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

Takahashi FC-76DS v TV 76 as travel scopes?

refractor
  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,589
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 24 September 2018 - 07:11 PM

Longer but less expensive, how does the Tak FC-76DS compare?

 

That model specifically as it has a sliding dewshield, and 95mm tube,  the latter being same diameter as my FC100, so no new rings etc needed. I am looking at both Tak and TV as travel scopes.   


Edited by 25585, 24 September 2018 - 07:12 PM.


#2 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 24 September 2018 - 07:34 PM

I'd pick the TV-76 but that's because I understand the TV approach to astronomy.  I don't know what the heck Takahashi's approach is.  Seems like you have to buy extra stuff to run their scopes.  Bottom line though, pick whichever is most robust.



#3 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,768
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 24 September 2018 - 07:43 PM

The Tak is gonna be more fragile, but will have significantly better optics. My FC-76DC is absolutely superb and I can only imagine it being even better if it was in what I call a convenient form factor like the DS. Only downside is it's a bit heavy, but about the same as the TV-76 I think, or close. I would pick the FC-76DS over the TV-76, but I'd really want to pick up a used one which don't come along often from what I can tell. The focuser will be better on a dual-speed TV-76 for sure but the 2.5/2.7" (can't remember) on the DS isn't too shabby, it will just be single speed (still decent).


  • Fomalhaut, pao and sctt50 like this

#4 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 24 September 2018 - 08:31 PM

"but will have significantly better optics"

 

Really?  Based on what metric? Is it a fluorite doublet?  Has there been much side by side testing of those two scopes.


Edited by CSG, 24 September 2018 - 08:33 PM.


#5 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,768
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 24 September 2018 - 08:51 PM

"but will have significantly better optics"

 

Really?  Based on what metric? Is it a fluorite doublet?  Has there been much side by side testing of those two scopes.

It is indeed a fluorite doublet at f/7.5 instead of f/6.3. Color correction and I'd be willing to bet spherical correction are a good bit better, overall sharper with better colors. I don't know about side-by-side testing but the Tak is known for its excellent optics.


Edited by jay.i, 24 September 2018 - 10:13 PM.

  • pao likes this

#6 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 24 September 2018 - 09:22 PM

I think TV is also known for their excellent optics.  As I said earlier, I'd pick the one that's more robust because both are going to be excellent telescopes regardless of which might have an optical edge.


Edited by CSG, 24 September 2018 - 09:22 PM.

  • Castor likes this

#7 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 24 September 2018 - 09:25 PM

"but will have significantly better optics"

 

Really?  Based on what metric? Is it a fluorite doublet?  Has there been much side by side testing of those two scopes.

I would word it differently. Owning both TV and Taks, and having had the TV-76... The Tak is going to outperform it at the EP. Why? not just the better objective, but the longer FL.

 

Yes, the TV-76 will be more robust. But, while I have utilized many TV accessories on my TV scopes, I'm not sure what approach to astronomy you referenced. 


  • gjanke likes this

#8 tonyt

tonyt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,108
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 24 September 2018 - 09:48 PM

Buying brand new I'd be tempted by the slightly better optics of the slower Tak fluorite doublet, unless you need the more compact size of the TV76. Second hand I'd just take the one that came up first at a good price and be happy.


  • CSG and Kunama like this

#9 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,455
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 24 September 2018 - 10:26 PM

I always figure the performance of small scopes is limited by their smaller aperture. A significant optical advantage in one small scope over another translates to a relatively small net improvement. Better optics become increasingly useful as you slide up the aperture scale. Having said that, I am guilty myself of chasing optical nirvana where ever I can.

 

The FC76 is a beautiful scope, though I haven’t compared one side by side with my TV85 or TV76. I bought my TV85 as my travel scope, mainly because it was shorter than the FC76 and the extra aperture would be useful. The optics in my TV85 are brilliant, and exceeded what I was expecting. It will outgun an FC76 based on its larger aperture, and I would suggest that as the best travel scope.

 

The TV76 has considerable field curvature if you use low power, wide field eyepieces. If that’s going to be an issue, then realise the FC76 will have a much cleaner image at the edge of the eyepiece. The TV76 is tiny, which makes travelling with and mounting the scope easier than the Tak. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. That’s why I still think the TV85 is the best all round package.


  • eros312, alnitak22, slack and 2 others like this

#10 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,768
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 24 September 2018 - 10:39 PM

Spot on Allan, but the DS is shorter than the TV-85 with a sliding dew shield as well and is much closer to a TV-76 but a bit chunkier and maybe slightly heavier.
  • Allan Wade and pao like this

#11 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 24 September 2018 - 10:45 PM

I agree with Allan. I'd take the TV-85 over both (and not only as a travel scope). As demonstrated in another, current, lengthy thread, not everyone agrees with me... But I find the difference in performance between the TV-76 and TV-85 very substantial. And though larger, of course, it's just a pound heavier (technically, less). 

 

To me, the performance difference going from a TV-76 to TV-85 was greater than from a TV-85 to TV-102.


  • Allan Wade and gfstallin like this

#12 rerun

rerun

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009

Posted 25 September 2018 - 01:10 PM

Hi,

 I own a Takahashi  FC76DS and it is a great scope. It was better than my ED102 refractor in sharpness and colour.

Yes the ED 100 was a little better because of his bigger aperture ,some objects are easier to seen but not that much that I hold it. I liked the picture of the FC76DS much better in any way. The tube is big with 95mm but because of the retractable dew shield it is only 51cm long . For me a grab n go scope with a great optic. And you can use  2 "  ep and diagonal .This  is a fine thing for views with my 27mm Panoptic eyepiece.

I think you won t be disappointed with this scope .

 

Clear skies Markus 


  • Erik Bakker and db2005 like this

#13 Nippon

Nippon

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,209
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 26 September 2018 - 06:33 PM

I'd go with the longer slower Takahashi personally but for that reason alone because I don't think the quality of the optics would be very different between the two. But I would also consider the Vixen SD81s. Owners praise the optics, very light tube, f/7.7 ratio, comes with rings and a V style dovetail bar all for about $600 less.


  • db2005 likes this

#14 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 26 September 2018 - 07:27 PM

I'd pick the TV-76 but that's because I understand the TV approach to astronomy.  I don't know what the heck Takahashi's approach is.  Seems like you have to buy extra stuff to run their scopes.

 

Not sure that is true. 

 

I see the TV85 at many sites and all it includes is the OTA and a soft case.  So no rings, not diagonal, no finder.  Cost $2125.

 

I see the FC76 at many sites and it is just the OTA.  So no case, no rings, not diagonal, no finder.  Cost $1780.

 

So for both one is going to have to get a diagonal, rings, and finder.  Tak also need to get a case.  In the end likely not to be much of a difference and the Tak will be about $200 less after you get the case for the Tak.  Actually if traveling the case the TV85 comes will will probably be no good as would want a hard shell case, so more like overall the Tak will be $300 less instead of $200 less.  But it is a smaller aperture.

 

Now if thinking the TV76 vs. FC76, well that TV model comes with nothing as well except the soft case for $1695.  But actually a little cheaper than the Tak.  But it is f/6.3 too instead of f/7.5 which means will need better corrected eyepieces whereas most any eyepiece will work well in the closer to f/8 Tak.  TV76 will get you about a degree more TFOV though, up to 5.5 degrees with 40mm wide field, whereas the Tak will get you 4.6 degrees.  Both of those binocular-like TFOVs so either expansive.  Easier of course to get to high magnifications without Barlow with the Tak.

 

As far as robustness...makes me wonder how people treat their scopes.  I've had my TSA for 6 or 7 years now and take it places and not a scratch on it.  And after zillions of objective cap on and off not a single chip on the paint at the leading edge of the dew shield...something I see a lot on other premium scopes after a little time.  No dew shield sag and not one iota of slop in the focuser after all that use (my most used scope), no internal flocking sag or black light suppression paint chipping and falling around, not a stick of ware on any of the paint or any anodization fading (can't begin to tell you how often I see that on some other premium brands).  For me has shown itself to be quite durable...especially in the places it counts the most, the mechanical moving parts, the collimation, internal baffling integrity.

 

The OP already has an FC100.  An 85mm will be more competing with the 100 than complimentary.  For that alone if the aperture and carry size fits the bill for their travel needs then I might lean toward the 76.  My recommendation to the OP would be to make an 85mm mask and a 76mm mask for their FC100 and experiment with the masks to make sure which aperture they will be most pleased with for their travel...then go from there.

 

Curious, does anyone know if either scope can use a binoviewer without an OCA?  Small scopes with their big TFOVs are a blast when the binoviewer does not need an OCA/GPC/Barlow to come to focus.


Edited by BillP, 26 September 2018 - 07:46 PM.

  • Erik Bakker and pao like this

#15 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,768
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 26 September 2018 - 07:47 PM

[...]

 

As far as robustness...makes me wonder how people treat their scopes.  I've had my TSA for 6 or 7 years now and take it places and not a scratch on it.  And after zillions of objective cap on and off not a single chip on the paint at the leading edge of the dew shield...something I see a lot on other premium scopes after a little time.  No dew shield sag and not one iota of slop in the focuser after all that use (my most used scope), no internal flocking sag or black light suppression paint chipping and falling around, not a stick of ware on any of the paint or any anodization fading (can't begin to tell you how often I see that on some other premium brands).  For me has shown itself to be quite durable...especially in the places it counts the most, the mechanical moving parts, the collimation, internal baffling integrity.

 

[...]

My FC-76DC just feels a bit fragile; it's so light that I feel like the metal would maybe not hold up if I accidentally dinged it taking it out the door. There is some paint already off the front of the dew shield simply from the lifetime of the previous owner sliding the cap on and off. It was there when I got it, not bad at all but there. I have read others' comments about how Takahashi paint seems to come off if you just look at it funny. That it's not very tough. In comparison, my TV-85 feels heavy, almost too much so to compete with the FC-76DC but the DS is almost just as heavy when you compare bare OTA weight with the TV-85. The TV-85 feels solid, sturdy, strong. It just gives that kind of feeling. My Tak feels a little more fragile. I baby all of my optics and electronics (don't run a case on my phone and no cracks the ~14 years I've had a device with a screen like a phone, iPod, or tablet) so believe me when I say I don't plan to hurt my telescopes, but sometimes it happens, and I have little to no worries of the TV-85's strength and longevity given something like a ding or a drop, whereas I feel the need to be even more cautious and careful with the FC-76DC than I already am with the TV-85. That's all.


  • pao and db2005 like this

#16 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 26 September 2018 - 07:53 PM

Interesting.  Maybe these new doublets are not as strong as the triplets.  Don't know from experience.  Just know my TSA-102 which both feels robust and has made it through many years in the field with never a problem or damage from the various hits it has by accident taken.  But then again, that is just cosmetic psycho worry as meaningless to the operation...more important is the mechanical and optical integrity over time.  I know whenever I get a new car I am actually quite thankful when it gets its forst ding as no need to continue to stress about keeping it ding-free lol.gif


Edited by BillP, 26 September 2018 - 07:53 PM.

  • pao, jay.i and db2005 like this

#17 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,597
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 26 September 2018 - 08:03 PM

When I read these threads, I wonder what I'm missing with my 80mm f/6 Lomo, which is only 40cm long with dew shield retracted.

 

Then I weigh the thing.. 9.5lb all-in (2" TV diagonal, 1.25" 18mm eyepiece, rings, Vixen dovetail, red dot finder). Geez..


  • doctordub and edif300 like this

#18 Nippon

Nippon

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,209
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 26 September 2018 - 10:11 PM

Interesting.  Maybe these new doublets are not as strong as the triplets.  Don't know from experience.  Just know my TSA-102 which both feels robust and has made it through many years in the field with never a problem or damage from the various hits it has by accident taken.  But then again, that is just cosmetic psycho worry as meaningless to the operation...more important is the mechanical and optical integrity over time.  I know whenever I get a new car I am actually quite thankful when it gets its forst ding as no need to continue to stress about keeping it ding-free lol.gif

I have a Stellarvue 102 triplet it seems plenty robust and survived 3,000 miles of rough northern interstates with no dings, dents or alignment issues. I have a Vixen ED103 that I've had since 2013 and it also has done fine with many trips and set ups even my cat who chased a mouse up the tripod then up the tube until the mouse was perched on the front edge of the dew shield. No little mouse claw marks anywhere. Point is the Vixen is a doublet, it's lighter and feels more fragile for that reason but it isn't really and I suspect the current Takahashi doublets are as robust as they need to be.


  • db2005 likes this

#19 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 27 September 2018 - 01:52 AM

Your best bet is side by siding a sample of each. That will easily make all differences visible and put a value on those differences for you between the FC-76 DS and TV76. Then buy the one you like most.

 

My experience with my FS-102 NSV OTA mimics the experience Bill has with his TSA-102 he described in post #14 above. Only a the slightest paint chips on my green clam shell. After years of frequent use, it still locked and worked like the day I bought it.

 

Some of the qualities of these wonderful scopes speak to the mind, others to the heart. Both scopes will be able to make observers very happy, though perhaps not both equally for the same person.


  • Castor likes this

#20 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 27 September 2018 - 03:08 PM

When I read these threads, I wonder what I'm missing with my 80mm f/6 Lomo, which is only 40cm long with dew shield retracted.

You are entirely correct.  I've had the 80 LOMO and indeed it was an incredible scope, and smaller than these 76's and very slightly more capable with an extra 11% light gathering.  The one I had also had a split tube so could shorten it to make it binoviewer friendly with no OCA needed.  At the time I got it on the used market for $1,000...much less than any of the 76's being consider here new.

 

 

I have a Vixen ED103 that I've had since 2013 and it also has done fine with many trips .... Point is the Vixen is a doublet, it's lighter and feels more fragile for that reason but it isn't really and I suspect the current Takahashi doublets are as robust as they need to be.

I agree with this as well.  I've used many many different brand scopes in the field and for the most part none of them were not up to the task to be a long surviving piece of hardware.  Certainly there were a few exceptions, but none of those were prominent brands and certainly none were the higher tier brands we are talking here.  So all were built excellently and strongly.  But that said the OP needs to realize that some of the more premium brands are clearly "overbuilt" and it would be inappropriate to convey that those builds should ever be considered a minimum standard for a long lasting and rugged optical hardware.  Overbuilt is always nice, but don't get fooled and you are paying a premium for what is probably not needed (assuming you are not a gorilla when handling your scope).

 

 

Your best bet is side by siding a sample of each. That will easily make all differences visible and put a value on those differences for you between the FC-76 DS and TV76. Then buy the one you like most.

 

...

 

Some of the qualities of these wonderful scopes speak to the mind, others to the heart. Both scopes will be able to make observers very happy, though perhaps not both equally for the same person.

I like this a lot.  It makes clear that the ultimate reasons why we choose one scope over another is not simply quantitative parameters.  So knowing the numbers is never sufficient as a scope is very much a tool that speaks to both the mind and the heart.  How could it be otherwise since the very act of engaging with the heavens brings with an inextricable connection to feelings and heart!



#21 edif300

edif300

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,425
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Basque Country

Posted 27 September 2018 - 05:04 PM

When I read these threads, I wonder what I'm missing with my 80mm f/6 Lomo, which is only 40cm long with dew shield retracted.

 

Then I weigh the thing.. 9.5lb all-in (2" TV diagonal, 1.25" 18mm eyepiece, rings, Vixen dovetail, red dot finder). Geez..

I got the lens cell design some years ago and its incredible well made. Lomo optics are fine optics.


  • doctordub likes this

#22 ryanlu92

ryanlu92

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Loc: CA

Posted 27 September 2018 - 11:32 PM

Have you considered FC76 DCU ? It can be broken into 2 pieces. 13inch and 8 inch. Very light weight.

And much cheaper.

 

 

Ryan


Edited by ryanlu92, 27 September 2018 - 11:33 PM.

  • 3 i Guy likes this

#23 BravoFoxtrot

BravoFoxtrot

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Palmer Divide, Colorado

Posted 27 September 2018 - 11:40 PM

TV-76 of your choices. It may not be better optically, but more durable in my experience. That’s important to me for a travel scope.

I’d also consider a SV80ST. I use mine as my travel scope and it fits the bill perfectly. Tough, powder coat finish and a fantastic case. It’s color free and very good optically.

#24 donadani

donadani

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 999
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 28 September 2018 - 12:31 AM

Which is the better travel scope? >> depends on... (as always!) wink.gif

 

Had both and tested them next to each other…

 

[attachment=1132317:1.jpg]

 

[attachment=1132318:2.jpg]

 

 
Tak:
+ perfect optics
- big scope for it´s aperture

 

TV
+ compact
+ nice and sweet!
- optics very good but not on Tak Level

 

 

I sold the TV and wanted to stay with the Tak but then changed it in too when I got the TOA-150 as part of the deal.

 

 

Other nice alternatives are Williams Megrez 90FD >> no real Fluorite of course but a very good optics! somewhere between TV and Tak in my view and it´s the same size as the Tak - but with 90mm! (btw. sold this too…)

 

[attachment=1132320:3.jpg]

 

 

Today I use a Lomo 80/480 that has a perfect optics, and is very compact… but not so nice and sweet as the TV ;) so a TV with Lomo optics would be the real perfect scope  :) :) :)

 

cs

Chris

 

 

 


  • 3 i Guy, Erik Bakker, plyscope and 1 other like this

#25 tegea

tegea

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 591
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2004
  • Loc: France

Posted 28 September 2018 - 04:31 AM

I had a TV-76 for a number of years.

It was a sweet scope, very small but also very heavy.

I found the focuser to be excellent, very precise and smooth.

Optics were very good, but not as good as what you'll find an a Tak scope (I have a FS60, Sky90 and FC100D and did some side by side comparisons with the FS60 and the Sky90)

 

Here it is with the FS60 : very small indeed !

TV76-FS60C_1.jpg

 

tv76_longue_courte.jpg

 

The doublet lens design is very similar to the Sky90 design with a very big air gap between the two lenses, and the color correction of the TV76 and the Sky90 are very similar as well.

 

I overall liked it a lot and used it of astronomy and birding.

 

The only drawback for me was this :

TV76_baffling.jpg

 

The internal baffling is made with emery sandpaper painted in black, and as you can see on the photo, it began to unglue from the tube with the years & humidity, with the risk to find emery grains inside the tube.

Considering the price of the scope, I just find that unacceptable.

 

So I would go for the FC76D, but would prefer the DCU version as a travel scope as it will be smaller and lighter.

If it is optically as good as the FC100D, it should be a fantastic little scope !


Edited by tegea, 28 September 2018 - 04:36 AM.

  • 3 i Guy, Erik Bakker, eros312 and 4 others 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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: refractor



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics