Time to get a 4” APO?

[LDW1]

9 hours ago, Stu said:

As mentioned you also need to understand the length of the OTA with focuser removed. Should be ok but do check. Also weight, the Tak is very light which leaves more room for accessories. I can pack scope, all eyepieces and the mount in carry on baggage, tripod goes in the hood baggage.

Regardless of what people may think, I’m never trying to push anyone into a Tak purchase. The Starfield is a great scope, but the question was asked about air travel and I would rather travel with an FC100 than a heavier 4” apo.

Yes 

Edited February 6, 2023 by LDW1

[Moonlit Knight]

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

[SuburbanMak]

This is one very dangerous thread… 

[IB20]

14 minutes ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

I don’t necessarily think that’s the case, there’s probably not a huge amount between the views afforded by any 4” F7 FPL53 APO or 4” Vixen and the Tak, any differences would probably be fairly marginal. Yes Taks seems to take high mags well but you can’t always make use of that in UK seeing. What the Taks manage to do really well in the FC series is keep weight down and make them portable which reduces mounting requirements/ helps with travel. Increasing OTA weight with my current equipment would require me to shell out loads on a tripod, mount, cradle/tube rings, plates etc. Also ime light scopes get used far more than a heavier scope or set-up.

 

[Littleguy80]

If you base it on the numbers it's a close call:

Secondhand Tak FC100DC £1400 (Based on ABS ad). Can work as Travel scope allowing sale of Equinox for say £300(?). Lighter than Starfield for perhapa plays more happily with the mini AZ so need to spend £200 on a new mount. Total cost £1100.

(Tak will give some improvement over the Starfield and a lot of improve over the Equinox for travel. Higher upfront cost for a secondhand scope)

New Starfield 102 £900. Too big for airline travel so need to keep Equinox 80. Heavier so maybe does need a new mount for £200. Total cost £1100.

(Brand new  scope with warranty for less. Performance still very good. Not suitable for airline travel so the 80mm scope remains as travel scope)

Maybe it's an oversimplification but I started this thread to test my thinking on the Starfield and see what other options  there were  

 

[Mr Spock]

Weight depends which focuser you get. With a 2.7" focuser the Tak is 3.5kg and the Starfield 3.7kg - the starfield focuser is also dual speed which the Tak isn't. There is a lighter version Tak (DC) which has a standard (small) focuser.

You have to weigh up (no pun intended) the cost of the equivalent (new) Tak being 2½ times the cost of a Starfield plus all the extra costs which come with a Tak like having to buy tube rings and a dovetail.

It's your choice. Horses for courses as they say.

[Franklin]

Small apo refractors, up to around 80mm, are great as they are very small and light and therefore easily mountable. Yet offer superb performance (obviously they can't match a big dob aperture wise) and make excellent grab and go scopes. The jump from 80mm to 100mm may not seem much but a 4" really needs a beefier mount to get the best out of it. However, this is where the wonderful new Takahashi 4" fluorite doublets step in (FC100) because not only are they one of the best corrected 4" optics on the market but their weight and overall size is astonishingly small compared to other 4" apo refractors. They are essentially a 4" refractor in a 3" refactor s body!

I've had an FC100DC and also an older Takahashi FS78 and the old 3" was bigger than the newer 4".

[Stu]

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

Yes but what is the difference in purchase costs, that is a big concern with any purchaser. Might as well bring that out unless money is no object.

That’s already been highlighted. Neil knows the differences!

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Weight depends which focuser you get. With a 2.7" focuser the Tak is 3.5kg and the Starfield 3.7kg - the starfield focuser is also dual speed which the Tak isn't. There is a lighter version Tak (DC) which has a standard (small) focuser.

You have to weigh up (no pun intended) the cost of the equivalent (new) Tak being 2½ times the cost of a Starfield plus all the extra costs which come with a Tak like having to buy tube rings and a dovetail.

It's your choice. Horses for courses as they say.

Agreed, Tak accessories are expensive! My personal choice was to buy the DC version (2.8kg I think), knowing that I had no intention of using the standard focuser but to replace it with a Feathertouch FTF-2025BCR. Hard to get hold of now, but the ultimate as far as I’m concerned. That said many of the factory fit focuser a on the likes of the Starfield are excellent, just bigger/heavier.

Many are happy with the standard Tak focuser, particularly with a dual speed micro focuser added, with Tak or More Blue. You can easily get an adaptor for 2” too for the DC focuser.

I use More Blue rings and dovetail on mine, lighter and cheaper than Tak stuff and look great!

You are right. Horses for courses.

[CraigT82]

1 hour ago, Littleguy80 said:

It’s a good suggestion based on my comments about having a single 4” scope suitable for airport travel. Based on some research since, I’ve not seen any other 4” scopes mentioned as having that capability

Here you go, airline portable 4” apo:

😂😂😂

 

But seriously though, worth considering the second hand market for one of the 102mm f7 fracs too… plenty of these scopes out there in various guises. Got mine used with oklop bag for £350 but I was really lucky to drop onto the ad as it was put up. You never know what will turn up in the classifieds.

[LDW1]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

That’s already been highlighted. Neil knows the differences!

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by LDW1

[mikeDnight]

2 hours ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

 Takahashi are the premier off the shelf telescope manufacturer that all others desire to emulate. With Takahashi it's all about the optics, which are not actually made by Takahashi but by Canon Optron, but to Takahashi's specifications. Tak themselves are an engineering company, and although they have frozen in time with their style and focuser designs, their thermally compensating lens cells are superb and stand out from most other cell designs. And in a sense you are right - if you can afford a Tak, why not go for it as they are top tier. However, the difference in performance in a side by side comparison might not be as great as you might imagine. The way to look at it is that Takahashi produce some of the best refractors in the world, and so if a Starfield will run alongside a Tak and keep pace with it 95% of the time, then the Starfield is a seriously class act. The planet's are the hardest test for a refractor and will separate the good from the not so good. Several years ago, my friend Paulasto had an earlier version of the Starfield ED with which we did a side by side comparison with a FC100DC. His ED played very happily alongside the Tak on stellar, nebulous, and planetary targets. We observed Mercury low in the east and both scopes showed albedo features with relative ease, while Jupiter was dynamic in both. For me the real killer is Saturn's rings which should appear laser etched and highly detailed in a good 4" on a steady night. I can't remember observing Saturn through Paul's scope but I'd be pretty confident it wouldn't disappoint.

Edited February 6, 2023 by mikeDnight

[Stuart1971]

27 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

 Takahashi are the premier of the shelf telescope manufacturer that all others desire to emulate. With Takahashi it's all about the optics, which are not actually made by Takahashi but by Canon Optron, but to Takahashi's specifications. Tak themselves are an engineering company, and although they have frozen in time with their style and focuser designs, their thermally compensating lens cells are superb and stand out from most other cell designs. And in a sense you are right - if you can afford a Tak, why not go for it as they are top tier. However, the difference in performance in a side by side comparison might not be as great as you might imagine. The way to look at it is that Takahashi produce some of the best refractors in the world, and so if a Starfield will run alongside a Tak and keep pace with it 95% of the time, then the Starfield is a seriously class act. The planet's are the hardest test for a refractor and will separate the good from the not so good. Several years ago, my friend Paulasto had an earlier version of the Starfield ED with which we did a side by side comparison with a FC100DC. His ED played very happily alongside the Tak on stellar, nebulous, and planetary targets. We observed Mercury low in the east and both scopes showed albedo features with relative ease, while Jupiter was dynamic in both. For me the real killer is Saturn's rings which should appear laser etched and highly detailed in a good 4" on a steady night. I can't remember observing Saturn through Paul's scope but I'd be pretty confident it wouldn't disappoint.

Hmmmm,
I had a Takahashi FSQ85 for 4 years, and it’s a lovely scope, and the colour correction is second to none, BUT it has its issues if imaging with it, and modern small pixel CMOS cameras, they just don’t work with these camera well at all, and you get poor stars at the edges and even some astigmatism, now Tak bought out a new corrector for these scopes, but even with that it’s still not good, to the point that I sold mine, because I just could not be happy with the star shapes in the corners…

Now with smaller sensors it’s a lot better, and if you have an OLD CCD camera then it’s perfect from edge to edge, even without the extra corrector

So saying that a tak is the scope to beat, for imaging purposes, is just not totally correct..not as far as the FSQ85 is concerned anyway…don’t know about others, but I do know that the FSQ106 does not suffer with the same issues….

Edited February 6, 2023 by Stuart1971

[Sunshine]

I like to say I coined the term "a Tak isn't something you need, it's something you want"  and as @mikeDnight says very well just above me here, a good ED will play well with the Tak on the vast majority of objects. Regardless of the telescope you choose, you will have a great time and you should not for one second feel like you settled or be left yearning for the costlier model. Imagine if we all felt like our scopes were lesser and we were missing out, it would be mass delusion! this hobby would be awful as we all cannot afford a TAK, TEC, TMB or AP. Yes I do have a Tak, but as much as I praise my scope I find myself shaking my head sometimes when I realize I loved every session I ever had with whatever scope I used. If you look back at all my scope reviews I have made, you would see that every one was the best I ever had, because they were. If in a years time I sell the Tak and buy a TS120 well then that will be the best scope I ever had, yep! just wait for the review!.

[Stuart1971]

3 hours ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

For visual maybe yes, but for imaging then do you homework….see my post above….👍🏻

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

Not at all, that is totally misrepresenting the thread. Any scope can be your forever scope and it totally depends on personal preferences and circumstances. I enjoy owning and using mine, there’s no need to feel that whatever scope you use and enjoy isn’t just as good for you.

[Moonlit Knight]

Thank you to those that answered my question. I am still a little confused. I have been lurking for a long time before I signed up. The standard response to anyone thinking about buying a refractor seemed to be you really need to buy a Takahashi. The impression you get is that everything else is a bit sad and people are just trying to be nice about buying the other brands, except TeleVue perhaps.

But then I have always found stargazers to be very nice people anyway. 
 

Anyway thanks again, I wouldn’t want to take up anymore of your time, appreciated. 

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Thank you to those that answered my question. I am still a little confused. I have been lurking for a long time before I signed up. The standard response to anyone thinking about buying a refractor seemed to be you really need to buy a Takahashi. The impression you get is that everything else is a bit sad and people are just trying to be nice about buying the other brands, except TeleVue perhaps.

But then I have always found stargazers to be very nice people anyway. 
 

Anyway thanks again, I wouldn’t want to take up anymore of your time, appreciated. 

Apologies if my response was a bit blunt, that wasn’t intended.

I think the point is, no one NEEDS to buy a Tak. You can be perfectly and justifiably happy with a number of others scopes, including the Starfield. If you WANT to buy a Tak, then buy a Tak, but don’t feel in any way lacking if you don’t. The hobby is about enjoyment of the stars, not kit competition.

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, Stuart1971 said:

Hmmmm,
I had a Takahashi FSQ85 for 4 years, and it’s a lovely scope, and the colour correction is second to none, BUT it has its issues if imaging with it, and modern small pixel CMOS cameras, they just don’t work with these camera well at all, and you get poor stars at the edges and even some astigmatism, now Tak bought out a new corrector for these scopes, but even with that it’s still not good, to the point that I sold mine, because I just could not be happy with the star shapes in the corners…

Now with smaller sensors it’s a lot better, and if you have an OLD CCD camera then it’s perfect from edge to edge, even without the extra corrector

So saying that a tak is the scope to beat, for imaging purposes, is just not totally correct..not as far as the FSQ85 is concerned anyway…don’t know about others, but I do know that the FSQ106 does not suffer with the same issues….

Hi Stuart.

 I was talking about Tak's doublet refractors and in terms of a purely visual instrument. I have no experience with the FSQ at all, nor with imaging, and certainly wouldn't choose one for visual observing. Horses for courses I suppose. There are doubtless many on sgl who do use the FSQ for imaging and could pass comments about it's visual and imaging prowess. 

[900SL]

4 hours ago, SuburbanMak said:

This is one very dangerous thread… 

Tak owners are like a pack of rabid Chihuahuas when sensing any affrontery 

[Highburymark]

I haven’t read this whole thread, but from reading Neil’s first post, I’d say go for the Starfield. It will do everything you want it to do and more, and will be a significant step up from the F/6.25 Equinox 80, particularly if you enjoy solar. If money’s not an issue, then go for an FC-100. Wonderful scopes. But, much as I loved my DC, I’d be just as happy with any of the excellent FPL-53 4-inchers available these days, from the reports I’ve read. 

[mikeDnight]

35 minutes ago, Moonlit Knight said:

Thank you to those that answered my question. I am still a little confused. I have been lurking for a long time before I signed up. The standard response to anyone thinking about buying a refractor seemed to be you really need to buy a Takahashi. The impression you get is that everything else is a bit sad and people are just trying to be nice about buying the other brands, except TeleVue perhaps.

But then I have always found stargazers to be very nice people anyway. 
 

Anyway thanks again, I wouldn’t want to take up anymore of your time, appreciated. 

 Doesn't it go to show how toxic the name Takahashi can be. Once mentioned there's a tendency for it to dominate a refractor thread. It's a shame really as there are so many other excellent refractors out there, even old secondhand scopes that work just as well today as they did on the day they came out of the factory. 

 Vixen are as good as Tak as far as I'm concerned and I'd be just as happy with an old vixen fluorite or ED doublet, or with one of their more modern incarnations as with my Tak DZ. And I'm talking from experience. I've seen these old scopes kick the living daylights out of Televue's NP101 in terms of planetary definition and contrast, and a 4" Televue costs over £4000 in today's money. And I'm absolutely confident that the Starfield would whop the socks off one too.

 The bottom line really is that the scope that's likely to get used the most because you enjoy using it the most, is most likely to show you the most. 

Perhaps the op Littleguy80, might even consider attending the Astronomy Show at Kettering in early March. There he'll be able to meet with other crazy folk, as well as manhandle lots of refractors and perhaps see something not yet mentioned. 😊

[LDW1]

4 hours ago, Highburymark said:

I haven’t read this whole thread, but from reading Neil’s first post, I’d say go for the Starfield. It will do everything you want it to do and more, and will be a significant step up from the F/6.25 Equinox 80, particularly if you enjoy solar. If money’s not an issue, then go for an FC-100. Wonderful scopes. But, much as I loved my DC, I’d be just as happy with any of the excellent FPL-53 4-inchers available these days, from the reports I’ve read. 

I have 

Edited February 7, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

8 hours ago, Franklin said:

Small apo refractors, up to around 80mm, are great as they are very small and light and therefore easily mountable. Yet offer superb performance (obviously they can't match a big dob aperture wise) and make excellent grab and go scopes. The jump from 80mm to 100mm may not seem much but a 4" really needs a beefier mount to get the best out of it. However, this is where the wonderful new Takahashi 4" fluorite doublets step in (FC100) because not only are they one of the best corrected 4" optics on the market but their weight and overall size is astonishingly small compared to other 4" apo refractors. They are essentially a 4" refractor in a 3" refactor s body!

I've had an FC100DC and also an older Takahashi FS78 and the old 3" was bigger than the newer 4".

A P

Edited February 7, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

As we 

Edited February 7, 2023 by LDW1