John

My little Vixen ED102SS has been posted on this thread before but it's proudly showing off the Lunt Solar Wedge in this shot

I've been aware of Takahashi and Astro Physics as top end brands for the 30+ years I've been in the hobby but I didn't see them discussed much on this forum in the past. On Cloudynights, all the time of course. It's interesting when they are discussed by owners of course because they move from "mythical beasts" to real items with pros and even a few cons, like all equipment. Was it Kelling that used to have the "Takahashi Alley" section ?. I was never sure whether that was a good thing or not

It's interesting - in the past on the forum (I've been a member for around a decade now) I can't recall Takahashi gear getting mentioned all that much. Now there seems to be loads on show. Have our pockets got deeper or perhaps or have these things become more accessible ?

I guess it will depend on whether the high contrast of the refractor can bridge the 55% increase in aperture of the C9.25. If the difference was just 1 inch it could be close but I think my money would be on the C9.25 for galaxies at least. I've not actually compared them though. For really large objects, seeing objects within the context of the starfields and object groups the faster refractor would have a marked advantage in true field size. They are very different scopes really - the sort that complement each other rather than compete perhaps ?

Oh, goodness, this thread is going to damage my bank balance one day Superb scopes folks

There are some posts from folks who have done such comparisons in this thread from the Cloudynights forum: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/491788-152mm-ar-vs-102mm-apo/

Very nice looking scope and mount setup Gary

Similar to the Fujiyama and Astro Hutech orthos then. Thanks.

Lovely set. The Tak Abbe Orthos have been interesting to me since their launch. All the reports I've read on them suggest that they are either the same (optically) or very very similar to the Fujiyama and Astro Hutech abbe orthos including their performance. Is that a reasonable conclusion ?

I don't know if there will be a difference that will matter to you Charic in all honesty. The noticable differences, if there, will be in the outer 20% of the field of view, maybe further out than that. The majority of eyepieces work pretty well in the central part of the field of view, close to the central optical axis of the scope. Your search for marked differences may well be in vain.

Interesting how many of the cases in this thread are heavily populated by Tele Vue eyepieces. Not all, but very many of them.

Seems a good plan Derek

Great collection Derek I've moved on my Radians now though. I liked them (4mm and 3mm) but noticed that the XW's were better each time I swapped between them and I found that I was starting to avoid using the Radians. They are very good eyepieces though for what you pay for them on the used market.

Baader 28mm Fine Tuning Rings. Less expensive than TV barrel extensions but they do exactly the same job and are threaded for 2" filters, which is the main point of having them on there for me.

I've got a set of 2" caps (non-TV mostly) which I use on the 2" barrel extensions. I've not had a problem with stuff getting in through the little notch and onto the lower lenses. My eyepieces are kept in the case and capped unless they are in a scope though.

Lovely set

Great report Dave ! I've read lots of reports on these 152mm F/5.9 scopes since they were introduced - I think Ed Tings was the 1st but there have been a fair few more. It sounds like the Altair branded version is just as good as the others and they almost universally get very postive feedback. Nice scope !

Does the TAL 100 show less CA than the 102 ED F/7 ? I'd be suprised if it did. Even the most basic ED glass (FPL-51 or equivalent) paired with a suitable mating element should show around 75% less CA than a crown / flint achromat of the same specs. Even allowing for the focal ratio difference I'd expect an ED102 F/7 to beat a 100mm F/10 achromat on that aspect.

Thats an understatement !

One thing that I've found with scopes that range from F/5.3 to F/7.5 is that gaps in the medium to longer focal length eyepiece range are quite Ok but I do like to "crowd" the focal lengths below 8mm to have a number of high power options. For example I find the step from a 21mm Ethos to a 13mm Ethos quite natural. I did have a 17mm Ethos for a short while and it was a lovely eyepiece but I could see straightaway that it would not get a lot of use because I'd simply "step over" it and go straight to the 13mm most of the time. It's only really by trying different combinations that you find this sort of thing out though and I can see that others with longer focal length scopes and maybe different viewing priorities might make different choices.

Thats v.nice Stu - whats the aperture ?

Mine have changed a bit since I last posted here. Box 1 is a Tele Vue collection: 31mm Nagler, 21mm, 13mm, 8mm, 6mm and 4.7mm Ethos and the 2mm-4mm Nagler zoom. My 2" Lumicon O-III and Omega DGM NBP filters are in there as well. Box 2 is a short FL Pentax set: 10mm, 7mm, 5mm and 3.5mm Pentax XW's. Box 3 is my "outreach" set: 24mm Maxvision 68, 12mm Pentax XF, 6.7mm Meade 4000 UWA. All chosen as being relatively low cost, decent performers and, importantly, easy to look through.

I was wondering if I would sell my 31 Nagler when I got the 21 Ethos but the Nagler does things that the Ethos can't (like show the whole of the Veil with some room to spare) so I've kept it and I'm glad I did. If yours is not getting any use though it might as well go somewhere where it will get used.

What a nice selection Piero (can't believe that this long running thread had slipped to the 3rd page of this section !)

I'm 100% confident in the ability of everyone on this forum to excercise restraint and common sense, as we always do.