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

#51 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,637
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:08 AM

For cost/benefit the Toa130 and Mach 1 recommendation is the combo to beat! I don't think it can be for an imaging rig.

My TOA-130 / Mach1 combo was also very good for visual astronomy, too. waytogo.gif

 

Cheers,

 

Ron


  • turtle86 likes this

#52 snommisbor

snommisbor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,440
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Cedar Park, TX

Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:43 AM

As someone who has gone this route myself let me add my .02. Sure the TAK 150 would be a better scope for imaging but is it really? With software today and processing skills, that is more of a factor than a RAW image. You can do so may things with color correction and tightening of stars, taking out stars, adding diffraction spikes, changing the color by pointing RGB or NB to different points, so IMO I think the TAK 150 is not a necessity to get the perfect image. I have gotten great images with my TEC140ED and never felt that I had a problem with the purity of each frame. A key to a great image is tons of data. I try not to do an image with no less than 25-30 hours of data. 

 

I consider myself an 75-25 AP to Visual (although lately I have been enjoying my DM6 and my TEC 160ED for visual, going out tonight in fact for visual) So my suggestion as well is to consider a TEC 160 ED. Obviously it would be used but price wise would be around the same as a TOA150. You would get another 10mm of aperture and the F/8 is practically the same as f/7.33. And you still would have a lighter scope that would be better balanced, plus you get the great FT focuser. I would assume this would be running on a quality mount so the slower f/stop would not really matter for speed with good guiding and polar alignment being it would be in an observatory.

 

And when you want to pop that camera of and stick an EP in to view Jupiter, you might be going visual more than you think. This is just another avenue to consider if since you are getting up to this scope size and level of quality.


  • Auburn80 likes this

#53 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

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

Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:46 AM

As someone who has gone this route myself let me add my .02. Sure the TAK 150 would be a better scope for imaging but is it really? With software today and processing skills, that is more of a factor than a RAW image. You can do so may things with color correction and tightening of stars, taking out stars, adding diffraction spikes, changing the color by pointing RGB or NB to different points, so IMO I think the TAK 150 is not a necessity to get the perfect image. I have gotten great images with my TEC140ED and never felt that I had a problem with the purity of each frame. A key to a great image is tons of data. I try not to do an image with no less than 25-30 hours of data. 

 

I consider myself an 75-25 AP to Visual (although lately I have been enjoying my DM6 and my TEC 160ED for visual, going out tonight in fact for visual) So my suggestion as well is to consider a TEC 160 ED. Obviously it would be used but price wise would be around the same as a TOA150. You would get another 10mm of aperture and the F/8 is practically the same as f/7.33. And you still would have a lighter scope that would be better balanced, plus you get the great FT focuser. I would assume this would be running on a quality mount so the slower f/stop would not really matter for speed with good guiding and polar alignment being it would be in an observatory.

 

And when you want to pop that camera of and stick an EP in to view Jupiter, you might be going visual more than you think. This is just another avenue to consider if since you are getting up to this scope size and level of quality.

Thanks. That is some good insight. A TEC160 does have appeal. I do have an AP1100GTO mount so would be a good fit.


  • gnowellsct likes this

#54 edif300

edif300

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Basque Country

Posted 08 June 2018 - 11:48 AM

Nothing to do about bloated stars by processing... It’s quite obvious that TOA-150B is better option for AP.

The TOA-67Fl is a masterpiece flattener that can deliver an impresive performance. So if you go into astrophotography no doubt here.

#55 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,397
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 08 June 2018 - 01:29 PM

Thanks. That is some good insight. A TEC160 does have appeal. I do have an AP1100GTO mount so would be a good fit.

I guess I have to disagree with that.

 

It would be a GREAT fit!

 

Jeff



#56 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,621
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 09 June 2018 - 06:14 AM

Nothing to do about bloated stars by processing... It’s quite obvious that TOA-150B is better option for AP.

The TOA-67Fl is a masterpiece flattener that can deliver an impresive performance. So if you go into astrophotography no doubt here.


I use a TOA130 with the 67FL. Best stars of any scope I own. The .7x reducer is quite nice as well. Considering the accessory cost, the 130 with the 67fl, 0.7x reducer, gives great options. I'm pairing mine with a 16200 chip and Nitecrawler. Should be a stellar performer.

#57 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 17,743
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 09 June 2018 - 07:09 AM

TOA all the way!



#58 Faber

Faber

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2014

Posted 09 June 2018 - 07:30 AM

I owned a TOA 150... TOA without any doubt, there isn’t any comparable of 6”. Perhaps a 180 fl could beat the TOA 150...

Sadly I sold the scope, but I feel so angry with myself for this decision

#59 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,631
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 17 June 2018 - 10:38 PM

The TEC’s and I believe but may be wrong the AP’s as well are corrected for visual over AP use. Look into the blue star bloat issue with more sensitive CCD’s people were having including Peter in Reno who images with a TEC 140.

The blue star bloat issue in TEC 140 got resolved by simply using TEC Field Flattener (FF). There is a review about TEC 140 and it mentioned TEC FF doing an excellent job correcting blue light. Here is the link to the review:

 

http://www.astrosurf...ent/apo140e.htm

 

Here is a snippet about TEC FF:

 

"We also tested the TEC140 with the Field Flattener (FF140) and appreciated its very clever design : with the FF, the color balance is slightly shifted toward the blue for a better match to the sensitivity of a sensor. So, whatever the format of your sensor, the FF is a must for the best possible color correction."

 

After reading the article, I bought TEC FF and it did solved the blue star bloat. You won't regret imaging with TEC 140 if you use TEC FF. Here is an APOD image taken with TEC 140 and TEC FF last November: https://peternagy.sm...ies/i-fd6ndvX/A .

 

I also have Astro-Physics 0.72x Quad Telecompressor Corrector (TCC) and it also does a great job correcting blue light as well. Here is my first image taken with TEC 140 and A-P Quad TCC: https://peternagy.sm...ers/i-TWmx4QX/A .

 

Peter


Edited by Peter in Reno, 17 June 2018 - 11:01 PM.

  • eros312 likes this

#60 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,621
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:18 PM

The blue star bloat issue in TEC 140 got resolved by simply using TEC Field Flattener (FF). There is a review about TEC 140 and it mentioned TEC FF doing an excellent job correcting blue light. Here is the link to the review:

 

http://www.astrosurf...ent/apo140e.htm

 

Here is a snippet about TEC FF:

 

"We also tested the TEC140 with the Field Flattener (FF140) and appreciated its very clever design : with the FF, the color balance is slightly shifted toward the blue for a better match to the sensitivity of a sensor. So, whatever the format of your sensor, the FF is a must for the best possible color correction."

 

After reading the article, I bought TEC FF and it did solved the blue star bloat. You won't regret imaging with TEC 140 if you use TEC FF. Here is an APOD image taken with TEC 140 and TEC FF last November: https://peternagy.sm...ies/i-fd6ndvX/A .

 

I also have Astro-Physics 0.72x Quad Telecompressor Corrector (TCC) and it also does a great job correcting blue light as well. Here is my first image taken with TEC 140 and A-P Quad TCC: https://peternagy.sm...ers/i-TWmx4QX/A .

 

Peter

The TOA doesnt need the FF though to solve the problem.



#61 GeneralT001

GeneralT001

    Mercury-Atlas

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

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:20 PM

Well, its all a moot point now as I was able to buy a TOA150B. I'm happy...a little poorer...but happy :)


  • Erik Bakker, noisejammer, eros312 and 4 others like this

#62 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,631
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:33 PM

The TOA doesnt need the FF though to solve the problem.

I was trying to make a point that imaging with TEC 140 and FF does not have blue star bloats. Also, TEC 140 with FF (or A-P Quad TCC) is cheaper than TAK 150.

 

Peter


Edited by Peter in Reno, 17 June 2018 - 11:35 PM.


#63 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,621
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:36 PM

I was trying to make a point that imaging with TEC 140 and FF does not have blue star bloats. Also, TEC 140 with FF is cheaper than TAK 150.

 

Peter

Okay, yes I agree that the images show that the TEC FF solves the problem with those scopes.

 

The TOA150 is much more expensive. It uses two FPL-53 150mm lenses though. The TOA130 is a little more than TEC140 but has better color correction due to its dual FPL53 glass as well. 



#64 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,631
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 17 June 2018 - 11:53 PM

I was not comparing to TAK scopes. I was simply pointing out that TEC 140 scopes do a good job of correcting blue lights with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC. At more than twice the price of TAK 150 scopes (I am not referring to TAK 130 because the topic is about comparing TEC 140 to TAK 150), I am not sure if it's worth it for TAK 150 over TEC 140 with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC regarding to color correction. I am sure TAK scopes are awesome, it's just that they are quite expensive that many people cannot afford and many people would be happy with the results from TEC 140 along with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC.

 

Peter


  • Heywood likes this

#65 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,621
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 18 June 2018 - 12:32 AM

The TAK150 is not worth the money, IMHO, over the 130. The TOA130 is worth the cost difference over the TEC140 IMHO. 

 

The A-P gear works very well with the TOA scopes as well. The reducer Tak offers for the TOA scopes is a bit better for them though. Costs less than the Quad TC from AP as well. The TOA67FL is a piece of art. No one with a TOA should use any other flattener. 


Edited by rockstarbill, 18 June 2018 - 12:35 AM.


#66 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

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

Posted 18 June 2018 - 03:47 AM

Well, its all a moot point now as I was able to buy a TOA150B. I'm happy...a little poorer...but happy smile.gif

Congratulations on getting this wonderful and powerful scope!



#67 edif300

edif300

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Basque Country

Posted 18 June 2018 - 06:51 AM

I was not comparing to TAK scopes. I was simply pointing out that TEC 140 scopes do a good job of correcting blue lights with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC. At more than twice the price of TAK 150 scopes (I am not referring to TAK 130 because the topic is about comparing TEC 140 to TAK 150), I am not sure if it's worth it for TAK 150 over TEC 140 with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC regarding to color correction. I am sure TAK scopes are awesome, it's just that they are quite expensive that many people cannot afford and many people would be happy with the results from TEC 140 along with TEC FF or A-P Quad TCC.

Peter


TEC-140ED costs 6600 while the reducer 1520. So 8120$

TOA-150B COSTS 12970 and the 67FL 1010. 13980$.

13980/8120 = 1.72. And 1.72 are not more than twice the price. Sorry are just mathematics.

And not, the blue star bloat is not solved since it’s inherent to TEC. By quad reducer has been only disimulated. Solving requieres redesigning the TEC.

#68 Jpberger

Jpberger

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2017

Posted 09 February 2020 - 02:48 AM

For visual, better to use two TOA-130 than a TOA-150.

 

Regards.



#69 mtminnesota

mtminnesota

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2019
  • Loc: Mahtomedi, Minnesota

Posted 09 February 2020 - 11:47 AM

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.

WAY more than that...



#70 Swanny

Swanny

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2017
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:10 PM

I did have a similar conundrum. The TOA150 would have required a larger mount than the Mach 1. Also, I would have replaced the focuser on the 150 to start so that was an added expense. The TEC140 already has an excellent focuser so that would save a grand. The TEC was better balanced/more manageable as I do swap scopes on the mount. Lastly, I researched images and the TEC140 produced what I like best from a couple of users. I did think about the TOA130 but again, would change the focuser out to start.

Ultimately, there is no wrong answer. Everyone has their choices to make. I figured if I was going the route of a 45lb scope it would be a Planewave.....not a TOA150.

#71 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 15,148
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 10 February 2020 - 04:01 PM

The Mach1 will support a TOA-150 without the counterweight ring for AP no problem and it will support it with the ring for visual as well. Also the 45 lbs is with that 10 lbs ring attached. 



#72 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,377
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 10 February 2020 - 05:37 PM

TEC....made here in North America by an artisan of scope making.  A TEC isn't really a telescope, it's a work of optical art and craftsmanship.


  • 3 i Guy likes this

#73 Swanny

Swanny

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2017
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 10 February 2020 - 06:21 PM

The Mach1 will support a TOA-150 without the counterweight ring for AP no problem and it will support it with the ring for visual as well. Also the 45 lbs is with that 10 lbs ring attached.


I called AP months ago and they did not agree with your assessment. The TOA150 was ‘on the edge’ AP wise. I am not willing to take that risk. Mach 2 is still a possibility but my slush fund availability is to be determined when the call comes in. Again, if I were to get that I would get a Planewave instead of the TOA150.

#74 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 15,148
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 10 February 2020 - 06:27 PM

How odd. When I spoke to them about 2 years ago it was fine but the 1100 was a better option. They also told me the Mach1 would be fine with a EdgeHD 14 on it visually. I imaged with the TOA and used the mount visually with the 14" SCT. Both worked fine. This was after the 45 to 65 lbs AP rated weight. Did you specify you would be using or not using the extra counterweight ring? The mount is rated for a AP 155 which is within spiting distance wight wise of the TOA with everything loaded on it or a EdgeHD 11 SCT.  I wonder what changed...? If I still had my Mach1 I would go outside and test it. Unfortunately I sold my Mach1...



#75 Swanny

Swanny

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2017
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:33 PM

I told them use was for AP. What was told to me was the length/weight of the 150 was a concern. Also, I asked about an 11” Edge and they said that was fine. So it is more apples to oranges with visual/AP I suspect.


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