Jump to content


Photo

TEC 140 vs. 160

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#51 Svezda

Svezda

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

Sorry, I'm really having fun with these!


this is why I usually sell the old scope first!

you better get moving - watch out for the "Gollum" effect - a couple more days and you won't be able to sell the 140!

I don't know what this effect is, but I developed it as soon as I had the 160 home...I fully intended to sell the 140 to get the 160. That didn't happen and may never happen, as much as I love the 140. Nicest and second most-used scope I have ever owned. Most used scope? My Teleport 14.5-inch. Takes all of five minutes to set up in the driveway and collimate...but only bout two minutes if I leave it open and covered in the garage with wheels on instead of collapsed down into the main body of the scope.

#52 Paul G

Paul G

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:37 PM

Sorry, I'm really having fun with these!


Great picture!

#53 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Palo alto, CA.

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

I've got TEC160ED No.020, purchased in March 2008.


I've number 30 April '09. Fantastic scope, never compared to a 140 though.

Love the side by side of the 2 scopes - lucky you! :waytogo:

Unfortunately I did have to sell my TOA 130(s) to complete funding the transaction - but no regrets ;) Was fortunate to have a shadow transit on Saturn... steady seeing right after purchase... a ZAOII 4mm and I was quite a happy camper.

#54 Rachel W

Rachel W

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:36 AM

They regularly sell for 5000-5500 on the other site.

People tend to really undervalue the wonderful TEC140 and so sometimes some real bargains can be found. Paul is one who knows a more accurate value. I paid a /very/ nice price of $5300 + 1/2 shipping ($40) for one with rings in a very nice custom hard case (~$300 new). That would be ~$5000 for OTA and rings (very nice, btw) w/o case and I think that's a bargain. They certainly haven't reduced in value since I bought mine about five or six years ago (#286).


I bought a 2011 TEC-140 used late this summer with rings, finder/mount and a nice metal storage box - it's beautiful and awesome to view through. Paid $5,300 and shipping was included.

The owner was moving up to a Tec-180! I can't imagine the view through that sweet thing, but still an all the 140 is just terrific and Yuri is a delight to deal with.

Rachel

#55 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

TEC's are wonderful scopes.

160 ED #001

#56 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:47 PM

Is this only for Jupiter or will Mars and Saturn show much difference between the 140 and 160?

The 160 is really going to deliver on the planets. Yuri and "Sky and Telescope" both downplay the difference between 140mm and 160mm but I think you will easily notice it. (Depending on observing habits.) Spend consistent time on Jupiter this Winter and you are going to be amazed. I am hoping for a heavy visual Winter after several years of photos only.



#57 Tom and Beth

Tom and Beth

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3640
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:27 AM

I REALLY like my TEC 140, but it is probably a good thing that the temptation of getting a 160 or larger is overcome by the element Unobtainium.

#58 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

There is very little between the 140 and 160. I have viewed with them side by side on planets. The view of Saturn is slightly better, Cassini's is slightly easier to see and has better contrast. There is not a WOW difference.

#59 AlbertoJ

AlbertoJ

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Madrid (España)

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:19 AM

There is very little between the 140 and 160. I have viewed with them side by side on planets. The view of Saturn is slightly better, Cassini's is slightly easier to see and has better contrast. There is not a WOW difference.


And what´s about deep sky observation? Has anyone compared them in DSO?

#60 vahe

vahe

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 843
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

Now,

If Yuri would make me a 160 F/9 fluorite triplet, that would be my dream visual scope. F/9 is the sweet spot for apo design, they are essentially perfect.

I know, I am dreaming.

Vahe

#61 rfic1

rfic1

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 405
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2005

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

I could not agree more. I wish my TEC 180 was a f/9. If I was into imaging that was be a different story.

#62 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

And what´s about deep sky observation? Has anyone compared them in DSO?


There is just under 0.3 magnitude difference between the 140 and 160, so you might be able to pick out a few more details in some of the objects that aren't visible in the 140. Super tight doubles might be a little easier to split. (All of this presumes good sky conditions).

I can tell the difference between my 130 and my 140. I do a lot of variable star estimates and a mag 12 comp star is just that much easier to see in the bigger scope. A 160 would be "more better" for me. :)

Cheers,

Ron

#63 Yu Gu

Yu Gu

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2006

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:14 AM

I could not agree more. I wish my TEC 180 was a f/9. If I was into imaging that was be a different story.


Why don't we all pitch this idea to Yuri, maybe he will make our dream scope!

#64 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

There is very little between the 140 and 160. I have viewed with them side by side on planets. The view of Saturn is slightly better, Cassini's is slightly easier to see and has better contrast. There is not a WOW difference.


And what´s about deep sky observation? Has anyone compared them in DSO?



If you really want deep sky performance get a big reflector. There's not much difference between a 140 & a 160.

#65 Cabrillas

Cabrillas

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Madrid. Spain.

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

As Yuri himself said, the biggest difference between 140 and 160 is...the price. Seriously, I've noticed a clear improvement on multiple stars. On DSOs, clusters are a bit more enjoyable, maybe for the same reason (M 11 with a Nagler 22 makes you scream!!), and I really don't know if I convince myself that I see more nebulosity. I guess that more aperture diminishes the "dimming" effect of filters.
About planets I still wait for a really stable night as the ones I had sometimes with the 140. Again, I think that more aperture will allow for a bit more magnification.

And I'm also suffering that Gollum effect. I say to myself that keeping the 140 is almost obscene, but to no avail...

#66 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Palo alto, CA.

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:36 PM


Numbers wise,

140ED is F/7 and the 160ED is f/8... just mentioning as I don't recall that in the prior posts.

Assuming good skies and high mag planet viewing (what I use my 160ED for mainly, though it's impressed me on many other objects) it's in the high mag (in good skies) that I think there would be any real notacible difference? Performance gets more non linear as you increase the mag.

TEC
scope->ep(mm) -> mag -> mag/in -> exit_pupil
140ED --> 4 --> 245 ---> 44.45 ---> 0.5714
140ED --> 5 --> 196 ---> 35.56 ---> 0.7142
140ED --> 6 --> 163.3..->29.63... -> 0.8571

160ED --> 4 --> 320 --> 50.8 ---> 0.5
160ED --> 5 --> 256 --> 40.64 --> 0.625
160ED --> 6 --> 213 --> 33.865 -> 0.75

... if you lengthen the focal ratio
160ED_f/9 -> 4 -> 360 -> 57.15 -> 0.444
160ED_f/9 -> 5 -> 288 -> 45.72 -> 0.555

Not sure I see a clear benefit over the f/8 which tops at 50x inch and a 0.5 exit pupil?

#67 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

What your chart shows me is that I could use a 5mm eyepiece in the 160 and enjoy a larger exit pupil for similar magnification as using a 4mm in my TEC 140. Physically, I cannot handle the 160ED, so it's a moot point. (I can always dream!)

Here in Virginia, my sky conditions don't let me push the maximum very often. I carry a 4mm eyepiece, but it's more of a "wish" than reality. :)

Cheers,

Ron

#68 Bob S.

Bob S.

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2005

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

A buddy of mine who has owned all of the TEC fluorite scopes from 110mm - 180mm has told me that 20mm jumps do not make a big difference in how the scopes perform (either 140 to 160 or 160 to 180). He did say that jumping 40mm makes a signifcant difference in how the scope perform visually.

#69 Ziggy943

Ziggy943

    Gemini

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

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:53 PM

The wish was for the 180 F/7 to be an F/9, not the 160 F/8.

I'd be tempted by a 180 F/10 Flourite. I think it's a better planetary scale.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics