I don't really need another 120mm refractor ......

[DRT]

I awoke this morning and discovered that I do have some willpower after all.

I have gracefully removed my toe from the water before getting in too deep

 

[John]

1 hour ago, DRT said:

I awoke this morning and discovered that I do have some willpower after all.

I have gracefully removed my toe from the water before getting in too deep

 

Good for you Derek

Looking back over my observing notes has put me off buying any more gear for a while. Most of what I have seems to be racking up a very "low mileage" if you know what I mean 

[nightfisher]

Derek, I am a little surprised as I would have thought this a perfect scope for you, but good on you for letting seller know at early stage that you are backing down

[Piero]

If I am not wrong you have four refractors, two 100mm, one 120mm, and 1 130mm. Therefore, adding another 120 seems more a way to satisfy the curiosity of looking through this TSA, rather than a need for specific targets.

Said this, at least to me, the sw 120ED is redundant considering that you have a 130mm already. Personally i would sell the skywatcher, freeing some cash and space. Then the question becomes: how does this TSA compare with the 130mm you have? I cannot answer this, but if the 120 is really better, I would go for it and sell the 130mm, otherwise I would just forget about this TSA.

 

Regarding the 100mm.. well I can see your point about the focal ratio and that makes sense to me..

BUT if you ever decide to leave the Vixen.....

 

[Stu]

14 minutes ago, Piero said:

If I am not wrong you have four refractors, two 100mm, one 120mm, and 1 130mm. Therefore, adding another 120 seems more a way to satisfy the curiosity of looking through this TSA, rather than a need for specific targets.

Said this, at least to me, the sw 120ED is redundant considering that you have a 130mm already. Personally i would sell the skywatcher, freeing some cash and space. Then the question becomes: how does this TSA compare with the 130mm you have? I cannot answer this, but if the 120 is really better, I would go for it and sell the 130mm, otherwise I would just forget about this TSA.

 

Regarding the 100mm.. well I can see your point about the focal ratio and that makes sense to me..

BUT if you ever decide to leave the Vixen.....

 

All good points Piero. I can't see the TSA being better than the LZOS though so it's a bit of a moot point. The Vixen and the DL complement each other very nicely I think. I often keep my eye out for one of the ED102SS too

That said, I'm in downscaling rather than upscaling mode currently!  

[Paul73]

Good points Piero.

But, Derek's ED120 is currently sitting in my study and he ain't getting it back!

So, by my reconning, he should be hitting the "buy" button at some stage this evening. He has many many fine qualities, but is known to get a little over exited around the Astro Classifieds.......

Paul

PS. I did give Derek some ? ? for the ED120.??. For the rest of us. It is a cracking scope.

[Piero]

Anyway this is an hobby and the TSA 120 looks like a great telescope. Whoever gets this one will certainly enjoy it!

[John]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

All good points Piero. I can't see the TSA being better than the LZOS though so it's a bit of a moot point. The Vixen and the DL complement each other very nicely I think. I often keep my eye out for one of the ED102SS too

That said, I'm in downscaling rather than upscaling mode currently!  

Thanks Stu - thats my analysis of my current scopes as well

I was very, very fortunate to get the TMB / LZOS 130 and even more so for the price I paid. The new price of the scope is rather scary

My ED120, despite it's rather worn and unfashionable paintwork, seems to be a very good one optically, judging by the comparisons I've made between it and the TMB / LZOS and the Tak DL.

Unless I get a dose of refractor aperture fever, I think my current fracs are more than good enough for me

Mind you, that won't stop my eye being caught by particularly nice ones when they come up - I'm only human !

 

[iPeace]

[nightfisher]

2 hours ago, John said:

Thanks Stu - thats my analysis of my current scopes as well

I was very, very fortunate to get the TMB / LZOS 130 and even more so for the price I paid. The new price of the scope is rather scary

My ED120, despite it's rather worn and unfashionable paintwork, seems to be a very good one optically, judging by the comparisons I've made between it and the TMB / LZOS and the Tak DL.

Unless I get a dose of refractor aperture fever, I think my current fracs are more than good enough for me

Mind you, that won't stop my eye being caught by particularly nice ones when they come up - I'm only human !

 

We are Human, and when a shiny interesting item comes along it starts the "should i, or not" i am as bad as the next person and more so lately with various flying machines, but like Stu i did a little down sizing, and now only have 2 telescopes, these compliment each other to a degree, for some reason the 120 took a while to really get me exited but its a keeper now (still prefer the 102 Mak for Luna imaging)

I do feel this 120 Tak has Dereks initials etched on it

[Paul73]

Derek has been very quiet today.

Possibly locked in a darkened room with no phone, until the urge to buy passes?????

[Stu]

I'm sure the TSA120 is a wonderful scope. I can't help thinking though that if I were having to find a mount for something with that weight, I would want to go to 130mm ish.

[Piero]

Just a small comment after re-reading my post above. Sorry if I sounded like a moralist. To me one is free to buy as many top-notch telescopes/eyepieces as s/he wants. Mine was just a though of what I would do in the OP's place, nothing more.

Lucky the fellow who decides to get that 120mm! It must give breathtaking planetary views with the right eyepiece at hand.. it can be a keeper! 

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, Piero said:

Just a small comment after re-reading my post above. Sorry if I sounded like a moralist. To me one is free to buy as many top-notch telescopes/eyepieces as s/he wants. Mine was just a though of what I would do in the OP's place, nothing more.

Lucky the fellow who decides to get that 120mm! It must give breathtaking planetary views with the right eyepiece at hand.. it can be a keeper! 

No apology needed Piero

Us refractor nuts get a little passionate at times  

[Piero]

Yes, I agree. It will require a super mount especially for reaching high magnifications.. 

What's the weight of that beast?  I haven't found it on the specs here (https://www.takahashiuk.co.uk/Refracting-Telescopes/TSA120/136-/Takahashi-TSA120-Triplet-Super-Apochromat-Refractor) 

Optical design Triplet Super Apo
Optical mounting Air spaced
Glass types ED et Crown
Optical coatings Multicouche BBAR (BroadBand anti-reflection)
Aperture 120mm
Standard
Focal length 900mm
Focal ratio F/7.5
Resolution 0.97"
Visual limiting magnitude 12.1
Light grasp 293x

The FT might also add extra weight. 

 

After looking at some images on Google, well, yeah... it's really beautiful. Taks are beautiful.

[Stu]

This says 6.7kg, without rings, diagonal etc. probably quite front heavy. Very nice though!!

http://www.takahashi-europe.com/en/TSA-120.specifications.php

[Piero]

yeah, I just found it too.. I have to say that I expected more though.

Still, a quite sturdy mount is necessary here.

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, Piero said:

I have to say that I expected more though.

I agree, that's not so bad for a 120 triplet

[nightfisher]

So this Tak is 120mm aperture with 900mm focal length, used price £2600 compared to a used ED120 900mm f/l..................throwing a big spanner in the works but i really do wonder if it would be any where near £2000 better than the humble ED120.

This post is not meant to be any way negative just a genuine question, i know nothing about Takahashi as i dont ever see me owning one

[Piero]

3 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

So this Tak is 120mm aperture with 900mm focal length, used price £2600 compared to a used ED120 900mm f/l..................throwing a big spanner in the works but i really do wonder if it would be any where near £2000 better than the humble ED120.

This post is not meant to be any way negative just a genuine question, i know nothing about Takahashi as i dont ever see me owning one

That's a good point to me. 

It's a personal decision if an extra £2k is worth or not. There are many factors one needs to consider besides the telescope when you opt for the best. At least, these are: mount, eyepieces, eye, seeing, observing time, cooling time. If one puts that 120 TSA on a basic mount (e.g. supporting a payload of, let's say, 5kg) and observes Jupiter or Saturn for 5 minutes under average seeing using an average eyepiece, then I really doubt s/he can spot any difference in the views compared to an ED120 (or even less aperture). However, if one carefully builds up her/his equipment maximising quality, has time to relax at the eyepiece while observing, the mount is not shaky, but smooth, the seeing is >=good, the optics cooled down properly, well, to me yes differences can be seen. These will likely be subtle differences, but they will enrich the image noticeably in my opinion.

My 60mm surely reveals a lot less details of a 120mm. This is not a surprise. But the interesting part is that one can generally push the telescope at high magnifications (for the telescope) before being constrained by the seeing. None of my TV Naglers (with/without TV PM combination) revealed the GRS or other features on the belts of Jupiter. The Vixen HR and some others, do show these quite regularly. Is the additional invested grant worth? Well, to me, yes because now I can start studying the main details and use higher magnifications more regularly without sacrificing the views. 

The magnification parts deserves a comment. All the mentioned factors will generally make a difference at high magnifications. In normal/good telescopes, the image breaks above certain magnifications, whereas a premium telescope+eyepiece+mount will allow you to push beyond what you normally believe the limit is (when the seeing is very good/excellent). 

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

So this Tak is 120mm aperture with 900mm focal length, used price £2600 compared to a used ED120 900mm f/l..................throwing a big spanner in the works but i really do wonder if it would be any where near £2000 better than the humble ED120.

This post is not meant to be any way negative just a genuine question, i know nothing about Takahashi as i dont ever see me owning one

TSA stands for Triplet Super Apo. They are about as good as it gets in terms of colour purity and figure of optics.

As with everything it is a matter of diminishing returns, but under the best conditions (which we never see here), I would expect the image to hold up under fairly extreme mags and for finer planetary details to be visible.

A bigger lump and needing more cooling than an ED, so not everything in its favour.

[nightfisher]

Okay i think i can see where the extra pounds become worth the investment, i can imagine a scope like this in an obsy set up maybe some where like Greece it would be a total WOW factor

[DRT]

1 hour ago, Paul73 said:

Derek has been very quiet today.

Possibly locked in a darkened room with no phone, until the urge to buy passes?????

Derek has been on a canal in Nottinghamshire fitting kitchen tiles inside a narrowboat trying very hard to keep his finger off the trigger  

I would love to buy that TSA120 but now is simply not the right time financially. When I ran through in my head the sort of equipment I would have needed to sell to fund the purchase I decided to hold off until a time when I have the funds to burn rather than selling more of my favourite toys.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I'm sure the TSA120 is a wonderful scope. I can't help thinking though that if I were having to find a mount for something with that weight, I would want to go to 130mm ish.

...and that is the other reason - I really want a big 'un

 

[iPeace]

I may be missing something. If our local skies are not good enough for bigger scopes, and truly good skies don't require bigger scopes, then...

[DRT]

1 minute ago, iPeace said:

I may be missing something. If our local skies are not good enough for bigger scopes, and truly good skies don't require bigger scopes, then...

Shhhhhhh! 

You will ruin the game for all of us with that kind of talk!