Tak 100 dc vs skywatcher 120ed and 150ed

[Mr Spock]

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

The late great E.E. Barnard claimed that 180 X was the best power for Jupiter even when using the Great Yerkes Refractor.

I've found that x185 (4mm) in the 100mm and x190 (8mm) in the 12" are just right for Jupiter. Occasionally I've found x148 / x152 in the same to be ok when seeing wasn't as good.

[Telescope40]

15 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi, everyone's opinion is appreciated. 😀 The more opinions, the better the decision may be ( unless all the opinions are factually incorrect of course, but I'm not talking to people who believe in faked moon landings, flat earth etc.... 😆). 

The path I'm taking is designed to leave the option of adding a (6-8 ") newt to the az-eq6 or if the fever kicks in later on, a 12"f5 newt. I think the latter would only happen, if I ran out of doubles and fuzzies with smaller scopes. 🤣 I have read some mouth watering reports about 12" dobs though......

 

Hello. +1 for the ED150. Early scopes had delivery issues re poor packaging!! 
Mine was a nice, spot on OTA. Big but nice. Had some great sessions with it. Views not far away from my Tak 128. 
 

HTH. JOHN 

Edited March 11 by Telescope40

[John]

1 hour ago, Telescope40 said:

.... Big but nice.....

Yep, the ED150 is quite big. This is it compared with my ED120:

 

[dweller25]

2 hours ago, Telescope40 said:

Hello. +1 for the ED150. Early scopes had delivery issues re poor packaging!! 
Mine was a nice, spot on OTA. Big but nice. Had some great sessions with it. Views not far away from my Tak 128. 
 

HTH. JOHN 

Hello John,

Are you saying the ED150 was a little better than the FS128 or vice-a-versa ?

[Owmuchonomy]

I own an ED150 (and an SCT 9.25) and have owned an ED120.  The views through my ED150 are excellent and so were those with the ED120.  That extra aperture makes a significant difference though.  The ED150 is the only scope I have owned where I can definitely say that I have OBSERVED some objects from my location.  For example the Rosette.  The ED150 is not a heavy telescope per se; it weighs the same as the SCT 9.25, but it is unbalanced.  Whatever possessed SW to put a metal lens hood on the end beats me.  Knowing how much glass is located there why not use a composite hood!  The stock focuser is also just that, stock.  As far as I know there is no upgrade available as yet.  That said, the ED150 beats everything I own at the moment for pleasurable observing.  I mount it on an AZ EQ6 for obvious reasons and you need a long tripod!

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, Owmuchonomy said:

I own an ED150 (and an SCT 9.25) and have owned an ED120.  The views through my ED150 are excellent and so were those with the ED120.  That extra aperture makes a significant difference though.  The ED150 is the only scope I have owned where I can definitely say that I have OBSERVED some objects from my location.  For example the Rosette.  The ED150 is not a heavy telescope per se; it weighs the same as the SCT 9.25, but it is unbalanced.  Whatever possessed SW to put a metal lens hood on the end beats me.  Knowing how much glass is located there why not use a composite hood!  The stock focuser is also just that, stock.  As far as I know there is no upgrade available as yet.  That said, the ED150 beats everything I own at the moment for pleasurable observing.  I mount it on an AZ EQ6 for obvious reasons and you need a long tripod!

Hi, a very interesting post. So, how would you rate your SW 150ED against your C9.25? And what are your thoughts on how the Askar 140 mm triplet would stack up against it? 

[Telescope40]

2 hours ago, dweller25 said:

Hello John,

Are you saying the ED150 was a little better than the FS128 or vice-a-versa ?

Hello Dave. FS128 somewhat better. Not by much though. 
Salmon colour of the GRS better with the Tak 👍👍

John 

[dweller25]

7 minutes ago, Telescope40 said:

Hello Dave. FS128 somewhat better. Not by much though. 
Salmon colour of the GRS better with the Tak 👍👍

John 

Yes, the colour vibrancy of the FS128 is superb 👍

But I digress from the OP’s thread……

Edited March 11 by dweller25

[John]

The Askar 140mm triplet does look very appealing for it's cost. I'm a little wary about being an "early adopter" though. I'm going to wait for a larger body of considered feedback from owners covering a number of examples of the scope before considering it myself.

There have been low cost triplets that have actually shown more CA than ED doublets in the past. I'm not saying the Askar is one of those but I'm just cautious.

[Flame Nebula]

2 hours ago, John said:

The Askar 140mm triplet does look very appealing for it's cost. I'm a little wary about being an "early adopter" though. I'm going to wait for a larger body of considered feedback from owners covering a number of examples of the scope before considering it myself.

There have been low cost triplets that have actually shown more CA than ED doublets in the past. I'm not saying the Askar is one of those but I'm just cautious.

Very wise words John. I'd be the same. 

[Flame Nebula]

On 11/03/2024 at 13:46, Owmuchonomy said:

I own an ED150 (and an SCT 9.25) and have owned an ED120.  The views through my ED150 are excellent and so were those with the ED120.  That extra aperture makes a significant difference though.  The ED150 is the only scope I have owned where I can definitely say that I have OBSERVED some objects from my location.  For example the Rosette.  The ED150 is not a heavy telescope per se; it weighs the same as the SCT 9.25, but it is unbalanced.  Whatever possessed SW to put a metal lens hood on the end beats me.  Knowing how much glass is located there why not use a composite hood!  The stock focuser is also just that, stock.  As far as I know there is no upgrade available as yet.  That said, the ED150 beats everything I own at the moment for pleasurable observing.  I mount it on an AZ EQ6 for obvious reasons and you need a long tripod!

Hi, I'm very interested in getting your opinion on how the ed150 compares to your C9.25. 🙂

[Owmuchonomy]

On 12/03/2024 at 14:13, Flame Nebula said:

Hi, I'm very interested in getting your opinion on how the ed150 compares to your C9.25. 🙂

They are two completely different tools, that's why I retain both.  If I'm observing I would probably go to the ED150 every time, although I have imaged with it too. The resolution during a visible observing experience is unbeatable in my set of kit.  It also does not need any collimation, but the downside is the very basic focuser and I also did a post some years ago demonstrating the poor range of back focus. Observing high altitude objects needs some forward planning too just because of the length of the thing. The C9.25 is my planet killer and imaging go to scope for use with my high frame rate planetary cameras.  It also has a Featherlite R&P focuser upgrade which helps tremendously.  Horses for courses but in my book they are two separate entities and each has its place.

[Flame Nebula]

7 hours ago, Owmuchonomy said:

They are two completely different tools, that's why I retain both.  If I'm observing I would probably go to the ED150 every time, although I have imaged with it too. The resolution during a visible observing experience is unbeatable in my set of kit.  It also does not need any collimation, but the downside is the very basic focuser and I also did a post some years ago demonstrating the poor range of back focus. Observing high altitude objects needs some forward planning too just because of the length of the thing. The C9.25 is my planet killer and imaging go to scope for use with my high frame rate planetary cameras.  It also has a Featherlite R&P focuser upgrade which helps tremendously.  Horses for courses but in my book they are two separate entities and each has its place.

Thanks for this interesting reply! So, do you find the focuser, although basic, is not holding back the optics? Plus, have you run comparative tests on which performs best on tight doubles and very uneven doubles like Sirius? 

[Owmuchonomy]

26 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Thanks for this interesting reply! So, do you find the focuser, although basic, is not holding back the optics? Plus, have you run comparative tests on which performs best on tight doubles and very uneven doubles like Sirius? 

No, the focuser standard doesn't affect the optics it's just a bit basic.  No I can comment on comparative performance for double stars.  Sirius is too low in the sky really.

[pkentwindsurf]

On 09/03/2024 at 21:47, mikeDnight said:

 I'm another who hasn't yet had chance to look through an SW150ED, but I'm in no rush to do so.  I have however owned three SW120ED's. The first was a standard black diamond 120ED Pro which really was excellent. I exchanged that for the 120ED Equinox version. This second ED was a touch on the red side which told me they are not all alike as regards quality. It was however a truly great scope never the less. I sold it and bought a 100mm ED but that didnt float my boat, so I bought yet another 120 Equinox ED.  I remember my first view through a SW 120 ED and what I thought about it when viewing the Moon. I told my friend who's scope it was, that "It's  very Tak"! That's the best compliment I could ever give any telescope.

 Years went by and Takahashi returned to producing Fluorite refractors, but with a maximum aperture of 100mm currently. I had owned both the 128 and 152 Tak fluorite and so knew what a dream scope they could be, so I placed an order for the FC100DC. When the FC arrived the first night was clear and I set the FC100DC up alongside my excellent 120 Equinox ED. The 120 gave a very nice view of Jupiter, but when I looked through the Takahashi the equatorial belts appeared much more vibrant, and almost looked like they were braided around the planet. Bare in mind that light grasp made no difference and the resolution gain of the 120ED had no observable impact on the detail on show. In fact the 100mm gave the more detailed view on that first night. Successive nights gave the same results, so I had no regrets when I let the 120ED go. I've used the FC100D exclusively for more than 8 years and wanted for nothing. Last year I had chance to reacqire another FS128 which is a bit of a beast, yet I still love my FC100D. The FC rapidly became my most used telescope, because it was virtually effortless to set up and never failed to offer stunning views.

 You mentioned double stars!  Well, the FC100D is a terrific double star scope. Five hundred X on a steady night is entirely doable with a tracking mount. 1000X if the night is exceptional; I know because I've done it! The FC100 is light weight and can be carried on an EQ5 or Vixen GP with ease. The same mount may very well carry a 120ED providing its on a strong tripod. But a 150ED will need a GPDX or Losmandy GM8 to do it justice.

Attached are a few pics. You can measure how good a scope is by the wideness of my grin! 😆

 

Below is the FC100DC and FC100DZ. 

Honestly! I really don't believe you can go wrong with either the 120ED or the Tak 100. Both are great scopes, but which is best for your personal needs is a choice only you can make. 

I'm in the market for a refractor, reading this has now confused me lol. I was set on a stellamira 125, but I'm now wondering about saving a bit more and grabbing a Tak. I've always been one for get as much aperture as you can, but I hear so many good things about Tak100's.

[mikeDnight]

23 minutes ago, pkentwindsurf said:

I'm in the market for a refractor, reading this has now confused me lol. I was set on a stellamira 125, but I'm now wondering about saving a bit more and grabbing a Tak. I've always been one for get as much aperture as you can, but I hear so many good things about Tak100's.

The FC's are terrific scopes, not only because they are optically excellent, but also because they are small and light. That means there's no excuses for not using them, and because of this you are likely to see great things through the Tak. The more you're at the eyepiece the more you'll see! They are not however magical, and are limited by their aperture as far as light grasp and resolution goes, but because of their top class objective, they are able to take magnification very well when seeing conditions permit.  A 125mm however will have a noticeable jump in light grasp and will give very good views of solar system targets. Honestly, I think that either scope can be the scope of a lifetime, and both will give high quality views that will not fail to wow you. If your heart was set on the 125, then may be you'll kick yourself for not getting one?

Edited March 16 by mikeDnight

[pkentwindsurf]

3 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

The FC's are terrific scopes, not only because they are optically excellent, but also because they are small and light. That means there's no excuses for not using them, and because of this you are likely to see great things through the Tak. The more you're at the eyepiece the more you'll see! They are not however magical, and are limited by their aperture as far as light grasp and resolution goes, but because of their top class objective, they are able to take magnification very well when seeing conditions permit.  A 125mm however will have a noticeable jump in light grasp and will give very good views of solar system targets. Honestly, I think that either scope can be the scope of a lifetime, and both will give high quality views that will not fail to wow you. If your heart was set on the 125, then may be you'll kick yourself for not getting one?

Thanks for the honest opinion. And yes you're so right about size and usage. I also have a 12inch Dob, fantastic scope, but it barely sees the outside of the shed due to its weight.

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, pkentwindsurf said:

Thanks for the honest opinion. And yes you're so right about size and usage. I also have a 12inch Dob, fantastic scope, but it barely sees the outside of the shed due to its weight.

Now, this is all very useful information, because I too have been tempted by the 12". I'm sure it can beat most small scopes, But would i fall into the trap of not wanting to use it, due to the hassle of dragging it out. That's why I'm tempted by the combination of something like a sct9.25 for some useful aperture + planetary AP capability AND a nice refractor around the 4-6 " range. 

[IB20]

2 hours ago, pkentwindsurf said:

I'm in the market for a refractor, reading this has now confused me lol. I was set on a stellamira 125, but I'm now wondering about saving a bit more and grabbing a Tak. I've always been one for get as much aperture as you can, but I hear so many good things about Tak100's.

The 125mm are lovely scopes. It’s very light for a 5”, its focuser and finish are superb. It’s quite longer and larger than a 4” however, so your mounting and tripod requirements increase. The beauty of the 4” Taks is their lightness (and optically they’re magnificent) meaning your mounting requirements are lower.

If you already have a mount and tripod capable of securely holding 4 and 5” scopes, then I’d say go with the 5”. To my eye I’ve noticed the jump from 4” to 5” more than the jump from 3” to 4”, despite the theory and mathematics of the increases.

[mikeDnight]

2 hours ago, pkentwindsurf said:

Thanks for the honest opinion. And yes you're so right about size and usage. I also have a 12inch Dob, fantastic scope, but it barely sees the outside of the shed due to its weight.

It's  something to seriously consider! I've found that over the years, the bigger a scope is the less I want to use it. And the less impressive the view!! Big scopes very often leave me cold because I expect more of them, but the smaller ones nearly always deliver beyond expectation.  I had a 10" F6 stood in my observatory for a couple of years, but it only occasionally saw starlight because I much prefered the comfort and quality of view through my 4".  And years ago I had a Takahashi FS152 which is arguably one of the best refractors in the world, yet due to its size and weight, it lay in its case much of the time. The 152 Tak was an awesome scope, but setting it up, and worse still dismantling it when I was cold and tired, and the tube was caked in ice was off putting to me. I almost dropped it on one occasion after my back gave way during mounting. I'm not sure what would be more painful, my back or the £10,000.00 pile of broken Crystal in my quivering arms!? I'm of the firm opinion that you really can't beat a 4" refractor, unless you have a 5"!

[Flame Nebula]

6 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

It's  something to seriously consider! I've found that over the years, the bigger a scope is the less I want to use it. And the less impressive the view!! Big scopes very often leave me cold because I expect more of them, but the smaller ones nearly always deliver beyond expectation.  I had a 10" F6 stood in my observatory for a couple of years, but it only occasionally saw starlight because I much prefered the comfort and quality of view through my 4".  And years ago I had a Takahashi FS152 which is arguably one of the best refractors in the world, yet due to its size and weight, it lay in its case much of the time. The 152 Tak was an awesome scope, but setting it up, and worse still dismantling it when I was cold and tired, and the tube was caked in ice was off putting to me. I almost dropped it on one occasion after my back gave way during mounting. I'm not sure what would be more painful, my back or the £10,000.00 pile of broken Crystal in my quivering arms!? I'm of the firm opinion that you really can't beat a 4" refractor, unless you have a 5"!

Hi Mike 

Interestingly, a long time ago, I decided to point my crappy 60mm spotting scope(£100) at jupiter, and to my great surprise, I could see both northern and southern equatorial belts, and saturn was much better than expected. My wife confirmed I wasn't imagining what I saw. 😊. But I remember, my experience with a 9" dobsonian was different. I was surprised I could see the moons as discs( that was good!), but jupiter looked a plain white disc. I know now that if I'd increased the magnification a lot, I'd probably have seen a lot more, but I was an inexperienced user over 35 years ago. Anyway, take home memory was how good a cheap 60mm spotting scope was. 

[bosun21]

7 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

, But would i fall into the trap of not wanting to use it, due to the hassle of dragging it out. That's why I'm tempted by the combination of something like a sct9.25 for some useful aperture

 Setting up a 9.25" on a suitable mount won't be that quick to set up either especially if using an EQ mount with polar alignment etc which is crucial for imaging. I reckon I could wheel out a 12" dobsonian quicker.

[John]

1 minute ago, bosun21 said:

 Setting up a 9.25" on a suitable mount won't be that quick to set up either especially if using an EQ mount with polar alignment etc which is crucial for imaging. I reckon I could wheel out a 12" dobsonian quicker.

My 12 inch dob was as quick as my 100mm refractor to setup. A little more time to cool though - useful after 20-30 minutes.

[Flame Nebula]

1 minute ago, bosun21 said:

 Setting up a 9.25" on a suitable mount won't be that quick to set up either especially if using an EQ mount with polar alignment etc which is crucial for imaging. I reckon I could wheel out a 12" dobsonian quicker.

For AP planetary, I'd go with the scope on the alt az setting on AZEQ6, as doesn't need equatorial mode for planets. But, yes you may be right. 

[Flame Nebula]

1 minute ago, Flame Nebula said:

For AP planetary, I'd go with the scope on the alt az setting on AZEQ6, as doesn't need equatorial mode for planets. But, yes you may be right. 

And if i could cheat even more, I'd use a system like StarSense, although skywatcher mounts can't use it, I think? With that, u don't even need to polar align.