Tec140ED used vs TSA 120 new?

[Fedele]

Tec140ED used vs TSA 120 new?

 

[Deadlake]

Both are premium, I'd go with the TEC 140.
The only time I've heard of someone swapping out a TEC 140 for a smaller aperture scope was when it went up against an AP130GTX.
The only other consideration is cool down, I suspect the oil triplet will cool down just as fast as the TSA120 even although its has a larger aperture. 
You need to find someone with both...
Bare in mind the TEC140 will be hard to source as people are still waiting from a year ago for their new scope to ship....

Edited September 22, 2021 by Deadlake

[John]

I'd go with the TEC 140 as well. No disrespect at all to the TSA 120 of course.

 

[Neil27]

TEC, I’m sure you have the mount for it?

Be prepared to wait though, rarer than hens teeth even more so in this strange new world.

Good luck and a nice position to be in, patience not withstanding.

[Neil27]

One on Astromart now if you fancy a wild ride importing. Depends if the seller is willing to sell outside of the states.

https://astromart.com/classifieds/astromart-classifieds/telescope-refractor/show/tec-140-ed

[jetstream]

14 hours ago, Fedele said:

Tec140ED used vs TSA 120 new?

 

If getting the TEC 140 get the new fluorite version IMHO.

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

If getting the TEC 140 get the new fluorite version IMHO.

I'd be interested to try it but I don't find much to complain about in the original. There really isn't much room for improvement.

Regarding the original question, I'd go for the TEC.  For a while, some came with an own-brand focuser. This is OK but not as good as the Feathertouch, which is the more usual one to be found on the 'scope. The instrument is brilliant both for visual and for imaging.

Olly

[nicoscy]

Fedele,

You have a great Mewlon 180, given the photos I have seen around.

You also have a 4" Tak as well? If you DO have the 4" Tak, I would recommend you stick with the Mewlon and the 4" as they complement each other!

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'd be interested to try it but I don't find much to complain about in the original. There really isn't much room for improvement.

Rumour around the campfire is that the new fluorite TECs are an improvement, but I have never looked through one so I cant verify it.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, jetstream said:

Rumour around the campfire is that the new fluorite TECs are an improvement, but I have never looked through one so I cant verify it.

I’ve had the pleasure of looking through Gavstar’s AP130GTX, TEC 140 and TEC160FL. Can’t recall if the 140 was a fluorite version but I think maybe not?

If I had to pick from the 130 and 140 based on what I saw, I would have gone for the AP, same as Gavin did. There was just something magical about the views that the 140 lacked. Maybe it was a weaker example, not sure. The 160FL is stunning too though.

It’s very hard to compare these scopes though unless done side by side on the same night as seeing conditions vary so much and have such an impact.

Is my LZOS as good as an AP? I don’t know, and actually I’ve reached the stage where I don’t care much. It’s going to be plenty good enough for me I know that, so often it’s much better just to enjoy the blooming things and forget about what smidge of extra performance you may (or may not) be missing out on.

Just to be a complete hypocrite about what I’ve just said though, if buying a TEC 140 now I would likely want the fluorite version, ‘cos it’s the best, innit 🤪🤣. What am I like?

[John]

15 minutes ago, Stu said:

Is my LZOS as good as an AP? I don’t know, and actually I’ve reached the stage where I don’t care much. It’s going to be plenty good enough for me I know that, so often it’s much better just to enjoy the blooming things and forget about what smidge of extra performance you may (or may not) be missing out on....

 

 

[Deadlake]

37 minutes ago, Stu said:

Is my LZOS as good as an AP? I don’t know, and actually I’ve reached the stage where I don’t care much. It’s going to be plenty good enough for me I know that, so often it’s much better just to enjoy the blooming things and forget about what smidge of extra performance you may (or may not) be missing out on.

Agree, paying one third more for a small gain of performance on a scope that already costs quite a bit... 😬 

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Can’t recall if the 140 was a fluorite version but I think maybe not?

I dont think Gavins was IIRC.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

Agree, paying one third more for a small gain of performance on a scope that already costs quite a bit... 😬 

yep, and I’d be surprised if there was anything in it to be honest.

[ollypenrice]

Taking a step backwards in time, we might care to remember that the original TEC140 was, if this isn't an oxymoron, a budget 'premium apo.' It was non-fluorite and sub 150mm and oil-spaced, all of which put it below the eye-watering prices of the premium 6 inch opposition, yet it ran them close. Close enough, in fact, for this aspect of its history to have been forgotten since it tends to be regarded, now, as one of the full-on premium contenders. (I'm talking about the pre-fluorite versions.) Also helping this creeping advance up the food chain was the TEC reputation for quality control and accessibility, neither of which are Takahashi strong points (though I think it's mostly the FSQs which seem to defeat Tak's best efforts to send them out in consistently good fettle.)

I've just looked up the price of the current Tak 150.  Had I gone for that rather than my second hand TEC 140 I would be about 11,000 euros worse off. Eleven thousand euros!!!  If someone offered me a straight swap, my TEC for a new Tak 150, I'd decline because I wouldn't risk it.

Olly

 

[F15Rules]

I think that here in the UK and under our Jetstream, the atmospheric conditions will make much more difference to what we can see, than any real optical differences between the scopes mentioned above.

Now, if we lived in the Nevada Desert, it might be different..or not?

Dave

 

[jetstream]

And possibly between these scopes and less expensive but good refractors from other manufactures. My SV90mm provides great high power views for such a small scope and sports as perfect a star test as I can decipher.

If seeing limits magnification so much maybe these expensive scopes arent worth the time?

[Deadlake]

29 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

I think that here in the UK and under our Jetstream, the atmospheric conditions will make much more difference to what we can see, than any real optical differences between the scopes mentioned above.

I thought error probation was additive in this sense, so adding more errors (lower performance lens) after light propagating thru a poor atmosphere makes the image worse...

[Stu]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

If seeing limits magnification so much maybe these expensive scopes arent worth the time?

A lot of the time over here Gerry I’m afraid that is the case, but on the occasions when we get stable seeing (normally when the Jetstream is not overhead) it makes it all worthwhile as you know!

[Captain Scarlet]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

… if seeing limits magnification so much maybe these expensive scopes arent worth the time?

I completely agree. But to save the terrible shame of scrapping these scopes, on reflection, actually make that refraction, I think it’s probably best to send them to me.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Captain Magenta

[F15Rules]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

If seeing limits magnification so much maybe these expensive scopes arent worth the time

I think that's a fair and rational point..the problem is, each time I go outside to observe, I think and hope that the seeing might be one of those 5 or 10 nights in a year when seeing will be excellent..and when I have had such a night, however infrequently, I want to know that my scope can meet the challenge/opportunity presented by such excellent conditions.

I freely admit that that is not necessarily rational, and added to my ageing eyes, that all too often a cheaper, maybe not quite so good scope would have performed very similarly. 

Do I need to see an analyst??🤔🥴😊

Dave

 

[Deadlake]

1 hour ago, Captain Magenta said:

I think it’s probably best to send them to me.

I agree, @jetstream, send me the TSA 120 then apart from a 6” I have most of the APO apertures covered and I can start collecting dobs like you keep telling me I should! 😁

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

start collecting dobs like you keep telling me I should!

😀

No need to collect them, just get the 16" f4!

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

send me the TSA 120 then apart from a 6” I have most of the APO apertures covered

Nah, I havnt yet discovered the mag limit of this scope which is a goal of mine- she goes over 700x on the moon so far...a barlowed 2.4 HR Vixen in there. I'm very curious about Jupiter and Saturn and the mag limit on these- I already know it will be up there.

I have never heard of a TEC taking this mag, but maybe I just missed the threads/posts here and elsewhere. Florida is the place to be for lunar/planetary IMHO with mags going over 1000x rumour has it.

Actually I would like to hear TEC obs and what they will do.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by jetstream

[Andrew_B]

8 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Taking a step backwards in time, we might care to remember that the original TEC140 was, if this isn't an oxymoron, a budget 'premium apo.' It was non-fluorite and sub 150mm and oil-spaced, all of which put it below the eye-watering prices of the premium 6 inch opposition, yet it ran them close. Close enough, in fact, for this aspect of its history to have been forgotten since it tends to be regarded, now, as one of the full-on premium contenders. (I'm talking about the pre-fluorite versions.) Also helping this creeping advance up the food chain was the TEC reputation for quality control and accessibility, neither of which are Takahashi strong points (though I think it's mostly the FSQs which seem to defeat Tak's best efforts to send them out in consistently good fettle.)

I've just looked up the price of the current Tak 150.  Had I gone for that rather than my second hand TEC 140 I would be about 11,000 euros worse off. Eleven thousand euros!!!  If someone offered me a straight swap, my TEC for a new Tak 150, I'd decline because I wouldn't risk it.

Olly

 

I think the issue with the TOA was in a small number of the very early models and the issue was fixed quite quickly. I've not read of anyone having problems since then.

The TEC does seem to be one of the few high end apos that anyone in the UK carries in stock although I don't know how often they appear on the secondhand market outside the States. Am I right in thinking it's corrected for visual use in the main? I seem to remember reading and that the alternatives from CFF or Tak were a noticeably better choice if you were imaging.

[ollypenrice]

4 hours ago, Andrew_B said:

I think the issue with the TOA was in a small number of the very early models and the issue was fixed quite quickly. I've not read of anyone having problems since then.

The TEC does seem to be one of the few high end apos that anyone in the UK carries in stock although I don't know how often they appear on the secondhand market outside the States. Am I right in thinking it's corrected for visual use in the main? I seem to remember reading and that the alternatives from CFF or Tak were a noticeably better choice if you were imaging.

It is primarily connected for visual, yes. Regarding its imaging prowess, there's an interesting debate. I've seen it dismissed by one CN poster as 'a glorified achromat,' an opinion I find incomprehensible.  What many imagers have found is that the blue correction is greatly improved by the TEC field flattener, though the official line from TEC is that this is not true. My own experiments with and without the flattener clearly suggest that it is true. A slight tendency to bloat on hot stars disappeared with the flattener, which is a prodigious bit of kit giving a vast, well illuminated field larger than any current amateur cameras can exploit. I love it as an imaging instrument. Some samples...

https://www.astrobin.com/full/335042/0/

https://www.astrobin.com/full/380941/0/

https://www.astrobin.com/full/419975/0/

We have two of them here with no discernible difference in performance.

Olly