer has led to more sales, not fewer.

David E

Floyd Blue said:

It was explained that marketing decided to call it a Fluorite because others were calling FPL53 a Fluorite. :S

I hesitate to get involved here because I will be the one killing this thread if it degenerates into wholesale supplier bashing without factual basis. So far everything is fair and above board. Good job.

My 2 cents:

William Optics' explanation itself is also a little bit empty.

Is WO really big enough to have a separate division called "marketing" making these decisions? It's not like we are talking about Meade.

Also, who are these "others" calling FPL53 fluorite? I personally am confident that Tak, TEC and AP are shooting straight regarding the use of real fluorite crystal in certain selected telescope models. TEC's prices reflect this, the f7 160 mm CaF2 model is several thousand dollars more expensive than the 160 mm f8 ED model for example.

StellarVue is advertising a few CaF2 models, and they certainly seem priced high enough to contain the genuine crystal. Also Vic Marris is very specific in his descriptions that some lenses are ED and others are CaF2. I trust him.

Is WO taking a swipe at TMB and/or APM? Am I missing something? If all of these 80 mm triplets are sourced in Russia, and others are calling them fluorites, I can see the box WO is in, but I sure would have handled it differently. By all accounts they are great lenses whatever material the center element is made of.

Jim

Gee whiz, I am almost afraid to ask. Is the Tak FS series genuine CaF2?

Greg.