Test and Comparison: Starfield 102mm F7 ED Doublet v Takahashi FC-100 DF f7.4 Doublet (Fluorite)

[Mr Spock]

Time to compare two well-known 4” refractors, both excellent quality but at very different prices. The prices below reflect specifying each scope to the same standard. The Starfield comes without a finder mounting shoe; the Takahashi, well, almost everything!

£899.00 Starfield 102mm f7 ED Doublet (FPL-53, Lanthanum)
£19.00 William Optics Finder Base (universal fit)
£918.00 Total cost of outfit

£2340.00 Takahashi FC-100 DF f7.4 doublet (fluorite)
£247.00 Takahashi MEF3 micro edge dual speed focuser
£46.00 More Blue Vixen dovetail bar 220mm
£139.00 More Blue 95mm Tube rings to fit Takahashi
£41.00 More Blue Finder base to fit Takahashi
£2813.00 Total cost of outfit

Simple maths will tell you the Takahashi outfit is exactly three times the price of the Starfield. Is it three times better? Read on…

Scope description, build quality and ergonomics.

The Starfield has an excellent finish. With a matt white tube and matt black fittings, it looks the part. It also comes with matching matt black tube rings and dovetail bar as standard. The only difference in finish being the gloss black focuser. The focuser itself is a rack and pinion with a 10:1 dual speed focuser knob. The action of the focuser is very light and smooth. The focuser features the ability to rotate and has a twist grip attachment clamp. My only complaint about this twist grip clamp is it can be very stiff, and with the focuser’s ability to rotate, removing attachments could need three hands… I replaced mine with a Baader Click-Lock which works perfectly.
The tube is 59.5cm long and weighs 3.7kg without rings.

The Takahashi is also well finished. It has a cream tube with silver fittings, and a focuser finished in Takahashi green. Apart from a 2” extension tube and 1.25” attachment clamp, that’s all you get. The focuser is single speed, and with that in mind, a matching MEF3 7:1 dual speed focuser was acquired. Once fitted the micro focuser looks a bit Heath-Robinson. The focuser as a whole fails to meet the modern look and ‘feel’ of the Starfield. The focuser drawtube is quite stiff and the micro focuser ‘bounces’ a little before moving the tube. This makes focusing more difficult than with the Starfield. I have removed some thick grease from the draw tube and that has eased the issue slightly; I’m thinking this will free up somewhat with use. The tube accessory fitting in 2” is by screws – I intend replacing this with a Baader Click-Lock to make life easier.
The tube is 66.5cm long (fixed dew shield) and weighs 3.5kg without rings.

I note for travel the Takahashi focuser unscrews easily and reduces the length to 55.7cm; if I could unscrew the Starfield (it’s too tight) that would be 49cm.

Verdict: a big win for the Starfield – it’s just so much more modern and refined.

Optical Quality – Star Tests

This is where it matters. There’s no point in having a fine-looking telescope if it can’t deliver the goods. Thankfully both these scope proved to be excellent on test with no observed flaws or issues at all.
Both scopes show excellent defocused star tests inside and outside of focus. There was no apparent chromatic aberration, spherical aberration or spherochomatism.
For high power inspection, I chose Castor as my target. This is a well-known bright double which should test the capability of any optical system. Using a 4mm Vixen SLV at x179 for the Starfield and x185 for the Takahashi, both scopes revealed a lovely, crisp airy disc and single diffraction ring, showing excellent correction. In moments of excellent seeing, I felt the Takahashi had an ‘etched’ quality to it – a small difference and something I find hard to describe. This was only noticeable in comparison; used individually I’ve no doubt you wouldn’t notice this and be satisfied with either scope.
I also noted three small stars below Castor. Σ1110 widely spaced (155.6”) at mags 9.83 and 10.07, and another at mag 11.17. All seen evenly in both scopes. Mag 11 is quite faint for my Bortle 6 location, especially with the moon up.

Verdict: slight win for the Takahashi

Optical Quality – Solar

Both scopes were tested with a Lunt 1.25” solar wedge and Baader Continuum filter using 7mm and 4mm Nirvana eyepieces. It was noted the Takahashi required either the included Takahashi 1.25” attachment, or an extension tube, to come to focus. Both scopes produced identical images at all magnifications. Whether it be the darkness of sunspots, faculae or granulation, both were very detailed. I simply couldn’t tell which scope I was looking through.

Verdict: a draw

Optical Quality – Venus

As Venus was quite bright, I used a variable polariser for this test: one end attached to a x2.5 Powermate and the other to a 9mm Orthoscopic. Venus showed some cloud detail near the terminator and was identical in both scopes. However, seeing wasn’t ideal due to Venus being close to roof tops, so perhaps not the perfect test.

Verdict: a draw.

Optical Quality – Moon

Well, the moon was quite lovely last night. I had some splendid views with the 12” Dob, which, as expected, spanked both these scopes! Anyway, on to the matter at hand. I started by inspecting the terminator which was quite lovely at just below x300 in both scopes using the 2.5mm Vixen SLV. Both scopes picked up nicely small craterlets and fine detail on the floor of Fracastorius. I concentrated my efforts though on Catherina P. This had a couple of lovely black shadows which appeared to terminate laterally into the rille which goes north to south in this crater. Those shadow spikes would be a good test for these scopes and how they handle sharpness and detail. Both acquitted themselves well producing satisfying levels of detail and sharpness. I did note a minor difference: shadows in the Takahashi seemed marginally blacker, it was only slight, but noticeable. Highlights too were fractionally lighter. Intermediate tones were very similar and both scopes showed exactly the same amount of detail. It’s another one of those slight differences which you are unlikely to notice in isolation. It’s only putting the scopes side by side you can see it.

Verdict: slight win for the Takahashi

Overall Verdict and Summary

In isolation, you’d be well satisfied with the optical quality of either of the scopes. Both turn in an impeccable performance – as good as you can get with only 4”. The build quality of the Starfield is first class and the Takahashi lags behind here with its 1960s feel. Ultimately you buy a scope for its optical quality rather than its look and the Takahashi has the slight edge – at a price! Even though I now own one I simply cannot justify the price difference. The Takahashi is a fine optical instrument, as good as you can buy off the shelf, but not at three times the price of the Starfield. If you own a Starfield be proud of it and enjoy it and feel satisfied you don’t need a bottomless pocket to purchase it.

Side by side view:

 

[IB20]

Excellent comparison. Feeling pretty chuffed that I’ve managed to bag the Altair version of the Starfield for a ridiculously cheap price.

I have the Tak 76DCU which I think has the same focuser as the 100DC, I don’t actually mind the focuser but I hated the Tak collet and the plastic wheels were a bit cheap. I’ve upgraded it with the Baader clicklock and More Blue microfocuser and it’s very nice now. The Starwave focuser is really nice but yes sometimes the twist lock mechanism can occasionally stick and cause the focuser to rotate. I’ve found a bit of repetition in locking and unlocking is freeing the mechanism up though.

Not had chance at first light yet but am very pleased to read your comparisons, particularly solar and Venus!
 

[Naughty Neal]

Nice write up and analysis, justifiably the Starfield sounds like it is exquisite vfm and one will only think of buying the Tak for bragging rights  and for the  livery colour or to spend some of the inhertance that some one else will do for one.

[cajen2]

Well, many thanks for a great side by side. It's confirmed my decision to go for a Starfield. ✨👍

[Ags]

Great comparison. Both scopes are close to the optimum performance of a 4" refractor, there's not a lot of room for the Tak to pull ahead. I do wonder if it might best the Starfield on Jupiter and Mars however... planetary detail is so marginal a little improvement from the Tak might make a noticeable difference.

[Mr Spock]

1 minute ago, Ags said:

I do wonder if it might best the Starfield on Jupiter and Mars however... planetary detail is so marginal a little improvement from the Tak might make a noticeable difference.

Probably, but I imagine the difference would be small. Unfortunately Jupiter isn't available and I didn't get to Mars before the cloud came in.

[Alan White]

Thanks for the comparison Michael and very decent of you to buy both to do so 😉
(I know the Tak was an notable Birthday present)

Interesting to read you thoughts and reflect what I thought they might be (confirmation bias of course on my part here).

So marginal differnces in a  few places possibly showing, but at a cost differnece of 3x as expensive.~
Now for many that would be very difficult to square away.
I know for others, where any perceived step up, is money well spent, if you can afford to do so good luck with that and enjoy your fine instrument.

As with so many things 'improvement' is in the eye of the beholder when marginal.
When the marginal comes with £££+++, perhaps it could be based on confirmation bias of money well spent,
but then again perhaps not and it's enough to justify the extra spending.

The main thing is, this shows how good the Starfield and others badged of same design and build really are.
This truly is a wonderful time to be in this hobby, decent kit that is more attainable than ever before for more folks.

 

[John]

Excellent comparison review - many thanks for conducting and posting it 🙂

I suppose many folks reading this will be left wondering why seemingly sane and level headed people are prepared to pay such a large premium for such small margins of performance improvement and sometimes over a number of telescopes🙄

I'm not going to attempt to answer that one having been "guilty" of doing just that !

Thanks again for the review 👍

[Space Hopper]

Thankyou for posting this comparison.

The Starfield 102 is certainly a very compelling choice in the 4" class. I bet FLO have shifted loads of them.

[globular]

Great comparison - thanks for posting.

I note that you were observing in a bortle 6 location with the moon up.  Do you think these conditions might be a bit of a leveller - and perhaps more differences might be noticed in darker conditions?

[Genuine question / no axe to grind.  My only similar experience is when I was comparing different EPs - and sometimes only really noticed differences in the darkest and best conditions.] 

[Littleguy80]

14 minutes ago, globular said:

Great comparison - thanks for posting.

I note that you were observing in a bortle 6 location with the moon up.  Do you think these conditions might be a bit of a leveller - and perhaps more differences might be noticed in darker conditions?

[Genuine question / no axe to grind.  My only similar experience is when I was comparing different EPs - and sometimes only really noticed differences in the darkest and best conditions.] 

Funnily enough that was what went through my mind too. I find with premium eyepieces, it’s those nights of excellent transparency and/or seeing where they really show their worth. 

Excellent comparison, Michael. Would love to hear if the Tak pulls ahead more significantly when conditions allow it to be pushed to its limits. 

[Mr Spock]

Light pollution has no effect on seeing. Seeing conditions would be a leveller but they were excellent. The 12" was able to pull out the tiniest of detail on the moon.

36 minutes ago, globular said:

with the moon up

I'm not sure how else you would observe the moon... 

[RobertI]

A very thorough and unbiased review Michael, thanks for taking the time to do this. 👍

[Sunshine]

48 minutes ago, globular said:

Great comparison - thanks for posting.

I note that you were observing in a bortle 6 location with the moon up.  Do you think these conditions might be a bit of a leveller - and perhaps more differences might be noticed in darker conditions?

[Genuine question / no axe to grind.  My only similar experience is when I was comparing different EPs - and sometimes only really noticed differences in the darkest and best conditions.] 

Maybe, but by the same note whatever conditions affect one affect the other, if the skies were better all around then both scopes would benefit. Just a few weeks ago I had another chance to look through a Starfield 115 at a local park and I was not left wanting in any way. This says a lot about the starfield considering I was looking at favourite doubles I have observed many times through my 102.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Sunshine

[Mr Spock]

1 hour ago, John said:

I suppose many folks reading this will be left wondering why seemingly sane and level headed people are prepared to pay such a large premium for such small margins of performance improvement and sometimes over a number of telescopes

We are all looking for that last ounce of performance from what we have.

Sane folks would just buy a big Dob  

[cajen2]

You seem to be saying that any optical advantages the Tak has are marginal at best.  For £2000 difference, I could put up with a very marginal disadvantage! 😄

[mikeDnight]

 

*

Edited April 5, 2023 by mikeDnight

[JeremyS]

Very good review which highlights the rapidly increasing cost as one approaches perfection.

[jetstream]

Great report Michael! Id be keeping that super performing Starfield thats for sure! Congrats, Gerry

[Mr Spock]

33 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

During your comparison, did you use the same diagonal or a different diagonal in each scope?

Yes, both with the Baader ClickLock 2" DiElectric

 

36 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

We really just ended up enjoying the scopes for what they were rather than trying to find differences. The latter becomes tedious after a while.

Indeed. I'd be happy with either scope; they are both enjoyable to look through. I'm just a bit depressed about the dent in my bank balance... 😥

[Mr Spock]

6 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Id be keeping that super performing Starfield thats for sure!

It is now sold unfortunately. I have to recover some of the cost of the Tak and don't need two 4" scopes. 

[mikeDnight]

*

Edited April 5, 2023 by mikeDnight

[jetstream]

3 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Your bank balance will heal eventually, unless you decide on a matching Tak mount. Totally unnecessary,  but it would look gorgeous, and you are now officially on the insane spectrum. 

One astute member, Matt in Australia is perhaps the most experienced Tak/frac owner out there and with some of the nicest equipment Ive seen. He knows exactly what these scopes are capable of....  and his collection is a testament to the optical ability of them.Believe me if they didnt really perform, he would not own them. IMHO.

[mikeDnight]

*

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by mikeDnight

[F15Rules]

5 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

It is now sold unfortunately. I have to recover some of the cost of the Tak and don't need two 4" scopes. 

..and there you have it.

Despite everything you have reported, you have sold the Starfield and kept the Tak🤔

Dave