Takahashi fs102 VS tsa 102 for visual

[foffof]

Hi, i am very curious which of the two scopes will be better for viewing planets at high magnifications. Is it True that fs102 is better at high magnifications with higher contrast? Thanks in advance for shared opinion!

[John]

I don't know if you have read this review of the TSA-102 but in it the reviewer (a very experienced observer) makes some comparisons with the FS-102:

http://scopeviews.co.uk/TakTSA102.htm

Here is the same reviewers summary of the current and recent 100mm / 102mm contenders:

http://scopeviews.co.uk/FourInchBG2019.htm#_Toc26869878

Sorry that I can't help myself but my scopes in this category are the TAK FC-100DL and the Vixen ED102SS.

Edit: I've just seen this thread on the CN forum but I guess you have as well !:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/697317-takahashi-tsa102-vs-fs102/

 

[jetstream]

If my TSA 120 is any indication the TSA 102 should be excellent. The 120mm takes seemingly endless mag and razor sharp.

[joe aguiar]

 Cant say I  compared both but My TSA 102s is amazing. I'm sure the fs is also top performer 

My gut says the TSA will edge out the fs abit.

I personally think they stopped the TSA for only 2 reasons 1 it's been out for about 10 yrs give or take and many companies either change the name or model so they appear fresh and new ideas. 

2nd cost factor y make a triplet 53 when a doublet fluorite is close, but it's cheaper to make and sell.

Joejaguar 

[mikeDnight]

Ive used the FS102 many times and it is a superb refractor for lunar and planetary. It cools down rapidly and is built like a Tank. The TSA is better colour corrected but that doesn't mean the FS isn't colour free visually. Both are top class and would offer a lifetime of pleasure. If you want a scope that will perform within minutes of taking it outside go for the FS. If you want an edge in colour correction and don't mind waiting 30 mins on occasion for the scope to acclimatise, then go for the TSA. With quality planetary eyepieces both scopes will give breathtaking views. Whether you'll notice any real life difference in performance between the two is hard to say. I'd be very happy with either!

The spot diagram below compares the colour spread. It looks a large difference but in reality it is incredibly tight. Excellent in both cases.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by mikeDnight

[foffof]

Many thanks for the very useful opinion. I read that fs102 is better on Jupiter at high magnifications due to better contrast of the fluorite element, is there someone who shares this opinion?

[dweller25]

29 minutes ago, foffof said:

Many thanks for the very useful opinion. I read that fs102 is better on Jupiter at high magnifications due to better contrast of the fluorite element, is there someone who shares this opinion?

I suspect there is very little difference, perhaps you may be better considering the new FC100DZ ?

Edited March 11, 2020 by dweller25

[foffof]

Thanks alot, do you have experience with 100dz and is it better for planets than FS102 or 100DL.

[dweller25]

1 hour ago, foffof said:

Thanks alot, do you have experience with 100dz and is it better for planets than FS102 or 100DL.

All the 4” Taks are probably very similar in performance - but honestly a cheaper 10” Newtonian will be better on the planets.

Edited March 11, 2020 by dweller25

[mikeDnight]

To learn more about the Takahashi refractors, including the FS102 and TSA 102, check out   sopeviews.co.UK

 

[Rainmaker]

10 hours ago, foffof said:

Many thanks for the very useful opinion. I read that fs102 is better on Jupiter at high magnifications due to better contrast of the fluorite element, is there someone who shares this opinion?

I did not find the FS102 to be able to better the TSA in either contrast or magnification but the little bit of 'colour' the doublet exhibits (in comparison to the triplet) made some of the colours appear slightly more vivid.

I think this is why some people prefer the FS to the TSA.

 

I have owned three of the FS102 and three of the TSA102S and they all performed as above....

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Rainmaker

[Rainmaker]

9 hours ago, dweller25 said:

All the 4” Taks are probably very similar in performance - but honestly a cheaper 10” Newtonian will SOMETIMES be better on the planets.

Fixed that for you !

 

[JeremyS]

I have an FS102 and a few years ago compared it to a friend's TSA102 on Jupiter. But only on one night, which was pretty good seeing. 

I could spot no difference. Both gave stunning images.

If there is a difference, I suspect it would only be detectable on a night of perfect seeing. And how often do we get those?

[Rainmaker]

28 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I have an FS102 and a few years ago compared it to a friend's TSA102 on Jupiter. But only on one night, which was pretty good seeing. 

I could spot no difference. Both gave stunning images.

If there is a difference, I suspect it would only be detectable on a night of perfect seeing. And how often do we get those?

I agree that they both give stunning images and you really need to have the two scopes side by side with matching diagonals and eyepieces to see differences. I set up my TSA alongside my FS in my binoscope cradle with matching eyepieces in order to see the differences.

[astro_al]

I have owned both a TSA-102 and a TSA-120. Both fantastic scopes. I have never owned an FS-102 but have owned an FS-60 and currently own an FS-152.

Personally I would say that the TSA series scopes give a more clinical view that the FS series and would be my choice if I also wanted to dabble in imaging. However, as a visual observer with no observatory I prefer the fluorite doublets primarily because of reduced cool down time. This and weight is more important to me vs the possibility of a slightly improved image on nights of excellent seeing. The newer FC series has both of these characteristics so I personally would prefer an FC-100 over either the FS-102 or TSA-102; but that wasn't the question asked . I would be happy with any of the 4" Taks.

Edited March 12, 2020 by astro_al

[dweller25]

8 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Fixed that for you !

 

Here are the thoughts of a world famous refractor manufacturer.......

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/how-to/what-is-the-best-planetary-telescope-r402

[Rainmaker]

14 hours ago, dweller25 said:

Here are the thoughts of a world famous refractor manufacturer.......

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/how-to/what-is-the-best-planetary-telescope-r402

Funny how often many people quote RC .......  I have a very nice Newtonian with an excellent mirror, a well set up SIPS system but there so many occasions when my refractors put up a better image

Obviously the Newtonian will have its advantage in terms of ability to resolve finer details but the fact remains that so often the sky conditions of seeing and transparency set the limit to what the scopes can do..... in optimum conditions there is no question about what a very good large mirror can do, but  more often when the conditions, including the position of the target planet in the sky, are sub-optimal the refractors are my choice......

 

but we are veering away from the topic that is FS102 V TSA102..........

Edited March 13, 2020 by Rainmaker

[Ags]

On the RC article, he writes "Refractor, 7" to 9" Apo, F8 to F11, or 8" to 12" achromat, F12 or longer." Seriously? He's recommending a 12 inch F12 achromat? I guess I'll just store it in my roll-off aircraft hangar!

(I did once see Mars through a 26 inch achro, but I was too young to fully appreciate it....)

Edited March 13, 2020 by Ags

[dweller25]

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Funny how often many people quote RC .......  I have a very nice Newtonian with an excellent mirror, a well set up SIPS system but there so many occasions when my refractors put up a better image

Obviously the Newtonian will have its advantage in terms of ability to resolve finer details but the fact remains that so often the sky conditions of seeing and transparency set the limit to what the scopes can do..... in optimum conditions there is no question about what a very good large mirror can do, but  more often when the conditions, including the position of the target planet in the sky, are sub-optimal the refractors are my choice......

 

but we are veering away from the topic that is FS102 V TSA102..........

I really do not want to hijack the OP’s thread and understand the issues you have with a large aperture Scope like your 18”

My experience in the UK is that my 5” Tak ALWAYS shows more planetary detail than my 4” Tak and a 10” Newtonian USUALLY outperforms both on the planets, unless the seeing is poor - then the smaller refactors will show a steadier image than the Newt but the level of planetary detail will still be very low in both types of scope.

There have been several constructive replies to the question asked by the OP and alternatives have been discussed too, but in the end it’s up to the OP to decide what he/she would like to do, but I think we all agree that you cannot go far wrong with a 4” Tak 👍🙂

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by dweller25

[mikeDnight]

22 hours ago, dweller25 said:

Here are the thoughts of a world famous refractor manufacturer.......

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/how-to/what-is-the-best-planetary-telescope-r402

Yes, but how can we believe anyone who uses the term "gotten"?   RC should have gone to my school, then he'd know how t speak reyt like wor us duz!