Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Tak FC100DL F9


Recommended Posts

 

 

My understanding that the light gathering ability of the 100mm verses the 120mm is an extra light gathering ability around the 40% mark.  This is not a very tiny small advantage in light gathering ability. Combine this with the quality glass also in the SW with the Scott and Ohara lens then I should imagine anyone with one of these Chinese offerings is certainly going to give the Tak a run for its money.

I think this thread is therefore underrating the SW 120 and has got very TaKy ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

I think this thread is therefore underrating the SW 120 and has got very TaKy ?

Nice joke...... ;) 

More seriously, I trust John's opinion on this, plus I have also not felt I am losing anything having the 100 vs 120 in planetary or WL solar. I just can't say for sure because I have not tested side by side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, John said:

 

Thats the same with my TMB/LZOS 130 F/9.2. Weight, cool down, mounting and setup combine to require quite a bit more effort than the Tak FC-100DL but the results are also quite superb so you don't regret making the effort. It is nice to have the choice though - tonight the FC-100DL is out (prompted by this thread of course !) :icon_biggrin:

Clouded over here John :sad2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John said:

A flourite+flourite doublet won't work !

I think the Vixen FL 102's used a flourite crown element in a fraunhofer configuation so the CaF2 element was at the front :icon_scratch:

 

That could have been it. But it was when I was looking into buying my first frac, so definitely remember reading about exposed Fluoride glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

My understanding that the light gathering ability of the 100mm verses the 120mm is an extra light gathering ability around the 40% mark.  This is not a very tiny small advantage in light gathering ability. Combine this with the quality glass also in the SW with the Scott and Ohara lens then I should imagine anyone with one of these Chinese offerings is certainly going to give the Tak a run for its money.

I think this thread is therefore underrating the SW 120 and has got very TaKy ?

 

 

Had the TSA102 still been available, I would be sorely tempted. Perhaps there are too many good 100 doublets of varying FL around now, so Takahashi dropped their triplet and longer FL doublet, since both are more expensive to make.

I hope the TSA120 triplet continues in production, that too has cheaper worthy rivals, and Tak make specialist AP scopes already. Had I the funds, that or the 150 Esprit would be tugging at my wallet strings (unless another Astro Physics 130.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Nice joke...... ;) 

More seriously, I trust John's opinion on this, plus I have also not felt I am losing anything having the 100 vs 120 in planetary or WL solar. I just can't say for sure because I have not tested side by side.

 

From my likes , I cannot see any Smiley's? 

So I better apologies to the Tak chaps and ladies from the Tak club, before I am banned from this thread .

 

I know Tak have great optics and have a loyal following for a reason. But the point I was trying to get across was even at the cheaper end of the market, due to the technology available these days and mass volume, then you can really get a great scope that can compete with the high end high price premium scopes.

 

 

1 hour ago, John said:

I'm not underrating the ED120 at all - it's a great scope :icon_biggrin:

I guess a thread titled "Tak FC100DL" is going to be just a bit TaKy though :wink:

 

 

 

   I went a bit controversial with my joke remarks I think? .

When you John have a Tak 100 and a TMB Loz 130 mm . Then I think it speaks for itself that you still keep the SW 120ed in the armoury. The SW is obviously doing something right and performing to a good level, otherwise I am sure the SW 120ed would of been in the sales section long ago .

 

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Timebandit firstly :):) so you know all is well ;), and secondly, I don't think anyone said or implied that the 120ED is anything but a great scope, both value and performance. If a 120ED was all I was allowed/able to have, I would be more than happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tak-FC 100 is an excellent telescope. I cannot compare it against the SW 100ED or 120ED because I have never looked through these telescopes, but the diffraction rings in the Tak are exceptionally good. I mean, really like what you see in textbooks. 

A Tak is one of those purchases for which your wallet cries, but your heart smiles.

(.. and your eye is delighted when looking through it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 25585 said:

 

If you had your choices again, would any of you choose differently?

 

Nope DC for me all the way. Unless you are imaging there is no need for the heavy duty (and heavy) DF focuser, and anyway, I replaced mine with an FT straight away and love it. Much of my observing is 'portable, Grab and Go' so the DL would be just that bit too long for that, lovely though it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AndyH said:

there was something about having to be careful about coatings and fluorite. Perhaps a modern HD coating still can't be done, hence the change in design. Not sure, but something in my brain is niggling me reg coatings and fluorite. :dontknow:

The FS series (Fraunhoffer) with the fluorite element at the front were hard multicoated on all surfaces. Takahashi were the first to do this! The Vixen Fluorites (Steinheil) had a rear, uncoated fluorite element. The Takahashi FC100D series (Steinheil) are also hard multicoated on all surfaces. There is a note in the instruction booklet stating not to use alcohol based cleaning agents as it would harm the coatings. This has been discussed at length on CN, where some have suggested the word alcohol is a mistranslation of the word ammonia. Who knows, Japanese is all Greek to me! :icon_question:

I do know however, that Takahashi wouldn't return to using fluorite if fluorite degraded over time. Theirs and Vixens scopes have been around for decades and are as good today as they've ever been. Scare mongering and misinformation have definitely played a part in trying to steer people away from choosing fluorite scopes, probably by those who competitors who can't make them. They are safe, tough and don't degrade over time. I think Tak introduced fluorite in their scopes in the 1970's and they still have an almost cult following, and the early fluorite elements were uncoated. 

If you are worried about cleaning the optics, simply use a solvent/alcohol free lens cleaner. :happy11:

 

2017-11-25 09.16.44.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought the Tak FC-100DL I already had the Vixen ED102SS which is an F/6.5 so the longer focal length made more sense. I can (just about) explain to my other half why it's nice to have F/6.5 and an F/9 4" refractors but F/7.4 would be harder to justify unless I'd been prepared to sell the Vixen, which I didn't want to do. So I'm happy with my choice :icon_biggrin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stu said:

Nope DC for me all the way. Unless you are imaging there is no need for the heavy duty (and heavy) DF focuser, and anyway, I replaced mine with an FT straight away and love it. Much of my observing is 'portable, Grab and Go' so the DL would be just that bit too long for that, lovely though it is.

When I asked IK about 2 inch diagonals and BV etc he said the DF and DL would be better due to the focuser's extra strength. He also said an adaptor is included with the DF and L, whereas it is not with DC. 

Not sure why the L package has a clamp and not rings ? given the longer tube. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Just throwing this in here https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/268106-takahashi-fc100-f74-vs-f9/?page=2

If you had your choices again, would any of you choose differently?

The DF appeals to me in the same way a SW Esprit does, short and stronger focuser (also have a F9 and know how the extra length can cause stowage and carrying difficulty.)

I've had two opportunities to change my DC for a DL, but the DC is such an amazing scope I couldn't bring myself to part with it. I think the DC is my scope for life! Plus it can be changed to F11.8 with Taks superb 1.6X extender Q, though to be perfectly honest, it doesn't need it. If you like imaging then the DF with its slightly larger image circle would probably be the way to go. Though I think the Tak micro focuser is fairly essential!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the DF and DL at the same time. After a year I sold the DL and have no regrets. The difference in views was so small to me and the DF is quite a bit easier to mount due to the shorter length, it works fine on an az gti with a replacement carbon fibre tripod. Imo the DL would have too many shakes on the same mount.

I bought a T-Rex Mount just to use with the DL to remove the shakes I was getting with a porta 2 at the time. But then I realised that if I was setting up the t-Rex I may as well get a 140mm refractor and get the major jump up in aperture. So DL sold, and 140mm refractor bought, then 140mm refractor sold, and 160mm refractor bought...hmmm some pattern developing here.

Ps changed the focusser to a feathertouch after seeing Stu’s and getting fed up with the mef-3 coming unscrewed when I was using it. No regrets on that either, feathertouch is lovely.

495DA40F-1AF4-4CDD-A9C1-7483436015A3.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikeDnight said:

I've had two opportunities to change my DC for a DL, but the DC is such an amazing scope I couldn't bring myself to part with it. I think the DC is my scope for life! Plus it can be changed to F11.8 with Taks superb 1.6X extender Q, though to be perfectly honest, it doesn't need it. If you like imaging then the DF with its slightly larger image circle would probably be the way to go. Though I think the Tak micro focuser is fairly essential!

Only visual but I believe in belt and braces where possible. Of course there are Moonlite focusers too.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 25585 said:

When I asked IK about 2 inch diagonals and BV etc he said the DF and DL would be better due to the focuser's extra strength. He also said an adaptor is included with the DF and L, whereas it is not with DC. 

Not sure why the L package has a clamp and not rings ? given the longer tube. 

 

The clamp is excellent and holds the tube every bit as securely as rings. Plus it looks great! :happy11:

The tube doesn't flex!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GavStar said:

I had the DF and DL at the same time. After a year I sold the DL and have no regrets. The difference in views was so small to me and the DF is quite a bit easier to mount due to the shorter length, it works fine on an az gti with a replacement carbon fibre tripod. Imo the DL would have too many shakes on the same mount.

I bought a T-Rex Mount just to use with the DL to remove the shakes I was getting with a porta 2 at the time. But then I realised that if I was setting up the t-Rex I may as well get a 140mm refractor and get the major jump up in aperture. So DL sold, and 140mm refractor bought, then 140mm refractor sold, and 160mm refractor bought...hmm some pattern developing here.

 

495DA40F-1AF4-4CDD-A9C1-7483436015A3.jpeg

Now this is something I thought I would see. DF...makes a lot of sense as a step between 71FL and SCT8...and is not too long...mountwise. Food for thought...gotta keep them thoughts under control...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 25585 said:

When I asked IK about 2 inch diagonals and BV etc he said the DF and DL would be better due to the focuser's extra strength. He also said an adaptor is included with the DF and L, whereas it is not with DC. 

Not sure why the L package has a clamp and not rings ? given the longer tube. 

 

Yes, you are correct, I had forgotten that. My logic was that I was always going to change to the FT somdid not want to pay more than necessary for a focuser I wasn't going to use. I've never been a fan of Tak focusers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BGazing said:

Now this is something I thought I would see. DF...makes a lot of sense as a step between 71FL and SCT8...and is not too long...mountwise. Food for thought...gotta keep them thoughts under control...

Good vibrations ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Yes, you are correct, I had forgotten that. My logic was that I was always going to change to the FT somdid not want to pay more than necessary for a focuser I wasn't going to use. I've never been a fan of Tak focusers.

They seem old school to look at. If they are robust though, good for travelling as not too fragile as SW ones seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.