Takahashi or Televue 4" Refractors

orly_andico · Post by **orly_andico** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:49 pm

long FL refractors don't need short FL eyepieces to get high mag.

Short FL eyepieces generally have very small eye relief, or if they have good ER, they do this via internal barlows which make them sensitive to eye positioning (kidney-beaning effect).

Whereas a long FL refractor can make do with simpler designs like Orthos and Plossls, and still give high magnification.

There's also some myth (?) that long FL refractors are less affected by seeing.

Post by **rcj** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:50 pm

go for the TSA102 (or the 120) if you are primarily visual, and probably want to go into imaging later (short exposure DSO, lunar/solar). Not many people use the NP101 for imaging too (in global context), and for it's price, there is just so many FSQ users right now in the market (look at the magazine galleries, online, etc). TSA will definitely perform better visually, since the pre-designed zenike polynomials have been tweaked to supersede the Tak FS series, and falling just slight behind that of the FSQ variants. Buy Televue for its eyepieces. The Tak accessories can be bought rather cheaply from the US market with the impending US dollar which may go even lower later this year (more of our local dollar getting stronger).

ivanong · Post by **ivanong** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:07 pm

I've had a number of Tak and TeleVue refractors before. Like someone said, the paint job on the Taks are more delicate compared to the TV.

Optically both are very good. I do love the CAA (camera angle adjuster) accessory of the Tak as it makes framing very easy and convenient. This was actually why I sold my Astro-Physics Traveler and kept my Tak FSQ-85ED for imaging.

Bergkamp_ · Post by **Bergkamp_** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:34 pm

I will pick Takahashi anytime. I got a chance to own a TV85 at around 2k. In the end i pick the same 85mm Tak at more than double the price of TV.

For Tak.. they need alot of accessory to make it work. Buying 2nd hand as a whole package could be priced more attractively.

I love Tak.. for life.. =)

Its always my dream to own 1.

Even i fall in love looking at its tube. Not just thru it. =P

shirox · Post by **shirox** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Haha bergkamp you have tak fetish!

Post by **rcj** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:55 pm

i really hate to say this, despite all the jazz about AP scopes, i find that the TOA130F gives a slight edge on contrast performance than the AP130..........Come on AP guys, shoot me!

ivanong · Post by **ivanong** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:23 pm

@rcj: this kind of post will start quite a war on other forums! ha ha!
I have an AP 130GT and my impression is it is a bigger and more refined Traveler and it is great as a visual scope. I have an AP 140 and that is designed more for astro-photography because of the large correctors and components that are available to support CCD and DSLR imaging. Nonetheless I have used the AP 130GT for APS-sized DSLR astrophotography and have been very pleased with the results. You are probably much more discriminating in these differences.

Bergkamp_ · Post by **Bergkamp_** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:39 am

Yes shirox =)

No need APO scope.. I support Tak Mewlon too =P

heyjojos · Post by **heyjojos** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:54 pm

Hi Dudes...
Have been advertising for the TSA102 last week in various forums (Singastro, Cloudynights and Astromart) and hmm... unfortunately no response thus far.

At the same time I saw a FSQ106N (this is the older model) selling for ~ USD2600 to 2800. Have read some reviews and I have learnt that this is a very good scope (?). I intend to use it for both visual and AP. For visual, my intending is to buy a Tak 1.6 extender to have a longer FL. I have read that this model to not allow a reducer and I'm actually quite fine with that. Don't foresee at this point that I need any faster than that. f5 is already quite good for me... i think. : )

Price wise, I think its probably about the same (incl the extender that I'm buying).

What say you dudes out there?

HJ

orly_andico · Post by **orly_andico** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:26 pm

the FSQ106 is great. But it is heavy (15lb!) which is quite a lot for a 4" scope.

it has a dedicated reducer that takes it down to f/3.6 but with the reducer it only covers 35mm (FX format, full-frame digital). Natively without the reducer, it can cover 6x7 medium format.