What are you paying for

[astrokoma]

My "APO" history:

1. SW 80 ED

2. SW 120 equinox

3. Tak TOA 130 F

The two Chinese made models, was just perfect instruments (bought them new) .

I bought the Japanese used, low priced and in excellent condition as an upgrade.

The TOA is build as a tank, it is heavy and well manufactured.

(Of course, the first think i did, is to sell the very moderate genuine 560$ -yes the number is correct- finder/bracket/illuminator set and i bought a much better older and

much cheaper Vixen finder/quick release bracket. I owned the two finders for 1 month and i am sure that the Vixen performed better.The TAK finder bracket had not even a

quick release system but two allen screws to fit at the OTA...).

By the way, i have to say that the OTA's 4" focuser is make me nervous also....It is very heavy to moove, so everytime i use the scope for planetic observation, during fine focusing, i realise that Takahashi engineers, could make it better..(i installed a microfocuser, but i am still no happy). Many TOA 130F owners have focusers problems, and thats why i am writing these words.

At the end , i agree with Stu_2011....

Takahashi instruments are excellent performers, but at this price range, everyone could find better/cheaper alrernatives.

Yes, i am a proud owner of a large TAK.

No, i would never spent thousands of euro, to buy it new.

Yes, some times even the most famous feathers could ruffle.

[CC_Japan]

Not sure whether you could find better alternatives, but cheaper ones for sure. In the end, it comes down to the ability and willingness to shell out big bucks and making compromises (or not).

What amounts to big bucks and whether you consider that money well spent probably is as subjective as it gets. I'm sure a lot of folks share your experience with low-priced APO scopes made in China. For them just like for you, they were good bang for the buck. Needless to say, there is a certain percentage of people that end up with lemons who probably are less than pleased with these low-priced scopes.

The question is whether you are willing to take that "risk" and accept less than perfect quality or whether you won't settle for anything less than a Takahashi scope. I'm still on the fence there, as I feel that a Takahashi scope should be handled by somebody who (unlike me) knows what he/she is doing and that I should "waste" so much money on my first scope.

I think the same is even more true for cameras. I looked at CCD prices the other day and quickly realized that I'm definitely not going to spend that much money on a device that will (in the right hands) take great astro shots, but do little else. A modded DSLR won't be as good as a quality CCD, but it still can produce great images, only costs a fraction and depending on the modification can be used for other purposes as well.

[Russe]

I was referring to the 21 grand APM that Matthew has , not the Tak ...

So it's not this APM?

'>http://www.altairastro.com/product.php?productid=16559

[Mr Spock]

It's a high quality scope, but, as a visual observer, a 6" dob would out perform it. You canna change the laws of physics (no matter how much you spend)

[Pig]

£2000 on a scope that gives you 10 years of use = £200 per year.

I spend more than that on coffee.

As long as you have your priorities in order you only live once and you should treat yourself the best that you can afford.

£200 on a scope that gives you 10 years of use = £20 per year, if that's what you want that's also fair play.

[StuartJPP]

I'd say buy the best you can afford, and if you need to save up, give up beer or fags for a year

I spent a small fortune (to me) on my 500mm camera lens, was it worth it? I don't know, but I have probably saved money because once I bought it, I no longer had the desire to "upgrade", I can just get on and use it knowing that it is me who needs to improve, not the optics. Each "upgrade" generally causes you to lose money, sometimes a few ££, sometimes a few hundred ££s.

As long as people are happy with what they are producing, that is all that counts. Some people have all the gear and no idea, and others have modest kit and produce stunning results. However one thing that seems to stand out is that the absolute best images I see are almost always taken with premium kit (note I say almost always).

So is it worth spending £2k on a scope? Only you can decide that.

[astrokoma]

A friend of mine bought a TMB 130 triplet equiped with a 3,5" feathertouch focuser....

I think that both scopes are the same optical quality...(what is your opinion?).

TMB is much cheaper, and it dont need focuser upgrade.

It is redicullus, to spent thousands of euros, and realise, that if you want to make it work in acceptable way,

you must try hard (and spent again).

(the last official "solution" that i have been suggested, is to send my focuser to TNR (USA) for replacing some parts,

to make the focuser smoother....They use to replace the sliding materials with something else, and i wonder why this

action is not take=ing place before the OTA leave the factory .

I assume that Takahashi install this upgrade to the latest products...(???????)

If you visit Tak group, you will find many Tak owners, with problems with the focusers. Yes, i know that the focuser is very difficult

part at the scope, and everyone has his opinion with that, but i a still jealous for a Feathertouch .

Come on Takahashi....at last, if you cant build large focusers, buy me a feathertouch, and protect your brand!!!

I am not angry with my excellnt optics OTA (because i bought it used), but i am sure that every Ferrari's owner, could not accept a

moderate gear box...

[ollypenrice]

The ED80 is an excellent scope and gives both good images and and a good visual experience. It's one I'm constantly recommending. The focuser won't hold out forever and isn't up to heavy CCD gear but it's a start and can be replaced.

I haven't tried a Tak 76 but there are Taks I have tried and wouldn't buy. The FS60 and Sky 90 come to mind. They are not remotely good enough to justify the price. In imaging neither of them controls the blue very well from bright stars and for that price I'd want better.

But then we come to the Tak FSQ85 and FSQ106. Ah, now you're talking. What do they do that an ED80 won't do? A short list;

Hold heavy CCD gear without slipping.

Allow you to rotate a camera without focus loss.

Focus at 10 to 1 reduction.

Control all stars as well or better than any other refractor.

Illuminate an enormous image circle without vignetting. (The 85 can cover a 44mm diagonal and the 106 an 88mm circle. Eighty eight mm is ludicrous!)

Provide pin sharp stars right across that circle.

Work at F3.6 or F3.9. (F3.6 is about 2.7 times faster than F6. The difference when imaging is impossible to exaggerate. 10 mins in the Tak takes 27 mins in the ED80.)

Last a lifetime.

Note that 'Bragging that you have a Takahashi' is not on this list. However, it would be arrogant of anybody to presume to know why another person bought a Tak and I certainly won't do so. I've listed the hard factual reasons why I bought one (or two, in fact, though not at the same time!! ) and I ike what they do.

Let's do a quick sum. The image above is a 2 panel from the 106 working at F5, so 16 hours in all. Because of the limitations of its image circle the ED80 would need to take at least 4 panels to get the same coverage. It is also F6 rather than F5. That would come out at 46 hours in the ED80. And that is without using the Tak reducer... Sixteen hours I do regularly. Only once have I gone beyond twenty two and forty six would be a special occasion.

So there you are. In imaging these big prices to buy you a lot. In visual use they buy you a little. You may still feel the little is worth it, but it is a little.

Olly

[Scott]

The ED80 is an excellent scope and gives both good images and and a good visual experience. It's one I'm constantly recommending. The focuser won't hold out forever and isn't up to heavy CCD gear but it's a start and can be replaced.

I haven't tried a Tak 76 but there are Taks I have tried and wouldn't buy. The FS60 and Sky 90 come to mind. They are not remotely good enough to justify the price. In imaging neither of them controls the blue very well from bright stars and for that price I'd want better.

But then we come to the Tak FSQ85 and FSQ106. Ah, now you're talking. What do they do that an ED80 won't do? A short list;

Hold heavy CCD gear without slipping.

Allow you to rotate a camera without focus loss.

Focus at 10 to 1 reduction.

Control all stars as well or better than any other refractor.

Illuminate an enormous image circle without vignetting. (The 85 can cover a 44mm diagonal and the 106 an 88mm circle. Eighty eight mm is ludicrous!)

Provide pin sharp stars right across that circle.

Work at F3.6 or F3.9. (F3.6 is about 2.7 times faster than F6. The difference when imaging is impossible to exaggerate. 10 mins in the Tak takes 27 mins in the ED80.)

Last a lifetime.

Note that 'Bragging that you have a Takahashi' is not on this list. However, it would be arrogant of anybody to presume to know why another person bought a Tak and I certainly won't do so. I've listed the hard factual reasons why I bought one (or two, in fact, though not at the same time!! ) and I ike what they do.

Let's do a quick sum. The image above is a 2 panel from the 106 working at F5, so 16 hours in all. Because of the limitations of its image circle the ED80 would need to take at least 4 panels to get the same coverage. It is also F6 rather than F5. That would come out at 46 hours in the ED80. And that is without using the Tak reducer... Sixteen hours I do regularly. Only once have I gone beyond twenty two and forty six would be a special occasion.

So there you are. In imaging these big prices to buy you a lot. In visual use they buy you a little. You may still feel the little is worth it, but it is a little.

Olly

Great summary Olly. Factual and to the point. I didn't realise there was such a big difference between f5 and f6 time wise. good to know.

Thanks

[CC_Japan]

The ED80 is an excellent scope and gives both good images and and a good visual experience. It's one I'm constantly recommending. The focuser won't hold out forever and isn't up to heavy CCD gear but it's a start and can be replaced.

I haven't tried a Tak 76 but there are Taks I have tried and wouldn't buy. The FS60 and Sky 90 come to mind. They are not remotely good enough to justify the price. In imaging neither of them controls the blue very well from bright stars and for that price I'd want better.

But then we come to the Tak FSQ85 and FSQ106. Ah, now you're talking. What do they do that an ED80 won't do? A short list;

Hold heavy CCD gear without slipping.

Allow you to rotate a camera without focus loss.

Focus at 10 to 1 reduction.

Control all stars as well or better than any other refractor.

Illuminate an enormous image circle without vignetting. (The 85 can cover a 44mm diagonal and the 106 an 88mm circle. Eighty eight mm is ludicrous!)

Provide pin sharp stars right across that circle.

Work at F3.6 or F3.9. (F3.6 is about 2.7 times faster than F6. The difference when imaging is impossible to exaggerate. 10 mins in the Tak takes 27 mins in the ED80.)

Last a lifetime.

Note that 'Bragging that you have a Takahashi' is not on this list. However, it would be arrogant of anybody to presume to know why another person bought a Tak and I certainly won't do so. I've listed the hard factual reasons why I bought one (or two, in fact, though not at the same time!! ) and I ike what they do.

Let's do a quick sum. The image above is a 2 panel from the 106 working at F5, so 16 hours in all. Because of the limitations of its image circle the ED80 would need to take at least 4 panels to get the same coverage. It is also F6 rather than F5. That would come out at 46 hours in the ED80. And that is without using the Tak reducer... Sixteen hours I do regularly. Only once have I gone beyond twenty two and forty six would be a special occasion.

So there you are. In imaging these big prices to buy you a lot. In visual use they buy you a little. You may still feel the little is worth it, but it is a little.

Olly

Great summary, Olly. The concrete figures are particularly helpful. They provide even more food for thought. I guess it will be quite a while, before I manage to actually make up my mind on which scope to buy.

[foundaplanet]

The ED80 is an excellent scope and gives both good images and and a good visual experience. It's one I'm constantly recommending. The focuser won't hold out forever and isn't up to heavy CCD gear but it's a start and can be replaced.

I haven't tried a Tak 76 but there are Taks I have tried and wouldn't buy. The FS60 and Sky 90 come to mind. They are not remotely good enough to justify the price. In imaging neither of them controls the blue very well from bright stars and for that price I'd want better.

But then we come to the Tak FSQ85 and FSQ106. Ah, now you're talking. What do they do that an ED80 won't do? A short list;

Hold heavy CCD gear without slipping.

Allow you to rotate a camera without focus loss.

Focus at 10 to 1 reduction.

Control all stars as well or better than any other refractor.

Illuminate an enormous image circle without vignetting. (The 85 can cover a 44mm diagonal and the 106 an 88mm circle. Eighty eight mm is ludicrous!)

Provide pin sharp stars right across that circle.

Work at F3.6 or F3.9. (F3.6 is about 2.7 times faster than F6. The difference when imaging is impossible to exaggerate. 10 mins in the Tak takes 27 mins in the ED80.)

Last a lifetime.

Note that 'Bragging that you have a Takahashi' is not on this list. However, it would be arrogant of anybody to presume to know why another person bought a Tak and I certainly won't do so. I've listed the hard factual reasons why I bought one (or two, in fact, though not at the same time!! ) and I ike what they do.

Let's do a quick sum. The image above is a 2 panel from the 106 working at F5, so 16 hours in all. Because of the limitations of its image circle the ED80 would need to take at least 4 panels to get the same coverage. It is also F6 rather than F5. That would come out at 46 hours in the ED80. And that is without using the Tak reducer... Sixteen hours I do regularly. Only once have I gone beyond twenty two and forty six would be a special occasion.

So there you are. In imaging these big prices to buy you a lot. In visual use they buy you a little. You may still feel the little is worth it, but it is a little.

Olly

Damned cheap then really for the imager considering how much more life you buy for yourself at the same time..

[Sp@ce_d]

Good thread.. As yet the experience of a Tak is still on my todo list.... I crave the day..

However, I do have an ED80 with stock focuser and I've been lucky, once adjusted it holds focus session after session, I first used it with a DSLR and then a 314L+ & fully loaded EFW2 (+FF/Red with both). I regard it as the benchmark frac under 4 figures. It is slow though.. my WO scopes are faster in comparison but are they optically better?.. well not with the 66 but I've yet to prove that with the 71 as I'm STILL WAITING FOR DECENT SKIES for my ED80 v ZS71 shootout (http://stargazerslou...hootout-begins/) to complete.

So, that takes me down the "a Tak is no better than an ED80 under the clouds" route, therefore I'm pursuing a "triple shooter" setup. My reasoning being I would rather spend the same as a single Tak on 3 "lesser" scopes & gather say 10 mins of R,G & B in 10 mins than just R with the Tak and have to wait months for the G & B ... There is more to this game than just optics!

Having just (literally) returned from the pristine skies of Tenerife, I'm sure there'd be no contest given the option of sitting under my Scottish skies with a Tak or on Teide with my ED80...

[ArcticCircle]

Perhaps another way of looking at this......

A while back, an Indian friend bought an alarmingly expensive Rolex watch. I teased him, pointing out that my modern £10 quartz watch is a much more accurate timekeeper than the impressive, but dated spring mechanical drive used by his Rolex.

His response?

His expensive watch will hold it's value for very many years (or even appreciate in value). It will last a lifetime,

acting as a store of wealth that could be sold in an emergency. He intends to pass it on to his children as a family heirloom and argues it is a beautiful, useful object in it's own right.

Perhaps an expensive 'scope (even if not used to it's full potential) can have the same 'duel use' as my friends Rolex watch.

Myself ?

The diminishing returns offered by more expensive kit suggest that in my light polluted location, my own money would be better spent on holidays to a few dark sites, or perhaps a nice Southern Hemisphere, or Eclipse expedition

[Stu_2011]

Perhaps another way of looking at this......

A while back, an Indian friend bought an alarmingly expensive Rolex watch. I teased him, pointing out that my modern £10 quartz watch is a much more accurate timekeeper than the impressive, but dated spring mechanical drive used by his Rolex.

His response?

His expensive watch will hold it's value for very many years (or even appreciate in value). It will last a lifetime,

acting as a store of wealth that could be sold in an emergency. He intends to pass it on to his children as a family heirloom and argues it is a beautiful, useful object in it's own right.

Perhaps an expensive 'scope (even if not used to it's full potential) can have the same 'duel use' as my friends Rolex watch.

Myself ?

The diminishing returns offered by more expensive kit suggest that in my light polluted location, my own money would be better spent on holidays to a few dark sites, or perhaps a nice Southern Hemisphere, or Eclipse expedition

Just don't tell your friend that a £2000 Rolex costs about £150 to make!! The mark-up on luxury watches is HUGE, even Skywatcher wold be impressed!!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[Prador]

Just don't tell your friend that a £2000 Rolex costs about £150 to make!! The mark-up on luxury watches is HUGE, even Skywatcher wold be impressed!!

What something costs to make is largely irrelevant. In your example you are buying into the brand and they will sell for whatever people are willing to pay for them.

[Stu_2011]

What something costs to make is largely irrelevant. In your example you are buying into the brand and they will sell for whatever people are willing to pay for them.

For my sins I work in the manufacture of luxury products so I am we'll aware of brand image and costs etc.

It pays for telescopes and bikes so it can't be that bad......

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[astrokoma]

several years ago, i spent 3000 euros to buy a super TAG "profesional series" diving wrist watch...and i was proud owner.

After two expensive repairs, i realised that my TIMEX i use now, is more reliable/accurate and nervous-free choice.

I agree 100% with Stu_2011...in our days, you dont buy what you pay for...

I dont agree that buying expensive materials is an investment...unless they are collectors items....

And i dont think that a used Rolex could be sold fair priced....and at this case, it is better to buy a honest and funcy TIMEX, and save some money for

something else...

I used to buy brand name expensive European mororcycles , till the day that i realise that i was victim-consumer....My really happy moto life, start when i bought a Honda...

Sudenly i realised that my super item (whatever was) had many little problems....and nobody at the "elit club" mentioned to.

(the wrist watch story is a start of an endless list).

[CC_Japan]

I don't want to sound contrarian, but I'm not sure on whether or not the comparisons to luxury brand items do work. One reason I've been contemplating whether or not to shell out the substantial amount of money for an FSQ-85ED is for the very reason that Sara and Olly had stated above. The Takahashi will just work and if I'm capable of getting the technique right, produce flat pictures in combination with an APSC censor. Besides, you get f5 out of the box and there is no need for additional reducers/flatteners which may or may not work, or may or may not cover the entire censor of my DSLR. In other words, that scope doesn't just cost as much money because it's made by Takahashi, but because it's a high-quality piece of kit. Similar with Zeiss lenses for DSLRs. They are wicked expensive, but the optical quality and the built leave little to be desired. Now, whether you consider them worth the premium is an individual choice that depends on 1. your budget and 2. your ability/technique to actually use leverage the potential offered by this expensive equipment.

[kirkster501]

A great thread.  Of course, in the UK there is an elephant in the room in this discussion, namely, the weather.  Its all well and good shelling out the TAK premium if you're in Spain, South of France, US South West etc.  There is a fair chance you get a lot of opportunity to use that large investment so your cost per use is swallowable.  In the UK or North West Europe?  Cloud, cloud and more cloud. Endlessly.  For weeks on end.  Now under those circumstances such a large investment is questionable I would maintain.

Despite this, and immediatly contradicting myself, I have saved up some money for a FSQ-85 and I am on the look out for a good used specimen.  But I pinch mself hard and wonder if I am going nuts.  The cost per use in our UK weather would be astronomical - pardon the pun.  I am already fighting that demon with my recent Atik 460 purchase.  I have had this lovely camera for three months now and its been used four times.

[ollypenrice]

I don't give a damn for brands. I judge products on their quality. Sometimes cheap is good. I drive a Fiat Panda diesel. I paid £5.5K for it new seven years ago. It runs like a train. I even enjoy driving it. (I used to race so I'm not 100% grandad.) I used to ride a BMW motorcyle. To hell with the Rolls Royce hype. It was a well made all metal semi primitive lump which was so much better than the vast assortment of Japanese stuff that I used to ride that I hardly know where to begin.

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot you can either buy into brands and

- Buy any Tak because all Taks are Taks and are marvellous. Do this and you risk ending up with a Sky 90 or FS60.

- Reject Taks because they are all hype and miss out on an FSQ.

- Buy a scope because it looks very pretty. Naming no names...

if someone comes along and makes an equivalent of the FSQ for half the price, make no mistake. I'll be in there.

Olly

[kirkster501]

I have looked through plenty of 106 and 85's alright and seen the fabulous AP results on these boards.  Their magnificent quality I do not question.  What I do wonder though is if that investment is can be justified in the UK with our climate.  Thats the question I am wrestling with !!!

[Luke]

Good luck with the search. I guess there are two ways of looking at how the UK weather should affect spending. We get so few opportunities, that it's not worth spending a relative fortune on it. Or we get so few opportunities, it's best to make the most of those precious moments.

In the UK or North West Europe?  Cloud, cloud and more cloud. Endlessly.  For weeks on end.  Now under those circumstances such a large investment is questionable I would maintain.

Despite this, and immediatly contradicting myself, I have saved up some money for a FSQ-85 and I am on the look out for a good used specimen.

[kirkster501]

Good luck with the search. I guess there are two ways of looking at how the UK weather should affect spending. We get so few opportunities, that it's not worth spending a relative fortune on it. Or we get so few opportunities, it's best to make the most of those precious moments.

Very well articulated Luke.  Yes indeed.

[CanesVenatici]

A while back, an Indian friend bought an alarmingly expensive Rolex watch. I teased him, pointing out that my modern £10 quartz watch is a much more accurate timekeeper than the impressive, but dated spring mechanical drive used by his Rolex.

His response?

His expensive watch will hold it's value for very many years (or even appreciate in value). It will last a lifetime, acting as a store of wealth that could be sold in an emergency. He intends to pass it on to his children as a family heirloom and argues it is a beautiful, useful object in it's own right.

Must admit that as a one-time 'WIS' (Watch idiot savant) that made me smile, especially the bit about lasting a lifetime. A mechanical watch migh have the potential to last a lifetime, but it will need regular and expensive servicing. Although all the Swiss manufacturers play much the same game, Rolex are one of the worst for fleecing thier customers once they have bought a watch from them. Rolex have introduced many restrictive trading practices, including refusing to sell spare parts to anyone who is not a part of their own network, and a basic service will cost £500 upwards and be needed every 3-4 years if the watch is to keep anything like good time. For a watch with a chronometer function the cost could be almost double this! Tales also abound of Rolex refusing to work on a watch that has been worked on outside their network, or demaning that every part they they deem was non-original be replaced. In one case I saw Rolex refused to repair a watch unless the customer agreed to them replacing the after-market strap with a Rolex bracelet, as had originally been fitted to the watch, at a cost of around £1000!

The Swiss watch industry is fascinating, a real triumph of marketing over sustance!

Anyone intrigued by the novelty of a clockwork mechanism would be better served by buying something like a 'Made in Japan' Seiko '5' at a cost of around £70!