13431 replies to this topic

[edif300]

I have two TOA-130 and never saw that spike.

Yeah that is the point that makes a difference.

Awesome is to read users that not want nothing with the brand but talking about recent scope or parts still not on fully production or about purchasing another scope from the brand. The thing is really cloudy. Need some clear skies.

[Dean J.]

For DSO imaging the quality of FSQ-106 is still unmatched. I don't know the second scope which has more APODs, IOTDs, new nebula discoveries, etc. than FSQ. One of them is Bray Falls, and he certainly knows what to do: has at least two FSQs.

I am fortunate to have an Astro-Physics 110GTX but I can't bring myself to sell my FSQ-106EDX4.  With the 645QE f/3.6 reducer and a full frame camera there just isn't anything that can beat it IMHO.  I'll be dusting off the FSQ again this summer and fall for more wide field Milky Way shots.

[aabusara]

Hah, I used in-Browser translate and it gave me something different about „corner effects to the camera“ - I was surprised, actually, because I‘ve seen great images with the TOA+645. Still, I don‘t feel like having to mess with a focuser replacement or risk another miscollimated arrival on a scope that costs almost 10k€ with its flattener. I have plenty of telescopes and can wait until something appears that works without compromise.

I don‘t think that will come from Askar or WO, though - they just can‘t compete on QC and if you get a bad sample you‘re SOL. So far I haven‘t seen any samples from the SQA-line or the WO Cats/Ultracats that could compete with premium optics. On paper, they should be incredible, but in reality they don‘t seem to live up. 

I agree the fact that we need to spend 1.5-3k on focusers for Taks to make them functional is extremely annoying. The worst offender in my opinion is the Epsilon. At least the TOA-130 NFB has a useable focuser. 

 

The Epsilons are the worst particularly because they are specifically designed with imaging in mind. 

 

I have not tested any of the high end SQA Askars yet. I did read some good reports about them. I will get a William Optics Ultracat108 when it comes out and see how it performs. I don't really care about theoretical tests. I will see how the subs look and compare. 

[Kitfox]

They only made about three of those, and they all lost collimation!  

 

A few more than three were made; closer to ten is the best info I can find...I know of at least three that are perfect, one of which I got to sit in on an imaging session with.  I made an offer for it, and would have made the deal had it been closer to home.  Alas it is still in its private observatory in South Korea, along with the Pentax SDP150 I still dream of.  I did come away with an SDP125 on that trip, so not totally empty-handed.

 

One of our members sold what appeared to be a good one a year or so ago...he claimed it was perfect and his reputation is quite good.

Edited by Kitfox, 19 May 2025 - 10:39 PM.

[Dean J.]

I agree the fact that we need to spend 1.5-3k on focusers for Taks to make them functional is extremely annoying. The worst offender in my opinion is the Epsilon. At least the TOA-130 NFB has a useable focuser. 

 

...

I read this all the time and I have to scratch my head because that hasn't been my experience.  My imaging group has three FSQ-106s and we are all using the stock focuser.  I bought an Epsilon 160 back in 2000 and used it for 15 years with the stock focuser and with a variety of heavy old-style CCD cameras, including the heavy full-frame SBIG STL-11000M with integrated filter wheel, and the focuser worked fine for me.  I also have two rare Takahashi Newtonians - the MT-160 and the MT-200 - both of which I have used for imaging with the stock focusers.  I recognize that some folks have had different experiences but I've never felt the need to upgrade any of the focusers on any of the four Takahashis that I have used for imaging over the years.

Edited by Dean J., 19 May 2025 - 10:57 PM.

[Rasfahan]

I read this all the time and I have to scratch my head because that hasn't been my experience.  My imaging group has three FSQ-106s and we are all using the stock focuser.  I bought an Epsilon 160 back in 2000 and used it for 15 years with the stock focuser and with a variety of heavy old-style CCD cameras, including the heavy full-frame SBIG STL-11000M with integrated filter wheel, and the focuser worked fine for me.  I also have two rare Takahashi Newtonians - the MT-160 and the MT-200 - both of which I have used for imaging with the stock focusers.  I recognize that some folks have had different experiences but I've never felt the need to upgrade any of the focusers on any of the four Takahashis that I have used for imaging over the years.

Yes, I read all the time people like their Tak focusers. I can’t fathom why. All my Tak focusers (5) have this instability problem to a degree. I also made my Epsilon focuser work on APS-C for a year or two, but I got tired of the very frequent tweaking. For full-frame it was a no-go. And when you compare the build quality of the Tak focuser to the ones from China that cost a fraction, the difference is staggering. Maybe the Taks were better 25 years ago?

[Far Star]

I have had over half a dozen Takahashi refractors (and currently have two) and have never had the slightest problem with the focuser. In my experience, the original focusers from Takahashi are very good.

[Eric Weder]

I have three Taks, no focuser issues.

[25585]

Which size focusers are we talking about, 4", 2.7", 2.5", 2"?

[leviathan]

No focuser problems on both of my FSQs either. Majority of the images on my Astrobin were taken by FSQ-106 stock focuser and ZWO EAF attached to it. Heavy ~2kg fullframe rig and no problems.

[payner]

 

One of our members sold what appeared to be a good one a year or so ago...he claimed it was perfect and his reputation is quite good.

I recalled one not too long ago. If it is the one I'm thinking of it was priced at $10,000. I'm sure many (especially those who image) would make that purchase. I believe most who "mock" Tak concerning the lens group alignment have no idea of the complexity of such a design, and especially at that aperture.

[dweller25]

My FS128, TSA120, TSA102 and FC100-DZ all had good useable focusers but not to Feathertouch standards.

Edited by dweller25, 21 May 2025 - 01:25 AM.

[aabusara]

I read this all the time and I have to scratch my head because that hasn't been my experience.  My imaging group has three FSQ-106s and we are all using the stock focuser.  I bought an Epsilon 160 back in 2000 and used it for 15 years with the stock focuser and with a variety of heavy old-style CCD cameras, including the heavy full-frame SBIG STL-11000M with integrated filter wheel, and the focuser worked fine for me.  I also have two rare Takahashi Newtonians - the MT-160 and the MT-200 - both of which I have used for imaging with the stock focusers.  I recognize that some folks have had different experiences but I've never felt the need to upgrade any of the focusers on any of the four Takahashis that I have used for imaging over the years.

I am glad a lot of folks are not having problem with their focusers. My Epsilon 160ED circa 2024 had impossible to deal with rotational play in the focuser and varying levels of tilt depending on which side of the meridian I am imaging. At f/3.3 it just doesn't work. There is a thread on AB with nearly a 1000 pages talking about using a FF sensor with the E160ED, and many had the very same problem. I have not owned an FSQ106, but I have heard it is the exception. The TOA130-NS and NFB are about $1000 difference in price, primarily to upgrade what otherwise should be a standard focuser on a $7.1k kit. 

 

Up until now, I think it is a tradeoff we are willing to make for those awesome optics. Seeing pinpoint stars on my full frame IMX455 sensor without a single problem from the TOA the moment I started using it with FWHM subs well under 2"/px with some as low as 1.5"/px is just a sight to behold.  

Edited by aabusara, 20 May 2025 - 08:21 AM.

[payner]

The FSQ-106 has the same 4-inch focuser as the TOA-150B/130NFB (and as I recall, the FSQ-85, too).  The 4" focuser design with linear bearing is a nice focuser, indeed.

[dan_hm]

I think Epsilon is notorious for rotational play in the focuser. My e130D had it badly. My FCT-65D focuser isn’t perfect but the play isn’t as severe and my FC-100DF has no play at all.

[Dean J.]

Yes, I read all the time people like their Tak focusers. I can’t fathom why. All my Tak focusers (5) have this instability problem to a degree. I also made my Epsilon focuser work on APS-C for a year or two, but I got tired of the very frequent tweaking. For full-frame it was a no-go. And when you compare the build quality of the Tak focuser to the ones from China that cost a fraction, the difference is staggering. Maybe the Taks were better 25 years ago?

That's why I said I have to scratch my head when I see reports/experiences such as yours.  I haven't seen your problematic setups.  I didn't assemble them and haven't used them so I don't have a frame of reference to use in trying to understand why people have different experiences.  I hope you have been able to get the issues resolved though.

[james7ca]

I have both an FC-100DZ and an FOA-60, both purchased new over the last 18 months, and the focusers on those are mostly usable except for focus shift and the fact that a 1X focuser is really too coarse for use with astrophotography. I upgraded the FC-100DZ to Takahashi's Micro Edge Focuser (MEF-3) and that helped with the fine focus on things like the moon but it still has image shift and the feel is a bit elastic/spongy. Overall, I'd give the Takahashi focusers that I've used a B- or C+. Meanwhile, I have other scopes that have Feather Touch focusers and those get either B+ or A-. That said, I purchased one Feather Touch focuser (to upgrade my 100DZ) that was defective right out of the box. I think it was assembled incorrectly, or missing some internal parts. So, that one got a solid F.

 

As for the optical quality, the 100DZ is good, but the FOA-60 came with either a collimation or centering problem. I'm going to have to send it back, but I'm not very confident that they will be able to improve its performance.

[Dean J.]

Although I am fine with the focuser on my FSQ-106EDX4 I have to admit that I have looked at the Nitecrawler focusers to see if I could adapt one of those to my FSQ.  They look like a cool tool.

 

The problem is that I use the 645QE f/3.6 reducer that screws into the rear lens body of the FSQ and the inside diameter of whatever focuser is used has to be wide enough to fit around the reducer.  Last time I checked a couple of years ago I couldn't find one of their focusers that was wide enough for me to be able to use.

[dan_hm]

I thought the consensus was that Taks have great optics but crummy parts, hence the spotty or generally poor focusers.  Unfortunately the FCT-65D and the whole new set of refractors and reducers fail in both categories which is a huge disappointment.

[StarDust1]

The FSQ-106 has the same 4-inch focuser as the TOA-150B/130NFB (and as I recall, the FSQ-85, too).  The 4" focuser design with linear bearing is a nice focuser, indeed.

Unlike the FSQ-106, which features a 4-inch focuser, the FSQ-85 is equipped with a 3-inch focuser.

 

https://agenaastro.c...e-tqe08541.html

[StarDust1]

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Takahashi focusers. For visual use, I really like Takahashi focusers, they're smooth and precise. But for imaging, my experience has been less successful. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind pairing Takahashi optics with a Chinese focuser, as long as I still get those signature Takahashi colors.

 

Optically, every Takahashi scope I've purchased new has been excellent, no complaints whatsoever.

Edited by StarDust1, 20 May 2025 - 10:31 AM.

[Caddman]

I have both an FC-100DZ and an FOA-60, both purchased new over the last 18 months, and the focusers on those are mostly usable except for focus shift and the fact that a 1X focuser is really too coarse for use with astrophotography. I upgraded the FC-100DZ to Takahashi's Micro Edge Focuser (MEF-3) and that helped with the fine focus on things like the moon but it still has image shift and the feel is a bit elastic/spongy. Overall, I'd give the Takahashi focusers that I've used a B- or C+. Meanwhile, I have other scopes that have Feather Touch focusers and those get either B+ or A-. That said, I purchased one Feather Touch focuser (to upgrade my 100DZ) that was defective right out of the box. I think it was assembled incorrectly, or missing some internal parts. So, that one got a solid F.

 

As for the optical quality, the 100DZ is good, but the FOA-60 came with either a collimation or centering problem. I'm going to have to send it back, but I'm not very confident that they will be able to improve its performance.

I use the FC-100DF with the .66X reducer for imaging with really good results. The ZWO EAF works quite well on the scope. I also have little to no problem with my TOA-60Q. 

[Caddman]

I thought the consensus was that Taks have great optics but crummy parts, hence the spotty or generally poor focusers.  Unfortunately the FCT-65D and the whole new set of refractors and reducers fail in both categories which is a huge disappointment.

That, on top of the fact that Takahashi doesn't provide the adapters to fit the reducer with CMOS astronomy cameras. The make a t-ring to fit DSLRs, but you will have to purchase a custom adapter to attach to M68 or M54 threads.

[PatientObserver]

I have both an FC-100DZ and an FOA-60, both purchased new over the last 18 months, and the focusers on those are mostly usable except for focus shift and the fact that a 1X focuser is really too coarse for use with astrophotography. I upgraded the FC-100DZ to Takahashi's Micro Edge Focuser (MEF-3) and that helped with the fine focus on things like the moon but it still has image shift and the feel is a bit elastic/spongy. Overall, I'd give the Takahashi focusers that I've used a B- or C+. Meanwhile, I have other scopes that have Feather Touch focusers and those get either B+ or A-. That said, I purchased one Feather Touch focuser (to upgrade my 100DZ) that was defective right out of the box. I think it was assembled incorrectly, or missing some internal parts. So, that one got a solid F.

As for the optical quality, the 100DZ is good, but the FOA-60 came with either a collimation or centering problem. I'm going to have to send it back, but I'm not very confident that they will be able to improve its performance.

When I bought the MEF-3 for my FOA-60Q, it was very spongy. However, this was easily resolved by tightening a tiny lock screw. This was covered in the manual had I looked more closely.

I am not the only one who ran into this. It may address your issue too.

Edited by PatientObserver, 20 May 2025 - 06:30 PM.

[bobhen]

I thought the consensus was that Taks have great optics but crummy parts, hence the spotty or generally poor focusers.  

Taks don't have "crummy" parts and their focusers are not "poor".

 

Tak parts all work well. The focusers (at least my two) get the job done – they focus. They are not as smooth as say Feathertouch focusers, but few focusers are. I've used worse.

 

One can always upgrade a focuser and buy aftermarket accessories. But one cannot upgrade the optics that come with a refractor. 

 

Bob