Meade 127mm triplet or Takahashi FS102 doublet ?

[John]

I ought to make it clear that I'm not planning on either of these scopes at the present time but as one of each is currently available on UK Astro Buy & Sell I'd be interested in a discussion on the pros and cons of the two.

The Meade seems to cost a couple of £hundred less than the Tak on the used market but they are in the same "ball park" cost-wise I guess.

The qualities of the premium Takahashi's has been the subject of some debate on here recently but is it even fair to compare the two given the 1 inch aperture difference ?. Can the Meade's triplet provide any challenge to the almost legendary Tak flourite doublet ?. Would "brawn" prove more satisfying than "finesse" ?

Which would you pick, and why ?

I'll be interested to hear your views folks

 

[alan potts]

John,

 

Think I would go for the Tak as I am a brand snob. I have had a lot of Meade stuff and whilst I would never say it is bad I do not think it is worth the cost new and I have spent a lot of money finding this out. Having said that I feel the extra inch would ride high in many peoples minds and I can understand that. I still fancy a APM 152mm ED, whilst the triplet is very very nice with bells and ribbons it is also 3 times the price.

[John]

Interesting points Alan.

I've gone off the APM 152 doublet a little since reading some negative reports on a couple examples. If you get a good one it must be a cracking visual scope but I'd prefer the Vixen ED150 that Stu has recently passed on to Kerry I think

The APM 6" doublets are very light though. Not much more than my ED120.

[alan potts]

John,

 

Ify reports well that's off the list, with my luck I am sure to get a duff one, it will just have to be 10, 000 euors then on the Lzos F8. If I ever get one I would have to make another observatory for it.

[dweller25]

My 128mm doublet shows more planetary detail than my TSA102 triplet, so I would exect the Meade 127 triplet to outperform the Tak FS102 doublet.

[Moonshane]

I think it depends what you have already to some extent. Also, on what your preferences are in terms of imaging/observing/targets. On balance I'd go for the Tak out of these two for the following reasons:

• it will be lighter and therefore easier to lift, store and carry
• the mount required would be a lot less hefty
• you could get an equatorial mount of a lot less weight if you wanted to track
• wider field at native focal length (I presume!)
• the aperture whilst smaller, would make best use out of general seeing conditions

All that said, the temptation to sell my 80mm f6 Meade triplet, my 120ED skywatcher and another scope has not thus far been adequate when considering whether I should go for the Tak you are presumably referring to 

[Stu]

I'd buy a Tak FS128 John ??

To more seriously answer your question I suspect I'd go for the 102. Lightweight grab and go, fast to cool down and lovely contrasty views.

Shane's dilemma is similar and I honestly don't know what I would do in his case. The 120ED is a really capable scope and particularly for white light solar it probably would show more detail than the Tak FC-100 though I've not done a side by side comparison.

[F15Rules]

I've not used either scope so am not well placed to talk with any authority on these. But, on reputation alone, it would have to be the Tak.

I am sure there have been Tak "lemons" from time to time, but I suspect that Meade have had many more lemons, not to say oranges and bananas too. I find it hard to respect a company that has so cynically (it seems to me) moved production hither and thither chasing a lower price - but too often at the expense of consistent quality.

On the other hand, if I could have the Meade scope checked by someone like PhilJ before buying, and he gave the 127 the nod, it would be very tempting, as I do think there is a real, noticeable difference in the jump from 102mm to 127mm.

But sight unseen, I'd be more confident in Tak consistency and resale values..

Dave

[ollypenrice]

I wouldn't buy a refractor in order to go deep but in order to get that lovely feeling of not seeming to look through glass at all but just straight out into the night with supernatural eyesight. You can go deeper with a bigger and less expensive reflector. So I wouldn't worry about the aperture and would go for Tak quality (including the focuser.) I've had a Meade 127 and two Taks. The Meade was very good, the Taks are even better. With refractors I feel that it ain't what you see, it's the way that you see it. So Tak fluorite doublet for me, please.

Olly

[John]

One thing that I suffer from is an illogical draw towards 5" refractors

I think it's the fault of some books I have had for years by Patrick Moore which show photos of his elegant Cooke 5" achromat on it's equatorial mount. When I was young I was convinced that such potent and purposful looking scopes would never be within my grasp but now, thanks to the Chinese I guess, they are. Well almost

 

[nightfisher]

If i were looking into this i feel i would be drawn to the Meade, base on philj`s praise of this frac, but in truth its not an option for me

[Saganite]

5 hours ago, John said:

One thing that I suffer from is an illogical draw towards 5" refractors

I think it's the fault of some books I have had for years by Patrick Moore which show photos of his elegant Cooke 5" achromat on it's equatorial mount. When I was young I was convinced that such potent and purposful looking scopes would never be within my grasp but now, thanks to the Chinese I guess, they are. Well almost

 

My feelings exactly, and for the same reasons I still  strongly desire a 3" refractor. I could easily have treated myself, in my retirement, to a good quality 5" Apo, but that was not what I desired. I have now, all I have wanted for the past 30 years or more, in a refractor.

[Neil27]

13 hours ago, nightfisher said:

If i were looking into this i feel i would be drawn to the Meade, base on philj`s praise of this frac, but in truth its not an option for me

My thoughts as well Jules, possibly the reason it now appears to be sold! There is always some 'mystique' attributed to these green scopes and there is no doubt of their quality, I can attest to this having owned several of them but if I had a choice I would pick the Meade as well.

There are some scopes in the Tak line up that are certainly past their best in my opinion and do not deliver against more up to date scopes on the market today - the FS60 and SKY 90 come to mind.

I would possibly also give the Altair 102mm triplet consideration as well that is also available in the same price range, heard many good things regarding these scopes.

[John]

Is there any point in a triplet for purely visual observing (which is my interest) ?.

My doublet ED's are light, seem to cool quickly and show virtually no CA to my eyes apart from a tiny splash around Sirus, Venus etc.

 

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, John said:

Is there any point in a triplet for purely visual observing (which is my interest) ?.

My doublet ED's are light, seem to cool quickly and show virtually no CA to my eyes apart from a tiny splash around Sirus, Venus etc.

 

I do tend to agree with you John, although I think there is a role for triplets in giving you excellent correction, and a potentially flatter field in a faster scope.

In some ways I still miss my 106mm Triplet as it was f6.5 rather than the f7.4 of the Tak, it made fitting the Veil in with the 31 Nagler just that bit more comfortable. On the other hand, I'm sure I'm seeing better detail in Jupiter with the Tak than I ever got with the 106 plus the Tak is so much lighter and easier to handle.

[John]

I can get the whole of the Veil in the 3.8 degree TFoV that the Vixen ED102SS delivers with the 31mm Nagler. It will still just fit into the E21 field as well but having that bit of space around the edges does make for a nicer view I feel.

Light and easy to handle are important considerations for me as well and the Vixen scores there too.

I seem to be going around in circles a bit at the moment, thinking about other scopes but eventually coming back to the conclusion that my current ones are "right" for me at the current time and unlikely to be improved upon without rather substantial outlay.

 

 

 

 

[Moonshane]

That's my view John too. I think having the flexibility of several scopes even if some remain unused a lot of the time, is a nice problem to have.

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Moonshane said:

That's my view John too. I think having the flexibility of several scopes even if some remain unused a lot of the time, is a nice problem to have.

I think I would stick with what I had if I were you Shane, nice combo

[F15Rules]

7 hours ago, John said:

I can get the whole of the Veil in the 3.8 degree TFoV that the Vixen ED102SS delivers with the 31mm Nagler. It will still just fit into the E21 field as well but having that bit of space around the edges does make for a nicer view I feel.

Light and easy to handle are important considerations for me as well and the Vixen scores there too.

I seem to be going around in circles a bit at the moment, thinking about other scopes but eventually coming back to the conclusion that my current ones are "right" for me at the current time and unlikely to be improved upon without rather substantial outlay.

 

 

 

 

I certainly think your 2 apos and big DOB give you great coverage of most objects John..:-)

I do understand the restlessness that can come from seeing and discussing so many interesting and attractive scopes though, and we are truly blessed with great choices of gear these days.

But I do often think of scopes I've bought and sold over the years, and if I ask myself if my current ones I have now are really so much better than all the others I've owned? And if I'm really honest with myself, I'm not totally sure they are. Different, yes, great fun, yes, but streets ahead? Mmm...I do know that if I'd been offered any of them 30 years ago I'd have been gobsmacked and delighted, given how few brands and the high prices that were in the market then..

 

Dave