Taks - worth the premium over other brands?

[JeremyS]

8 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Why does this thread remind me of this? 🤔😁😁😁

Because everyone likes the minty fresh views through a Tak?

Taks always come up smelling of roses?

You’re not sure if you prefer the original cool minty green Tak livery or the new baby blue version?

Edited May 4, 2021 by JeremyS

[mikeDnight]

2 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Because everyone likes the minty fresh views through a Tak?

Taks always come up smelling of roses?

You’re not sure if you prefer the original cool minty green Tak livery or the new baby blue Tak livery?

Pepper mint or Spear mint! Whats your preference? 

[JeremyS]

1 minute ago, mikeDnight said:

Pepper mint or Spear mint! Whats your preference? 

I don’t mind, Mike, as long as it delivers my daily requirement for fluorite 👍🏻

Edited May 4, 2021 by JeremyS

[jetstream]

2 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I don’t mind, Mike, as long as it delivers my daily requirement for fluorite 👍🏻

Youre quick man, youre quick!

😀

[mikeDnight]

8 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I don’t mind, Mike, as long as it delivers my daily requirement for fluorite 👍🏻

Hmmm... Fluorite... 💘💋💋💋💞

Edited May 4, 2021 by mikeDnight

[Commanderfish]

3 hours ago, John said:

I've owned a Tak and a TMB / LZOS for the past 5 years. They are very much in the same league IMHO

What has been a (pleasant) surprise is that my Skywatcher ED120 has not been significantly outclassed by either of them. Maybe my ED120 is a particularly good one ?

I have an ES ED127 triplet which was hand selected for me and subjected to a battery of tests by Teleskop Specializten in Munich (booklet full of tests still in my files).

It's a particularly well figured example and gives lovely sharp views, which are comparable to my FC-100, but it weighs about 2.5 times as much and is 952mm FL, so not grab and go like the FC-100. It's also almost as expensive these days. I do wonder whether each one off the production line would have this good a set of optics. But I'm planning on keeping mine 😎

[dweller25]

This thread is lasting longer than an APO v SCT argument on Cloudynights 🤪😱😂

[jetstream]

21 minutes ago, Commanderfish said:

which are comparable to my FC-100,

??? 🤔

The 127mm doesnt give more detail than the 100mm?

 

[jetstream]

3 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

This thread is lasting longer than an APO v SCT argument on Cloudynights 🤪😱😂

You really want to know why I bought a 120mm Tak?

Because I've never heard of a 100mm Tak showing more than it from the Takophiles!

[Mr Spock]

2 hours ago, Rusted said:

I am reminded of "high end" hifi rooms at electronics shows.
Where one can never hear the music. For raised voices arguing over subjective quality.

Or indeed arguing about whether or not there's a difference between cheap and expensive speaker cable when clearly the difference can be massive 

[paulastro]

58 minutes ago, jetstream said:

😲

but why would you want one?

I knew it,.....

To sell it for a huge profit of course 🙂.

[JuergenB]

I don't see the Tak premium over other brands of the same league (Zeiss APQ, Nikon, Pentax, Astro Physics, TEC, APM-LZOS). Sometimes, Takahashi even asks rather moderate prices (FS-60, FC-76, the smaller Epsilons and Mewlons).

Juergen

[Marki]

10 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

. As regards the extortionate high price of a Tak, an FC100DF costs around £6 per day over the first year. As the years fly by the Tak price pales into insignificance. Tak are as cheap as chips when viewed as a lifetime investment. 

Mmm - proper "man logic" Mike - I used something similar with my partner when discussing the LZOS 130  I bought .  I wonder how that figure per day would work out when calculated as "cost per night of clear skies" from this misty island off the NW coast of Europe....  .

[AngryDonkey]

Talked to my wife today about buying a new Tak and she asked how much it was. I said about 5000 Euro and she said, too expensive... But then I said, I will have it for the rest of my life! Just calculate how much that would be per day!

Then she said, per day for the rest of your life? Me: Yes! Her: 5000 Euro!

Damn she is good at maths....

[rkelley8493]

On 03/05/2021 at 03:35, Peter Drew said:

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)     🙂

Here are a couple cellphone pictures I took of the Alpine Valley Rille with my 4" FC-100DF. Pardon the black-spot photobomb in the first image.. Cursed camera is flawed.

[Rusted]

1 hour ago, rkelley8493 said:

Here are a couple cellphone pictures I took of the Alpine Valley Rille with my 4" FC-100DF. Pardon the black-spot photobomb in the first image.. Cursed camera is flawed.

There is a saying in Danish: "Tak skal du have." Meaning: "You should have thanks."
Alternatively: You should have [a] Tak. It's no wonder the Danes are rated as the happiest nation.

[Deadlake]

16 hours ago, dweller25 said:

This thread is lasting longer than an APO v SCT argument on Cloudynights 🤪😱😂

No, it's getting as long as: 

"How much strehl difference is actually detectable?" on CN

It's quite common I'm told by dealers if they sell a scope for 0.98 and it gets reported on CN they get a return because another scope they sold of the same model tests at 0.96. 

For instance Vixens usual test at 0.96 whereas Takahashi will be higher 0.97 ish. I'm sure the differences being reported are other lens metrics.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Deadlake

[Jonny_H]

17 hours ago, John said:

There are far graver things in this world currently to feel insecure about than telescopes for goodness sake

I knew that I'd regret posting in this thread again.

 

 

17 hours ago, johninderby said:

Why does this thread remind me of this? 🤔😁😁😁

I am starting to regret creating this thread........

I'll get my coat 🙃

[mikeDnight]

38 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

No, it's getting as long as: 

"How much strehl difference is actually detectable?" on CN

It's quite common I'm told by dealers if they sell a scope for 0.98 and it gets reported on CN they get a return because another scope they sold of the same model tests at 0.96. 

For instance Vixens usual test at 0.96 whereas Takahashi will be higher 0.97 ish. I'm sure the differences being reported are other lens metrics.

 

We probably all pay too much attention to figures and statistics we don't fully understand. I've haven't yet looked through a Vixen fluorite that wasn't in every way the equal of any Tak I've used. Even their older ED's were outstandingly good, and better than some top end brands costing thousands of £ more. I'm sure their more modern triplets are every bit as top class. 

[Peter Drew]

5 hours ago, rkelley8493 said:

Here are a couple cellphone pictures I took of the Alpine Valley Rille with my 4" FC-100DF. Pardon the black-spot photobomb in the first image.. Cursed camera is flawed.

Excellent images for a 4" but they show the Alpine Valley, not the Rille which is a very fine feature running along its centre.  Unless of course my computer resolution or my eyesight still fail to show it!       🙂

[Voyager 3]

21 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Hmmm... Fluorite... 💘💋💋💋💞

Control , gentleman 🤣

Edited May 5, 2021 by Voyager 3

[HollyHound]

The only metric I use for my three Taks now is... they’re lightweight, easy to use and stuff looks good through them 👍🤣

[Rusted]

They have no Lanthanum? Then let them have Fluorite! 

[johninderby]

Or for a really cheap Takahashi 😁

https://www.etsy.com/uk/market/takahashi_teapot

[astroman99]

Take a look at Vixen!