Tak FC-100 - what will I gain?

[Stu]

3 hours ago, 25585 said:

How many other FC100 owners anywhere would accept that?

I wouldn’t accept it because I know it is not true. It may be close underccertson circumstances but the Tak won’t be worse. It also depends how hard you push the scope, how good the seeing conditions are and how good your eyes are! 

[garryblueboy]

8 hours ago, 25585 said:

I think a point here might be "guarantee" quality. The consideration that whatever you are looking at, a "guaranteed" quality instrument means it's ruling out your instrument as a factor if (say) seeing is poor, or Jupiter winks at you. 

Also a "Made in or with" comfort factor. Japanese or German made surety, as opposed to good Chinese product.

Placebo possibly, if for an identical FL & diameter, Tak lenses were put in a SW ED tube & the SW lenses in a Tak tube, and "experts" were looking through each, what would the verdict be, & what comments would be made. 

I have my Skytee mount now set up to compare my 100 Equinox 900mm F9 with my Tak DL. Same eye pieces, same diagonals, same target each time. Open mind. Just gotta do it. 

Then repeat but with the 120 Equinox. 

But say I had already tried the above out & found no difference, or the Tak was less good than the 100 Equinox. How many other FC100 owners anywhere would accept that?

It's like comparing similar cars by different makers. Lexus v Mercedes, Porsche v Honda, Ferrari v Williams. 

Then it would be as we have said all along in our opinion i go back to original post and why we were comenting and we were saying what we see but to comment by only reading peoples reviews and not seeing for ones self is not honest opinion no one is saying the Tak is the best scope in the world we’ll Probably lol ? but that there is a difference to some over the 120ED in my opinion 

[iPeace]

On 5/15/2018 at 15:51, Star Struck said:

I currently own a SkyWatcher Equinox 120ED and was wondering what I would gain if I bought a Tak 100

I had a nice 120ED and let it go - at the time, it was a bit too big for the extra oomph it gave me and I kept my smaller fracs as they were easier to mount and travel with.

More recently, I've been working on what to use when at a fixed location. Not really missing the actual physical interaction with the 120ED, what would I use for more oomph?

I seriously considered a Tak 100. If the essence of my quest had been me missing the views from the 120ED but wanting better ergonomics (lighter, easier to mount, more fun to use), then that would be a very good option. A slimmer, trimmer scope that would surely have me no longer missing the 120ED's views.

But personally, I wasn't missing the views from the 120ED either, nice as they were. It wouldn't be enough of an upgrade. So I've used the Tak funds to explore other options with more aperture. It's been enlightening.

 

[garryblueboy]

6 hours ago, John said:

I use flouride toothpaste - will that help me see more ? 

You have to admire telescope manufacturers that make lenses from it ....... 

John My dentist said I see less with fluoride just his opinion ?

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, garryblueboy said:

John My dentist said I see less with fluoride just his opinion ?

Mine says that the white enamel finish on my Tak is looking great  

[garryblueboy]

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

Mine says that the white enamel finish on my Tak is looking great  

Great news you don’t want your enamel going black do you ?

[Stu]

12 hours ago, 25585 said:

I have my Skytee mount now set up to compare my 100 Equinox 900mm F9 with my Tak DL. Same eye pieces, same diagonals, same target each time. Open mind. Just gotta do it. 

Soooo...... we are waiting with baited breath! How did it go?

[25585]

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Well I’ve been taking a Tak FC-100 daily with meals for a few years now with no effect, do you think I should go back to my doctor and ask to switch to the other part of the trial?

Obviously your viewing has adapted to excellent views which now are the norm. 

Ask for a larger dose, same brand, say 120+ see if he thinks that will make a difference  

[mikeDnight]

17 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

The problem with that is there is no a consistency across the board. If all or the vast majority of the Tak owners agreed that the 100mm Tak was so much better or a noticeable difference between a Tak 100mm and the SW120ed . Then I would probably not challenge this as much. But when you have the likes of John not really going along with this far superior instrument thinking. Then it does raise the question ,is the Tak really better due to it being a superior build or quality ,or is it the" Tak "name and the placebo effect ?

 

 

 

I genuinely doubt there's any placebo effect!

Takahashi are highly regarded because they are one of the very few manufacturers, if not the only manufacturer, that offers truly high end optics off the shelf. No year to a decade waiting list from Tak! Having previously owned two larger Tak fluorite refractors and foolishly selling them, i first roughed it for a year with a TV NP101, highly regarded by many but it didnt come close to a Tak in performance. I then spent six years with 120 ED's, beginning with a Pro and later two Equinox. All three were superb and far superior in performance to the stupidly expensive Televue.

I did yearn for a fluorite refractor again, and after I learned that Tak has once again started production of a 100mm fluorite, I had to have one. To my eye there is a purity in the image produced by a fluorite lens that somehow seems to be lacking in most other refractors. Interestingly the SW 100 and 120 ED doublets give a very clean cool fluorite view, which was probably why I love them so much. To get the Tak I was willing to sell all the astro gear I possessed and immediately stuck everything on AB&S. As you might guess, everything I would have liked to have kept sold first, so gone were my Naglers and Ethos. As it happened, the 120 Equinox, although sold, was still in my possession for a couple of weeks after my FC100DC arrived. This gave me a fine opportunity to put the two scopes to the test in a side by side comparison.

As I've said, the 120 Equinox was an amazing scope, giving piercingly sharp star images, bright views of comets and DSO's, and easily capable of whopping the socks off an 8 or even a 10 inch reflector as far as sharp lunar and planetary views were concerned. So it really does seem counterintuitive to drop in aperture, given the already great performance of the 120ED, but the very first view of Jupiter, which was high in the spring sky three years ago, confirmed I'd made the right decision for me. In the Tak while looking through cloud, Jupiters equatorial belts appeard to stand out almost in 3D as if theyed been braided around the planet. The colours in the Tak were richer and the more intricate detail was more easily discernible than in the 120 Equinox. This same effect was observerd on the following night when the sky was cloud free. Star images in the Tak were perfection, with the out of focus rings on both sides of focus as identical as I've ever seen in any telescope. I was happy to let the beautiful 120 go to its new owner after that without any real regrets. I would have liked to have kept both, but financial constraints, limited space and my owner were all factors that made keeping both impossible.

I genuinely don't feel any snobbery about owning a Tak but I do feel a large measure of contentment. I'm in a nice, warm, comfortable place having only one good scope, and the benefit has been that I do a lot more observing these days than ever before. My scope is only small in aperture but performance wise, its up there with the best. As things stand at present, I can't ever see me parting with it!

 

[25585]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

Soooo...... we are waiting with baited breath! How did it go?

No big difference so far, I only just started with low magnifications using my pairs of 40mm TV Plossls & 22mm Vixen LVWs. Sky better low in west than anywhere else last night so just a few bright stars to look at. 

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, 25585 said:

No big difference so far, I only just started with low magnifications using my pairs of 40mm TV Plossls & 22mm Vixen LVWs. Sky better low in west than anywhere else last night so just a few bright stars to look at. 

What about Jupiter??

[paulastro]

19 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I did find the FC100DC gave a noticeably more detailed view of Jupiter's belts and zones when I first bought it. However, my Equinox 120 was an amazing all round performer. As I'm primarily a lunar and planetary observer, I felt the Tak was all the scope I'd need to observe the things I like the most. It's also a lot lighter to carry and easier to mount than the Equinox 120, and as such I use it far more often than I did the Equinox.

The Tak has the better colour correction but the difference between it and the Equinox is not that great, so colour wise you'd only fractionally improve your lot. I have been amazed at just how bright some of the dso's are in my FC100DC, but that could be due to me pushing it to its limit. If I were a visual dso observer I certainly would not replace the 120ED with an FC100. The FC will give some very good views of dso's but a 120ED will beat it.

Is the Tak FC100 optically superior to the 120ED? Yes!  Is it worth the increased cost? Well to me it is!  Do you get a thousand poundsworth more in performance? No!

Takahashi's FC100D series of refractors are probably the best 4" class refractor currently in production, with the DL as the pinnacle, so if you're after a 4" apo, then look no further. If youd like a little more aperture, then grab a 120ED as they are superb and hold their own against some of the finest high end apo's.

I think this is an excellent summary re the differences and uses between the 100mm Taks and the two 120ED SW versions Mike.  Having used all these scopes fairly extensively like yourself, I would recommend that anyone who has not had the opportunity to use both of scopes would do well to pay careful attention to what you have to say in your post before coming to any decision.  .

[25585]

43 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

I genuinely doubt there's any placebo effect!

Takahashi are highly regarded because they are one of the very few manufacturers, if not the only manufacturer, that offers truly high end optics off the shelf. No year to a decade waiting list from Tak! Having previously owned two larger Tak fluorite refractors and foolishly selling them, i first roughed it for a year with a TV NP101, highly regarded by many but it didnt come close to a Tak in performance. I then spent six years with 120 ED's, beginning with a Pro and later two Equinox. All three were superb and far superior in performance to the stupidly expensive Televue.

I did yearn for a fluorite refractor again, and after I learned that Tak has once again started production of a 100mm fluorite, I had to have one. To my eye there is a purity in the image produced by a fluorite lens that somehow seems to be lacking in most other refractors. Interestingly the SW 100 and 120 ED doublets give a very clean cool fluorite view, which was probably why I love them so much. To get the Tak I was willing to sell all the astro gear I possessed and immediately stuck everything on AB&S. As you might guess, everything I would have liked to have kept sold first, so gone were my Naglers and Ethos. As it happened, the 120 Equinox, although sold, was still in my possession for a couple of weeks after my FC100DC arrived. This gave me a fine opportunity to put the two scopes to the test in a side by side comparison.

As I've said, the 120 Equinox was an amazing scope, giving piercingly sharp star images, bright views of comets and DSO's, and easily capable of whopping the socks off an 8 or even a 10 inch reflector as far as sharp lunar and planetary views were concerned. So it really does seem counterintuitive to drop in aperture, given the already great performance of the 120ED, but the very first view of Jupiter, which was high in the spring sky three years ago, confirmed I'd made the right decision for me. In the Tak while looking through cloud, Jupiters equatorial belts appeard to stand out almost in 3D as if theyed been braided around the planet. The colours in the Tak were richer and the more intricate detail was more easily discernible than in the 120 Equinox. This same effect was observerd on the following night when the sky was cloud free. Star images in the Tak were perfection, with the out of focus rings on both sides of focus as identical as I've ever seen in any telescope. I was happy to let the beautiful 120 go to its new owner after that without any real regrets. I would have liked to have kept both, but financial constraints, limited space and my owner were all factors that made keeping both impossible.

I genuinely don't feel any snobbery about owning a Tak but I do feel a large measure of contentment. I'm in a nice, warn, comfortable place having only one good scope, and the benefit has been that I do a lot more observing these days than ever before. My scope is only small in aperture but performance wise, its up there with the best. As things stand at present, I can't ever see me parting with it!

 

I am dismayed that you found the TV101 so inferior to EDs. They are rich field scopes primarily, rather than planetary or close double splitters. My Genesis, it's ancestor, can not compete with modern apos, but can with shorter FL achros. 

TV scopes probably have the greatest placebo effect on users as any. Al Nagler the pharmacist - it's got his name so must be good. Synonymous as Col. Sanders is to KFC, or Disney to cartoons. 

Flourite for lenses, has been on my mind almost as long as in my toothpaste. But when I bought the Genesis it had some advantages over Vixen's scopes back then. 

Vixen had flimsy tubes. Thin enough to dent easily if squeezed or knocked. There was the issue of deterioration of Flourite lenses exposed to air. Tele Vue tubes are tough though heavy, their focusers and diagonals could take 2 inch fit eps. And the panoramic mount on tripod was/is grab & go, the only good az alt mount 30 years ago. 

So durability, stability, usability, ease of transport & setting up won against perceived fragility and far fewer options available. Had Vixen had their Porta & other alt az mounts I might have gone their way. TV was the better, especially for a beginner. They have been overtaken optically, but their speciality is always wide views and flat field. I still want a 101!

So why did I buy a FC? And a F9? Flourite, but an internal lens so protected. Longer FL scope to use longer FL eps with larger eye relief. Also to be spending so much on a short doublet seemed risky, no more CA. And it was also time to give in to temptation, having had a very sad Christmas. 

[25585]

19 minutes ago, Stu said:

What about Jupiter??

To be continued...

[John]

3 hours ago, paulastro said:

I think this is an excellent summary re the differences and uses between the 100mm Taks and the two 120ED SW versions Mike.  Having used all these scopes fairly extensively like yourself, I would recommend that anyone who has not had the opportunity to use both of scopes would do well to pay careful attention to what you have to say in your post before coming to any decision.  .

As I've already said, I've had 2 years (almost to the day !) with both these scopes and the differences that Mike (and obviously yourself) see have really not jumped out at me in all honesty. Maybe my ED120 is a particularly good one ?. Maybe my Tak is an average one ?. Maybe my observing skills are not good enough to detect these differences ?.

I do really, really like my Tak and I don't regret buying it at all but I regard it as another fine scope in my arsenal, not the be all and end all of my observational astronomy experience. I've been impressed that the 100mm Tak is able to equal the ED120 in many areas which is a testament to the optical quality of the scope but there has been no occasion when I have compared the views between the two scopes and thought the view in the Tak is noticably better than the ED120.

I suspect these differences in our perceptions are never going to be resolved. As we often say on here, "your mileage may vary" and it clearly does

I'd be interested to know what the original poster (if he has not run away screaming !) makes of the varied opinions in this thread

 

 

[mikeDnight]

3 hours ago, 25585 said:

I am dismayed that you found the TV101 so inferior to EDs. They are rich field scopes primarily, rather than planetary or close double splitters. My Genesis, it's ancestor, can not compete with modern apos, but can with shorter FL achros. 

TV scopes probably have the greatest placebo effect on users as any. Al Nagler the pharmacist - it's got his name so must be good. Synonymous as Col. Sanders is to KFC, or Disney to cartoons. 

Flourite for lenses, has been on my mind almost as long as in my toothpaste. But when I bought the Genesis it had some advantages over Vixen's scopes back then. 

Vixen had flimsy tubes. Thin enough to dent easily if squeezed or knocked. There was the issue of deterioration of Flourite lenses exposed to air. Tele Vue tubes are tough though heavy, their focusers and diagonals could take 2 inch fit eps. And the panoramic mount on tripod was/is grab & go, the only good az alt mount 30 years ago. 

So durability, stability, usability, ease of transport & setting up won against perceived fragility and far fewer options available. Had Vixen had their Porta & other alt az mounts I might have gone their way. TV was the better, especially for a beginner. They have been overtaken optically, but their speciality is always wide views and flat field. I still want a 101!

So why did I buy a FC? And a F9? Flourite, but an internal lens so protected. Longer FL scope to use longer FL eps with larger eye relief. Also to be spending so much on a short doublet seemed risky, no more CA. And it was also time to give in to temptation, having had a very sad Christmas. 

I agree that TV may have a placebo effect, which is in part down to the endless advertising campaigns. The advert that caused me to go for a TV NP101 said "It Is What You Want It To Be!" I fell for it! Please don't get me wrong, the 101 was possibly the best RFT I've ever used, but at high power it just struggled to deliver fine definition views. My friends Vixen 102 F6.5 ED soared ahead as a planetary scope, which unsettled me greatly, as I'd paid £3,100.00 for the TV while my friends scope cost about two thirds less. 

I have to admit I've never seen a flimsy scope produced by Vixen. In fact I'd class Vixen as one of the finer scope manufacturers, at least the old green and white ones were. And I'd defy anyone to dent an old Vixen tube by squeezing it, unless they are Shrek! Though Vixen used aluminium castings similar to Takahashi for their lens cells and focusers, they were extremely well made and could carry some hefty eyepieces without issue. I've not looked through the more modern incarnation of Vixen scopes, but I did get chance to fiddle around with one at a show last summer, and felt the modern focuser wasn't in the same league as the older 80's and 90's stuff.

I've use 2" eyepieces many times on an old FL102 F9 and on a 102 F6.5 ED, so they did take 2"fit. Also, the FL102 was quite old yet it's lens, just like most Vixen and Tak fluorite lenses that were uncoated, was still pristine. Fungal growth will only attack a lens if its capped while still wet. Deterioration of fluorite is largely a fallacy. Old Vixen and Tak scopes were in my mind in exactly the same league, with Vixen being the more affordable, and I'd still be very happy to buy an old uncoated Vixen or Tak without losing any sleep over it.

[John]

I agree re: Vixen build robustness. My Vixen ED102SS is the only scope I've ever had fall off a mount and the fall was around 4 feet onto a concrete patio !. No damage to the Vixen tube apart from some paint scrapes on the end of dew shield, which I've since re-sprayed.

I can tell you that a nice telescope hitting a concrete slab makes a horrible sound though, as did it's owner when it happened

 

[Timebandit]

17 hours ago, Stu said:

 Please stop trying to derail this thread by making it an argument between different owners.

 

 

Therefore bringing up two different points of view of owners,  therefore is trying to derail a thread ????

The Tak are the best scopes ever , as thats what you seem to want to hear then so be it. 

 

 

If I was the OP use your own eyes to judge, to see if its worth it to you. Before you get certain members filling you with the so called "Tak" factor.

I would not drop around another 1k on a Tak  over the 120ed(if you already own one). Then you have I understand the accessories , clam shell ,which are hundreds. Then the Tak seem to need a upgrade focuser , more hundreds . I think you are getting my point 

 

 

 

[Stu]

11 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

If I was the OP use your own eyes to judge, to see if its worth it to you

Simon. This is precisely the point. You have never looked through one, and so cannot judge. I have looked through both, as have others, so we can.

Even, at worst, if it delivers similar performance to the 120ED but in a shorter, lighter and more convenient package then that’s enough for me. But I regularly see solar detail which I don’t see generally reported so am confident I am getting excellent performance from my Tak.

Stop being so defensive. No one has said your Equinox is a bad scope, or that you should sell it, or that the OP should sell his. He asked for opinions on the Tak, so the people that know ie those that own or have used them have responded with genuine and realistic comments.

Please stop with what has become something of a campaign over a long period of time, it’s just not important, we all have different views, values, circumstances, eyesight etc etc. Be happy with your Equinox and leave it there.

[Timebandit]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

Simon. This is precisely the point. You have never looked through one, and so cannot judge. I have looked through both, as have others, so we can.

Even, at worst, if it delivers similar performance to the 120ED but in a shorter, lighter and more convenient package then that’s enough for me. But I regularly see solar detail which I don’t see generally reported so am confident I am getting excellent performance from my Tak.

Stop being so defensive. No one has said your Equinox is a bad scope, or that you should sell it, or that the OP should sell his. He asked for opinions on the Tak, so the people that know ie those that own or have used them have responded with genuine and realistic comments.

Please stop with what has become something of a campaign over a long period of time, it’s just not important, we all have different views, values, circumstances, eyesight etc etc. Be happy with your Equinox and leave it there.

 

I am more than happy with the Equinox. And am more than happy to leave it there ?

 

 

 

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

I am more than happy with the Equinox. And am more than happy to leave it there ?

 

 

 

Good.

[25585]

1 hour ago, John said:

I agree re: Vixen build robustness. My Vixen ED102SS is the only scope I've ever had fall off a mount and the fall was around 4 feet onto a concrete patio !. No damage to the Vixen tube apart from some paint scrapes on the end of dew shield, which I've since re-sprayed.

I can tell you that a nice telescope hitting a concrete slab makes a horrible sound though, as did it's owner when it happened

 

I suppose that's another advantage to 4 rings & long bar, more to take punishment in the event of a mishap. Guess a fixed lens hood is a crumple zone. 

It was at the old Fullerscope shop, Dudley came and asked me not to grab a Vixen tube in the same way as he allowed for the Genesis. There was an OTA with £500 knocked off its price due to a careless customer's rough handling. That rang alarm bells and imagining what can happen outside in the dark, let alone in a supervised shop, was a big factor. 

[25585]

1 hour ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

Therefore bringing up two different points of view of owners,  therefore is trying to derail a thread ????

The Tak are the best scopes ever , as thats what you seem to want to hear then so be it. 

 

 

If I was the OP use your own eyes to judge, to see if its worth it to you. Before you get certain members filling you with the so called "Tak" factor.

I would not drop around another 1k on a Tak  over the 120ed(if you already own one). Then you have I understand the accessories , clam shell ,which are hundreds. Then the Tak seem to need a upgrade focuser , more hundreds . I think you are getting my point 

 

 

 

I have a Moonlite focusers for my 120 Equinox (pre-owned) but have not felt the need yet to upgrade the Tak. Equinox 100 is OE still. 

Yes the clamshell has been replaced with rings. The excellent ones that Equinoxes came with - far better than standard SW, stay in use. 

Neither make came with a finder, neither make's finders are much good so I was happy not to have any included in their prices. 

DF and DL using the Sky 90 focuser come with an adaptor for 2 inch eps. That any 100mm model does not have one included, as for the DC, is as ridiculous an omission in design, as a single locking ring for securing an expensive OTA to a mount. 

Upgrades are optional, OE can be perceived as inadequate, either through use or prediction. I budgeted for rings when buying the DL and had I wanted the F7.5, would have chosen a DF for its focuser. 

(To those considering buying the SW 150 ED, I advise buying stronger tube rings, that attach to a dovetail with 2 bolts, not the standard single bolt ones. Primaluce rings do that & even Tak clamshells, I hope there are other makes likewise.) 

[John]

3 minutes ago, 25585 said:

I have a Moonlite focusers for my 120 Equinox (pre-owned) but have not felt the need yet to upgrade the Tak. Equinox 100 is OE still. 

Yes the clamshell has been replaced with rings. The excellent ones that Equinoxes came with - far better than standard SW, stay in use. 

Neither make came with a finder, neither make's finders are much good so I was happy not to have any included in their prices. 

DF and DL using the Sky 90 focuser come with an adaptor for 2 inch eps. That any 100mm model does not have one included, as for the DC, is as ridiculous an omission in design, as a single locking ring for securing an expensive OTA to a mount. 

Upgrades are optional, OE can be perceived as inadequate, either through use or prediction. I budgeted for rings when buying the DL and had I wanted the F7.5, would have chosen a DF for its focuser. 

(To those considering buying the SW 150 ED, I advise buying stronger tube rings, that attach to a dovetail with 2 bolts, not the standard single bolt ones. Primaluce rings do that & even Tak clamshells, I hope there are other makes likewise.) 

Lots to debate there but all off topic as far as I can see so I'll leave it for other threads

 

[Pig]

10 hours ago, Stu said:

Mine says that the white enamel finish on my Tak is looking great  

Maybe we should start watching “ The Sky at Bite” instead ?