Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Lunt 152 ED vs Takahashi FS 152

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

#1 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2368
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003

Posted 09 August 2014 - 05:42 PM

Has anyone seen a comparison of the Lunt 152 ED to a Tak FS 152? That would be an interesting comparison. I would love to hear about it if there ia anyone out there who can do that for us.



#2 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 31503
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005

Posted 09 August 2014 - 06:30 PM

I'd love to read about it too! :ubetcha:



#3 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:37 PM

Yup.  Would be interesting...or against a TOA-150 would be interesting as well.  But for those wanting to read about such a compare, what are your expectations of what the differences would be?   :mrevil:



#4 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 31503
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:45 PM

I'm reasonably sure that the fluorite doublet will edge out the FPL51-equivalent doublet.  That's no mystery to me.  Frankly, I just love reading about refractor comparisons!



#5 igibbs99

igibbs99

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:46 PM

Well, I did have an APM 152 ED (the same as a Lunt 152 ED but with a different label) and a FS-152 at the same time for a few months. My intention was to make a 6" binoscope rather than to test one against the other, but I made some limited comparisons out of interest. Here are my observing notes at the time:

 

26 October 2013, Achernar (mag. 0.5).

 

ES82 8.8mm eyepieces in Mark V binoviewer with Baader Amici prism and 1.25x corrector, giving approx 170x magnification.

 

APM 152 ED:

·       inside focus: well-defined diffraction rings, purple ring around outside ring

·       outside focus: blurry pattern with purple evident inside pattern

·       at focus: no noticeable colour

 

 

Tak FS-152

·       inside focus: blurry pattern, with purple around outside ring

·       outside focus: well-defined diffraction rings, purple evident inside pattern, yellow/green merging to orange/red outer rings

·       at focus: no noticeable colour.

 

(It was curious to me that the 2 scopes in some respects performed in opposite ways inside and outside focus, but with zero optics knowledge I have no idea why this was so.)

 

 

13 November 2013, Gibbous Moon

 

Mark V binoviewer with 1.7x GPC, Baader Amici prism

 

APM ED

·       on Moon’s fully lit edge, with TeleVue 13mm Plossls, thin purple fringe inside focus, thin green/yellow fringe outside focus, no noticeable colour at focus

·       similar colour using Baader 10mm BCOs, Meade 5000 9mm Plossls, BST 8mm (approx. 250x)

·       no detectable differences with Tak on lunar features (visibility of small craters, etc.), no hint of purple in lunar shadows

 

Tak FS-152

·       on Moon’s fully lit edge, with TeleVue 13mm Plossls, no noticeable colour inside, outside or at focus

·       similar result using Baader 10mm BCOs, Meade 5000 9mm Plossls, BST 8mm ep (approx. 250x).

 

 

On both occasions the two scopes were set up side by side on the same mount, so I could quickly swap the binoviewer with diagonal and eyepieces from one scope to the other, making the telescope optics the only real variable.

 

These are only two points of comparison, and more comparisons would be needed for reliable conclusions. For example, while I noticed no colour in the Tak on the above occasion on the Moon's limb, I have noticed it at other times. More importantly, observers with better-trained eyes than mine (read "most other observers") might well see performance differences that escaped me.

 

The two scopes to me were similar enough in performance that I was indifferent as to which one I used, for visual observing. I simply couldn't see any differences at focus. The Tak was less front-heavy than the APM ED, and had a shorter tube (thus more back-focus room), so I have kept the Tak and sold the APM ED. However, I wouldn't have been unhappy if for some reason I had been "forced" to keep the APM ED and sell the Tak. (Together they would have made a great binoscope but without a permanent set-up the project was technically too ambitious for me in the end. :( ) 

 

Regards

 

 



#6 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:25 PM

The two scopes to me were similar enough in performance that I was indifferent as to which one I used, for visual observing. I simply couldn't see any differences at focus. The Tak was less front-heavy than the APM ED, and had a shorter tube (thus more back-focus room), so I have kept the Tak and sold the APM ED. However, I wouldn't have been unhappy if for some reason I had been "forced" to keep the APM ED and sell the Tak.

 

:waytogo:



#7 roadi

roadi

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 10 August 2014 - 03:55 AM

Well, I did have an APM 152 ED (the same as a Lunt 152 ED but with a different label) and a FS-152 at the same time for a few months. My intention was to make a 6" binoscope rather than to test one against the other, but I made some limited comparisons out of interest. Here are my observing notes at the time:

 

26 October 2013, Achernar (mag. 0.5).

 

ES82 8.8mm eyepieces in Mark V binoviewer with Baader Amici prism and 1.25x corrector, giving approx 170x magnification.

 

APM 152 ED:

·       inside focus: well-defined diffraction rings, purple ring around outside ring

·       outside focus: blurry pattern with purple evident inside pattern

·       at focus: no noticeable colour

 

 

Tak FS-152

·       inside focus: blurry pattern, with purple around outside ring

·       outside focus: well-defined diffraction rings, purple evident inside pattern, yellow/green merging to orange/red outer rings

·       at focus: no noticeable colour.

 

(It was curious to me that the 2 scopes in some respects performed in opposite ways inside and outside focus, but with zero optics knowledge I have no idea why this was so.)

 

 

13 November 2013, Gibbous Moon

 

Mark V binoviewer with 1.7x GPC, Baader Amici prism

 

APM ED

·       on Moon’s fully lit edge, with TeleVue 13mm Plossls, thin purple fringe inside focus, thin green/yellow fringe outside focus, no noticeable colour at focus

·       similar colour using Baader 10mm BCOs, Meade 5000 9mm Plossls, BST 8mm (approx. 250x)

·       no detectable differences with Tak on lunar features (visibility of small craters, etc.), no hint of purple in lunar shadows

 

Tak FS-152

·       on Moon’s fully lit edge, with TeleVue 13mm Plossls, no noticeable colour inside, outside or at focus

·       similar result using Baader 10mm BCOs, Meade 5000 9mm Plossls, BST 8mm ep (approx. 250x).

 

 

On both occasions the two scopes were set up side by side on the same mount, so I could quickly swap the binoviewer with diagonal and eyepieces from one scope to the other, making the telescope optics the only real variable.

 

These are only two points of comparison, and more comparisons would be needed for reliable conclusions. For example, while I noticed no colour in the Tak on the above occasion on the Moon's limb, I have noticed it at other times. More importantly, observers with better-trained eyes than mine (read "most other observers") might well see performance differences that escaped me.

 

The two scopes to me were similar enough in performance that I was indifferent as to which one I used, for visual observing. I simply couldn't see any differences at focus. The Tak was less front-heavy than the APM ED, and had a shorter tube (thus more back-focus room), so I have kept the Tak and sold the APM ED. However, I wouldn't have been unhappy if for some reason I had been "forced" to keep the APM ED and sell the Tak. (Together they would have made a great binoscope but without a permanent set-up the project was technically too ambitious for me in the end. :( ) 

 

Regards

Thanks, always interesting to read "in the field" comparison!  :)

The problem though IMO, is that if neither scopes are dogs.. "I presume they are not" both optics are of good quality and to make out any differences in performance you have to push them to or near the power limits, respective until one or both of them starts to break down in contrast and sharpness.

Comparing at low to medium magnification will make a mediocre quality optic look just as good as a premium. You must also take into account all the equipments attached to the scopes wich also could be blurring any slight difference in performance on the telescope optics itself.

With all respect to the reviewer, its always interesting to read these comparos regardles  :)

 

Based on my experience with the smaller fluorites and ED's, I'll have to give my vote to the FS 152 in peak performance especially contrast and clarity :D


Edited by roadi, 10 August 2014 - 04:03 AM.


#8 Max Power

Max Power

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 774
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2014

Posted 10 August 2014 - 06:42 AM

I was kind of disappointed with my APM lens swap on the C6R. 

Performance on Mars was exactly the same as my 8" f/5 refigured

to 1/12 wave by Mr. Raycraft.  For $2000 was expecting more.



#9 GHarris

GHarris

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2009

Posted 10 August 2014 - 06:44 AM

Yup.  Would be interesting...or against a TOA-150 would be interesting as well.  But for those wanting to read about such a compare, what are your expectations of what the differences would be?   :mrevil:

I'd expect a tiny difference to be discernible to experienced observers operating at or near the maximum sensible magnification for 6" of aperture. Whether this difference would be down to the FS152's colour correction being better, MAYBE producing a smidge of image softening (rather than visible false colours) in the 152ED relative to it, or down to the higher guaranteed consistency of optical figuring in the FS152 (you can expect a 152ED to be good but not, for example, guaranteed to be of 0.95 Strehl like most premium refractors), I can't say. Hard also to guess what a "tiny difference" means! Sadly I still haven't found a good opportunity to test my own 152ED side by side with a refractor of comparable aperture. For those of us with mere mortal observing skills, or who want a scope for an outreach role, it's plenty good enough and much more affordable than any alternative APOs. Even if you can afford the price of the more premium scope, you have to remember what extra accessories, such as a quality binoviewer, you might have been able to buy with the price difference and whether those other things might do more for your viewing enjoyment.



#10 mgwhittle

mgwhittle

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011

Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:14 AM

I was kind of disappointed with my APM lens swap on the C6R. 

Performance on Mars was exactly the same as my 8" f/5 refigured

to 1/12 wave by Mr. Raycraft.  For $2000 was expecting more.

I'm confused, you are disappointed a 6 inch ED doublet refractor performed as well as 1/12 wave 8 inch reflector?  I'd be ecstatic with that kind of result.



#11 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:26 AM

I was kind of disappointed with my APM lens swap on the C6R. 

Performance on Mars was exactly the same as my 8" f/5 refigured

to 1/12 wave by Mr. Raycraft.  For $2000 was expecting more.

 

 

There are plenty of times that larger and smaller scopes perform exactly the same on planets...simply the seeing that is leveling things to the resolution level of the smaller scope.  I find that for planets that the vast majority of times the seeing is not better than what a 6" scope can achieve, so the larger scopes just get you a brighter image or larger image scale.  Very rare IMO for the seeing to be such that an 8" or larger scope can strut its resolution capabilities for anything more that fleeting moments.  Of course there may be exceptions to this for particular locations that have regular outstanding seeing, but those places are statistical outliers.



#12 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2368
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003

Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:50 AM

All of this is very interesting and about what I had expected to hear. The Tak FS 152 under the best seeing would perform slightly better than the Lunt 152 ED and you are more likely to get an FS 152 with a high strehl. But, for 9 out of 10 nights, most nights of the year by far, the Lunt would be just as good for the VISUAL observer. And, given the price differences the Lunt is a bargain. I, not that long ago, looked for a used FS 152 and the going price seems to be about $7,000. $7,000 for a used FS 152 and $4,000 for a new Lunt 152 ED. Would I rather have the FS 152 if I were Given a scope? Yes. Would I rather buy the Lunt 152 ED if I had to BUY a scope? Yes.


Edited by JimP, 12 August 2014 - 08:38 AM.


#13 roadi

roadi

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 10 August 2014 - 10:56 AM

I too would be very happy with the lunt or apm 152 ED  :)



#14 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 10 August 2014 - 07:55 PM

I would be happy with mine too if the clouds ever parted!!!  Have been having such a long string of cloudy weather these past two weeks :(   All I want to do is some Lunar binoviewing it seems I've not observed the Moon in forever.



#15 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011

Posted 10 August 2014 - 08:00 PM

Todays the big super moon. Even a slight overcast wont stop me from observing. It was nice last night over here but the moon was very bright.

...Ralph



I would be happy with mine too if the clouds ever parted!!!  Have been having such a long string of cloudy weather these past two weeks :(   All I want to do is some Lunar binoviewing it seems I've not observed the Moon in forever.



#16 crazyqban

crazyqban

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2670
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2008

Posted 10 August 2014 - 10:55 PM

I had some excellent lunar views last night. Even the full Moon in my newly acquired FS-152SV was amazing. Lots of contrast and details agains an inky black background. I think that we have a keeper!!!  :) 



#17 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:28 AM

Todays the big super moon. Even a slight overcast wont stop me from observing. It was nice last night over here but the moon was very bright.

...Ralph


 

 

I saw some super clouds :lol:



#18 Starman27

Starman27

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7895
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2006

Posted 11 August 2014 - 08:11 AM

We also had super clouds!



#19 Jon_Doh

Jon_Doh

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

Posted 11 August 2014 - 09:05 AM

Speaking of comparisons, I would like to see one between the Lunt 152, Tak 152 and Skywatcher 150 triplet  :)



#20 dag55

dag55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2011

Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:11 PM

Speaking of comparisons, I would like to see one between the Lunt 152, Tak 152 and Skywatcher 150 triplet   :)

Me too, about three months ago there was a post on the 152FS comparison to the 150 SW, not yet happened, come on D.M. yets get on with it. :)

Dane




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics