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

Full EP lineup - Tak Abbe or Fujiyama

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 AtmosFearIC

AtmosFearIC

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Melbourne

Posted 27 May 2019 - 04:24 AM

After doing some comparisons between a pair of 25mm Fuji against 20mm TV Plossls and various Vixen NLVs I’ve decided that I really don’t mind the narrow 44° field given the exceptional contrast of the orthos. The FOV appears larger and less straw like when binoviewing.

The question then becomes, do I get a get a full set of Tak Abbe Orthos or Fujiyamas?

I’ve spent the better part of a few days reading comparisons between various orthos. A full set of Brandons would be good but SUPER expensive. I’ve already got a pair of 25mm Fujis and a 6&4mm Fuji so I’m already on the way.

I do want to on my next available night do a comparison between the 25mm Fujiyama and a Meade HD-60 25mm as I’ve been very pleased with the Meades. Ultimately I’d sell off everything but the Meades for a full set of binoviewer pairs.

Long term I’m thinking of a pair of 24mm Pans with a 2.6x GPC on the Mewlon 250CRS for 270x floating above the moon experience!

I personally find that I get some blackouts with the 25mm Fujiyama but the sharpness and contrast I found with full moon views and on star clusters made them worth it. Do people find the Tak Abbes easier to view with?
  • ShaulaB likes this

#2 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3712
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 27 May 2019 - 07:31 AM

I'm like a broken record when it comes to the Tak Abbes. They are easily the best price to performance eyepieces I have ever owned. There are two main reasons I like them so much. Firstly they go deeper than any eyepiece I have ever used on faint threshold objects, and that performance gain is quite a lot in the 32". The ZAO II's may be their equal, but that's an evaluation I'm still working on. Secondly, when observing faint objects near brighter ones, the scatter control from the Taks is very, very good. It's that sort of observing that make the Taks look so good against the Fujiyamas. I'm sure the premium you pay for the Taks is due better polish, because that's what I see through the eyepiece.

 

I bought a few Fujiyamas for a look, and while they are slightly cleaner than the TV Plossls, they are still your average, standard abbe ortho. I wasn't impressed enough to keep any of them. I bought most of my Tak Abbes in Hong Kong for barely a few bucks more than the Fujiyamas, so it was a no brainer. I owned some Brandons along the way as well, and saw no reason to keep those as the Taks were better for all the observing I do in my scopes, which tends to be deep sky focused observing in faster scopes. The Brandons are great in slower scopes on the planets and moon, but I found the Taks to be just as good, and more versatile on a wider range of targets and telescopes.

 

With the Taks the rubber eye guard puts you in the right position, so I have no issues with blackouts in either mono or bino mode.

 

1.jpg


  • Sol Robbins, 3 i Guy, Scott99 and 13 others like this

#3 AtmosFearIC

AtmosFearIC

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Melbourne

Posted 27 May 2019 - 09:03 AM

It’s your talk about the Tak Abbe Orthos that had me interested in them in the first place ;)
Matt also speaks highly of the LE7.5 which nicely fits between the 6&9 Abbes.
  • Procyon and StarDust1 like this

#4 havasman

havasman

    Cosmos

  • ****-
  • Posts: 9208
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 27 May 2019 - 10:26 AM

Allan convinced me to swap my old KK Fujiyama's for TAO's - 12.5, 9 & 6mm. The TAO eyecup makes them really easy to use and they are probably the best eyepieces I will ever own. Even in my scopes and with my eyes they are pretty easily superior.

_________________________

 

edit

...pretty easily superior is a bad overstatement, a fault of mine. They were visibly slightly better. But that counted.


Edited by havasman, 27 May 2019 - 07:35 PM.

  • Jaimo!, leonard, Procyon and 1 other like this

#5 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4092
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 27 May 2019 - 04:10 PM

I got a pair of the 32 Taks for binoviewing. Those are very sharp indeed.

 

I also tried a 6mm Tak and compared with UO 6mm, The UO was a tiny bit better, but neither added performance over my barlowed Leica zoom or 3-6 Nager, so I sold them off.

 

Biggest scope I tried them in was my 12.5" F5, but the tiny field and high mags were beyond my tolerance level.



#6 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3712
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 27 May 2019 - 08:51 PM

It’s your talk about the Tak Abbe Orthos that had me interested in them in the first place wink.gif
Matt also speaks highly of the LE7.5 which nicely fits between the 6&9 Abbes.

It’s the one limitation of the Tak range, in that there’s no 7mm or 8mm focal length. I tried many different minimum glass options at 7mm and 8mm and nothing I tried slotted in at the Tak and ZAO standard in my scopes. Perhaps an AP SPL 8mm could, but that’s one I didn’t find to try. So I just go from the 9mm Tak to the 6mm Tak and ZAO II.

 

I never tried the LE 7.5, though that might be a fine option.


Edited by Allan Wade, 27 May 2019 - 08:53 PM.


#7 Tropobob

Tropobob

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Cairns Australia

Posted 28 May 2019 - 05:29 AM

I sold my LE 7.5mm but kept all my Tak Orthos  (18,12.5,9 & 6mm).  I thought the image given by the LE 7.5mm was inferior to the Orthos. 


  • BradFran likes this

#8 StarDust1

StarDust1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

Posted 28 May 2019 - 01:54 PM

I have used the Tak Ortho 6 & 9mm and ZAO 10mm. The Tak LE 7.5 and 5mm are also excellent eyepieces. The LE is less critical on the eye placement and I like the views of Jupiter and Saturn with this eyepiece. When using the Tak LE, your eyes will thank you, trust me. I use the Tak Orthos 12.5mm for binoviewing, it's sharp and contrasty. The ZAO's are a step above of the Tak Orthos, better build, more contrast and sharper, they should be for the price.

 

By the way, you can't go wrong with the Tak LE 30mm or the Pan 24mm for binoviewing. I use both regularly, weather permitting of course.


  • payner, Star_Shooter and BradFran like this

#9 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29864
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 29 May 2019 - 07:26 AM

OK, here is a contrary review, a minority report perhaps:

 

The Takahashi Abbe Ortho, a brief summary

https://www.cloudyni...-brief-summary/

 

At the time of purchase, I guessed that the Tak's would be second in line behind the excellent ZAO-I/II, but probably better than the University Optics Ortho.   I was wrong on the second count.  After intense observation, a lot of soul searching, a lot of nail biting, my conclusion is this:  Takahashi have done it again, marketed a generic and garden variety orthoscopic that is absolutely no better than it's competition.

I have owned and used for close planetary observation the XO's, BGO's, BCO's, Vixen HR's, Brandons, UO Orthos, XW's, XL's, Radians, TV Plossls, CZJ Orthos, Leica Zoom, Nagler Zooms, Delos, DeLite, Ethos SX.  No ZAO's and TMB Monos.  But among these I'd rank the top for sharpness, perceived contrast and scatter control, the XO's, BGO's (tied with CZJ Orthos) and Brandons, in that order.  I also like the HR's, but more for double stars than for planets.

 

If the TAO's are going to be no better than UO Orthos, I think I'll pass.  I can't see them being better for planets than the XO's.  If I bought TAO's it'd probably be more for going deeper for deep sky.

 

I am taking a chance, though, on the Tak TOE 4. grin.gif

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 29 May 2019 - 08:14 AM.

  • Allan Wade likes this

#10 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3712
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 29 May 2019 - 08:26 AM

OK, here is a contrary review, a minority report perhaps:

 

The Takahashi Abbe Ortho, a brief summary

https://www.cloudyni...-brief-summary/

 

I have owned and used for close planetary observation the XO's, BGO's, BCO's, Vixen HR's, Brandons, UO Orthos, XW's, Radians, TV Plossls, CZJ Orthos, Leica Zoom, Nagler Zooms, Ethos SX.  No ZAO's and TMB Monos.  But among these I'd rank the top for sharpness, perceived contrast and scatter control, the XO's, BGO's (tied with CZJ Orthos) and Brandons, in that order.  I also like the HR's, but more for double stars than for planets.

 

If the TAO's are going to be no better than UO Orthos, I think I'll pass.  I can't see them being better for planets than the XO's.  If I bought TAO's it'd probably be more for going deeper for deep sky.

 

I am taking a chance, though, on the Tak TOE 4. grin.gif

 

Mike

Mike, I remember that thread very well, as it contradicted completely everything I saw through the Tak Abbes in my scopes. Incredibly, SpooPoker started another thread that I also remember well some time later and said he was completely wrong the first time, and the Tak Abbes were great eyepieces. Go figure.

 

Anyway, I may be going out on a limb, but I have never been impressed with the BGO or UO HD orthos. They appear to be your basic abbe ortho like the Fujiyamas, perhaps a small step above the TeleVue plossls.

 

I agree the XO's are really good, and I kept the 5mm in my case over any other 5mm eyepiece.

 

I was less impressed with the TMB SMC's than I was expecting. I do use faster scopes and focus more on deep sky than planetary though. I saw the Tak Abbe performing better than the TMB SMC on many nights in my scopes.

 

The ZAO II's are the only min glass eyepieces I have not considered selling after comparing them to the Tak Abbes. Those two sets combine very well.

 

I bought a Tak TOE 4mm today as well. Looking to see how it performs against the 4mm ZAO II and Tak Abbe in the 32". I only want one min glass eyepiece at 4mm, so which ever one goes deepest gets to stay.


  • Sol Robbins, Sarkikos, Procyon and 3 others like this

#11 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29864
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 29 May 2019 - 08:47 AM

I'll have to check out SpooPoker's re-review of the TAO's.  

 

I saw the BGO's as better performers than the UO Orthos for planets, not incredibly so, but enough to make a difference during good seeing.  The XO's are clearly better.  I have the entire line.  wink.gif

 

I wish I'd bought a set of ZAO II's when they first came out.  But the new price was too much for me then.  Now the used price is too much.  I can't win!   Well, at least I have the XO's. 

 

There have been some stinkers in 4mm eyepieces, even in lines where the other focal lengths are good.  But I've heard good things about the Tak TOE's and I'm hoping for the best. 

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 29 May 2019 - 08:47 AM.

  • Procyon, Allan Wade and lsquaredb like this

#12 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29864
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 29 May 2019 - 09:09 AM

Here's a post where Spoopoker changed his opinion about the TAO's:

 

https://www.cloudyni...-fun/?p=6561123

 

 

They are good modern orthos that cost a darn sight less than anything orthoscopic with Pentax or Zeiss stamped on the barrel.  In context, they are excellent budget orthos.

 

Pretty much a "good for the price" assessment?  So not exactly an endorsement nor a condemnation.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 29 May 2019 - 09:09 AM.

  • Procyon likes this

#13 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3712
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 29 May 2019 - 09:20 AM

You did well to find those threads so quickly.

 

I’ve heard good things about the Tak TOE line as well and the curiosity got the better of me.


  • Sarkikos likes this

#14 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6329
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 29 May 2019 - 10:16 AM

You guys ever compared a Tak LE ED to anything? 

 

Takahashi Hi-LE 2.8mm 
Takahashi HI-LE 3.6mm 

Takahashi LE-ED 5mm
Takahashi LE-ED 7.5mm
Takahashi LE 12.5mm 
Takahashi LE 18mm
Takahashi LE 24mm 
Takahashi LE 25mm 
Takahashi LE 30mm
Takahashi LE 50mm 

 

Which ones actually had that extra ED in them, and what is a HI-LE, or is it a typo? A Tak LE 50mm existed?

 

People seemed to like the 5mm here: http://www.excelsis....1748a045b1934b6

 

More Taks: http://www.excelsis....hive=-1&range=t

 

Takahashi Orthoscopic 2.8mm

Takahashi Orthoscopic 4mm
Takahashi Orthoscopic 5mm
Takahashi Orthoscopic 7mm
Takahashi Orthoscopic 9mm

Takahashi Orthoscopic 18mm
Takahashi Orthoscopic 25mm
 


Edited by Procyon, 29 May 2019 - 10:29 AM.


#15 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6924
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 29 May 2019 - 01:39 PM

When talking about eyepieces in general, if they get the basics of light control down, then their center sharpness will all be similar. I have had one experience with a Fujiyama 7mm. It didn't have the basics down, as there was poor contrast and flare. I have two Takahashi orthos. They have had no issues, and the eye cup arrangement is especially good.

 

I also like the 10mm and 18mm BCOs, as they were extremely close to the Taks in performance.

 

Do I use my orthos? Not much, though with planet season starting, that should change. I gravitate to eyepieces with roughly a 60° field. These include the BST Flat Fields, WA 12mm, and ES 62° series. When i need more magnification, I use a Barlow.

 

The best of the wider bunch for lunar and planetary is the 12mm WA. When it comes to light control, it has no issues.



#16 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 29 May 2019 - 01:57 PM

 

Which ones actually had that extra ED in them, and what is a HI-LE, or is it a typo? A Tak LE 50mm existed?

 

 

Indeed.  According to Takahashi America, it is still available (and so is a "little brother", 40mm I didn't know existed, I thought Takahashi "jumped" from 30mm to 50mm): 

https://www.takahash.../eyepieces/le/ 

 

You can also see which LE eye pieces have ED elements on the linked web page.  I have already closed the page, but I believe the 7.5mm and shorter have ED elements and the 10mm and longer do not.


Edited by macdonjh, 29 May 2019 - 01:58 PM.

  • Procyon likes this

#17 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4092
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:41 PM

FWIW, I have a TOE 4mm, and it is being outperformed by my 3-6 Nagler zoom.

 

I've yet to find a good enough night to use in my 8" F7 (which I bought it for to use on planets).

 

But so far in small refractor, I'm finding that light from bright stars outside the field produce a very strong spike in the field, so it is not well baffled.

 

Will give it a few more chances, but so far it's unremarkable, like the 6mm Tak ortho I tried.


  • Sarkikos likes this

#18 barbie

barbie

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 29 May 2019 - 07:05 PM

Sounds like you got lemons.  I don't have those issues with my Tak TOE's.


  • Sarkikos likes this

#19 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3712
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 29 May 2019 - 08:59 PM

Sounds like you got lemons.  I don't have those issues with my Tak TOE's.

Given the Tak TOE’s design parameters and reviews I have read, I am expecting it to be a high performing eyepiece. I’m looking forward to the comparison with my 4mm Abbe orthos. 


  • Sarkikos and Paul Morow like this

#20 plyscope

plyscope

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1821
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Perth, West Australia

Posted 29 May 2019 - 09:23 PM

Many years ago I bought UO HD orthos in 12mm, 9mm and 7mm sizes. I soon sold the 9 and 7mm ones as I struggled with the short eye relief. The 12mm became my most used high power eyepiece for the two f15 refractors I own. About two years ago I bought the Takahashi 12.5mm ortho and in comparison with the UO HD I found the I preferred the Takahashi mainly because of the rubber eyeguard design and the fact it is closer to parfocal with TeleVue type 6 Naglers and 24mm Panoptic. Optically it is at least as good as the UO HD and possible slightly better. I stopped comparing them and have not used the UO HD for some time. 

 

About one year ago I purchased the TOE 4mm for use in 3 and 4 inch apo's and have found it to be superb. Very comfortable to use and less scatter compared to the Nagler 3-6mm zoom. I still like the zoom for the convenience in a TV 60.



#21 naramsin

naramsin

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 03 May 2016

Posted 29 May 2019 - 10:09 PM

I have only the 9mm and 12.5mm TAO, and I haven't had them as long as many others, but I'm not especially wowed by them. They seem to have a bit of veiling flare under some conditions. I like the rubber eye guard though. But optically they have not distinguished themselves from the rest of the pack.

 

Given lousy weather, I've not had many nights to do tests, but I was surprised that one of the best views I had of Epsilon Lyrae was with an Astro-Hutech 18mm ortho with a 3x 4-element Orion Barlow. It seemed no better/no worse than the non-barlowed EPs I was using (these included KK 6mm ortho, BCO 10mm, and smoothie TV plossls (7.4-21mm), Meade 3000 (6.7-16mm) and of course the TAOs.

 

The scopes I've been using are an 80mm F11.25 achro and a 102mm F12.7 Mak.

 

I fully accept that my seeing conditions may not have offered a fair fight. But I was able to split the double double with all EPs up to the TV 21mm.

 

But another conclusion I'm reaching is that I'm just not really able to discern much difference among the best plossls out there, the KK orthos, and the TAOs. Which means I'm happy to have an assortment of several series rather than a whole collection (which gets me back to the OP's post, I suppose).

 

I'm looking forward to using the TAOs and the others more as weather permits. I've had some good views of Jupiter, but it's so low on the horizon to judge anything.....


  • Sarkikos likes this

#22 bdg

bdg

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2013

Posted 29 May 2019 - 10:55 PM

What FL’s are considered to be the best among TAK abbe’s.


Edited by bdg, 29 May 2019 - 11:14 PM.


#23 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11818
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 30 May 2019 - 02:05 AM

What FL’s are considered to be the best among TAK abbe’s.

All of them, from what I can infer from the discussions. grin.gif

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • Steve Cox likes this

#24 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29864
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 30 May 2019 - 06:21 AM

Given the Tak TOE’s design parameters and reviews I have read, I am expecting it to be a high performing eyepiece. I’m looking forward to the comparison with my 4mm Abbe orthos. 

Let us know the results of your comparo!

 

:grin:

Mike



#25 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29864
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 30 May 2019 - 06:29 AM

I have only the 9mm and 12.5mm TAO, and I haven't had them as long as many others, but I'm not especially wowed by them. They seem to have a bit of veiling flare under some conditions. I like the rubber eye guard though. But optically they have not distinguished themselves from the rest of the pack.

 

Given lousy weather, I've not had many nights to do tests, but I was surprised that one of the best views I had of Epsilon Lyrae was with an Astro-Hutech 18mm ortho with a 3x 4-element Orion Barlow. It seemed no better/no worse than the non-barlowed EPs I was using (these included KK 6mm ortho, BCO 10mm, and smoothie TV plossls (7.4-21mm), Meade 3000 (6.7-16mm) and of course the TAOs.

 

The scopes I've been using are an 80mm F11.25 achro and a 102mm F12.7 Mak.

 

I fully accept that my seeing conditions may not have offered a fair fight. But I was able to split the double double with all EPs up to the TV 21mm.

 

But another conclusion I'm reaching is that I'm just not really able to discern much difference among the best plossls out there, the KK orthos, and the TAOs. Which means I'm happy to have an assortment of several series rather than a whole collection (which gets me back to the OP's post, I suppose).

 

I'm looking forward to using the TAOs and the others more as weather permits. I've had some good views of Jupiter, but it's so low on the horizon to judge anything.....

In my experience, bright planets - especially Jupiter -  are a good test for eyepiece sharpness, color saturation, eyepiece tone, perceived contrast and scatter control.  Tight doubles are good test objects for sharpness, also scatter control if there is a large brightness difference between primary and secondary.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 30 May 2019 - 06:32 AM.



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