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

The New TEC140FL or TAK 150B ?

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 04:35 PM

I would be interested in both visual and imaging, with an emphasis on imaging. There is a huge diff in price (not as bad for a used TAK150B) - but still. Would one win over the other or is there anything to really differentiate one from the other - aside from the 10mm in aperture?

 

What would you do? Scope would be in an observatory.



#2 PETER DREW

PETER DREW

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,245
  • Joined: 31 May 2017

Posted 06 June 2018 - 04:52 PM

I don't think 10mm here or there is likely to make a financially worthwhile difference for visual or imaging use. The Tec 140 is a well proven telescope for photography.



#3 Jim Waters

Jim Waters

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,585
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ USA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 04:53 PM

Have you searched www.astrobin.com for image examples (TEC vs. Tak)?  Given the price difference I would go with the TEC but Fluorite is fragile and tends to crack under thermal and mechanical stress.  IMHO I feel Takahashi's are over priced.  Difficult decision...!

 

Get back to us and let us know what you decide.

 

http://www.scopeview...is Fluorite.htm


  • PatNois likes this

#4 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:41 PM

Thanks for the link to the write up on FL. I'm hoping any scope make with FL would have a lifetime warranty against any failure of the FL - under normal use!!

 

I guess a TEC140FL hasn't been made yet as you can't seem to find any reviews.



#5 bobhen

bobhen

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:45 PM

Between these two refractors…

 

If this is an observatory scope and budget is NOT an issue and for visual you want those extra 10mm for that last bit of resolution and for imaging you want that last bit of color correction then there is no reason not to get the Tak.

 

However, just how much it’s worth it to you to get those last bits or percentages of performance is a question that only you can answer.

 

I once sold a 105mm triplet apo with killer LZOS optics to purchase a Tak 120. Only a 15mm difference. I would do it again in a minute.

 

Bob



#6 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:47 PM

Yeah, aperture can't be beat. In the end I'll probably go with a Tak 150 - used if one comes up. For now though I do have my name down for a TEC140FL. See which happens first.



#7 Adam S

Adam S

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2005
  • Loc: ABQ, NM

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:03 PM

Don't let the notion of Fluorite being prone to cracking under thermal or mechanical issues enter the decision.  Takahashi has an impeccable reputation.  Even more important is that fact that Canon makes their lenses, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Canon wouldn't produce lenses that could would have such issues.  I live in Gunnison, Colorado which is classified as the 3rd coldest town in the US.  Never once an issue with an FS 102, FC 100, Sky 90 or FS 128 at -7 for winter solar viewing, 80 degree summer solar viewing, or -25 quick night views for tracking variables.

 

Both are great scopes, for balanced visual and astrophotography I'd lean to the TEC which will be much lighter plus Yuri's customer support is outstanding.   If primarily imaging I'd think a bit more towards the Tak (being mindful of Tak’s high cost of accessorizing).


Edited by Adam S, 06 June 2018 - 08:23 PM.

  • turtle86 likes this

#8 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:12 PM

[...] but Fluorite is fragile and tends to crack under thermal and mechanical stress. [...]

 

http://www.scopeview...is Fluorite.htm

This is outright false and misleading, and addressed and contradicted in your own link.


  • Adam S, Alan S and AZStarGuy like this

#9 Element79

Element79

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Mason. Ohio

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:21 PM

Thanks for the link to the write up on FL. I'm hoping any scope make with FL would have a lifetime warranty against any failure of the FL - under normal use!!

 

I guess a TEC140FL hasn't been made yet as you can't seem to find any reviews.

 

It is my understanding that Yuri and company are, as we speak, creating the first batch of APO140FL's so we should see very soon how good they will be.

 

On paper and in theory the 140FL should be as outstanding a telescope as the Zeiss APQs were, and they are legendary.



#10 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,017
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:23 PM

Wow such  a devastating decision to have to make. Reminds me of Sophies Choice.


  • Peter Besenbruch likes this

#11 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:25 PM

Wow such  a devastating decision to have to make. Reminds me of Sophies Choice.

No way man. Its great to be in a position to have to sweat over such a decision :)



#12 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,322
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 06 June 2018 - 06:34 PM

Don't let the notion of Fluorite being prone to cracking under thermal or mechanical issues enter the decision.  Takahashi has an impeccable reputation.  Even more important is that fact that Canon makes their lenses, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Canon wouldn't produce lenses that could would have such issues.  I live in Gunnison, Colorado which is classified as the 3rd coldest town in the US.  Never once an issue with an FS 102, FC 100, Sky 90 or FS 128 at -7 for winter solar viewing, 80 degree summer solar viewing, or -25 quick night views for tracking variables.

 

Both are great scopes, for balanced visual and astrophotography I'd lean to the TEC which will be much lighter plus Yuri's customer support is outstanding.   If primarily imaging I'd think a bit more towards the Tak.

 

I agree. One of my Canon camera lens, a 100-400mm zoom, is a popular lens for wildlife and sports photography and has a fluorite element.  The lens is fairly rugged (it’s weather sealed) and is designed for heavy use and in extreme conditions.  I don’t think Canon would have used fluorite for such a lens if it were that delicate.  Tak and TEC are both great choices.


  • Adam S likes this

#13 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,122
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 07:21 PM

Given observatory and a mount to handle, TOA 150 would be uncompromising choice.  If cost is an issue though the Tak will get expensive...remember the flattener for it is about $1k.  http://www.astrosurf...ky_SBIG/M51.jpg  and  http://www.astrosurf.../M20_detail.jpg

 

Of course, the TOA130 does some incredible images too - https://www.buyteles...-4-focuser.jpeg


Edited by BillP, 06 June 2018 - 07:28 PM.

  • Jim Waters and rockstarbill like this

#14 Jim Waters

Jim Waters

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,585
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ USA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 07:40 PM

This is outright false and misleading, and addressed and contradicted in your own link.

This may not be the case today but years ago an astronomy buddy had the Fluorite lens in his refractor chip on the edge.  He wasn't sure if it was caused my mechanical stress in the lens cell, AZ heat or something else.  I don't recall the make of his refractor.  It was too long ago.

 

Fluorite lens technology may have changed over the past 5 to 10 years but this was an issue.  And at one time NASA wouldn't use Fluorite Canon camera lens.  Do a search,



#15 MooEy

MooEy

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2007

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:21 PM

I’ll take the TOA-150.
  • Heywood likes this

#16 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:39 PM

Given observatory and a mount to handle, TOA 150 would be uncompromising choice.  If cost is an issue though the Tak will get expensive...remember the flattener for it is about $1k.  http://www.astrosurf...ky_SBIG/M51.jpg  and  http://www.astrosurf.../M20_detail.jpg

 

Of course, the TOA130 does some incredible images too - https://www.buyteles...-4-focuser.jpeg

That is truly one amazing photo.



#17 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,017
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:40 PM

I am convinced you are making a mistake. This is what you really NEED: 

 

http://www.takahashi.../en/FET-300.php


  • Jim Waters and Gucky like this

#18 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:42 PM

I am convinced you are making a mistake. This is what you really NEED: 

 

http://www.takahashi.../en/FET-300.php

How sweet would that be!! I just noticed the weight...definitely a new mount needed :(


Edited by GeneralT001, 06 June 2018 - 08:43 PM.


#19 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,017
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:45 PM

I am not sure of the price, they seem to be made per order. I am thinking if I sell my home I could come up with enough dough. I would worry about the mount later though. 

 

edit: I am guessing $50 large for the OTA.

 

Edit edit, just saw that weight too. and a 9 foot tube,

 

Now I am thinking $125 Large, minimum.  I Will for sure need to sell my home.


Edited by mantrain, 06 June 2018 - 08:49 PM.


#20 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:46 PM

I am not sure of the price, they seem to be made per order. I am thinking if I sell my home I could come up with enough dough. I would worry about the mount later though. 

Just one decent lottery win.....PLEASE!!!!



#21 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,154
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:55 PM

I would be interested in both visual and imaging, with an emphasis on imaging. There is a huge diff in price (not as bad for a used TAK150B) - but still. Would one win over the other or is there anything to really differentiate one from the other - aside from the 10mm in aperture?

 

What would you do? Scope would be in an observatory.

Wide temperature variances during the night?  Finite capacity mount?  At least as much visual use as imaging use?  Does money matter (i.e., you save 50% about with the TEC)?  All of these factor steer you to the TEC.

 

Conversely, if you have a very big mount, intend on doing much more imaging than visual observing, live in a locale with relatively small temperature fluctuations through the night, money isn't a big deal to you?  Then lean towards the TOA-150.

 

I have a TEC.  But I tend to travel with my scope, observe in conditions with large temperature swings through the night and really would never consider dropping nearly $12k on such a very tiny scope as a 6-incher even though I technically could spend pretty much as much as I want on astronomy gear.

 

Regards,

 

Jim



#22 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,154
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 06 June 2018 - 10:11 PM

I agree. One of my Canon camera lens, a 100-400mm zoom, is a popular lens for wildlife and sports photography and has a fluorite element.  The lens is fairly rugged (it’s weather sealed) and is designed for heavy use and in extreme conditions.  I don’t think Canon would have used fluorite for such a lens if it were that delicate.  Tak and TEC are both great choices.

Incidentally Canon's Optron subsidiary makes Tak's refractor optics.  Pretty clearly, given that Tak sells scopes with both ED and fluorite objectives made for Tak by Optron, Optron is materials agnostic.  I imagine a dual fluorite objective would make the TOA even more costly than it already is, and the color correction achievable with dual ED elements is already so good that the CCD doesn't pick up what chromatism exists.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the materials used in either scopes' objective.  I agree that either scope would be a good choice - but for an observatory mounted instrument used primarily for imaging, provided that the site doesn't suffer rapid temperature swings at night, I would go for a TOA, though I would buy used - they depreciate.  A lot; good condition used examples are less than $8k.

 

- Jim


  • Richard Whalen likes this

#23 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 06 June 2018 - 11:04 PM

Incidentally Canon's Optron subsidiary makes Tak's refractor optics.  Pretty clearly, given that Tak sells scopes with both ED and fluorite objectives made for Tak by Optron, Optron is materials agnostic.  I imagine a dual fluorite objective would make the TOA even more costly than it already is, and the color correction achievable with dual ED elements is already so good that the CCD doesn't pick up what chromatism exists.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the materials used in either scopes' objective.  I agree that either scope would be a good choice - but for an observatory mounted instrument used primarily for imaging, provided that the site doesn't suffer rapid temperature swings at night, I would go for a TOA, though I would buy used - they depreciate.  A lot; good condition used examples are less than $8k.

 

- Jim

Thanks for that. I will be keeping watch for any that may come up.

 

 

Cheers



#24 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,378
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 07 June 2018 - 01:20 AM

Fluorite that is used by the top makers is not leading to issues in telescopes or camera lenses, so you should not make that leading in your consideration. It has proven to be a fantastic lens element in refractors, doing their performance well.

 

That said, there  are many superb lenses made without fluorite, using other good designs and lens materials. In fact, the best corrected 5-6" current lenses are arguably the TOA series by Tak, using two FPL53 elements. 

 

As for the Tak TOA150 vs TEC140FL. Both are superb scopes, with the TOA150 a proven performer and the FL140 likely becoming a proven performer.

The performance edge will probably go to the Tak TOA150, being known to be superb and having a 10mm aperture advantage. The cooling advantage will go to the oil spaced TEC. In an observatory,  I would choose the Tak TOA150, because that where it's strong points shine and it's hefty weight and longer cooling time are not so much an issue.

 

In the end, both should be excellent and vary satisfying scopes to use and own. Best answer to your question would be to side-side them both.

 

Just my 2 cents.


  • Adam S likes this

#25 Olee

Olee

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 01 May 2013

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:14 AM

General

 

I have owned both a TEC 140 ED ( I know not fluorite) & a TOA 150. Speaking of the optics only.

 

I remember no visual difference between them... although I never had them side by side , in which case maybe I could ??  I primarily observe the planets & visually I am not convinced 10mm makes a big difference ?? However my eyes are older so bawling.gif Personally, I don't feel I have given anything up visually with the TEC. 

 

I don't image with any of my scopes, so take this opinion with that in mind. If you can afford the TOA (used?) & all the accy's & a sturdy mount, I would go with the TOA. Although the TEC  especially with the fluorite will be fantastic imaging tool too!!

 

The TEC will also cool faster than the TOA, however both of mine are/were stored in an unheated space so it wasn't a big concern for me.

 

Mechanically speaking!

 

The TEC is so much lighter & better balanced. Only an issue if you mount/dismount. I also personally like the FT focuser better than the TOA's... its so smooth and has more travel 4.5" vs 3.5" IIRC.

 

I also like dealing with Yuri at TEC he is very helpful & responsive. 

 

TNR is also very good & can collimate/service a TOA (if the needed).

 

Good Luck

Steve


  • Adam S, delgado39 and RAKing like this


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