Taks - worth the premium over other brands?

[mikeDnight]

Below are two sketches of Mars made on September 27 last year. The top one was as observed through a 200mm F6 (OO) Newtonian, while the bottom sketch was as observed through an FC100DZ. As far as observable detail goes there's little in it, but the view through the refractor was better defined and more aesthetically pleasing. The refractor was also much more comfortable to observe with too, which itself is worth its weight in gold when concentrating on fine or subtle detail.

[Stu]

42 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Below are two sketches of Mars made on September 27 last year. The top one was as observed through a 200mm F6 (OO) Newtonian, while the bottom sketch was as observed through an FC100DZ. As far as observable detail goes there's little in it, but the view through the refractor was better defined and more aesthetically pleasing. The refractor was also much more comfortable to observe with too, which itself is worth its weight in gold when concentrating on fine or subtle detail.

I don’t doubt you at all Mike, it’s just that is not my experience. I have the FC100DC, a Vixen FL102S and an Orion Optics 8” f8. On Mars last year, the 8” showed considerably more detail than the Vixen on the same night at similar powers, see this post I made at the time.

If I’m honest, I’ve no idea how you see the level of detail on Mars that you see, as I don’t see that either in my Tak or the 8”, so hats off to you for your observing and sketching skills!

[Deadlake]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I don’t doubt you at all Mike, it’s just that is not my experience. I have the FC100DC, a Vixen FL102S and an Orion Optics 8” f8. On Mars last year, the 8” showed considerably more detail than the Vixen on the same night at similar powers, see this post I made at the time.

If I’m honest, I’ve no idea how you see the level of detail on Mars that you see, as I don’t see that either in my Tak or the 8”, so hats off to you for your observing and sketching skills!

Would the level of light pollution have any difference on viewing?

Vixen HR’s do pullout all the detail as well, near 0.99 Strehl at the centre…

Edited May 2, 2021 by Deadlake

[Stu]

59 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Would the level of light pollution have any difference on viewing?

Vixen HR’s do pullout all the detail as well, near 0.99 Strehl at the centre…

No, planetary observing is all about seeing conditions, light pollution has little impact. My comparison was on the same night, same conditions for me, so was as fair as it gets.

In terms of eyepieces, the Leica Zoom is pretty good, and compares favourably with Baader Genuine Orthos on axis, so might be a smidge behind Vixen HRs (which I’ve also used) but not enough to to make a night and day difference to what I was seeing.

[F15Rules]

Taks - worth the premium over other brands?

After reading the whole of this fascinating thread, I thought it worth revisiting the original question..

I don't doubt the sincerity of the OPs question, but it seems to me there can be no yes or no answer to this question. And that would apply for any other brand name you care to think of besides "Tak"..

We all have our own subjective opinions, and these are informed by our own experiences. 

I do think that, with respect, no one who has never owned or regularly observed with a Tak can validly pass an opinion on this question, just as if the question mentioned "SW Esprit" instead of Tak, no one who hasn't owned or regularly observed with that scope should pass an opinion either.

For those of us who do, or have owned a Tak scope, we will still have our own reasons for our answer being "yes" or "no", or "yes, but.." or "no, but".. they are all simply opinions, that's all.

Price, performance, looks, resale value, peer reviews, etc etc will all inform our opinions.

No one scope brand should be "worshipped" as already stated.. but do let's recognise oustanding performance, workmanship and aesthetics  -wherever we find them?

Dave

Edited May 2, 2021 by F15Rules

[mikeDnight]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

I don’t doubt you at all Mike, it’s just that is not my experience. I have the FC100DC, a Vixen FL102S and an Orion Optics 8” f8. On Mars last year, the 8” showed considerably more detail than the Vixen on the same night at similar powers, see this post I made at the time.

If I’m honest, I’ve no idea how you see the level of detail on Mars that you see, as I don’t see that either in my Tak or the 8”, so hats off to you for your observing and sketching skills!

I know you are a keen eyed observer Stu, as you've seen both the Alpine Valley central rille, and the super subtle cloud tops of Venus. Perhaps local seeing may be the deciding factor? I do seem to have steady seeing for planetary much of the time, but also, the sketches represent ten to fifteen minutes of study before all the detail was recorded, so the planet doesn't immediately look like the sketch. Often it can appear bland at first glance.  I actually felt that Mars was a bit lacklustre  this last apparition, at least for much of the time. 

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

No one scope brand should be "worshipped" as already stated.. but do let's recognise oustanding performance, workmanship and aesthetics  -wherever we find them?

Hear, hear! 👍👍

[jetstream]

Over in DSO land we talk of "averted imagination" is there a planetary equivalent? 😀

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, dweller25 said:

Hmmm - let me think ???????

No 😂

lol!

I like that answer !😂

Ok I'll throw in the Leica Zoom too...

All in fun, what a great scope David!

[Stu]

6 hours ago, jetstream said:

Over in DSO land we talk of "averted imagination" is there a planetary equivalent? 😀

Yes!! 🤣🤣🤣

[Stu]

8 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I know you are a keen eyed observer Stu, as you've seen both the Alpine Valley central rille, and the super subtle cloud tops of Venus. Perhaps local seeing may be the deciding factor? I do seem to have steady seeing for planetary much of the time, but also, the sketches represent ten to fifteen minutes of study before all the detail was recorded, so the planet doesn't immediately look like the sketch. Often it can appear bland at first glance.  I actually felt that Mars was a bit lacklustre  this last apparition, at least for much of the time. 

Thanks Mike. I have seen the Alpine Rille in my Tak a couple of times, but the Venus cloud elude me. I suspects that’s down to poor sensitivity in my vision at the UV end of the spectrum.

I know what you mean about the detail building up. I was observing for an hour or more during that session in my post and at first there was very little detail visible. I guess your sketches over emphasise the contrast visible in order to show the detail. I posted a detuned image to show a better representation of what I could see, although this doesn’t show the northern polar cap as well as I could see it. Hopefully next opposition will be good too, Mars is higher I believe?

[Mr Spock]

The alpine valley rille was an obvious feature in my 10" Newt. Sadly the 10" was too large for my dodgy back to lift and was sold.

[dweller25]

27 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

The alpine valley rille was an obvious feature in my 10" Newt. Sadly the 10" was too large for my dodgy back to lift and was sold.

That’s exactly the reason I had to sell my 10” Dob too 😕

[Peter Drew]

I've not seen the Alpine Valley Rille in anything smaller than a 16",  a 4" anything is of no use to me other than a finder or occasional solar telescope.  It's my problem, not the telescope's.  "A man needs to know his limitations" (CE)     🙂

[fireballxl5]

9 hours ago, jetstream said:

Over in DSO land we talk of "averted imagination" is there a planetary equivalent? 😀

oh yes! Did you hear what Percival Lowell 'saw' on Mars...

hehehe

[mikeDnight]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

Thanks Mike. I have seen the Alpine Rille in my Tak a couple of times, but the Venus cloud elude me. I suspects that’s down to poor sensitivity in my vision at the UV end of the spectrum.

I know what you mean about the detail building up. I was observing for an hour or more during that session in my post and at first there was very little detail visible. I guess your sketches over emphasise the contrast visible in order to show the detail. I posted a detuned image to show a better representation of what I could see, although this doesn’t show the northern polar cap as well as I could see it. Hopefully next opposition will be good too, Mars is higher I believe?

Sorry Stu,  I must have got you mixed up with Alan regarding the clouds of Venus. I know you both saw the central rille in your 4" refractors, and Alan did see the subtle Venus clouds. You're right about over emphasising the contrast. Unfortunately its necessary to show all the various subtleties on view, which flicker in and out of view at the eyepiece. Having said that there are occasions when the Martian albedo features really do stand out hard against the colour of the globe. In 2020 that only happened a couple of times for me. 

[Robindonne]

One week later the (interim) score is:

16 yes

4 No

8 50/50

[rl]

There may be a "time of life" element to this discussion. It's one of the great ironies of the hobby that by the time a lot of us can afford the best, our eyes are on the wane and less able to use the optical quality. I've seen huge magnifications quoted in this thread..for me even *50 per inch shows up a lot of floaters..an exit pupil of 1mm is about the smallest I can go without having to continually move my eye to dodge the dreaded diffraction patterns produced the detritus in my eyeball. A magnification of *200 produced on a 14" is much more satisfying for me personally than on a 4" refractor. however good the quality!

[scotty38]

33 minutes ago, rl said:

There may be a "time of life" element to this discussion. It's one of the great ironies of the hobby that by the time a lot of us can afford the best, our eyes are on the wane and less able to use the optical quality. I've seen huge magnifications quoted in this thread..for me even *50 per inch shows up a lot of floaters..an exit pupil of 1mm is about the smallest I can go without having to continually move my eye to dodge the dreaded diffraction patterns produced the detritus in my eyeball. A magnification of *200 produced on a 14" is much more satisfying for me personally than on a 4" refractor. however good the quality!

I am so late to this hobby it's untrue (I'm 58) and I already knew my low light vision wasn't great so erred towards imaging however I got an urge to have a look as it were so bought an 80mm refractor. I can see stuff for sure but I don't know what my eyes are missing so I also just bought a 6" refractor so I'll soon have an increase in aperture and exit pupil for any given eyepiece. I will soon find out if wonderment or disappointment awaits me lol......

[Deadlake]

8 hours ago, Robindonne said:

One week later the (interim) score is:

16 yes

4 No

8 50/50

The score should in these categories:

1. Had a non-premium APO and upgraded and thought the premium scope was worth it.
2. Had a non-premium APO, upgraded and didn't see the benefit. 
3. Read the reviews online and bypassed the non-premium APO's

I'm sure some people would suggest other metrics, but the surely its about putting your money down or viewing using a premium scope and saying yes it's better to me?

[Peter Drew]

22 hours ago, fireballxl5 said:

oh yes! Did you hear what Percival Lowell 'saw' on Mars...

hehehe

Wasn't he using a refractor?        🤣

[Rusted]

I'm a martyr to the clouds on Venus.

Every time I look it's cloudy!

Lowell 24" f/16.3 has a Ca ratio of 0.67.

That's the equivalent of a 5" achromat at f/3.

Stacked "Fringe Killers?"

Suit yourselves.

[JeremyS]

3 hours ago, rl said:

There may be a "time of life" element to this discussion. It's one of the great ironies of the hobby that by the time a lot of us can afford the best, our eyes are on the wane and less able to use the optical quality. I've seen huge magnifications quoted in this thread..for me even *50 per inch shows up a lot of floaters..an exit pupil of 1mm is about the smallest I can go without having to continually move my eye to dodge the dreaded diffraction patterns produced the detritus in my eyeball. A magnification of *200 produced on a 14" is much more satisfying for me personally than on a 4" refractor. however good the quality!

Yes, I think you might be right about stage of life. But in the opposite sense for me. I spent the vast majority of my observing life with reflectors and SCTs. Now after nearly 50 years, it’s the crisp views through a quality Tak that I yearn for. And earlier in life they were unaffordable to me.

😊

[Deadlake]

13 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Yes, I think you might be right about stage of life. But in the opposite sense for me. I spent the vast majority of my observing life with reflectors and SCTs. Now after nearly 50 years, it’s the crisp views through a quality Tak that I yearn for. And earlier in life they were unaffordable to me.

😊

But good quality APO's are more affordable now than say 10 years ago.

At the same time a 4" APO is more space friendly/portable than a Dob, so maybe people are changing there approach??

[Marki]

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

The score should in these categories:

1. Had a non-premium APO and upgraded and thought the premium scope was worth it.
2. Had a non-premium APO, upgraded and didn't see the benefit. 
3. Read the reviews online and bypassed the non-premium APO's

I'm sure some people would suggest other metrics, but the surely its about putting your money down or viewing using a premium scope and saying yes it's better to me?

I'd be in category 1, but it really depends on your definition of "worth it". I certainly see an improvement in the quality of the view through my premium Apo (certainly in "crispness"). Whether anyone else would consider the over three times price difference "worth it" compared to the already good views in my non-premium apo, is their call. For me it is.

I came relatvely late to the hobby, so my eyesight isn't as good as it was even a few years ago, so I am determined to make the best of the quality views my 'frac grants me whilst I am still able. And to some extent, even if my deteriorating eyesight gave me less "good" views through my premium with time, surely this would still be the case (and more so) in a "less good" instrument? In anycase, as  with Jeremy, I could not have afforded anything like this quality earlier in life.

Picking up Deadlake's comment, my 200mm SCT certainly took up less space than my current stable  of 'fracs (individually or together) taking into account cases/mounts etc. Space wasn't a driver for me in moving to refractors.

In the interest of full disclosure I don't own a Tak, so my opinion as a lowly APM LZOS owner may be irrelevant ;).

Edited May 4, 2021 by Marki
Typos