Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Lomo 80/480 Or Tak FCT-76


Recommended Posts

Hello all, I used to have a FCT-76 it had the best optics for viewing I have ever used. I sold it though to finance a 100mm apo. Now my back being in pretty bad and I had to sell the 100mm.

Now I am looking for a quality refractor for viewing that I can handle on my small alt-az. I have narrowed it down to another FCT-76 or a Lomo 80/480 f6 I am looking for a refractor no heavier than 6lbs and the best optics in the range of 78-80mm f6  fl=460-480mm refractor I can find. The FCT-76 and Lomo seem to fit the bill, but I am not sure how the 80/480 f6 Lomo stacks up against the FCT-76 optically. Again not interested in AP

Kind Regards, Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this last night and decided to not offer an opinion.

It looks like no-one else has either.

I know that some of the Lomo scopes are more then excellent, they are all very good.

Equally the Taks are much the same, the FCT-76 and related scopes have nothing but excellent reports.

I would say that an honest unbiased person will be unable to tell any difference at all.

The coatings may deliver a fractionally different colour balance, but that is about all I could think of.

You would probably be better considering the Tak.

Reason: They have a longer pedigree then the Lomo items in the US.

(Other reason - I suspect you want the Tak :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lomo. Lomo. Lomo.

Taks is rubbish. Never had a Tak that did what it said on the tin.

Convinced that people that shell out the extra dosh for a Tak are delusional. ;-D

Lomos are near perfect.

Compare the second hand market. Taks hang about forever Lomos go like "that".

Also Lomo optics tend to be housed in very nice tubes. Taks are considerably more 'agricultural'.

My TSA 120 arrived so badly damaged I had to claim the insurance. It took 6 months to sort out.

My TOA 130 was so badly sealed a spider got in.

My Mewlon had a focuser that SQUEAKED!!!!

Never had a problem with an SV/TMB/APM or any other guises for the 80/480.

Ymmv, but why take the chance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care if the Lomo lens with OK-4 is in a WO SV or APM tube. I liked the FCT-76 I had, but it was all different adapters you needed I did not like. Optically mine was perfect, I could not get it to show false color on anything, even at 500x. That being said the Lomo 80/480 looks to be so much more user friendly, with the FCT-76 I had a very hard time getting certain eyepieces to come to focus.

I am in no big hurry, perhaps more posts will help me decide....

Thanks Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that either would disappoint, both have excellent reviews.

Not sure of the US but there are also the APM/LZOS scopes over here. (different APM ???), another excellent lens.

Just to throw another one into the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that either would disappoint, both have excellent reviews.

Not sure of the US but there are also the APM/LZOS scopes over here. (different APM ???), another excellent lens.

Just to throw another one into the mix.

No. Same APM. The owner gets around a bit. He'll be down-under next month and I'm trying to get him to smuggle me some lovely stuff. :-D

The Stellarvue 80mm scopes use / or used the Lomo optic as well as other less expensive glass. However the ones that used the Lomo glass were advertised with

vigour as doing so. They were also about $500 dearer.

In either instance, both 'scopes pop up fairly regularly on the 2 big U.S. sites and the pound / dollar exchange rate is pretty good right now.

The Ozzie dollar / pound rate is even better.

You could probably buy everything I own for the price of a monthly tube pass. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lomo. Lomo. Lomo.

Taks is rubbish. Never had a Tak that did what it said on the tin.

Convinced that people that shell out the extra dosh for a Tak are delusional. ;-D

Lomos are near perfect.

Compare the second hand market. Taks hang about forever Lomos go like "that".

Also Lomo optics tend to be housed in very nice tubes. Taks are considerably more 'agricultural'.

My TSA 120 arrived so badly damaged I had to claim the insurance. It took 6 months to sort out.

My TOA 130 was so badly sealed a spider got in.

My Mewlon had a focuser that SQUEAKED!!!!

Never had a problem with an SV/TMB/APM or any other guises for the 80/480.

Ymmv, but why take the chance.

That's the second poorly phrased post you've done in almost as many days.

The last one was that Panoptics are "rubbish", an opinion that might better have been put as 'not what TV are currently capable of'. Consider toning down the veracity of your opinion into slightly more reasoned fact? It might make more people read to the end of your posts, because some of what is in there, is fact. Personally, I don't mind an opinion that informs people that everything you've heard isn't without an opposing, balancing point of view, but there are ways about it. Your second post in this thread was bang on the money.

A quick note about Lomo 80/480 loaded OTAs - I've never had one (lusted after a few) but at least some of them are housed in Williams Optics tubes and their focusers were ...... un-serviceable. ;)

Russell

Edited by russ.will
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for opinoins guys, very interesting reading. glad I joined this group, it is refreshing to come here instead of the same groups in the US all the time. Well, SV uses FPL-53 as the center element in the 80/480 they make. They did have some Lomo OK-4 scopes but are sold out and not getting any more. Reading other forums, it seems the SV and others using FPL-53 do have a hint of color, at least on the 80mm f6 fl480 anyway. The  APM/LZOS 80/480 are/were using OK-4 glass lens as far as I know.

I sent a email to APM and asked about a new Lomo, The reply I got said they only had two used ones, no more new ones. I am waiting to hear from the fellow the has the FCT-76 and see if he has the proper adapters for 1.25 & 2" eyepieces, and make sure they will come to focus. He was to contact me soon, tomorrow will be a week. If I do not hear from him by Monday morning, I think I'll start hunting down a Lomo unless anyone knows of any other scope as good, with specs close to a 80/480 regarding the weight and fl.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding robustness, LMC's Tak may well have been delivered by a carrier who tows goods behind a kangaroo. Mine had a worse fate and was delivered by an organization lovingly known in the northern hemisphere as Farcel Farce.  :grin:  Here's what they did.

BOX%20DAMAGE-L.jpg

This was a used instrument around ten years old. To do equivalent damage to a similar piece of plywood I needed to raise an engineer's hammer to shoulder height and bring it down with all my strength. No exaggerating here: I did not need to bring it down from over the head height. Even so...

The telescope was absolutely fine. It took the pictures above.

LMC, you've led a charmed life if your idea of eyepiece rubbish is a TeleVue Panoptic. 

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the second poorly phrased post you've done in almost as many days.

The last one was that Panoptics are "rubbish", an opinion that might better have been put as 'not what TV are currently capable of'. Consider toning down the veracity of your opinion into slightly more reasoned fact? It might make more people read to the end of your posts, because some of what is in there, is fact. Personally, I don't mind an opinion that informs people that everything you've heard isn't without an opposing, balancing point of view, but there are ways about it. Your second post in this thread was bang on the money.

A quick note about Lomo 80/480 loaded OTAs - I've never had one (lusted after a few) but at least some of them are housed in Williams Optics tubes and their focusers were ...... un-serviceable. ;)

Russell

I never said Panoptics were rubbish or if I did it was the Percodan typing. I have 4 (2 19s, a 24 and a 27) and they never stay in the box for long.

If you'll take time to re-read the post, I expounded briefly on why Taks were rubbish and I stand by that.

I have never had a Tak that didn't have something VERY wrong with it which made it unusable. All were bought new, at a hefty price. If I'm paying North of $8000 for a TOA 130, I expect it to be spider-proof. The tube also let in water and dust and was poorly collimated. It had to go back to Japan (at my expense of course),I mean how DARE I question the quality of their scopes!

In fact, short of a Saxon blue tube, I've never had a scope with worse fit and finish!

The Mewlon focuser squeaked and cross threaded itself. Fixed under warranty - 3 months later.

My TSA 120 arrived so badly damaged -in its factory packaging, so it wasn't a post office mis-handling - I refused to pay the balance and had to sue Takahashi for my money back.

Scopes at this price point should be out-of-the box perfect, and the buyer shouldn't have to pay (postage) to have an obvious factory fault repaired.

In my book, this makes them RUBBISH, and I'm happy to tell all and sundry - "Save your money and buy a Skywatcher instead".

If you're willing to put your money where your fingers type, and buy me a perfect TOA 130 - I'll gladly take it. Ta! But until you've been on the receiving end of a rubbish Tak and had to go through the dog and pony show that they pull for a repair under warranty (all of a sudden no one speaks English) you really don't know what you're talking about.

Edited by auspom
bypassing swear filter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please lets all calm down. Every one of us have been at the receiving end of bad service or product at some point. It is not nice to take it out on each other. I am still waiting for an email after nearly 6 months to explain a few points that I raised with a manufacturer so these are by no means isolated cases, How much effort does it take to reply to an email?

A.G

Edited by lensman57
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think it's fair for anyone to post their experiences, good or bad, but it's unfair to "tar with the same brush" an entire brand based on a negative result when the overwhelming number of owners express complete satisfaction with similar models. I am very surprised that the disappointed poster has had the misfortune to address so many problems, I was born on a Friday 13th and never had such a bad run of luck with telescopes.  :smiley:

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radians are rubbish (IMO of course). Soft, yellow-cast views and impossible to maintain eye position unless you want a closer relationship with your chiropractor. Get your eye position wrong and you'll spend the rest of the night trying to adjust for blackouts and kidney-beaning.

Get the Pentaxses (sp?) instead. I found them to be almost as problematic with regard to eye position, but at least when I got there the views were wonderfully, sharp, flat and colour-free.

Oh yeah.

Televues comprise 95% of my EPs so I don't think I'm slagging them off unfairly.

Lomo. Lomo. Lomo.

Taks is rubbish. Never had a Tak that did what it said on the tin.

Convinced that people that shell out the extra dosh for a Tak are delusional. ;-D

Lomos are near perfect.

Compare the second hand market. Taks hang about forever Lomos go like "that".

Also Lomo optics tend to be housed in very nice tubes. Taks are considerably more 'agricultural'.

My TSA 120 arrived so badly damaged I had to claim the insurance. It took 6 months to sort out.

My TOA 130 was so badly sealed a spider got in.

My Mewlon had a focuser that SQUEAKED!!!!

Never had a problem with an SV/TMB/APM or any other guises for the 80/480.

Ymmv, but why take the chance.

Throw me a bone here LMC, I've just popped a 10mm Radian in my Tak FC-76DC, now I'm feeling suicidal!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add something more relevant to the conversation, I suspect that optically there would be very little to choose between the two. I'm sure you would be delighted.

I think the difference would be in the detail of the design and engineering.

Someone mentioned earlier the fact that Taks are more targeted at AP, and I think this is correct, they can be much more fiddly to get certain eyepieces to come to focus and tend to have limited focus travel.

On the subject of focusing, I have an FS-60C and I must say I was not very impressed with the focuser. I don't know whether the design on the FCT is better, but I would say this is a weak point for Taks in my limited experience. (and from what I have read). I upgraded to a Feathertouch which works beautifully and gives more focus travel.

That probably leaves me suggesting the Lomo, or a variant with Lomo optics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac, yes the negitives you mentioned about the FCT-76 are true, but I have yet to find a refractor that is as color free. I could not get my old one the show any falfe color on anything, Venus, moon, Vega, at very high powers, no false color at all in or out of focus. That's the kind of optics I am hoping the Lomo will have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong LMC, but wasn't the problem with your TSA120 as a result of you dropping it? 

My TSA120 showed absolutely perfect views and star tests, but then I never dropped mine.......... 

I just bought my 10th Takahashi and have yet to find a single thing wrong in any of them.  Seriously, it gets a little old to hear some of these comments.  There is also another poster who has made it his life's mission to bag William Optics scopes.  A chill pill might be in order all round.

My apologies for the off topic discussion.  As for the OPs question, I've never owned either but have viewed through both and the views in both were excellent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think it's fair for anyone to post their experiences, good or bad, but it's unfair to "tar with the same brush" an entire brand based on a negative result when the overwhelming number of owners express complete satisfaction with similar models. I am very surprised that the disappointed poster has had the misfortune to address so many problems, I was born on a Friday 13th and never had such a bad run of luck with telescopes.  :smiley:

Good Point peter,

I still have not managed to drive up to your location yet, perhaps one evening.

Regards,

A.G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got the TMB 80/480 with Lomo optics. I've never actually looked through it ( shame on me!), but I can say that the colour correction is as near to perfect as you can get photgraphically ( no refocus between parfocal filters) and th build quality is superb. The focuser is a rock solid Feathertouch. Nothing more to add really, but I don't see how you could better it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.