Pondering Second Takahashi

[A McEwan]

Hi all.

Notwithstanding my current lineup of telescopes, and talking purely about the Takahashi line, I'm really enjoying the FC100. I mean, like REALLY enjoying it. It's the quality of the view. I think I've become a fluorite addict.

Anyway.  I'm beginning to ponder a second one. A smaller one.  I really like the look of the FC76-DCU model for its lighter, thinner tube assembly, and the ability to add the extender to make it a "Q" scope at f12.5.

I also like the look of the FOA-60Q. (and I do regularly use my 60mm achro)

What I'm wondering is... would I think the 76mm is too similar to the 100mm, and just take the 100 out instead, whereas the 60mm would be an entirely different beast and offer a completely different experience when I used it?

Of course I've read reviews, and ultimately I know I would love either, but the question I think is which would be more useful for me, if I went ahead... I also know that possibly only I can answer that, but I'd still like to hear opinions if anyone would like to share.  🤔

Ant  

[JeremyS]

14 minutes ago, A McEwan said:

Hi all.

Notwithstanding my current lineup of telescopes, and talking purely about the Takahashi line, I'm really enjoying the FC100. I mean, like REALLY enjoying it. It's the quality of the view. I think I've become a fluorite addict.

Anyway.  I'm beginning to ponder a second one. A smaller one.  I really like the look of the FC76-DCU model for its lighter, thinner tube assembly, and the ability to add the extender to make it a "Q" scope at f12.5.

I also like the look of the FOA-60Q. (and I do regularly use my 60mm achro)

What I'm wondering is... would I think the 76mm is too similar to the 100mm, and just take the 100 out instead, whereas the 60mm would be an entirely different beast and offer a completely different experience when I used it?

Of course I've read reviews, and ultimately I know I would love either, but the question I think is which would be more useful for me, if I went ahead... I also know that possibly only I can answer that, but I'd still like to hear opinions if anyone would like to share.  🤔

Ant  

Gosh that’s a difficult one. I have both, but use them differently. The FC76DCU is my main aeroplane portable scope cos it splits into 2. It’s a very capable 3-inch scope. But as you say, it’s quite close to your FC100. 

The FOA60 Q is in a very specialised category. It’s obviously very tiny,  hence limited, but the pleasure comes from its sheer perfection. 
 

If travel weren’t a consideration, and I had an FC100 already, I think I’d go for the FOA60Q. Have you seen this guys observation with and FOA 60 +/- Q? https://www.fzu.cz/~kupco/astro/equipment/FOA60.html
 

[graham56]

hi merry christmas ,i have a foa 60 and the views are superb  ,i complement it with  a tak fs60c f5.9,and then similar to you a stellarvue tbv 90 fluorite and the for close up lunar and planetary a tak mewlon, to be honest i would not swap any of my scopes for anything, so  get yourself a foa 60q you wont go wrong.

[A McEwan]

38 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Gosh that’s a difficult one. I have both, but use them differently. The FC76DCU is my main aeroplane portable scope cos it splits into 2. It’s a very capable 3-inch scope. But as you say, it’s quite close to your FC100. 

The FOA60 Q is in a very specialised category. It’s obviously very tiny,  hence limited, but the pleasure comes from its sheer perfection. 
 

If travel weren’t a consideration, and I had an FC100 already, I think I’d go for the FOA60Q. Have you seen this guys observation with and FOA 60 +/- Q? https://www.fzu.cz/~kupco/astro/equipment/FOA60.html
 

That's an interesting page. I do find it interesting observing - and seeing what other people have observed - in 60mm scopes. Thanks!

[JeremyS]

15 minutes ago, A McEwan said:

That's an interesting page. I do find it interesting observing - and seeing what other people have observed - in 60mm scopes. Thanks!

There’s a “60mm telescope club” over on IO groups 😊

[MalcolmM]

Personally I think the 76 will be too similar to the 100. You could consider the FS60CB. Very different from the 100 but you can turn it into a 76 or a Q version with the various accessories.

Malcolm

[A McEwan]

5 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

There’s a “60mm telescope club” over on IO groups 😊

Don't suppose you have a link?  I'd like to take a look....

 

[JeremyS]

3 minutes ago, A McEwan said:

Don't suppose you have a link?  I'd like to take a look....

 

https://groups.io/g/The60mmTelescopeClub/messages?start=12:2021:480

[A McEwan]

13 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

https://groups.io/g/The60mmTelescopeClub/messages?start=12:2021:480

Brilliant; thanks!

[HollyHound]

1 hour ago, A McEwan said:

Notwithstanding my current lineup of telescopes, and talking purely about the Takahashi line, I'm really enjoying the FC100. I mean, like REALLY enjoying it. It's the quality of the view. I think I've become a fluorite addict.

Anyway.  I'm beginning to ponder a second one. A smaller one.  I really like the look of the FC76-DCU model for its lighter, thinner tube assembly, and the ability to add the extender to make it a "Q" scope at f12.5.

I also like the look of the FOA-60Q. (and I do regularly use my 60mm achro)

What I'm wondering is... would I think the 76mm is too similar to the 100mm, and just take the 100 out instead, whereas the 60mm would be an entirely different beast and offer a completely different experience when I used it?

Of course I've read reviews, and ultimately I know I would love either, but the question I think is which would be more useful for me, if I went ahead... I also know that possibly only I can answer that, but I'd still like to hear opinions if anyone would like to share.  🤔

Ant  

Hi,

Like @JeremyS, I have all three of the scopes you mention… the FC100 is such a superb “do anything” scope and I think it could be the one scope to keep if you only wanted one, as a “lifetime” scope.

The FC-76DCU will show you nothing that the FC-100 can show you and of course, being smaller aperture, it will not give as much light gathering or resolution ability. However, it’s significantly smaller and a bit lighter, so it is much better suited to being a “grab and go” scope. Mine lives on a Berlebach Report tripod with ScopeTech mount, and I can (and do) lift the whole unit out the back door with one hand, to start observing very quickly. The size means that it doesn’t shake as much on a lightweight mount. As it unscrews into two halves, it is obviously perfect as a travel scope 👍

If you don’t need either that “grab and go” or travel capability, then the FC100 is the better scope.

Now the FOA-60Q is a different animal indeed… this is a specialist scope, it’s supposed to be the most optically perfect scope that Takahashi make. I use mine almost exclusively for lunar and double stars, as even given it’s smaller aperture, I find it can keep taking magnification and still deliver useful views which are colour free and with super contrast, even when the exit pupil gets very small. The diffraction rings are tight and very clean, so it’s superb for doubles. Being long it needs a reasonable mount to avoid shakes. Really such a fun little scope 😀

Edited December 24, 2021 by HollyHound

[A McEwan]

25 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

Hi,

Like @JeremyS, I have all three of the scopes you mention… the FC100 is such a superb “do anything” scope and I think it could be the one scope to keep if you only wanted one, as a “lifetime” scope.

The FC-76DCU will show you nothing that the FC-100 can show you and of course, being smaller aperture, it will not give as much light gathering or resolution ability. However, it’s significantly smaller and a bit lighter, so it is much better suited to being a “grab and go” scope. Mine lives on a Berlebach Report tripod with ScopeTech mount, and I can (and do) lift the whole unit out the back door with one hand, to start observing very quickly. The size means that it doesn’t shake as much on a lightweight mount. As it unscrews into two halves, it is obviously perfect as a travel scope 👍

If you don’t need either that “grab and go” or travel capability, then the FC100 is the better scope.

Now the FOA-60Q is a different animal indeed… this is a specialist scope, it’s supposed to be the most optically perfect scope that Takahashi make. I use mine almost exclusively for lunar and double stars, as even given it’s smaller aperture, I find it can keep taking magnification and still deliver useful views which are colour free and with super contrast, even when the exit pupil gets very small. The diffraction rings are tight and very clean, so it’s superb for doubles. Being long it needs a reasonable mount to avoid shakes. Really such a fun little scope 😀

No matter what happens, the FC100Df will be staying with me. It's quite possibly my dream scope, and certainly my do-it-all scope.   

[Dave1]

11 hours ago, JeremyS said:

There’s a “60mm telescope club” over on IO groups 😊

Yep it's a great club that transferred to IO when yahoo groups ceased to exist. So great material there, I think folk would be surprised what can be observed through a 60mm.

 

@JeremyS

Edited December 25, 2021 by Dave1

[Paz]

I don't have Takahashi scopes but my reflectors are a 102mm f7 for grab and go at home and a 72mm f6 for travel that only gets used when the 102mm is too big to take.

I would recommend whichever scope is going to compliment having the 100mm and not compete with it.

[Fedele]

I have a Fc100DL and i m planning to buy the FS60CB for: Solar with daystar Cromosphere filter for Full disk (a better lunt), grab&go, voyage....

and  the 76 objective unit (with the estender to): Grab&go telescope. 

In practice 4 telescope. 

I hope god I'm not making a mistake as I'm a vision perfectionist. Unfortunately I need something between 60 and 100 that comq is less grab & go, even if manageable.

ah, .... I have a Mewlon 180c and am also programming a TSA120.

[Stu]

@A McEwan as you know I recently picked up an FC-76DCU plus an FS-60C and a CQ extender. I already have an FC100DC.

A little background may help. Prior to my FC100 I had quite a few smaller apo refractors and enjoyed their portability and capability. Scopes like the WO ZS SD66, Televue 76 and 85, Stellarvue 80ED. I then ventured to an FS-60C and added the 76mm Objective Upgrade unit, ending up effectively with two complete scopes, a 60mm and a 76mm. I loved the 60mm for its extreme portability and surprising capability, and the 76mm was just so sharp and seemed ideal, just as Jeremy said, as a travel scope.

I then took a misguided detour, selling the two Taks to buy a Sky 90 which I really didn’t rate. It was surprisingly big and heavy, and optically not as good as the 76 in my view. It was good at high power, but I wanted it to be good at low power and it just wasn’t. I have no reason to think it was a faulty, collimation was good.

Anyhow…. That moved on (at a considerable loss!) and was replaced by an FC100DC which, for me, was a complete game changer. I blame Mikednight’s reports for convincing me to buy it but have never been disappointed. To me it was portable and capable enough to replace scopes from 80mm to 120mm for my sorts of observing. I took it to the US in an Airport Accelerator case with a load of eyepieces and it was fine as carry on.

So, why the latest acquisitions? To me it started with wanting a scope that was so portable it would and could go anywhere with me, hence the FS-60C. It’s so small and light that you don’t really have to think about taking it, whereas the FC100DC needs to be packed carefully (especially for carry on). For whatever reason I can then never seem to get the 76mm out of my head, and so this, and the CQ extender have come along as part of the package.

My honest opinion is that the 60mm would likely be enough as the portable scope, with the step up the the 100mm quite ok as it is still light and portable. I’m not convinced that travelling with the 76 is much easier than the 100, although I guess it just entails screwing the two halves together rather than the dewshield and focuser.

The 76 is a bit lighter, and is an easy one handed lift when on the Scopetech Zero and Gitzo. It also has wider field potential than the 100 (570mm focal length vs 740mm). It does look fantastic with the CQ module fitted and as I understand it the 60mm performs much better with it fitted.

The most annoying thing is that I’ve yet to use it! Hopefully when I get some time after Christmas I’ll have a chance.

[dweller25]

@A McEwan

I’m going to throw in a curved ball here…..

Rather than going smaller go larger….

The Mewlon 180c will be a great match for the Vixen GP but will capture more light and have better resolution then the FC100.

I have been VERY surprised by just how good the M180c is and I am definitely a refractor guy 🙂

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by dweller25

[HollyHound]

2 hours ago, dweller25 said:

The Mewlon 180c will be a great match for the Vixen GP but will capture more light and have better resolution then the FC100

I have to agree with this… they do indeed work perfectly together… FC100 is ready to go quite quickly, whilst the M180 cools down. The M180 is stunning on planets and the moon, giving superb resolution and detail… of course the FC100 is great too and will also give wide field views too 😀

They do indeed make a perfect pairing 👍

[Fedele]

2 hours ago, HollyHound said:

Devo essere d'accordo con questo ... funzionano davvero perfettamente insieme ... FC100 è pronto per funzionare abbastanza rapidamente, mentre l'M180 si raffredda. L'M180 è stupefacente sui pianeti e sulla luna, offrendo una risoluzione e un dettaglio superbi... ovviamente anche l'FC100 è eccezionale e offre anche ampie vedute del campo?

Fanno davvero un abbinamento perfetto ?

how do you see the TSA120 in between or in substitution of Baby-Mu?

[A McEwan]

Great recommendation for the M180 guys!

Except.... I don't want to go bigger!

Ant   

[A McEwan]

22 hours ago, Stu said:

@A McEwan 

Anyhow…. That moved on (at a considerable loss!) and was replaced by an FC100DC which, for me, was a complete game changer. I blame Mikednight’s reports for convincing me to buy it but have never been disappointed. To me it was portable and capable enough to replace scopes from 80mm to 120mm for my sorts of observing. I took it to the US in an Airport Accelerator case with a load of eyepieces and it was fine as carry on.

 

 

When I got the FC100 I also had an Evostar ED120, which I really liked and performed well. But after a few views with the Tak I sold the ED120, as the extra weight and bulk didn't warrant the extra 20mm aperture - for me, anyway. I may be wrong but I felt the Tak was particularly light weight for the aperture. If so, that's a brand feature that I really like now.

[Stu]

15 minutes ago, A McEwan said:

When I got the FC100 I also had an Evostar ED120, which I really liked and performed well. But after a few views with the Tak I sold the ED120, as the extra weight and bulk didn't warrant the extra 20mm aperture - for me, anyway. I may be wrong but I felt the Tak was particularly light weight for the aperture. If so, that's a brand feature that I really like now.

Exactly how I felt. I think for DSOs the extra 20mm may add something, but for most of my observing the Tak gave as good if not better views. As you say, the lightweight and compact package just makes it all the more appealing.

[HollyHound]

6 hours ago, Fedele said:

how do you see the TSA120 in between or in substitution of Baby-Mu?

I’ve never tried a TSA120, but I imagine it would as good as the M180 for a lot of things… I  would certainly like to try one some day 😀

[A McEwan]

Revisiting this, and still considering options...

How does the FS60-Q fit in?

I presume it gives me the option of FS-60CB (f5.9), plus optional CQ-1.7x extender, which makes it f10 (and would also fit if I ever got the FC76 optic unit.

That looks to me to be the most versatile package, but it "loses out" on the extreme focal ratio and "perfect" optical performance of the FOA scopes.

To what extent, visually, would I be losing out by using this instead of a FOA scope?

🤔  Ant

[JeremyS]

16 minutes ago, A McEwan said:

Revisiting this, and still considering options...

How does the FS60-Q fit in?

I presume it gives me the option of FS-60CB (f5.9), plus optional CQ-1.7x extender, which makes it f10 (and would also fit if I ever got the FC76 optic unit.

That looks to me to be the most versatile package, but it "loses out" on the extreme focal ratio and "perfect" optical performance of the FOA scopes.

To what extent, visually, would I be losing out by using this instead of a FOA scope?

🤔  Ant

Not much in it between the FS Q and the FOA Q. I have not admit to getting satisfaction from the knowledge about the perfection (the mechanicals on the FOA Q are wonderful too - the focuser travel is greater too, so easier to handle a range of accessories), but this is largely subjective. It’s that that caused me to get the FOA Q even though I had the FS Q.

We are talking about small differences. 
 

In this 60 series, the biggest step up is adding a CQ to the standard FS

[Stu]

I was going to post this elsewhere but it may be relevant to this thread. This is my FS-60C, 76mm Objective upgrade and CQ Extender, packed in an Airport Accelerator case with a Scopetech Zero mount and various accessories. Eyepieces could fit in by leaving some non essentials out but I can easily take a separate case unless flying. Tripod also goes separately.