Jump to content


Photo

Takahashi TOA 130 vs. TEC 140

  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#151 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20278
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 22 November 2010 - 04:16 PM

"I should know, my order for a new TOA150F delayed since no more new TAKs were coming into the U.S. from Japan until Takahashi corrected the issue."

Out of curiosity, when was that Mike?

Thanks,

Jim

#152 Mike28

Mike28

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Morris County,NJ

Posted 24 November 2010 - 05:17 PM

Cells were jarring loose causing collimation issues. I first found out through some owners who had encountered same. Then I realized why I had a year wait on my scope. Back orders for other customers and the corrction of the scopes. I suspect newer scopes had a more tighter seal around the elements/glass. I encountered an issue with one collimation screw a year after purchase the image was slightly off. The dealer here could not collimate it cause the screw keeped turning. We sent the scope back to TNR who replaced it and collimated the scope. I havent had any issues since. Like I said the stand by their products.

#153 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 24 November 2010 - 07:11 PM

Yeah, "Art at Texas Nautical Repair" is a good argument for getting the TOA130 or anything Takahashi. He really knows his stuff and as everyone says he backs their products 100%. I've spoken to him many times on the phone and he's not just knowledgeable, he's a real problem solver.

#154 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20278
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 November 2010 - 07:36 PM

Mike:

My question was "when" as in "when (i.e., month/year approximately) was the interruption of deliveries" that you describe. I'm trying to figure out how long from the first shipment into the US it took to discover the issues and then address it.

It's good that they did what they should have done to remedy a design defect, but I think that's to be expected. Even Orion fixes problems of its own or its manufacturer's making.

Regards,

Jim

#155 Mike28

Mike28

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Morris County,NJ

Posted 27 November 2010 - 01:46 PM

Mike:

My question was "when" as in "when (i.e., month/year approximately) was the interruption of deliveries" that you describe. I'm trying to figure out how long from the first shipment into the US it took to discover the issues and then address it.

It's good that they did what they should have done to remedy a design defect, but I think that's to be expected. Even Orion fixes problems of its own or its manufacturer's making.

Regards,

Jim


That's hard to answer Jim. I ordered my scope in 2005.I didnt recieve it until 2006. Past issues might have been in 04'/'05. I also remember reading a post of a shootout betweem the Tak, TEC, AP and some other 6" refractors at a Texas star party. There was mention that the owner of the Tak had some issues and though the image was good, it just didnt have a perfectly clear image. He had the scope collimated sevar times. The writer of the review shortly removed that info from his site. As far as I know, owners who had the issue with their Taks had them corrected.

#156 Moondust

Moondust

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006

Posted 28 November 2010 - 03:21 AM






Except for the fact that my AP 130 was the F/8.3 version nearly the same focal length as the AP 140 and the advantage to the 140 was still obvious at a glance as stated before. I have to say I really don't understand your post at all. What does focal length have to do with it? 100X in a 130 F/6.3 and 100X in a 140 F/7.5 is still 100X. Any brightness differences discerned between the 2 scopes is due to aperture not focal length.


Moondust, please keep in mind that the scopes (AP130/140) that you have compared the focal-point differ by 231mm in favor of AP140. Compared to the TEC/TOA, 20mm focal-point difference in favor of the TOA. The focal-point can play a role in comparing these scopes.

AP 130 : F6.3 (819mm)
AP 140 : F7.5 (1050mm)

TOA130 : F7.7 (1000mm)
TEC140 : F7 (980mm)



#157 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3288
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 28 November 2010 - 08:00 PM

Well, that's fantastic! The more folks that carry and push Yuri's scopes the better. And you could not ask for a better bunch to work with than the folks at OPT. :)


Except maybe Yuri himself.

#158 timps

timps

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2013

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:41 AM

Hey. I just found this thread. I am considering purchasing one of these scopes. At the moment favouring the TEC 140. However, I may even consider the Istar 6" flourite triplet! Does anyone know anything about the Istar?

#159 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:52 PM

:gotpopcorn:
Round two!

#160 madcity

madcity

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004
  • Loc: WI, USA

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:29 PM

Oh, why not join in ...

Also just discovered this thread, and I'm in the same quandary. AP130 (on list), TOA130 ... and suddenly the TEC pops up as a choice. Visual + imaging (STF8300). This thread has been quite illuminating. I just hope talking to vendors at NEAF2014 will clarify matters.

Or not.

With one exception, I haven't seen anyone weigh in on what seems to be a very heavy scope (the Tak). Since I take my scopes to my club's site, could someone address portability. (I'm healthy and strong enough, but I'm in the "senior citizen" demographic, and at some point schlepping heavy stuff may no longer be fun.) Has weight been a (deciding) factor in what anyone bought?

Decisions, decisions ...

#161 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 20 February 2014 - 08:51 AM

TEC 140 = 19 lb
TOA 130 = 22 lb ( 2.7" focuser) + 2.5 lb for optional weight ring
TOA 130 + 25 lb ( 4" focuser) no balance ring needed

They are all close in weight and will require the same class of mount for imaging, so in this case weight is not really a factor.

And yes to answer you question, many people go with smaller scopes to reduce the size of the mount needed to carry them as a 5 to 10 lb difference in scope weight can mean a 30 lb or more weight jump in mounts. For example, I use a 16 lb Tak FS128 on a 35 lb Losmandy GM8. If I went to a Tak TOA 130, I would probably need to upgrade to a G11 mount at about 85 lb, big difference!
rex

#162 AustinAstronomer

AustinAstronomer

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 263
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2010

Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:30 AM

You may (or may not) be a little off on the weight of the TOA-130NS (w/ 2.7" focuser).

The TOA-130 manual, available online via Yahoo, states that the TOA-130NS weighs "about" 10.5 kg (i.e., 23.1 pounds), while the TOA-130NF weighs "about" 11.4 kg (i.e., 25.1 pounds). It is implicit in the manual's discussion that the TOA-130NS's weight INCLUDES the weight of the counterweight ring.

But, if your data is based on personal experience, then I must defer to you. :grin:

#163 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6240
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:49 AM

I have owned both scopes and those weights are a little optimistic. For one thing, they do not include the rings and dovetail. Add those on and my TOA (2.7") was north of 28 pounds. Yuri's rings and dovetail are much smaller and my TEC is about 23-24 pounds right now.

This isn't a big difference, but I had a herniated disk that required surgery last year and there were way too many nights when the TOA had to stay inside. :p

I liked the TOA. It was super sharp and the colors were great. But the TEC is lighter, the colors are just as good -- and let's not forget the bigger and brighter 140mm lens. It does make a difference. PLUS - don't forget the TEC comes with either the magnificent Feathertouch 3545 focuser - or a clone that Yuri has built himself. You will have to upgrade the Tak focuser with Feathertouch gears and you still don't have anything as good as the FT3545. To me it's no contest. :)

Cheers,

Ron

#164 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 20 February 2014 - 02:11 PM

I know that TOA-130 design with the dedicated reducer produces 3 micron sized stars on axis. I think that is very impressive.
Does TEC 140 have spot diagrams available?

#165 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 20 February 2014 - 02:24 PM

Ron,
Your right, my weights are ota only.
On my 15.5 lb FSQ106N for example, the ota, camera, filter wheel, robofocus motor, guider/ with e-finder, rings and dovetail totaled over 27 lb, big difference! the point being for imaging one needs extra capacity on the mount.
Rex

#166 madcity

madcity

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004
  • Loc: WI, USA

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:26 PM

Interesting responses. Thanks.

This may be grist for a different thread, but ...

(1) What is all the weight good for? Yes, the glass is heavy, but the mechanical tubes vary widely in weight. Does weight in any way translate into greater rigidity on a *vendor* basis, or is rigidity more a scope-by-scope thing? Greater mass means (generally) slower thermal equalization times (in addition to sealed barrel/Petzval designs). So ... how is the greater mass put to a good use? And why aren't OTAs put on a "diet" (or is it a manufacturing/cost issue)?

(2) Non-metallic (eg, carbon fiber) tubes are showing up in reflectors. Any movement by any of the high-end refractor companies to move in that direction (or are there some and I'm missing them)? I know it'd take either retooling or outsourcing the OTA barrel, but it'd make for lighter barrels. How do non-metallic barrels "thermalize" compared to metal?

#167 JCAZ

JCAZ

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2009

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:30 PM

I liked the TOA. It was super sharp and the colors were great. But the TEC is lighter, the colors are just as good --


"Color just as good" - not likely, and Yuri will tell you that himself.

#168 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:40 PM

1.
The weight is in four areas:
A. OTA tube weight, depends on diameter, length (FL) how the baffles are made and just get heavier as size increases.
B. focuser weight: 2",3",4" size goes from about 2.4LB for a Tak 2.7" focuser to about 5LB for a 3.5" FT.
C. lens glass: gets heavy on a 5" or 6" triplet
D. lens cell: air,spaced lens cells are heavier than oil spaced lens cells due to the need for,precise lens spacing in them.
2.
Composite vs metal ota assemblies have been discussed many times in these forums and I would suggest you read some of the arguments posted.
Rex

#169 rainycityastro

rainycityastro

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:06 PM

Does TEC 140 have spot diagrams available?


I've wondered about this myself. I am especially curious as to how well the TEC does deep in the violet region.

#170 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6240
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:02 PM

I liked the TOA. It was super sharp and the colors were great. But the TEC is lighter, the colors are just as good --


"Color just as good" - not likely, and Yuri will tell you that himself.


It doesn't matter to me what anyone else says. I think Yuri might have been a bit self-depricating. I have had both scopes on the same target at the same time and I'll believe what I saw with my own eyes. YMMV.

FWIW - my wife liked the colors seen through the Tak FS-128 better than either the TOA or the TEC. She is a jewelry design artist working in borosilicate glass and precious metal.

We have our favorites; you have yours.

Ron

PS - I am still wondering why people want to resurrect threads that are almost FOUR-YEARS OLD. What's up with that?

#171 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:43 PM

Maybe to re-visit old friends.

They may not be seen again!

#172 Mike Clemens

Mike Clemens

    Frozen to Eyepiece

  • *****
  • Posts: 7577
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Alaska, USA

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:48 PM

Amazingly some astrophotographers have managed to cope with the color correction of the TEC140:

http://www.optique-u...s/TEC140-NGC...

(tongue in cheek... the 140 are killer)

#173 Peter Natscher

Peter Natscher

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Central Coast California

Posted 21 February 2014 - 09:32 PM

Maybe the color differences various people are seeing between these telescopes one the same object is because of their different eyesight. Why, in my color-free Dobs during out reach observing different people each see different shades of colors of the same object being viewed. Its very interesting. Tells you something about eyesight and subjectivity.

I liked the TOA. It was super sharp and the colors were great. But the TEC is lighter, the colors are just as good --


"Color just as good" - not likely, and Yuri will tell you that himself.


It doesn't matter to me what anyone else says. I think Yuri might have been a bit self-depricating. I have had both scopes on the same target at the same time and I'll believe what I saw with my own eyes. YMMV.

FWIW - my wife liked the colors seen through the Tak FS-128 better than either the TOA or the TEC. She is a jewelry design artist working in borosilicate glass and precious metal.

We have our favorites; you have yours.

Ron

PS - I am still wondering why people want to resurrect threads that are almost FOUR-YEARS OLD. What's up with that?



#174 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:08 AM

Maybe the color differences various people are seeing between these telescopes one the same object is because of their different eyesight. Why, in my color-free Dobs during out reach observing different people each see different shades of colors of the same object being viewed. Its very interesting. Tells you something about eyesight and subjectivity.


IMO you're right. Human colour sensitivity obviously covers a huge bandwidth from very high to near colour-blind. From the latter side often come attributes such as "apochromatic" or "color-free!" for cheap EDs or queries like "Why an expensive super-apochromat if an ED-doublet suffices?" and so on :rainbow: ...

Chris

#175 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6240
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:57 AM

Maybe the color differences various people are seeing between these telescopes one the same object is because of their different eyesight. Why, in my color-free Dobs during out reach observing different people each see different shades of colors of the same object being viewed. Its very interesting. Tells you something about eyesight and subjectivity.


IMO you're right. Human colour sensitivity obviously covers a huge bandwidth from very high to near colour-blind. From the latter side often come attributes such as "apochromatic" or "color-free!" for cheap EDs or queries like "Why an expensive super-apochromat if an ED-doublet suffices?" and so on :rainbow: ...

Chris


I agree completely. Color is a very subjective topic.

Cheers,

Ron






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics