Telescope Reviews: TEC 140 vs. 160

· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt

· Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

You are not logged in. [Login]

Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online
FAQ · Calendar

Equipment Discussions >> Refractors

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)

rfic1
sage

Reged: 10/25/05

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: vahe]
#5533676 - 11/22/12 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.

Post Extras:

RAKing
Postmaster

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: AlbertoJ]
#5533751 - 11/22/12 11:06 AM

Quote:

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

Post Extras:

Yu Gu
member

Reged: 06/18/06

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: rfic1]
#5533764 - 11/22/12 11:14 AM

Quote:

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!

Post Extras:

Ziggy943
Post Laureate

Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: AlbertoJ]
#5533935 - 11/22/12 01:07 PM

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Post Extras:

Cabrillas
member

Reged: 07/19/09

Loc: Madrid. Spain.

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: Ziggy943]
#5535924 - 11/23/12 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...

Post Extras:

CounterWeight
Postmaster

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Cloudyopolis, OR.

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: Cabrillas]
#5536388 - 11/23/12 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?

Post Extras:

RAKing
Postmaster

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: CounterWeight]
#5536706 - 11/24/12 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

Post Extras:

Bob S.
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 07/14/05

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 [Re: RAKing]
#5536830 - 11/24/12 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.

Post Extras:

Ziggy943
Post Laureate

Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah

Re: TEC 140 vs. 160 new

[Re: CounterWeight]
#5537520 - 11/24/12 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.

Post Extras:

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)

Extra information

33 registered and 27 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Scott in NC, Bowmoreman, KWB

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 7157

Jump to

CN Forums

Home

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics