THESKY
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/16/06
Loc: SOCAL
|
TOA130 vs TEC140
#2508398 - 07/09/08 12:14 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I have not really search if there is any comparison between these two fine scope but I am planning to get an APO with the best such and such correction. Currently I owned FS128 - one of the perfect scope I have owned with an almost perfect star test. I even swap the focuser to Moonlite - so I have the best optic and best focuser.
The thought of getting a true APO was plain and simple I just want to buy another scope - a new toy. At the moment I want to keep my FS128 but if it became redundant I might sell it. I like the FS128 because it is pretty light and it has been a large grab and go scope for me.
Both scopes is in the same price range . . . it is just a matter of air spaced or oil spaced. The fact that it is 10mm difference does not really matter too much. Bottom line is I really like beautiful and stunning image (aren't we all) - high contrast and true color but with perfect or almost perfect correction.
I will do mostly visual with some lunar photography from time to time. No deep sky photography yet.
I appreciate somebody who have done side by side comparison or even owned both scope at the same time or at one time. Some theoretical suggestions based on spec is welcomed also . . . like to hear what's out there
Thank you folks.
|
ryderc1
sage
Reged: 04/15/06
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: THESKY]
#2508695 - 07/09/08 02:35 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I owned a TOA 130 and TEC 140 but at different times. Both were superb instruments. Ergonomically, I'd give the edge to the TEC 140. It's suprisingly light and compact for a 140mm scope. Its low profile rings allow the scope to be conveniently stored in its case with the rings and mounting plate attached, making for quick set up and take down. The Feathertouch 3545 fccuser is a work of art in its own right. The scope balances pretty well and not too far off from center, thanks to the weighty triplet lens assembly at one end being counterbalanced by the beefy focuser at the other. The TOA 130's tube is large for a 5" scope (similar in diameter to a Tak 152 tube) and the scope is extremely nose heavy, requiring a weight ring added to the focuser end of the OTA to achieve balance with the 2.7" focuser version of the scope. This adds even more weight to an already heavy scope even before adding rings or a clamshell and mounting plate. The Tak focusers are great but nothing beats a Feathertouch, in my opinion.
In terms of optical performance both deliver stunning, high contrast views. Light scatter was very well controlled in both scopes. But the TOA provided me with perhaps the most clean, crisp, color-neutral views I've ever seen through a refractor, including several TMB's,AP's, other Tak's, etc.; some of which I had on hand and did side-by-side comparisons against.
Despite my general preference for oil-spaced objectives,I didn't find that the TEC's extra 10mm of aperture made much of a difference in terms of image brightness or resolution and, in fact, the smaller aperture handled the sub-optimal seeing conditions of my skies a little better.
In my opinion it comes down to ergonomics vs performance. I'd give the ergonomic edge clearly to the TEC but the performance edge, although very close, to the TOA. Of course, you can't go wrong with either scope. As I said at the outset, both are superb.
Good luck with your decision!
|
Mike Clemens
Frozen to Eyepiece
Reged: 11/26/05
Loc: Alaska, USA
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ryderc1]
#2508841 - 07/09/08 03:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I like that the TEC lenses can safely thunk around a bit in their cells. I've dealt with my last misaligned expensive air spaced triplet lens. (Was not a TOA.) Take a precisely air spaced triplet and carry it back and forth for 10 years, and freeze it to -10F and then warm it up a few hundred times. Maybe the lens will perform exactly like the manufacturer intended still? I think my oil spaced triplet lens will still be resting gently in its cell at that time, still just barely restrained.
Plus what was Tak thinking with the TOA? lets set out to make the heaviest and bulkiest scopes possible in existing aperture classes?
All other things being close to equal, mechanical robustness and ergonomics is worth something.
|
NHRob
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/27/04
Loc: New Hampshire
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Mike Clemens]
#2508865 - 07/09/08 03:44 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I've owned both. Their optics are superb and I agree with the previous posters. The TOA has perhaps ultimate color correction compared to the TEC. I did not notice a difference in CA visually. I think it is designed with the imager in mind. I preferred the TEC's aperture advantage.
Also, the TEC is ergonomically much more user friendly. I found the TOA to be way too heavy and bulky for my taste, for its aperture.
Rob
|
THESKY
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/16/06
Loc: SOCAL
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Mike Clemens]
#2509031 - 07/09/08 05:22 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Plus what was Tak thinking with the TOA? lets set out to make the heaviest and bulkiest scopes possible in existing aperture classes?
I know . . . what are they thinking . . . is there any advantage at all with that bulky OTA at all . . . I can see how balancing would be a problem unless if you have a camera then you probably do not need an extra counter weight.
From what other people have said TEC140 is more user friendly but TAK wins a little in the Optic department. I know not by much but I guess for a seasoned observer even 5% better is worth to have . . . (no I am not a very experienced observer . . . still learning)
Amyway thanks for the input
|
ChazK
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/23/05
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: THESKY]
#2509059 - 07/09/08 05:42 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hmmmm...never had a problem with balance and never needed a counterweight. I like the weight....gives me the impression of a well built and stable OTA IMHO. Never owned a Tec but either one will serve you well.
CS
|
NHRob
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/27/04
Loc: New Hampshire
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ChazK]
#2509074 - 07/09/08 05:52 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The TOA comes with a counterweight ring since it is a nose-heavy OTA.
Rob
|
ryderc1
sage
Reged: 04/15/06
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Mike Clemens]
#2509126 - 07/09/08 06:19 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I
Plus what was Tak thinking with the TOA? lets set out to make the heaviest and bulkiest scopes possible in existing aperture classes?
Tim, I tend to share your thinking regarding weight.
The tube weight of the TOA 130 is listed as 22 pounds and the weight of the TEC 140 is listed as 19 pounds. Adjusted for aperture, that makes the TOA 25% heavier per millimeter of aperture than the TEC. Add the TOA weight ring needed to balance the scope and the ratio becomes even higher.
|
Mike28
Post Laureate
Reged: 06/21/03
Loc: Morris County,NJ
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ryderc1]
#2509162 - 07/09/08 06:37 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
hold on here guys. Your argument that the TEC being 3 lbs lighter is the only reason its better than the TAK? A 3 lb difference? If you cant lift 22 lbs then you have an issue.
I never even considered the TAKs weight any kinda of issue.Until recently I have viewed with this scope and was still awed with it every time out. Stable scope, image and the TAK having the best color correction and image isnt just a boast here. The TEC being a good scope still cant compete against it. I would take the TAK over the TEC anyday. But outside of myself, why not let TAK owners give there input here or is this just a plug for the TEC?
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ryderc1]
#2509189 - 07/09/08 06:50 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The TOA uses TWO Super ED elements too. When that little tidbit is considered, the TOA becomes an impressive value. I also think the color crossing charts for both of these scopes are publically available. If you can understand what they mean, the decision should be a simple one for those seeking optical perfection.
clear skies,
Rick
|
ryderc1
sage
Reged: 04/15/06
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Mike28]
#2509240 - 07/09/08 07:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Mike-
My initial post said that I preferred the optical performance of the TOA 130 to the TEC 140 despite its smaller aperture. So in no way was I pushihg the TEC as the "better" scope. On the other hand, I agree with Tim that the TOA is heavy. It's front-end heavy in particular and more cumbersome and awkward to handle than the TEC. Maybe it's not so much the 3 pound weight difference (don't forget that the Tak tube balance ring adds more weight to that 3-pound tube weight differential) as it is the large tube diameter of the Tak that makes its handling more cumbersome.
I also found it especially annoying that the TOA 130 Scopeguard case wouldn't easily accommodate the balance ring or Tak clamshell so they had to be removed and then reattached every time the scope was used. The TEC's low profile(and light)rings and mounting plate fit, attached to the scope, in the case with no problems. This made made set up and take down much more streamlined with the TEC. Handling wise I felt that the TEC 140 ran circles around the TOA.
The TOA probably would have been my choice had I been able to leave it permanently mounted in an observatory but I don't have that luxury.
|
echan
super member
Reged: 03/24/05
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ryderc1]
#2509348 - 07/09/08 08:11 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I owned both as well. The TOA is perhaps the most well corrected (for CA) refractor I have ever owned. We hear all the time "no false color in or out of focus." More times than not, this is not true. I've never seen a scope this can be applied to thus far except for the TOA130 and the NP101 (and now perhaps the AP140EDF...need more testing).
All that being said, I prefer and still own a TEC140 for the following reasons:
1) Weight. It weighs less than the TOA and its weight is better distributed. TOA is extremely front heavy.
2) More aperture
3) It is sharper on the planets to my eye.
4) Oil spacing - 2 air to glass interfaces
Ridwan, if you want to view through the TEC140, drop me a private mail. You're in So Pasadena, I'm in Pasadena. Bring your FS128, we'll have a viewing session.
-Evan
|
Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: THESKY]
#2509355 - 07/09/08 08:14 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Sorry for adding another variable but you might want to
include TMB 130mm/F9.25 LW as 5 inch candidate if
you are looking for planetary scope?
Just a thought.
Tammy
|
NHRob
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/27/04
Loc: New Hampshire
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Tamiji Homma]
#2509391 - 07/09/08 08:26 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I've owned and viewed through both the TOA and the TEC140. Visually, the difference in CA is negligible, IMO. The difference in aperture is a more profound difference between the two. I preferred the TEC for several reasons:
1. visually stunning optics in TEC, TOA has better color correction but the difference isn't that big, IMO. Mostly seen in out of focus patterns or in imaging.
2. TEC has lighter, better balanced OTA IMO. Both are solid.
3. TEC uses the large FT focuser which is the best IMO.
4. TEC has more aperture
|
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor - Celestron
Reged: 06/12/02
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: ryderc1]
#2509405 - 07/09/08 08:30 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I owned a TOA 130 and TEC 140 but at different times. Both were superb instruments. Ergonomically, I'd give the edge to the TEC 140. It's suprisingly light and compact for a 140mm scope. Its low profile rings allow the scope to be conveniently stored in its case with the rings and mounting plate attached, making for quick set up and take down. The Feathertouch 3545 fccuser is a work of art in its own right. The scope balances pretty well and not too far off from center, thanks to the weighty triplet lens assembly at one end being counterbalanced by the beefy focuser at the other. The TOA 130's tube is large for a 5" scope (similar in diameter to a Tak 152 tube) and the scope is extremely nose heavy, requiring a weight ring added to the focuser end of the OTA to achieve balance with the 2.7" focuser version of the scope. This adds even more weight to an already heavy scope even before adding rings or a clamshell and mounting plate. The Tak focusers are great but nothing beats a Feathertouch, in my opinion.
In terms of optical performance both deliver stunning, high contrast views. Light scatter was very well controlled in both scopes. But the TOA provided me with perhaps the most clean, crisp, color-neutral views I've ever seen through a refractor, including several TMB's,AP's, other Tak's, etc.; some of which I had on hand and did side-by-side comparisons against.
Despite my general preference for oil-spaced objectives,I didn't find that the TEC's extra 10mm of aperture made much of a difference in terms of image brightness or resolution and, in fact, the smaller aperture handled the sub-optimal seeing conditions of my skies a little better.
In my opinion it comes down to ergonomics vs performance. I'd give the ergonomic edge clearly to the TEC but the performance edge, although very close, to the TOA. Of course, you can't go wrong with either scope. As I said at the outset, both are superb.
Good luck with your decision!
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
|
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor - Celestron
Reged: 06/12/02
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: THESKY]
#2509435 - 07/09/08 08:42 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Plus what was Tak thinking with the TOA? lets set out to make the heaviest and bulkiest scopes possible in existing aperture classes?
I know . . . what are they thinking . . . is there any advantage at all with that bulky OTA at all . . . I can see how balancing would be a problem unless if you have a camera then you probably do not need an extra counter weight.
From what other people have said TEC140 is more user friendly but TAK wins a little in the Optic department. I know not by much but I guess for a seasoned observer even 5% better is worth to have . . . (no I am not a very experienced observer . . . still learning)
Amyway thanks for the input
Hi Ridwan,
This is a consequence of the optical design and I don't think there's a way around that. I'll make sure I bring a TOA130 over for some comparisons with your 128. We'll let the optics settle down for a couple of hours and check the spherical correction. BTW, I still think we should make the run to Topanga Saturday if the marine layer holds off and maybe Tamiji can make it too. 
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Loc: Virginia
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Daniel Mounsey]
#2509561 - 07/09/08 09:54 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I too owned a TOA 130 and I currently own an AP 140. Unfortunately, I've never owned a TEC 140 but certainly considered it seriously. Also, unfortunately, I had to part with the TOA 130 in order to help finance the AP 140 so I was unable to do the kind of direct comparison I would have liked. Bear in mind that I am also primarily a visual user with plans to do much more imaging than current circumstances allow. I mention this only because I think for visual use, any optical advantage the TOA might have in terms of color correction would likely be slight.
I will add to what others have said about the quality of the TOA's color-free views, sharpness and contrast. Do I think my AP140 has the edge visually? Yes, I think the oiled triplet does but that 10mm of aperture may account for some of it - along with the "it must be better" psychology of having given up one for the other.
The TOA130 is front heavy and a bit of a challenge to balance but as others have suggested - I don't think this is a compelling reason to disregard the TOA. I don't think it has been mentioned, however, that the cool down time for the TOA130 is pretty long. I would venture to guess a good deal longer than a TEC140 but I'll leave it to someone else with practical knowledge of both scopes to comment. When you consider weight, balance and cool down time all together - it might add up to more of a pain for the visual observer than the TEC140.
The way I view it - the TEC140 is likely hard to beat for someone looking for an APO in this aperture range for primarily visual. Both the TOA and the AP140 for that matter (esp. with the 4" focuser) are fine visual scopes of course but both are heavy and IMO really designed more so with imaging in mind (ergonimically speaking - in no way do I mean to imply that the TEC140 will not excel for imaging).
Hard to see how you can go wrong with any of these scopes. On the other hand, you've already got a great scope in the FS128. If you must satisfy your desire by another beauty - why not a TEC140 for an oil-spaced design and 10mm more aperture if nothing else?
|
Rusty
Postmaster
Reged: 08/06/03
Loc: Brooker, FL
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Doug D.]
#2509612 - 07/09/08 10:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I was on the waiting list for the TEC-140, but a fellow CNer offered me his TOA-130S at a price I couldn't refuse.
The TOA-130 with an OTA C/W goes close to 25 lbs. To me, 10mm don't make much difference, plus the FT focuser is available fot the Tak, and the reducer/flattener combo is much less that the TEC's.
But I've looked through TEC-140s, and frankly (this is almost heresy), I'd buy based on total package price.
|
THESKY
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/16/06
Loc: SOCAL
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: echan]
#2509888 - 07/10/08 02:46 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Ridwan, if you want to view through the TEC140, drop me a private mail. You're in So Pasadena, I'm in Pasadena. Bring your FS128, we'll have a viewing session.
-Evan
Hey Evan, thank you. I will definitely take up your offer. I will email you soon.
|
THESKY
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/16/06
Loc: SOCAL
|
Re: TOA130 vs TEC140
[Re: Doug D.]
#2509899 - 07/10/08 03:06 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Hard to see how you can go wrong with any of these scopes. On the other hand, you've already got a great scope in the FS128. If you must satisfy your desire by another beauty - why not a TEC140 for an oil-spaced design and 10mm more aperture if nothing else?
True . . .
I happen to compare a TSA102 and WO-FLT110 TEC last year and I was amazed on how the TSA performed that night - very contrast clean and beautiful image of Saturn. FLT110 with TEC optic was an excellent performer
but Saturn was slightly warm and slight glare around Saturn. So if TOA130 has a better glass than TSA like Rick and Daniel said . . . TOA130 might be just the best scope there is . . . the question will be on the consistency on TOA . . . It seems that TEC is more consistent in their Oil spaced configuration than an air spaced TOA . . . this is just based on my reading and what people had told me. We shall see.
I am curious how the comparison with TEC140 with my FS128 . . .
I will let you guys know . . .
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
