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

Fluorite forever!

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#26 Winks

Winks

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 25 May 2008
  • Loc: Phoenix

Posted 14 October 2020 - 09:56 AM

The Tak. Had both at one point. Sold the Vixen. Build quality.


  • doctordub, payner, roadi and 1 other like this

#27 Traveler

Traveler

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 15 October 2020 - 11:55 PM

If a Vixen FL102 & Tak FS-102 were both being sold, $300 more for theTak, which would you all choose?

Google for the Takahashi systemchart...and then do try to answer your question...



#28 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,990
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 16 October 2020 - 03:10 AM

If a Vixen FL102 & Tak FS-102 were both being sold, $300 more for theTak, which would you all choose?

Well, I have a Tak FS-102 that I purchased from a fellow CN’er off Astromart in 2014, and it’s a keeper that I wouldn’t trade for anything.  I’ve never viewed through a Vixen FL-102 before, but from time to time have thought about trying one out. I’ve heard that the two scopes are likely optically equivalent, with perhaps a slight edge to the Vixen with its slightly longer focal ratio.

 

One big difference between the two is that there is a version of the FL-102 (like the one that’s currently for sale on Astromart) that has a 1.25” visual back.  Even though it’s possible to convert that to a 2” visual back, the scope will not have enough back focus to accommodate a 2” diagonal and 2” eyepieces.  My Tak FS-102 can handle a 2” visual back with 2” diagonal and 2” eyepieces without issues.  If I ever do decide to buy a Vixen FL-102 it will have to be able to do the same.


  • 25585 likes this

#29 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,908
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 16 October 2020 - 03:35 AM

Scott,

 

Having had both the black Celestron version of the FL 102S f/8.8 with Moonlight focuser and a standard FS-102 NSV, I can put the myth to rest that the slower FL 102S would perform better than the faster FS102. It does not. I'm sure there are some very fine samples of the FL102 S, but mine was not having particularly great optics, despite the seller promising it did and that optics were comparable to the FS102. In my experience, quality variance in the FL series is bigger than in the FS series. So some samples are similar between FL and FS, others are not. 

 

Over my lifetime I've owned 3 Celestron/Vixen fluorite doublets. 1 so-so, one spherically well corrected but with astigmatism. And one with out of this world outstandingly perfect optics: the small Celestron branded FL 55S. Should never have sold that one. Cosmetically challenged, but boy had it PERFECT optics. Alas, my FS102 NSV had similarly perfect optics. But my other Celestron/Vixen fluorites definitely had not. Great scopes nonetheless. But I recommend to handpick a sample to get a superb one living up to it's legendary status. Especially when coming from lesser scopes, even a just OK fluorite doublet will show wonderful images of the night sky.

 

With Takahashi, handpicking is less relevant, all are superb. And some are, well, extra superb.

Just make sure that it has been well cared for. No high-end instrument will do better if treated badly.


  • Scott in NC, doctordub, edif300 and 4 others like this

#30 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,990
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 16 October 2020 - 03:39 AM

Good to know.  Thanks, Erik!



#31 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 14,502
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 16 October 2020 - 06:02 AM

Well, I have a Tak FS-102 that I purchased from a fellow CN’er off Astromart in 2014, and it’s a keeper that I wouldn’t trade for anything.  I’ve never viewed through a Vixen FL-102 before, but from time to time have thought about trying one out. I’ve heard that the two scopes are likely optically equivalent, with perhaps a slight edge to the Vixen with its slightly longer focal ratio.

 

One big difference between the two is that there is a version of the FL-102 (like the one that’s currently for sale on Astromart) that has a 1.25” visual back.  Even though it’s possible to convert that to a 2” visual back, the scope will not have enough back focus to accommodate a 2” diagonal and 2” eyepieces.  My Tak FS-102 can handle a 2” visual back with 2” diagonal and 2” eyepieces without issues.  If I ever do decide to buy a Vixen FL-102 it will have to be able to do the same.

And my Takahashi FS-102 NSV allows for native binoviewing, so yes, Takahashi over Vixen for sure in my case, because of versatility!


  • 25585 likes this

#32 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 14,502
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 16 October 2020 - 06:06 AM

Literally offers another 30mm in-travel at native binoviewing - it's at focus position in the image.

 

And yes, the same was on offer with the stock focuser.

Attached Thumbnails

  • FS102 NSV.jpg

  • doctordub, Erik Bakker, RAKing and 2 others like this

#33 dweller25

dweller25

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 16 October 2020 - 06:40 AM

I have bad news for you 25585, Fluorite scopes cannot last forever because :

 

1. They are made of flour - right ?

2. If stored horizontally, the lens will become fatter at the bottom.

3. If the lens dews up it will instantly shatter when you bring it indoors.

4. If it does not shatter it will eventually dissolve.

5. Just make up any piece of nonsense for this option and then put it on the internet and it will become reality

 

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif


  • doctordub, Steve C., ianatcn and 1 other like this

#34 JeremySh

JeremySh

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2020

Posted 16 October 2020 - 11:02 AM

Google for the Takahashi systemchart...and then do try to answer your question...

So the Tak, then.



#35 doctordub

doctordub

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,273
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2006
  • Loc: New Rochelle, New York

Posted 16 October 2020 - 02:25 PM

I have bad news for you 25585, Fluorite scopes cannot last forever because :

 

1. They are made of flour - right ?

2. If stored horizontally, the lens will become fatter at the bottom.

3. If the lens dews up it will instantly shatter when you bring it indoors.

4. If it does not shatter it will eventually dissolve.

5. Just make up any piece of nonsense for this option and then put it on the internet and it will become reality

 

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

5. Post Apocalypse, you can grind up your lens to make toothpaste.lol.gif

CS

Jonathan


  • payner, Scott99, Cpk133 and 1 other like this

#36 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 16 October 2020 - 02:46 PM

The Tak FS102

 

Even if the Vixen had the better lens?


  • roadi and 25585 like this

#37 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 16 October 2020 - 02:52 PM

Having had both the black Celestron version of the FL 102S f/8.8 with Moonlight focuser and a standard FS-102 NSV, I can put the myth to rest that the slower FL 102S would perform better than the faster FS102. It does not. I'm sure there are some very fine samples of the FL102 S, but mine was not having particularly great optics, despite the seller promising it did and that optics were comparable to the FS102. In my experience, quality variance in the FL series is bigger than in the FS series. So some samples are similar between FL and FS, others are not. 

 

 

I have had samples of each recently on my bench.  The Vixen is/was the superior lens - but the TAK was very good, too.

 

I own scopes from both Vixen and TAK so am brand agnostic focusing on performance rather then the label.   In this case, the Vixen Fluorite beat the FS102.  I can post images if its of any interest.    

 

It really comes down to sample to sample variability and what the individual prioritizes in a telescope.  Some prefer the build quality of a TAK over the performance of a Vixen etc...

 

One last thought...  I have seen average FS102's and have bench images to support this notion.  I have never seen an average (or worse) Vixen Fluorite.  


Edited by peleuba, 16 October 2020 - 03:48 PM.

  • Paul G, ASTERON and 25585 like this

#38 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 10,366
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 16 October 2020 - 03:48 PM

Given how long FS series has been gone, what is the accessory situation for them for availability?  How much Tak current catalogue is compatible with FS models?



#39 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,990
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 16 October 2020 - 04:50 PM

5. Post Apocalypse, you can grind up your lens to make toothpaste.lol.gif

CS

Jonathan

Dang...I knew I should have kept the “sand” left over from that time when I bought a FS-102NSV and it arrived with a pulverized lens.


  • doctordub likes this

#40 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,507
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 October 2020 - 05:22 PM

I think it's a fad.  I was assured many times on these groups that my FS128 was not a true apo.  Now I have the AP GT130 triplet.  I really liked the FS128's focal ratio of f/8.1, more than I thought I would.  But it was not more apo than my current apo.

 

It makes me roll my eyes to see everyone swearing by fluorite after years of being dissed about it as an FS128 owner (not a true apo was what was said). 

I hear you, but I do not think it should be an eye-roll thing...unless you like to roll your eyes a lot because I understand that some folks feel the same way about boutique brands that others feel about fluorite lol.gif  Neither has any inherent "magic" or perfection crazyeyes.gif

 

ps - I'm with you on the longer focal ratio thing!


Edited by BillP, 16 October 2020 - 05:24 PM.

  • doctordub likes this

#41 ASTERON

ASTERON

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,859
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2007
  • Loc: ISRAEL

Posted 17 October 2020 - 04:03 AM

I have had samples of each recently on my bench.  The Vixen is/was the superior lens - but the TAK was very good, too.

 

I own scopes from both Vixen and TAK so am brand agnostic focusing on performance rather then the label.   In this case, the Vixen Fluorite beat the FS102.  I can post images if its of any interest.    

 

It really comes down to sample to sample variability and what the individual prioritizes in a telescope.  Some prefer the build quality of a TAK over the performance of a Vixen etc...

 

One last thought...  I have seen average FS102's and have bench images to support this notion.  I have never seen an average (or worse) Vixen Fluorite.  

 

Hi Paul,

By all means let us see some test results on the vixen and Tak optics.  This would be very interesting, if not myth destroying stuffbelushi.gif hamsterdance.gif hmm.gif popcorn.gif


  • 25585 and j.gardavsky like this

#42 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 10,366
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 17 October 2020 - 07:01 AM

popcorn.gif



#43 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,908
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 17 October 2020 - 12:35 PM

I have had samples of each recently on my bench.  The Vixen is/was the superior lens - but the TAK was very good, too.

 

I own scopes from both Vixen and TAK so am brand agnostic focusing on performance rather then the label.   In this case, the Vixen Fluorite beat the FS102.  I can post images if its of any interest.    

 

It really comes down to sample to sample variability and what the individual prioritizes in a telescope.  Some prefer the build quality of a TAK over the performance of a Vixen etc...

 

One last thought...  I have seen average FS102's and have bench images to support this notion.  I have never seen an average (or worse) Vixen Fluorite.  

You will surely have seen different samples then I have.

 

But the ones I talked about in detail were the ones I have owned.

 

A good Celestron/Vixen fluorite still is an out of this world great scope today!


  • jjack's and 25585 like this

#44 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:50 AM

By all means let us see some test results on the vixen and Tak optics.  This would be very interesting, if not myth destroying stuff 

 

A very good C102F.  There is a slight edge anomoly that is only apparent in these autocollimation images and not in single pass real world use.  In fact, the star test is terrific.

Attached Thumbnails

  • c102f_6.jpg
  • C102F Good.jpg

  • stevew, denis0007dl and 25585 like this

#45 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:52 AM

Vixen branded VX102FL.

 

This lens is near perfect with a Strehl at or above .980

Attached Thumbnails

  • VIxen Good1.jpg

Edited by peleuba, 19 October 2020 - 09:52 AM.

  • stevew, Erik Bakker, jjack's and 2 others like this

#46 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:56 AM

A tale of two FS102's.  Both decent.  The top one is exceptional, but not quite to the level of the best Vixen Fluorite above.

 

The second suffers from some spherical is between a ¼ and ⅙ wave and a wide central zone.  

Attached Thumbnails

  • FS102 Good.jpg
  • FS102 Bad3.jpg

Edited by peleuba, 19 October 2020 - 09:57 AM.

  • stevew, jjack's, denis0007dl and 1 other like this

#47 peleuba

peleuba

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,627
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 19 October 2020 - 10:05 AM

Anyway, all this does is demonstrate sample-to-sample variability.  And it proves that Takahashi is not better then Vixen in all cases and from my experience maybe not even in most cases.  Takahashi does have superior build quality and there are other compelling reasons to choose a TAK over a Vixen.  

 

For a very long time I have always read (usually from owners of the FS102) of the superior optics in the FS102 but practical experience tells me different.

 

Both are very good. 


Edited by peleuba, 19 October 2020 - 11:04 AM.

  • Erik Bakker and 25585 like this

#48 Traveler

Traveler

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 19 October 2020 - 10:42 AM

"Takahashi doe shave superior build quality"...

 

Except the green color paint....grin.gif


  • peleuba likes this

#49 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 10,366
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 19 October 2020 - 11:57 AM

Buy a new one & you get baby blue. 

 

Classic Vixen metallic green is OK, Tak green too pale maybe. 

 

Celestron Black  raspberry.gif


  • peleuba likes this

#50 doctordub

doctordub

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,273
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2006
  • Loc: New Rochelle, New York

Posted 19 October 2020 - 12:36 PM

"Takahashi doe shave superior build quality"...

 

Except the green color paint....grin.gif

Nothing that Krylon celery or honeydew melon can't fix.

CS

Jonathan


  • peleuba likes 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