Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Takahashi FC100 f7.4 vs f9

GavStar

Recommended Posts

GavStar

GavStar

Posted
Posted

Last year takahashi released a limited edition new version of the fc100, the fc100dl which was f9 rather than f7.4 for the existing fc100df. 

On the face of it these two scopes are very similar but I've been mulling over whether there would be any noticeable difference for planetary observing. I know the f9 will be better but would I be able to tell the difference?

Any thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

Gav, I try not to think about these things! Too potentially expensive!!

I suspect any differences would be pretty subtle to be honest, the FC100 is pretty cracking when conditions allow. Perhaps the longer focal length would give a slightly more forgiving depth of focus and cope with seeing variability a little better? I'm guessing though, never looked through one obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

Actually Gav, thinking about it, how about one of the Tak Extenders which I think take it to f11.8 or there abouts? They have a fluorite element and are supposed to be excellent quality....

I might give one a go but need to understand how to use it with my FeatherTouch, don't want to get into Adaptor hell trying to connect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GavStar

GavStar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Stu, doesn't the extender work like a Barlow? Is it really that easy?

Thinking more, what I would really like is a bigger fluorite takahashi maybe 125mm. But it guess with the tsa120 available already that isn't very likely.

I've been extremely pleased with the views from my fc100df but sometimes would like to get a bit more magnification without pushing the exit pupil too much (due to floaters)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gavster said:

Stu, doesn't the extender work like a Barlow? Is it really that easy?

Thinking more, what I would really like is a bigger fluorite takahashi maybe 125mm. But it guess with the tsa120 available already that isn't very likely.

I've been extremely pleased with the views from my fc100df but sometimes would like to get a bit more magnification without pushing the exit pupil too much (due to floaters)

 

You and me both! FS128 is top of my want list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikeDnight

mikeDnight

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Stu said:

You and me both! FS128 is top of my want list!

Had one and part exchanged it for a FS 152. Big mistake! BIG being the operative word. The 152 needed a G11 to carry it and I found the bigger they get the less I use them. Also, there's  a noticeable  difference between a 4" and 5" as long as the optical quality is high, but not so noticeable between a 5" and 6". Now, with my FC100DC I'm observing more often than I've ever done. Theres something to be said for the minimalist approach, which is worth thinking about when you start suffering from 'the grass is greener syndrome'.

May be I'd bite if Takahashi bring out a lightweight fluorite doublet around 125mm, but I've no longing for either the FS 128 or 152. The new FC packs a terrific punch on the moon and planets and has bested a number of larger aperture scopes, including other apo's. Its also easily the equal of the legendary Vixen fluorite F9, and if anything offers a somewhat more vibrant view despite its shorter F ratio. I've also regularly used a 1.6x extender Q which does indeed give a F11.8 ratio. The Q is the purest image amplifier I've ever seen but with or without it the FC100 provides perfect images, so to be honest, it would be an unnecessary  outlay of almost £400 if you decide on a Q for the FC.

Mike 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikeDnight

mikeDnight

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gavster said:

Mike,

Given your experience with the fs128, what are your thoughts on the fc100d vs tsa120?

The TSA is arguably the best triplet apo on the market and the 120 would certainly outperform the FC100 on all counts, that is if you discount the extra weight (its built like a tank!), and if you don't mind the extra cool down time due to it being a triplet. If I were to go for a scope of around 5" aperture today the TSA 120 would be my first choice. The little FC 100 is no slouch though. 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

The TSA is arguably the best triplet apo on the market and the 120 would certainly outperform the FC100 on all counts, that is if you discount the extra weight (its built like a tank!), and if you don't mind the extra cool down time due to it being a triplet. If I were to go for a scope of around 5" aperture today the TSA 120 would be my first choice. The little FC 100 is no slouch though. 

Mike

One thing I've really come to value with my FC100 is the lightweight and fast cool down time. I use it more than any other scope I've had before, it covers solar and astro beautifully and works equally well on my Vixen GP mount at home or a Giro-WR/Gitzo tripod when travelling. If/when I get a larger scope I will certainly keep the FC100

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I nearly bought a TSA120 last week. The timing was not quite right though. Having experience of 102mm and 120mm ED doublets I'm strongly tempted by the additional aperture but not to go beyond 5". We will have to see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GavStar

GavStar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Good points. I had an Equinox 120 but the ease of setup/cool down, light weight (and the excellent performance) of the FC100d meant that I wasn't using it so it got sold. I also struggled to find a mount that I was comfortable with for the 120. However I think in the next few weeks the mount issue will hopefully be sorted - that's what has got me thinking again. Takahashi please launch a fc125d...But in the meantime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

All the scopes mentioned in this thread are really excellent within their niches (even my ED120) so it's a matter of picking the one that suits each of our particular preferences :icon_biggrin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dweller25

dweller25

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Gavster said:

Stu, doesn't the extender work like a Barlow? Is it really that easy?

Thinking more, what I would really like is a bigger fluorite takahashi maybe 125mm. But it guess with the tsa120 available already that isn't very likely.

I've been extremely pleased with the views from my fc100df but sometimes would like to get a bit more magnification without pushing the exit pupil too much (due to floaters)

 

Have you tried binoviewers in your FC100 - you may find floaters are not an issue at high mags

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

Have you tried binoviewers in your FC100 - you may find floaters are not an issue at high mags

I'm now using binoviewers for solar work, and slowly getting my head around them for other observing, planetary included.

Interestingly I see far more colour on Jupiter with binoviewers, a mono cyclops view turns very colourful with blue festoons and plenty of colour in the bands when using BVs. Strange!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

I think for me if I'm having to get a heavier scope, it would need to be a little more than 120, so an FS128 or TOA130 would be up there in terms of favourites, budget and availability dependent of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Stu said:

I think for me if I'm having to get a heavier scope, it would need to be a little more than 120, so an FS128 or TOA130 would be up there in terms of favourites, budget and availability dependent of course!

I'd go with an FS128 but I believe the TOA130 is a lot heavier than the TOA120. Quite a few more £'s too !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicoscy

nicoscy

Posted
Posted

If moving from 120 to 130, it is a small increment of 17% extra light gathering. While it will show up, the difference will not be so drastic to perhaps "justify" the additional weight, focal length, weight and mount requirement.

I am also considering something in the 120mm range so I am struggling with these questions myself :icon_biggrin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.