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

[ukskies]

Thank you for taking the time to do this comparison Michael it's really nice to know how good the lower priced scopes are.

There's something about owning a Tak that I can't explain (apart from having no money of course). I open the case just to look at it quite often, it's so beautiful, small and light.

There is something about the view through my DF that just keeps making me gasp. It's not the level of detail my 12" dob reveals far more but the Tak view is just so pretty I really do gasp at the view especially on Luna. My Tak is also super sharp and stays sharp well over 400X on the Moon.

I have never tried a Starfield though I was very tempted whilst waiting for a DZ for 10 months, in the end I bought a DF and the DZs came into stock a couple of days later. I have no regrets tho I have a great scope and I've wanted one for many years so I now feel privileged to own such a beautiful hand crafted instrument. 

[Steve]

I see this discussion was unavailable for a few hours. It is now restored.

This was not a result of any moderation or admin decision. It was an error made by the original poster. 

[FLO]

7 minutes ago, Steve said:

This was not a result of any moderation or admin decision. It was an error made by the original poster. 

It wasn't anything to do with us, or Takahashi, either 😇 

[FLO]

On 28/03/2023 at 20:04, Mr Spock said:

... the Takahashi has the slight edge – at a price!

 

21 hours ago, JeremyS said:

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

^ What they said 🙂 

The law of diminishing returns (it costs a lot to improve on what is already very good) applies here, and the Chinese / Japanese quality gap continues to narrow.

If you want the best and can afford it, buy the Takahashi. Otherwise, enjoy the fact you can get almost as good at a much lower price. 

HTH, 

Steve 

[900SL]

10 hours ago, ukskies said:

....

There's something about owning a Tak that I can't explain (apart from having no money of course)....

I've noticed this across several hobbies or activities that require 'equipment', like bicycling for example, or luxury watches. I suspect the explanation is deep rooted in the male psyche, and connected with the dog pack. 

Aside from the obvious, namely in this case a well made product with a long tradition of optical excellence, and healthy residuals, there is the darker side of the psyche at work here. 

Kudos by association, or ownership. Peer reinforcement. The contemptible phrase 'Premium brand', with everything that includes. Tribal membership. Prestige. Self worth. Snobbery and look-at-me.

I say this as a Rolex owner and a former Yorkshireman. Luckily I am now enlightened as to the ways of the world 😂

I do keep looking at the TSA 120 though. Then I look at how much you get spade handled for accessories and go back to the alternatives..

Maybe I just need some counselling by Jeremy 😉

 

     

 

 

[Mr Spock]

1 hour ago, FLO said:

If you want the best and can afford it, buy the Takahashi. Otherwise, enjoy the fact you can get almost as good at a much lower price.

Exactly. Anyone who owns either of these scopes can take pride in their ownership and enjoy the magnificent views they provide 

[FLO]

12 hours ago, ukskies said:

There's something about owning a Tak that I can't explain (apart from having no money of course). I open the case just to look at it quite often, it's so beautiful, small and light.

I (speaking personally, not as FLO) have noticed the same. I think it is because their design and manufacture remind me telescopes are scientific instruments. For me, many telescopes sold today, with their shiny CNC-machined, colour-anodised hardware, are too pretty. 

I don't currently own a Takahashi. Though I want to. I will most likely purchase one for my retirement (not yet!). It will be my last telescope. 

Steve

[M40]

10 minutes ago, FLO said:

I will most likely purchase one ........... It will be my last telescope. 

Steve

Of course it will 🤣

[FLO]

3 minutes ago, M40 said:

Of course it will 🤣

😁

[Mr Spock]

34 minutes ago, FLO said:

I will most likely purchase one for my retirement (not yet!).

Exactly what I'm doing. I've just started my final year though... Official retirement date 16/03/2024  So I'm collecting all the best I can get now, as when my pension arrives, it's not looking as good as it did before the gas/electric/inflation rises took £250 a month off of it 😡

[John]

Good to see this thread back again - I was a bit worried when it vanished for a while 🙂

I've owned a 100mm Takahashi (and the  130mm TMB/LZOS that I got at the same time) for 7 years now and enjoyed the experience but it has not been "game changing" as regards my enjoyment of astronomy. 

One of the things about the Takahashi brand is that, although quite expensive, it is fairly readily available for purchase. 

I would one day like to try an Astro Physics refractor but they cost even more, rarely come on the used market (which tells us something !) and the waiting list / lottery system for new ones is rather off putting 🙄

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by John

[Alan White]

Nice to see the thread back, thank you to the Moderators in correcting this,
All happy now.

[Franklin]

3 hours ago, Steve said:

It was an error made by the original poster. 

I doubt it was intentional, @Mr Spock hands were probably still shaking with excitement after unwrapping his lovely new Takahashi and simply pressed the wrong button by accident😁.

[Mr Spock]

1 minute ago, Franklin said:

simply pressed the wrong button by accident

Meant to delete one of my posts but got the whole thread. Done it before... 

[Franklin]

On 28/03/2023 at 20:04, Mr Spock said:

Time to compare two well-known 4” refractors, both excellent quality but at very different prices

Excellent comparison from @Mr Spock, an experienced observer and his findings just go to show how much some of the more budget orientated manufacturers have upped their game👍.

[jetstream]

Its great to hear about this great optical performance for a telescope thats corrected for red?!

[IB20]

I desperately want to compare the Tak 76Q and the 102 Starwave FPL53 for a bit of fun. Not blummin’ likely with the current weather though, March has been honking! Not even a glimmer of solar either.

[jetstream]

2 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I desperately want to compare the Tak 76Q and the 102 Starwave FPL53 for a bit of fun. Not blummin’ likely with the current weather though, March has been honking! Not even a glimmer of solar either.

Tonight if clear is the TSA 120 VS the SW120ED. First set of observations show that the TSA has a faster snap focus and will take much more magnification. The SW120ED cools faster and keeps up to rapidly falling temps better. I wanted to use the 120ED repeatedly to get to know it before starting a report comparing the two. Three consecutive nights of top notch seeing has provided a good basis for comparison. Eagerly waiting my own report lol

[dweller25]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Tonight if clear is the TSA 120 VS the SW120ED. First set of observations show that the TSA has a faster snap focus and will take much more magnification. The SW120ED cools faster and keeps up to rapidly falling temps better. I wanted to use the 120ED repeatedly to get to know it before starting a report comparing the two. Three consecutive nights of top notch seeing has provided a good basis for comparison. Eagerly waiting my own report lol

I did the same Gerry but with 4” scopes - TSA 102 v SW100ED.

The Tak was sharper, had better contrast and had a “cleaner” image but the difference in the views was not matched by the price diffrence.

But the Tak stayed 😁

[F15Rules]

5 hours ago, 900SL said:

Maybe I just need some counselling by Jeremy 😉

Blimey...you are in a bad way!!😋😂

Dave

[jetstream]

30 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

had better contrast

This is an interesting thing, this contrast idea and also how it can show... spoiler alert: can a difference in contrast between telescopes show features in one and not the other regardless of the angular resolution as oft quoted with respect to aperture?

[Franklin]

15 minutes ago, jetstream said:

the angular resolution as oft quoted with respect to aperture?

It's a combination of the above, the glass type, the configuration and probably most importantly, the optical figure. Also, eyepiece, diagonal, the seeing and of course the observers own eyes all play a role. Some might say this is splitting hairs, whilst others don't as they are in pursuit of optical perfection. There's room in this hobby for everyone, from casual stargazers and beginners, right up to battle hardened observers who spend most of their lives and most of their money worshipping glass😁.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Franklin

[Mr Spock]

What's being discussed is edge contrast or MTF (Modulation Transfer Function). The closer you get to a perfect figure, the better the MTF. Here's an extreme example:

You can see how much sharper and 'contrasty' the top image is. This affects optical systems with a central obstruction more than refractors; the larger the obstruction, the worse the effect. With refractors the difference is only going to be small, but it can be noticeable.
To answer the question, yes, poor MTF can obscure fine detail.

[josefk]

52 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

What's being discussed is edge contrast or MTF (Modulation Transfer Function). The closer you get to a perfect figure, the better the MTF. Here's an extreme example:

You can see how much sharper and 'contrasty' the top image is. This affects optical systems with a central obstruction more than refractors; the larger the obstruction, the worse the effect. With refractors the difference is only going to be small, but it can be noticeable.
To answer the question, yes, poor MTF can obscure fine detail.

Without opening a whole other can of worms - this is also one element in why you have  cameral lens A vs. B. vs. C differences and debates and obsessions even when comparing the same focal length from the same manufacturer. Thankfully with a camera lens comparison you can see differences in MTF for yourself relatively quickly and objectively in good AB set-ups. I had a "holy grail" Nikkor look disappointingly like the lower right diagram wide open (i know it wasn't only an artefact of MTF :-)). Burst that balloon pretty quickly.

[Mr Spock]

Without following the can of worms some older Nikkors had poor correction for spherical aberration, like the 35mm f1.4. Use that wide open and you get a dreamy image 

That leads nicely into the topic at hand. As well as poor MTF, other aberrations can restrict detail and apparent contrast, such as the afore mentioned spherical aberration. Correction of all those aberrations is what you are paying a lot of money for