Tak FC100DL F9

[Piero]

38 minutes ago, 25585 said:

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

 

No.

[mikeDnight]

14 minutes ago, 25585 said:

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

Moonlite on a Tak!!! ? Wouldnt that be like having furry dice in a Lamborghini? 

[John]

One additional point is that when the 1st run of the Tak FC-100DL's came out, the price was the same as the F/7.4 versions despite the limited production run. I notice that there is a gap of a few £hundred between the FC and the DL on this 2nd run. The new run of DL's is listed at £600 more than I paid for mine (unusually, I bought this new).

 

[Stu]

I did think they had gone up a fair whack John, wonder why? I think the DC has too though? X rates?

[Highburymark]

The three different FC models - DF, DL, DC - despite sharing the same outstanding optics, are all subtly different. Depends whether you want a beefier focuser, longer focal length, or super light telescope. I went for the DC because it's soooo light - 2.8kg, and cabin portable for air travel.

Although I'd have been happy to own one, the Skywatchers were heavier and far less portable, so didn't consider one. CA control and sharpness not quite at Tak levels, but very close.

And actually when I bought my Tak, the price difference with an Equinox 120 was not that huge - less than £400. Not the huge gulf in cost that's sometimes assumed. The big difference is that SWs come up far more often in the used market so are much more affordable for anyone not buying new.

 

[John]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

I did think they had gone up a fair whack John, wonder why? I think the DC has too though? X rates?

Well the £ is not worth what it was at the end of 2015 when the DL was launched .....

 

[Piero]

@255?? 

Here my comment about DC/DF/DL.

I chose the F7.4 vs the F9 because I didn't want to get very long focal length eyepieces. F7.4 is a trade-off, whereas F9 is on the slow side. Right now I have an F6 dobson, and might get an F5-ish at some point in the future. The F7.4 allows some nice wide field views whereas the F9 seems more specific for planetary/lunar and double stars to me. Ergonomically, the f7.4 is more portable and manageable. Others may think differently of course.

Between DC and DF, I chose the DF not because of imaging but because I use 2" eyepieces with it for nearly everything I observe. As mentioned by Stu, one option was to get the DC and replace the focuser. Another option was to get the 2" adapter for the DC. The simplest option was to get the DF. In my opinion the focuser coming with the DF (and originally with the Sky 90) is sturdy enough for my eyepieces (the heaviest is 35mm Pan). There is no image shift even when pointing to the zenith. 

The only thing I dislike in the DF is the 2" visual back adapter with those two screws that can mark whatever you attach to it. It also makes me paranoid about diagonal misalignment. For this reason I decided to replace it with a baader clicklock M72 as shown by Kunama and Gavstar on CN. Please note that this mod is rather a preference than a need. 

On the other hand, I haven't so far felt the need to install the microfocuser.

[mikeDnight]

4 hours 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 ?

 

 

I had a beautiful Equinox 120ED when I bought my FC100DC. For two weeks I had both scopes alongside eachother, but at no time did the 120ED match the planetary performance of the FC. On DSO's the 120 was brighter but on the Moon and planets the FC was in another league. Don't get me wrong! The 120ED had given me some breath taking planetary views over a six or seven year period and it outperformed many much larger reflectors, but the FC did so nearly every time. I sold the Equinox soon after! Ive often wondered why the Tak performs like this while the 120 did so far less frequently? All I can assume is that either the Tak really is optically superior, or the 100mm aperture of the FC is better suited to my local seeing conditions. Perhaps it's a little of both! All I know for sure is that even on nights with fast moving cloud and mediocre seeing, the FC somehow seems to see through the seeing!

AND THERE IT WAS, GONE!

[Highburymark]

46 minutes 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!

I agree Mike about the microfocuser - it's essential - unless like some on this forum you go for the feathertouch. The only thing is that it's not cheap, and fairly Heath Robinson. Once it's attached to the scope though, it works very well.

[mikeDnight]

27 minutes ago, Stu said:

I did think they had gone up a fair whack John, wonder why? I think the DC has too though? X rates?

My DC cost me £1,738.00 from Trutechnology, and that included the tube clam shell, Mewlon dovetail plate, 30mm Tak finder and bracket, and a 2" Tak adapter. I think the DC complete costs over £2000.00 today. 

[marcus_z]

On 11.1.2018 at 00:19, 25585 said:

Having just acquired a 4 inch F9 900mm SW Equinox, I looked up the Tak equivalent and the DL is it. https://www.takahashiuk.co.uk/Refracting-Telescopes/Takahashi-FC100-DL/374-/Takahashi-FC100-DL

Has anyone got the DL, as it would be cool to know how that particular FL compares with SW best 100mm doublet?

My first refractor was an Orion ED80T, an ED triplet with carbon fiber tube. My second refractor the FC-100DC. At first sight I realized, that the Tak shows a clear textbook Airy disc and that it takes higher magnifications without degradation of the image. The FC-100D has an outstanding contrast that I don't want to miss. With this experience I don't want to go back to low quality optics, but I can't comment on the quality of the Equinox .

[JeremyS]

9 hours ago, John said:

Well the £ is not worth what it was at the end of 2015 when the DL was launched .....

The £/Yen rate on 2015 Dec 31 was 177.7, yesterday it was 150.1, which is ~16% less. So on a piece of kit now selling at, say, £2400, this would have been ~£380 less back then if forex was the only factor.

[John]

I think Takahashi were smart to limit the volumes of the F/9 version of the scope because the faster version was always going to be more popular. I've been in communication with Markus Ludes (APM Telescopes) regarding my TMB / LZOS 130 F/9.2 triplet and he confirms that, as they expected, the faster (F/6) version outsells the F/9.2 version by a ratio of 10:1 for very similar reasons, ie: appeal to imagers, more portable,  The longer versions of these scopes are more niche instruments and thats reconised by the manufacturers. It's good that they do at least make some provision in that niche though

FWIW Markus has told me that they have made 105 130 F/9.2's since the launch in 2006 and will make just 9 more. LZOS (the objective manufacturer) are re-directing their priority back towards the military market apparently.

 

 

[Timebandit]

11 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I had a beautiful Equinox 120ED when I bought my FC100DC. For two weeks I had both scopes alongside eachother, but at no time did the 120ED match the planetary performance of the FC. On DSO's the 120 was brighter but on the Moon and planets the FC was in another league. Don't get me wrong! The 120ED had given me some breath taking planetary views over a six or seven year period and it outperformed many much larger reflectors, but the FC did so nearly every time. I sold the Equinox soon after! Ive often wondered why the Tak performs like this while the 120 did so far less frequently? All I can assume is that either the Tak really is optically superior, or the 100mm aperture of the FC is better suited to my local seeing conditions. Perhaps it's a little of both! All I know for sure is that even on nights with fast moving cloud and mediocre seeing, the FC somehow seems to see through the seeing!

AND THERE IT WAS, GONE!

 

 

 

Hi Mike that's interesting and good to hear that you have done a side by side comparison.

But maybe you had a particularly good example of the Tak FC and an average example of the equinox, as obviously quality control does vary and this could explain the difference??(I think I am grasping at straws here but worth a try ?)

 

Has anyone done any side by side comparison of two FC, DC , DL for example just to see if there is any  visible  image difference from scope to scope . Or is Tak quality control so good that they just do not slip through the net at the factory. And this may also explain in part a higher price in the premium brand .

 

 

[GavStar]

Stu and I did a brief comparison of his DC vs my DL about a year ago. On sigma orionis we both felt the 4th star was a bit more obvious in the DL but it was pretty marginal. Otherwise I couldn’t see any difference in ca etc. So I was happy to keep my DF since it’s more portable and sell the DL.

There is also this comparison

 

 

[mikeDnight]

8 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

 

Hi Mike that's interesting and good to hear that you have done a side by side comparison.

But maybe you had a particularly good example of the Tak FC and an average example of the equinox, as obviously quality control does vary and this could explain the difference??(I think I am grasping at straws here but worth a try ?)

 

Has anyone done any side by side comparison of two FC, DC , DL for example just to see if there is any  visible  image difference from scope to scope . Or is Tak quality control so good that they just do not slip through the net at the factory. And this may also explain in part a higher price in the premium brand .

 

 

There have been a number of reviews of sorts between the DC/DF F7.4 and the DL F9. Paulastro would regularly observe with his DL alongside my DC. Although technically the DL has superior colour correction you'd be genuinely hard pushed to detect the difference visually. The DL also has the advantage of offering higher powers per given focal length of eyepiece, where as the DC/DF has the advantage of offering a wider true field. Both scopes display perfect star images with zero observable spherical aberration, and will take in excess of X100 per inch of aperture on nights of good seeing. You can't really go wrong with either focal length as they are both perfect. It's really a case of where your heart lies. 

[kerrylewis]

Following this thread with interest. I did have my DL and the SW ‘old gold’ at the same time for while but I didn’t do a side by side comparison. The SW was a great scope and it’s now gone to a new home with a friend of mine. I did notice an uplift in image quality with the Tak mainly on the sun  and moon in fact. With a Herschel wedge the sunspot groups that we had in the summer were outstanding in the amount of detail and in the overall sharpness. I was very impressed. On the moon, contrast is amazing with really black shadows and, when seeing allows, the high magnification views are outstanding.

I have wanted a Tak for years and I really fancied the DL version for planetary observing and, to be honest, because it was a bit unusual. I had my name down for one of the second batch but then a s/h one cropped up here and I was sorted thanks to Gavstar. 

I have not regretted my purchase and I’m  really looking forward to some good sessions with the planets and seeing how the Tak copes with their  less than perfect altitude in the next few months. 

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, kerrylewis said:

With a Herschel wedge the sunspot groups that we had in the summer were outstanding in the amount of detail and in the overall sharpness.

I agree with this Kerry, WL solar with the Tak on a good day really knocks your socks off!

I enjoy a mix of planetary, solar and widefield observing so the f7.4 is fine for that. John's combination of Vixen and DL is one that I think is great too though!

[GavStar]

31 minutes ago, kerrylewis said:

 

I have not regretted my purchase and I’m  really looking forward to some good sessions with the planets and seeing how the Tak copes with their  less than perfect altitude in the next few months. 

Good to hear that you are still very happy with the DL, Kerry. I’m pleased it went to a good home where it’s getting plenty of use ?

[25585]

2 hours ago, kerrylewis said:

Following this thread with interest. I did have my DL and the SW ‘old gold’ at the same time for while but I didn’t do a side by side comparison. The SW was a great scope and it’s now gone to a new home with a friend of mine. I did notice an uplift in image quality with the Tak mainly on the sun  and moon in fact. With a Herschel wedge the sunspot groups that we had in the summer were outstanding in the amount of detail and in the overall sharpness. I was very impressed. On the moon, contrast is amazing with really black shadows and, when seeing allows, the high magnification views are outstanding.

I have wanted a Tak for years and I really fancied the DL version for planetary observing and, to be honest, because it was a bit unusual. I had my name down for one of the second batch but then a s/h one cropped up here and I was sorted thanks to Gavstar. 

I have not regretted my purchase and I’m  really looking forward to some good sessions with the planets and seeing how the Tak copes with their  less than perfect altitude in the next few months. 

The DL may be better investment due to its rarity, which has an appeal of its own!

Would anyone go for a TOA-100 if they were sold? ?

[Highburymark]

3 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

 

Hi Mike that's interesting and good to hear that you have done a side by side comparison.

But maybe you had a particularly good example of the Tak FC and an average example of the equinox, as obviously quality control does vary and this could explain the difference??(I think I am grasping at straws here but worth a try ?)

 

 

Sounds like these were good examples of both scopes - am sure Mike wouldn't have kept them for so long otherwise. But you'd expect the FC to slightly outperform the Equinox, surely?  I love my Equinox 80 but it's not quite as sharp or colour free as the Tak 76 or TeleVue 85.

 

 

[Stu]

41 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Would anyone go for a TOA-100 if they were sold? ?

Nope, I don't think I would. You would lose the lightweight and fast cooldown which are key benefits.

[25585]

Returning to this thread, I now have as posted in @Pig's thread, a DL. Hopefully some year I can do my own comparisons. 

I love my DL & part of the reason for choosing it was their limited availability. I considered a F7.4 + extender, but partially dis-assembling an expensive OTA for use was too scary. 

I mount the DL on a Primaluce Losmandy 495mm long bar with Primaluce 95mm rings, so far 2. Unfortunately they are a different height to Tak clam rings so not mixable, my original intent. Saves some weight at least. 

With that arrangement, the "grab" element is nothing like those neat little DC Taks on Vixen Porta 2 pictured above, but my F5 TV Genesis is main G'n'G scope, though has CA.

Who knows a DC may be added to the frac stack one day, but a pre-owned probably. 

[25585]

Picture of my DL alongside 495mm Losmandy D dovetail with 2 of the 4 Primaluce rings. 

495mm is the exact length of tube between focuser collar and dew shield flare, ideal!

Primaluce's clamp has hole spacings matching those for M6 bolts on a Skytee 2 base. 

A Tak clamshell ring uses the pair of M8 holes.  

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Picture of my DL alongside 495mm Losmandy D dovetail with 2 of the 4 Primaluce rings. 

495mm is the exact length of tube between focuser collar and dew shield flare, ideal!

Primaluce's clamp has hole spacings matching those for M6 bolts on a Skytee 2 base. 

A Tak clamshell ring uses the pair of M8 holes.  

Still over kill, but it looks like those two will hold the scope more than adequately. I can’t conceive why you would want to add another two! I had (and Kerry now has!) a 20kg Vixen 150ED f9 refractor held perfectly well using two decent rings.

The red does look good though I must admit!