Emperor!Takahashi!

Indeed, a uniquely splendid instrument. I was fortunate to own one for a period, and I'm pleased that a new owner appreciates it now.

I think it's important (and sometimes difficult) to identify what you'd like to accomplish with the scope. Once you know what you want to do, that helps to choose the instrument that can do it.

You will unquestionably be able to get more than 150x out of an FC-76DCU. The FC-76DCU will perform as an outstanding 76mm telescope. It won't perform as a 6" scope. But maybe you don't need it to.

I don't ask this question to be disrespectful or to cast doubt on your knowledge, but only because it's relevant... Are you familiar with thermal acclimation and collimation? I don't think C6s tend to be mushy unless they aren't cooled and/or collimated.

I'm getting the sense that you want a portable telescope that's a good all-rounder, has excellent optics, and doesn't require much prep (i.e., cooling and collimation). Would you say that's correct? If so, an FC-76DCU (or FC-100DC, if you don't need to travel with it) would be a good choice if you're specifically interested in Takahashi. There's also a unique FC-100DL in the classifieds right now. I'd buy it if I didn't own an FS-102.

If you listen closely, you can hear them say, "If you name me, you negate me."

Thanks for posting this. This OTA has piqued my interest since 6" f/8 reflectors can be excellent visual scopes and aren't so commonly sold anymore. I look forward to your impressions of how it performs.

I think they all go to CloudyNights. It's basically Vegas for used eyepieces.

Or maybe the 10x50 so that you and a certain someone can do a nice comparison... 😁

22 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

Oh dear, you missed the (admittedly bad) joke !
Chimneys — Pointing 👍

 

I admit that your chimney joke flue right over my head.

😑

Sometimes, when a binocular and telescope love each other very much...

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

You are missing the pointing 🙂

I was just being intentionally obtuse. That aside, I agree that the long-focus refractors can be wonderful observing instruments. I think older long-focus reflectors are also undervalued these days. It's nice when such instruments are rediscovered by those who can appreciate them.

I'm glad I went with the Tak. I get disappointed when roof chimneys lack even a little contrast or sharpness.

2 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

This question might or might not be triggered by me maybe or maybe not considering actually buying the Takahashi FS-60CB...

Many people agree that this is one of the best optics ever produced for a telescope of this size. But I want to ask, are there any disadvantages or caveats when going the Takahashi way? 

For example, I read in several places that Takahashi has a bit of its own way of "doing stuff", so my fear is that going in this direction would make astronomy significantly more expensive after investing in such an expensive machine to start with. Does it become more expensive to buy any significant upgrade? Would I need to  Is it a telescope that comes with a commitment to the brand? 

Here are some of the potential disadvantages, as I see them... The focuser has limited travel, so you may or may not need to use adapters to accomplish your goals. The holes used to attach the finder are spaced at a distance unique to Takahashi, so you would need to use the Tak finder or use an adapter that enables attaching a typical finder. The focuser is single-speed, and not everyone like Takahashi focusers. Tube rings (e.g., More Blue) and the Takahashi tube cradle tend to be comparatively expensive. The visual back that comes with the FS-60CB is for 1.25" accessories, so you would need to buy an additional thing or two to use 2" accessories. And while the FS-60CB is a very nice telescope, I think that there are other, less expensive telescopes of that size that will offer nearly the same optical quality.

Here are some of the potential advantages, as I see them... The FS-60CB is a very nice telescope, which will offer views that, in my experience, are visibly sharper and more contrasty than other, less expensive telescopes of that size. You can use the extender to make it into the FS-60Q, which is an even better (in my opinion) visual observing instrument, and being able to switch between CB mode and Q mode gives you versatility. Takahashis are beautifully made, and so are their relatively expensive accessories.

I think choosing an FS-60CB may require buying a couple of accessesories that you might not buy otherwise, but I don't think it requires a lifelong commitment to Takahashi. That's what an FS-102 is for 😉 

On 18/07/2024 at 19:18, Louis D said:

Was the whole point of this well corrected in fast scopes 1.25" eyepieces between 24mm and 32mm simply for the purpose of increasing the exit pupil in fast scopes that can't take 2" eyepieces, or was there some other use case I missed?

That was related to another thread that I started on another astronomy forum. I shared a link earlier. But it was a departure from the topic of this thread.

To get us back on topic, I'll share information on the Nikon CFIUW 10x/25 microscope eyepieces that I mentioned earlier.

According to the limited information I've found online, these are Nikon's high-end "ultra-wide" (that's what the UW in the name means) microscope eyepieces. The AFOV is approximately 55°. I've used them in a few scopes now, so I can comment a little on their performance. I find the eye relief totally comfortable, and the construction of the eyepieces results in the "floating effect" that is most commonly associated with the Edmund 28mm RKE. Some observers (including me) love this, and some don't and prefer eyecups for a more "contained" view.

At the center of their FOV, these are extremely sharp... so much so that after a brief comparison of these vs. the 100° XWA eyepieces I owned, I posted the latter for sale. The difference was obvious, not subtle. In comparison to the XWAs (which are highly regarded eyepieces), these Nikons displayed more pronounced star points and diffraction rings, higher contrast, and brighter/more intense colors. The view through the XWAs, while impressive due to their AFOV, looked slightly muddy (as though one is looking through a thin layer of water in the dirty dish sink) in comparison to what these little Nikons showed. That probably sounds too harsh, and I'll add that I loved the XWAs... until I compared them to these.

In an f/5.5 instrument, the center 60% of the FOV is sharp, and then there's gradually increasing astigmatism to the edges. But I don't find it obtrusive, and it's much, much cleaner than the currently produced Masuyama eyepieces that I've used. In an f/10 instrument, the center 90% of the FOV is sharp, and there is only slight astigmatism at the edges. At f/12, 100% of the FOV is sharp. You can easily unscrew the field stop on these eyepieces, but I've found it doesn't make much of a difference to the AFOV... maybe just adding ~3°. But what's nice is that unscrewing the field stop does not result in fuzzy edges when looking through the eyepiece. The edges are still crisply defined.

Now here's another thing I love about these... They're so easy to adapt to 1.25". Initially, I added aluminum tape to accomplish this.

And that works very well. I've used them up to 600x in my binoviewer, and the images merge perfectly. So, there's no need to make further modifications. But you can if you're inclined to 🙂 

The individual eyepieces have built-in diopters. One only needs to unscrew the barrel (at the center of the picture above), unscrew the diopter ring (on the left in the picture above), and the housed lens assembly (on the right in the picture above) fits perfectly into a thin 1.25" barrel.

The barrel in this picture was taken from an old prism diagonal, and it's longer than I'd like to use, so I ordered a few more simple 1.25" barrels from someone who sells such things. I'll rehouse my CFIUW pair once they arrive.

Finally, I'll note how tiny and light these are.

I have pairs of 25mm plossls and 24mm Brandons on the way, and a friend has agreed to lend me a pair of Leica HC Plan S 10x/25. So, stay tuned to see who emerges victorious from this clash of tiny titans.

Major points for cuteness 👍👍

🌛🔭

28 minutes ago, GrumpiusMaximus said:

I won't have a house or an understanding partner if I fall into temptation...

I routinely mention "in passing" the many scandalous vices on which I could be spending the money 😇 The list is so long. And then it seems so lovably benign when another telescope just shows up 😁 

1 minute ago, Highburymark said:

Reading a couple of other past threads, looks like the 35mm pseudo-Masuyama is the best bet. Don P thought it performed well enough at F/5. 

I have a pair of the 30mm Ultimas on the way 🙂 An issue with the 35mm is that it requires lots of backfocus, just like @Louis D stated above. And they also vignette. I owned a pair and loved the views but didn't love how I had to refocus so much when using them.

I'm confused by online reports on the 30mm. There are people who state they're well corrected in their fast scope, and there are others who say the opposite. So, I'll try it and see how it goes!

3 minutes ago, Emperor!Takahashi! said:

Would you like a svelte and feathery Astroluxe? It is possible. All you need to do is hold the WX for a few minutes 😄 

One of these binoculars is 50mm, and the other is 70mm 🤔

1 hour ago, Captain Scarlet said:

a pair of Nikon Astroluxe 18x70, hilariously huge

 

 

Would you like a svelte and feathery Astroluxe? It is possible. All you need to do is hold the WX for a few minutes 😄 

15 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Having done a few tests, the Televues are better corrected right at the edge. So depending on what purpose you want to use a low power 1.25” eyepiece for, the Panoptic 24 is about as good as it gets, I would think. The Nagler 22 is lovely, but it’s 2”, and shows some field curvature in my F/6 scope. The Delites are excellent but only go to 18mm, and my recently acquired Ethos 6 - tried out here just for fun - is mind-blowingly sharp at the edge - wow. Thing is, I’ve never really worried about edge sharpness - I don’t do much DSO astronomy. I’m much more interested in what I can see in front of me. So the reason to buy the Leica is definitely not for edge correction, even though it performs very well in this respect to my eyes. These are £400-£500 a pair secondhand. You’re paying that for outstanding definition, transmission and contrast on axis, with a very reasonable AFOV. But I wouldn’t pay that sort of money just to use them in a fast scope. Just as I wouldn’t buy Ethos for a slow Maksutov or SCT. Put them in a apo, with a binoviewer, and push them up to 200x on the Moon or Sun, and they’ll blow you away. 

Such a useful comparison. Huge thanks!

5 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

An interesting question. I always use them with a binoviewer, with between 1.5x and 8x magnification from GPCs, barlows and extenders. So they’re always operating at slow speeds and are  sharp to the edge. 
But I’ve just tried them native in an F/6 refractor on an artificial star to compare my four pairs: Zeiss W-PL 10x/23, Zeiss OPMI 10x/22, Leica HC Plan S 10x/22, and Leica HC Plan S 10x/25.
The Zeiss W-PL fared worst, with quite a lot of astigmatism at the edge, starting from 50% of the way out. The slightly narrower Zeiss OPMI got a little ragged in the final 10-15%. but these are 3- and 4-element eyepieces - mainly built for clarity and sharpness on axis in slow optical systems.
The two Leica pairs were very nice - the wider HC Plan S 10x/25 surprisingly so considering its wider field (25mm field stop, compared with 22mm for the other Leica). Neater than a typical plossl at the edge - both Plossls and abbé orthoscopics display edge astigmatism in my F/6 scope. But if they were compared with - say - a good widefield astronomy eyepiece on stars at the field edge, I’m sure the astro EP would be sharper.
I could see how the Leica compares with a Panoptic 24mm or Nagler 22mm at F6 later if I get the opportunity.

A quandary is that there really don't seem to be any longer focal length (i.e., 25mm and longer) 1.25" astronomy eyepieces that are well corrected for faster scopes. See: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/929461-well-corrected-35mm-28mm-125-eyepiece/

If the HC Plan S 10x/25 is better corrected than a Plossl and as sharp as the best orthos, that's a pretty big deal... I would really love to see the comparisons that you mentioned.

4 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

An interesting question. I always use them with a binoviewer, with between 1.5x and 8x magnification from GPCs, barlows and extenders. So they’re always operating at slow speeds and are  sharp to the edge. 
But I’ve just tried them native in an F/6 refractor on an artificial star to compare my four pairs: Zeiss W-PL 10x/23, Zeiss OPMI 10x/22, Leica HC Plan S 10x/22, and Leica HC Plan S 10x/25.
The Zeiss W-PL fared worst, with quite a lot of astigmatism at the edge, starting from 50% of the way out. The slightly narrower Zeiss OPMI got a little ragged in the final 10-15%. but these are 3- and 4-element eyepieces - mainly built for clarity and sharpness on axis in slow optical systems.
The two Leica pairs were very nice - the wider HC Plan S 10x/25 surprisingly so considering its wider field (25mm field stop, compared with 22mm for the other Leica). Neater than a typical plossl at the edge - both Plossls and abbé orthoscopics display edge astigmatism in my F/6 scope. But if they were compared with - say - a good widefield astronomy eyepiece on stars at the field edge, I’m sure the astro EP would be sharper.
I could see how the Leica compares with a Panoptic 24mm or Nagler 22mm at F6 later if I get the opportunity.

Extremely helpful! Many thanks 🙏 

I'm curious whether the ~45° microscope eyepieces are sharp to the edges. I know that's not what's prioritized in microscope eyepieces, but I'd be grateful to hear from those who use them. The ~55° Nikons I use are sharp to ~65% of the field at f/5.5 and sharp to ~80% out at f/10.

9 hours ago, Travelman said:

This is my first post on SGL - but not the last🙂

 

Being the happy owner of the following Takahashi scopes and mounts, I guess I have to confess that I suffering from Takahashititis.....

FC-50

FS-60Q

TG-SP SKY Patrol 2 Mount

TM-SP Mount

 

 

To my defense, I also have a Celestron C5+ & C6 Tube, a ZWO Seestar S50, Edmund Astroscan and a 70 mm Mak of which I will not even mention the brand

 

 

Clear skies to all

 

Torben

Copenhagen

 

I also keep a few Celestron and Meade items around so that I can mingle with the commoners.

(This ☝️ is meant as a joke.)

And welcome to SGL!

3 hours ago, Ratlet said:

I get the black and white thing although coming from the other side, for some reason I just don't like the colour scheme of Takahashi.  There's something about the green on the focuser/clamps that just doesn't fit.  Flip side, I really like the shade of orange on old celestrons which I think was a tiny bit darker (might be just old paint).

I do like the cream colour on the taks though.  Looks very clean and clinical.  Has a bit of 90s anime sci-fi shade for me.

I do like it when a brand are consistent.  I like svbony stuff, but some is great, some is absolute garbage.  StellaMira/StellaLyra I can be pretty certain is going to tick all my boxes.

Actually do FLO count as a brand?  Really the only time I buy astronomy stuff from other places is when they don't carry it.  I like that you can buy things from them and you just know there won't be a problem.  Heck I bought a Morpheus from them about a week before they had a sale and they refunded me the difference!

Marvelous company.

This is a departure from the topic, but I really appreciate FLO, too. Especially coming from the US, where I didn't encounter any retailer that is so customer-focused. I bought something from basically every astronomy supplier there, and the spectrum of treatment spans from indifference to thinly veiled disdain, especially if you are a visual observer and aren't interested in the imaging gadgets that seem to be their most profitable items.

If I wanted another telescope of Japanese origin, superb optical quality, with a color scheme that I can gaze at endlessly, and that doesn't rhyme with "Shmixen" ( 😇), I'd buy it through FLO.

On 15/07/2024 at 09:54, John said:

I have owned an excellent Takahashi for 7 years now. 

I could have bought, and could still buy, more Tak's but personally I am enjoying owning and using other good brands of telescopes  as well - "variety is the spice of life" 🙂

 

 

 😉😇🙃