Posts Made By: Ron Bee

That's a very fine image truly, Peter !!!

One quick question. How did you handle Mars not being underexposed or vice versa Moon not being overexposed?

Thanks,
Ron B[ee]

Hello there Richard,

I'd also suggest (amongst the very good suggestions made already) to look into the Nagler Zoom. These eyepieces are very sharp with good eye relief and extremely flexible in that it's millions of eyepieces in one ;-). Although I still use my superb TMB SuperMono, the Nagler Zoom is now my most often used high power eyepiece!

Ron B[ee]

Dave Adams said:

I have a SV105 and am thinking of getting a Nagler 3-6 zoom to replace my beloved Meade 6.7 uwa. The 6.7 uwa is great for use on my alt-az Discmount with its wide apfov. With it in a 1.8 barlow I get ~180x with a true field of view near that of the Nagler 3-6 at the 6 setting giving ~100x. I have heard though that the Nagler being parfocal is great for dialing in the highest magnfication for the seeing conditions and wondering if this feature alone is worth the price and would likely become my default high power eyepiece? The eye relief on the Meade 6.7 is not great but is acceptable for me.

The Nagler Zoom by just going by the click stop is a 6mm, 5.5mm, 5mm, 4.5mm, 4mm, 3.5mm and 3mm eyepiece. Assuming each high end singe fl eyepieces cost $200, you're getting 7*200=$1400 worth of eyepieces in a $380 package and in my opinion this is effectively a great "steal-deal" ;-)!!! Of course, as you've already pointed out about "dialing in", you also get infinitely many more eyepieces in-between. All these with the convenient of not losing concentration due to changing eyepieces ;-).

For your fine SV105 with short f/ratio, I suggest considering the 2-4mm zoom instead.

Ron B[ee]

Wow, that was very education, Mike. Why I used to have the very same eyepiece! I'm so glad Clyde volunteered the "patient" and you're the surgeon .

This is so interesting. Can you give us some more info? Like all elements are coated? Spacing between the elements? What special tool did you have to employ? Finally how does the view look like after you've put it back together ;-);-);-)? Say, I might be inspired by you to try to disassemble my 30mm Ultima to see what make it tick .

Thanks,
Ron B[ee]

PS - Oh by the way, some guy is looking for a 5mm Tak LE ;-). Don't know if he wants it in assembled or "kit" form ;-).
http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=398543

Hello there Steve,

I own my TV-102 (christened the Light Cup ;-)) for almost 5 years now and despite owning a very fine Tele Vue NP127 now, I've found it difficult to trade it with anything else!

To answer some of your questions, ...
>1. Visually- the obvious, sharpness, detail etc.
When seeing is steady (or during moments of steadiness), the view is very sharp, crisp, lots of planetary details visible with lots of contrast. It can go very deep on DSO under dark sky and caught many objects I thought was impossible with a 4-incher. Now if you'll take a look at the insane blown-up image of Mars through the TV-102; it was shocking too me despite thousands of times of magnification, the image was still well rendered (in my opinion ;-).
http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=266

>2. Functionality- ease of use.
Because it's the skinniest of all 4-incher (same as NP-101) and one of the lightest doublet APO, it goes very easy on many mounts and very easy to handle. Note how easy it goes on the Telepod AltAz mount.
http://users.adelphia.net/~ronbee/Toys/TV-102-Construction.jpg
Also, it cools down extremely quick.

>3. Focuser- Does the object come to focus easily, or is a microfocuser necessary?
The Tele Vue R&P focuser is butterly smooth. Because the TV-102 gives you a general depth of focus and for this reason I have never had trouble finding exact focus. In my opinion, I find the 2-speed focuser unnecessary with the TV-102 (I have a Focusmate on my f/5.2 NP127 - dual-speed focuser is highly advisible addition for short f/ratio APO). Would a Focusmate or FT micro be nice? Sure ;-). But you can always add that later if you need one.

>4. How well does a starbeam finder work in comparison to an 8X50 with illuminated recticle?
In my opinion, the Starbeam is the best 1X finder period; its flip up mirror is neck saving ;-). I have an 8X50 finder on my Dob (though not illuminated) and I've never really like it much compared to my Starbeam. The Starbeam also hold alignment much, much better than my 8x50 finder! You can still mount your 8x50 finder on the clamshell using this.
http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=232

These reviews may also give you additional ideas.
http://www.teleskop-service.de/televue/TV102Test/102Test.htm
http://www.analyticalsci.com/Astronomy/Telescopes/imagestv/TeleVue102/Astronomy_Magazine.htm
http://www.scopereviews.com/page1k.html#2

Best wishes.

Ron the 4-inch Tall Evangelist B[ee]

Hans Tucker said:

Looking through the APM website I notice that the Televue NP101 & NP127 are listed under a Fluorite heading in the Refractors section. This mis-information regarding the NP range containing a lens element manufactured from Fluorite has been around since the introduction of the NP127 (well that's when I first noticed it)but I am still surprised this appears particularly on Markus Ludes website. Or am I the one mis-informed and the NP101 & NP127 do have Fluorite lens elements. The Televue website doesn't diclose any information to this fact.

Hello there Hans,

APM is not an authorized Tele Vue dealer. As such, it comes as to no surprise when it comes to misinformation or incorrect information ;-). I'll further hasten to add anyone buying Tele Vue products from APM will risk not having warranty on the product. The last Tele Vue refractor that used true fluorite (CaF2) was the long discontinued Genesis-SDF.

Here's the list of authorized Tele Vue dealers in Germany.
http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=60#Germany

Ron B[ee]

Here you go Andrew.
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1325&pr=2x6x16
Very interesting reading, indeed. Alas, the reviewer did not include any photo :-(.

Ron B[ee]

David Colton said:

I do have two recommendations. First, Ron's article, at least on my monitor, does not align, so that some lines contain only one word. That may be due to all of the graphics. I hope that gets fixed as it may it difficult to read the review.

Second, I wish S&T hadn't put all those nice Mt. Palomar or Hubble photos of galaxies and star clusters on the cover of the book. The book excels because Sue tells you want to realistically expect when looking through the eyepiece of a small telescope. The cover photos diminish rather than add to the graphics that you'll find in the book.

Thanks David for your kind words. I don't know why you're getting wierd display. I'm using IE6 and I have resize the screen to accommodate the extra column of list of supports but I can read it fine. I'll try to install Netscape to see if I can see the problem. Thanks for the feedback.

Regarding the book using Hubble photos, I did some investigation this morning and there's no reference to the Hubble photos. Sue included an extensive image credits at the end of her book. Most of the photos were from amateurs. So to address the cover photos, the Helix image was Gary Stevens, but enlarged ;-). The Pleiades image was from Akria Fujii and the M31 image was from Robert Gendler (BTW, the Hubble has insufficient FOV to take the complete M45 and M31 ;-). Indeed, amateur images are so awe striken today!

Ron B[ee]

http://alice.as.arizona.edu/%7Erogerc/chapters/Chapter%204a.html

Ron B[ee]

Lee Spain said:

Does anyone have experience with the MisAl Optics filters? I'm particularly interested in their Broadband Nebula / LPR Filter. This is an inexpensive LPR filter and certainly fits my fairly modest Astronomy budget.

Please be cognizant that these filters don't use glass but plastic perhaps why they're inexpensive. No idea how they peform however ;-).

Ron B[ee]