87 replies to this topic

[Kunama]

A technicality, I / we are talking the same in performance, thats what counts not how they are made !

that's what counts to you, others may have other priorities......  Some people relate everything to cost, to others supporting the one manufacturer matters, or keeping the original look by fitting Tak green rings to Tak scopes and using Tak eyepieces etc........ your priority seems based on cost, I have other preferences...

 

I am sure I would enjoy a Skywatcher 150 ED but I am really happy to have a lighter wallet and the APM TMB-LZOS 152, it has all the features that matter to me....  

[LDW47]

that's what counts to you, others may have other priorities......  Some people relate everything to cost, to others supporting the one manufacturer matters, or keeping the original look by fitting Tak green rings to Tak scopes and using Tak eyepieces etc........ your priority seems based on cost, I have other preferences...

 

I am sure I would enjoy a Skywatcher 150 ED but I am really happy to have a lighter wallet and the APM TMB-LZOS 152, it has all the features that matter to me....  

I am interested only in cost vs performance ! I am not knocking high end gear but .........., I won’t go any further, it doesn’t pay, lol ! Read my post #48 again.

[Ihtegla Sar]

A technicality, I / we are talking the same in performance, thats what counts not how they are made !

Technically, you are getting off topic. As I pointed out the topic of this thread was the unsubstantiated and incorrect allegation that Takahashi was selling rebranded tube rings. That has now been proven false. So this thread should be closed down.

If you want to discuss whether other brands of tube rings have the same performance as Takahashi's tube rings, why not start a new thread instead of dragging this thread off topic?

[LDW47]

Technically, you are getting off topic. As I pointed out the topic of this thread was the unsubstantiated and incorrect allegation that Takahashi was selling rebranded tube rings. That has now been proven false. So this thread should be closed down.

If you want to discuss whether other brands of tube rings have the same performance as Takahashi's tube rings, why not start a new thread instead of dragging this thread off topic?

I guess I am wrong again, my apologies ! But I have found not to doubt anything in this world over the last 60 yrs or so, lol !

Edited by LDW47, 27 February 2021 - 01:11 AM.

[noisejammer]

Taks own rings, which are nothing to write home about (cheesy latches) are $800 for the TOA-150 tube.

Yep - this is absurd & is why my TOA150 is mounted with a set of Parallax rings ($360). Of course, the Parallax rings do weigh 3x what the Tak offerings, they look clunky and have a poor surface finish. Big deal ... I use them in the dark! Mechanically, they are streets ahead of the Tak equivalent.

 

My Tak-shudder came when I looked at the finder illuminator. It has a wonderful $110 Tak sticker. There are plenty of illuminators on the market - many that are better made.

 

While I'm on the topic, the only reason I own Tak finders is that both came with the scopes when I bought them, My 60mm Antares RACI is entirely adequate and actually lives on the Tak.

 

Focusers - I could upgrade to the new Tak linear bearing focuser or get a FTF3545 for 2/3 of the price. Guess what...

 

Don't get me wrong, Tak optics are excellent but you need to be insane to purchase one of their 'optional' parts.

[Kunama]

Not sure that I will ever agree that there are better illuminators than the Takahashi illuminator, I would really like to see one that comes close to the quality of the Tak one.  There are many that look similar but when you look inside them, they are mostly garbage by comparison.  Tak illuminator is built to similar standard to their optics, as are their finderscopes.  I use an APM finderscope which came with my TMB152F8 but fitted it with the Tak illuminator and tossed the replica away...  but each his/her own   I have had this same illuminator for a decade and will never sell it, it just goes from scope to scope 

 

As for the price of the TOA150 rings, here a set costs $586 (USD), seems someone over there is profiting from Tak aficionados 

Edited by Kunama, 27 February 2021 - 04:04 AM.

[GoodAsh]

Yep - this is absurd & is why my TOA150 is mounted with a set of Parallax rings ($360). Of course, the Parallax rings do weigh 3x what the Tak offerings, they look clunky and have a poor surface finish. Big deal ... I use them in the dark! Mechanically, they are streets ahead of the Tak equivalent.

My Tak-shudder came when I looked at the finder illuminator. It has a wonderful $110 Tak sticker. There are plenty of illuminators on the market - many that are better made.

While I'm on the topic, the only reason I own Tak finders is that both came with the scopes when I bought them, My 60mm Antares RACI is entirely adequate and actually lives on the Tak.

Focusers - I could upgrade to the new Tak linear bearing focuser or get a FTF3545 for 2/3 of the price. Guess what...

Don't get me wrong, Tak optics are excellent but you need to be insane to purchase one of their 'optional' parts.

(Tongue firmly in cheek)

Insane, insane??? Why yes I’m insane! 7x50 Tak finder is sublime. LE eps are just optical perfection for me. Yes, count me among the insane. Hahahahaha.....

[Kunama]

(Tongue firmly in cheek)

Insane, insane??? Why yes I’m insane! 7x50 Tak finder is sublime. LE eps are just optical perfection for me. Yes, count me among the insane. Hahahahaha.....

  Couldn't agree more, my Tak insanity has cost me about $40K over the last 12 years.....  ........... Thankfully my LZOS-itis is far less severe at $10K.

Edited by Kunama, 27 February 2021 - 04:16 AM.

[noisejammer]

  Couldn't agree more, my Tak insanity has cost me about $40K over the last 12 years.....  ...........

There was me thinking I had a problem ...

[bobhen]

You don’t belittle .......... but read some posts throughout a myriad of threads and you will find many do using words like junk and trash and ...... and they weren’t talking about department store scopes. They were talking about fellow astronomers, those that have chosen to not spend for the higher end gear, hard earned scopes that perform for them each and every dark nite.

It would be beneficial to your argument if you could point to the myriad of threads and the many posts that you are referring to rather than making blanket accusations. 

 

Bob

[bobhen]

Takahashi, AP, TEC, etc. have a monopoly on “their particular brand” and tube size, etc., so if one wants to do it “all” Takahashi or “all” AP or “all” TEC etc. there are no other choices and prices can reflect that lack of choice. Nothing wrong with a customer wanting to stay 100% within the brand but that will, in most cases, cost more. Even some aftermarket products that are "brand" size or fitting specific can be expensive because of that lack of choice and low volume.

 

For those that want a great OTA but want to possibly save money on accessories, there are some less expensive choices that can perform as well.

 

My Takahashi TSA 120 doesn't use any Takahashi accessories…

 

Non-Tak mounts
Non-Tak eyepieces
Non-Tak Barlows
Non-Tak diagonals
Non-Tak finders
Non-Tak rings
Non-Tak mounting bars

 

…and performs wonderfully. Looks pretty good too.

 

Bob 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[LDW47]

It would be beneficial to your argument if you could point to the myriad of threads and the many posts that you are referring to rather than making blanket accusations. 

 

Bob

That will never happen ! Believe me or not you or any one else will just be fooling yourself, lol !

[Cometeer]

Takahashi owners when they need to buy Tak accessories:

 

Edited by Cometeer, 27 February 2021 - 09:51 AM.

[jwheel]

My Tak NJP is built like a tank and has never let me down. Some things about are antiquated compared to today's technology though.

[Jon Isaacs]

Kunama was responding to the topic of the thread.  The Original Post accused Takahashi of rebranding generic rings for a markup. 

 

To quote the Original Post:

 

 

As Kunama points out that's impossible because Takahashi sand casts its tube rings, which is something no generic manufacturer of tube rings does. 

 

 

You need to read the entire original post:

 

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00.  They fit various scope tubes.  Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi turns around and charges the dealer $350 a pair for them.  Automatically, the selling price DOUBLES yet it's the SAME RING set!!  Why abuse a Tak owner just because they happen to own an expensive scope??"

 

It says nothing about Takahashi selling anything or rebranding anything.  

 

What is does claim is that if you buy an accessory that fits a Takahashi from a third party, you will be charged more for an otherwise identical ring that is sold generically.

 

I don't know if this is true.

 

In general, cast aluminum parts are inferior in strength and precision to parts machined from a billet.  

 

Jon

[LDW47]

You need to read the entire original post:

 

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00.  They fit various scope tubes.  Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi turns around and charges the dealer $350 a pair for them.  Automatically, the selling price DOUBLES yet it's the SAME RING set!!  Why abuse a Tak owner just because they happen to own an expensive scope??"

 

It says nothing about Takahashi selling anything or rebranding anything.  

 

What is does claim is that if you buy an accessory that fits a Takahashi from a third party, you will be charged more for an otherwise identical ring that is sold generically.

 

I don't know if this is true.

 

In general, cast aluminum parts are inferior in strength and precision to parts machined from a billet.  

 

Jon

You say cast aluminum parts are inferior ....... but in your experience how many times based on these types of applications have you seen them fail, seen them break unless there was just a plain flaw when the part was made ? Most are well built and sure aren’t under much stress unless their limits are pushed !

[Ihtegla Sar]

You need to read the entire original post:

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00. They fit various scope tubes. Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi turns around and charges the dealer $350 a pair for them. Automatically, the selling price DOUBLES yet it's the SAME RING set!! Why abuse a Tak owner just because they happen to own an expensive scope??"

It says nothing about Takahashi selling anything or rebranding anything.

What is does claim is that if you buy an accessory that fits a Takahashi from a third party, you will be charged more for an otherwise identical ring that is sold generically.

I don't know if this is true.

In general, cast aluminum parts are inferior in strength and precision to parts machined from a billet.

Jon

You need to read the entire Original Post again, more carefully. What he says is that a generic ring set that sells for $200 is being "designated" for Takahashi and sold for double the price. That could only happen if Takahashi authorized its name to be used thusly since there is no indication in the Original Post that he was talking about someone selling illegal knockoffs.

So yes the Original Post accused Takahashi of rebranding generic rings for a markup, or at least authorising its name to be used. Several other posters on the first page read it the same way I did and the OP never corrected them. In post #29, the OP refers to the rings in question as "the Tak rings." I dont see a single post discussing generic accessories being sold for a markup just because they happen to fit a Takahashi.

I would also point out that the OP was repeatedly asked for proof of his claim (including by you) but he never gave any and now has disappeared.

I suppose if he ever comes back, he can clarify exactly what it is that he is alleging and hopefully offer up his proof with links to the rings he is referring to. I think he made the whole thing up just to stir up controversy and now he is sitting back laughing.

Edited by Ihtegla Sar, 27 February 2021 - 11:37 AM.

[LDW47]

You need to read the entire Original Post again, more carefully. What he says is that a generic ring set that sells for $200 is being "designated" for Takahashi and sold for double the price. That could only happen if Takahashi authorized its name to be used thusly since there is no indication in the Original Post that he was talking about someone selling illegal knockoffs.

So yes the Original Post accused Takahashi of rebranding generic rings for a markup, or at least authorising its name to be used. Several other posters on the first page read it the same way I did and the OP never corrected them. In post #29, the OP refers to the rings in question as "the Tak rings." I dont see a single post discussing generic accessories being sold for a markup just because they happen to fit a Takahashi.

I would also point out that the OP was repeatedly asked for proof of his claim (including by you) but he never gave any and now has disappeared.

I suppose if he ever comes back, he can clarify exactly what it is that he is alleging and hopefully offer up his proof with links to the rings he is referring to. I think he made the whole thing up just to stir up controversy and now he is sitting back laughing.

And I said nothing surprises me these days ! Why accuse a fellow astronomer of anything, it is free expression of speech, isn’t it ? Just disregard what you don’t like as I do !

[LDW47]

Takahashi, AP, TEC, etc. have a monopoly on “their particular brand” and tube size, etc., so if one wants to do it “all” Takahashi or “all” AP or “all” TEC etc. there are no other choices and prices can reflect that lack of choice. Nothing wrong with a customer wanting to stay 100% within the brand but that will, in most cases, cost more. Even some aftermarket products that are "brand" size or fitting specific can be expensive because of that lack of choice and low volume.

 

For those that want a great OTA but want to possibly save money on accessories, there are some less expensive choices that can perform as well.

 

My Takahashi TSA 120 doesn't use any Takahashi accessories…

 

Non-Tak mounts
Non-Tak eyepieces
Non-Tak Barlows
Non-Tak diagonals
Non-Tak finders
Non-Tak rings
Non-Tak mounting bars

 

…and performs wonderfully. Looks pretty good too.

 

Bob 

Looks great with the color contrast, too much of that grey can look a little dull, washed out !

[Ihtegla Sar]

And I said nothing surprises me these days ! Why accuse a fellow astronomer of anything, it is free expression of speech, isn’t it ? Just disregard what you don’t like as I do !

I'm not accusing, just challenging the OP to come back and back up his claims with proof. The first word in the original post is "imagine" so it's not a stretch to say he made it all up.

[imtl]

** mod hat ON

 

Okay all. We got the idea. If anyone has any more to write that was NOT written already then go ahead and post. If the OP does not come back that's their problem/issue. Please stop the bickering and arguing aimlessly and stay on topic. Otherwise this topic will be locked.

You don't have anything usefull and NEW to contribute?, please move on.

 

** mod hat OFF.

[t-ara-fan]

Yep - this is absurd & is why my TOA150 is mounted with a set of Parallax rings ($360).  .

 I thought the TAK clamshell rings just looked like they would be better if they were longer up/down the axis of the OTA.  So I ordered Parallax rings when I ordered my TOA-130. I put them on a 14" Losmandy dovetail.

 

The Parallax rings work, but have a substandard paint job that chips when you look at them sideways.   In the interest of making a better looking setup that probably has no better performance, I ordered red Primaluce rings and a red Primaluce dovetail.  It goes great with my ZWO cameras.
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by t-ara-fan, 27 February 2021 - 08:02 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

You need to read the entire Original Post again, more carefully. What he says is that a generic ring set that sells for $200 is being "designated" for Takahashi and sold for double the price. That could only happen if Takahashi authorized its name to be used thusly since there is no indication in the Original Post that he was talking about someone selling illegal knockoffs.

 

 

Here is an example of a set of Parallax rings that are designated for a 150 TOA.

 

https://telescopes.n...-refractor.html

 

Designated means nothing more than saying they will fit a Takahashi refractor, it does not require any authorization or approval by Takahashi.  These are "generic rings" and therefore by definition are not approved by Takahashi.

 

Again, the orignal post:

 

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00.  They fit various scope tubes.  Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi turns around and charges the dealer $350 a pair for them.  Automatically, the selling price DOUBLES yet it's the SAME RING set!!  Why abuse a Tak owner just because they happen to own an expensive scope??"

 

 

The dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker and the maker, "who designated a generic ring for Takahashi"...

 

It is the maker who designated the ring for a Takahashi, not Takahashi. 

 

You go to an auto parts to buy a new brake pad for your Honda.  That does not necessarily mean it was made by Honda or certified by Honda, it means the manufacturer and end seller said it would fit your Honda. 

 

Jon 

[Jon Isaacs]

You say cast aluminum parts are inferior ....... but in your experience how many times based on these types of applications have you seen them fail, seen them break unless there was just a plain flaw when the part was made ? Most are well built and sure aren’t under much stress unless their limits are pushed !

 

My point was simply that there are very likely better rings available than the Takahashi cast rings.  They suffice I am sure but machined rings are likely more robust.  

 

T-ara-fan's Primaluce rings look to be machined.

 

Jon

[Ihtegla Sar]

Here is an example of a set of Parallax rings that are designated for a 150 TOA.

https://telescopes.n...-refractor.html

Designated means nothing more than saying they will fit a Takahashi refractor, it does not require any authorization or approval by Takahashi. These are "generic rings" and therefore by definition are not approved by Takahashi.

Again, the orignal post:

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00. They fit various scope tubes. Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi turns around and charges the dealer $350 a pair for them. Automatically, the selling price DOUBLES yet it's the SAME RING set!! Why abuse a Tak owner just because they happen to own an expensive scope??"


The dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker and the maker, "who designated a generic ring for Takahashi"...

It is the maker who designated the ring for a Takahashi, not Takahashi.

You go to an auto parts to buy a new brake pad for your Honda. That does not necessarily mean it was made by Honda or certified by Honda, it means the manufacturer and end seller said it would fit your Honda.

Jon

Jon,

I can understand how you are interpreting, but it seems at best ambiguous since "designated" could mean "fits a Tak OTA" or it could mean "labeled as a Tak accessory," which is how I read it. And apparently many others read it the same as I did based on a number of posts on the first page.

Assuming your interpretation is correct, I don't see anyone in this thread posting on topic. Pretty much every post is discussing things like the expense of officially licenced Takahashi accessories, whether the quality of officially licensed Takahashi accessories (both in terms of function and aesthetics) is worth the expense and whether off brand accessories provide the same function as officially licensed Takahashi accessories at a lower price. If this thread is supposed to be about whether suppliers of off brand accessories mark them up unreasonably ("double") for the same item just because they happen to fit a Tak, than just about every post in this thread seems off topic since no one is discussing that issue.

But, if that's supposed to be the topic, here is my response to that topic:

I've bought a fair amount of Tak gear, both officially licensed Takahashi accessories and off brand accessories that fit a Tak OTA, and I have never seen an off brand accessories marked up by an unreasonable amount just because they happened to fit a Tak.

I can give a couple examples.

Example 1: I bought a quick release finder bracket from ATM that was designed to fit the holes in a Tak focuser. Total cost was $50 bucks and considering the quality and machining that went into the part, that seemed reasonable to me.

https://www.highpoin...akahashi-tak-fb

Example 2: I didn't buy a Stellarvue finder holder to attach my Stellarvue RACI to my Tak, since I opted for an official Tak holder that cost more but matches the scope and my Tak clamshell. But Stellarvue makes a holder that will fit a Tak. Here is a link.

https://www.stellarv...er-scope-rings/

The one that fits a Tak costs $69, twenty bucks more than the standard holder Stellarvue sells but it includes an additional machined part. So that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it's certainly not "double" for the "same" part.

Personally I have never seen anyone marking something up just because it happens to fit a Tak, and I don't believe anyone is doing that.

Edited by Ihtegla Sar, 27 February 2021 - 09:43 PM.