Takahashi TSA-120 vs. TOA-130

[thomqos (Russell)]

The TOA-130NS has but 10mm more aperture than the TSA-120; Yet there is about $1.5k difference in price between them.

I notice the OTAs are substantially different in weight - much more so than would be expected for the extra aperture alone: 6.7kg vs. 10.5kg.

So can someone please explain to me why that extra 10mm aperture is worth paying $1.5k for? Is it worth it for what a purely visual observer (i.e.: me) would see through the eyepiece?

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

Russel , as a visual observer , save your self 3+k and grab a C9.25, either standard or Edge , or if you need ( want? ) a Takahashi ,,, get a M210 , both of these will beat any 120mm or 130mm scope , APO or other wise hands down on every object .

Both of these CAT's are lighter than the TOA130 by the way.

Brian.

[raymo]

Absolutely not. I personally have never understood why a purely visual
user would have a small scope at all. I would much rather see lots more
targets nicely, than fewer objects beautifully, but less brightly. For me, aperture rules for visual work. You could get a magnificent larger scope for the price of a mid size APO. Just my view.
raymo

[casstony]

I own a TSA120 and C11 Edge and tend to use the refractor for planets since it takes little effort to set up and get cooled and my observing conditions are usually unstable. I use the C11 mainly for deep sky because it gathers more light and I think both of my scopes are great. If I could only have one scope I'd keep the C11.

I think the 130 has a wider air gap between the elements and has higher performance over a wider range of wavelengths but I would choose the lighter and cheaper 120 for visual (and probably for imaging too).

[rally]

You are not paying for aperture so much as you are paying for a higher level of chromatic correction and quality of optics.
The TOA is an acronym for Tak. Ortho Apochromatic Vs Tak Super Apochromat (TSA)
Have a look at a longitudinal aberration plots for these and you will see the difference.
The TOA series is highly corrected (near perfectly !) from well into the Infrared to well into the UV spectrum.

Like most things - if you want 50% of perfection - its cheap, if you want 85% its getting more expensive, if you want 95% its getting really expensive and if you want 97% it starts getting ridiculous.

For visual I think it would be hard to justify and difficult to discern.

Rally

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by rally

You are not paying for aperture so much as you are paying for a higher level of chromatic correction and quality of optics.
The TOA is an acronym for Tak. Ortho Apochromatic Vs Tak Super Apochromat (TSA)
Have a look at a longitudinal aberration plots for these and you will see the difference.
The TOA series is highly corrected (near perfectly !) from well into the Infrared to well into the UV spectrum.

Like most things - if you want 50% of perfection - its cheap, if you want 85% its getting more expensive, if you want 95% its getting really expensive and if you want 97% it starts getting ridiculous.

For visual I think it would be hard to justify and difficult to discern.

Rally

+1 For purely visual the better choice would be the TSA120, cheaper, lighter, cools quicker, smaller mount required. I doubt you would see any difference visually.

I think there are many valid reasons to choose a 5" refractor over light- buckets for visual but that has been discussed to death previously.
The TSA120 is an excellent scope and can be used on an EQ5 or similar mount as well as any of the small AltAz mounts. It is ready for viewing immediately upon being carried outside up to 100x and as it cools will take up to 300x in good conditions. However, I too would recommend the Mewlon 210 as an alternative for visual.

[issdaol (Phil)]

Originally Posted by rally

You are not paying for aperture so much as you are paying for a higher level of chromatic correction and quality of optics.
The TOA is an acronym for Tak. Ortho Apochromatic Vs Tak Super Apochromat (TSA)
Have a look at a longitudinal aberration plots for these and you will see the difference.
The TOA series is highly corrected (near perfectly !) from well into the Infrared to well into the UV spectrum.

Like most things - if you want 50% of perfection - its cheap, if you want 85% its getting more expensive, if you want 95% its getting really expensive and if you want 97% it starts getting ridiculous.

For visual I think it would be hard to justify and difficult to discern.

Rally

Very well put

Just a visual inspection of the 2 scopes will also show the differences.

I use my Mewlon 300 for Deep Space and Planetary. The TSA-120 just cant keep up for deep space work.

But 1 very good reason for a refractor over a mirror/light bucket is Solar .

In terms of visual between the TSA120 and TOA130 you will not notice the difference. I had to make the same choice myself and went with the TSA120 saving the $1.5k and putting that money into a couple of nice EP's.

[clive milne]

Yep... in a lot of ways they are both similar to a really good telescope, only smaller.

[Kal (Andrew)]

The TOA is a completely different objective design to the TSA - it has two ED lenses in it's triplet objective, and of all refractors on the market today it has the best colour correction.

If you are using the scope for visual though, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference. The 10mm extra aperture will make a slight difference, the extra weight would definately make a difference.

I have a 5" apo and a C11. I prefer the C11 for visual astronomy.

[cohiba (Robert)]

Cant speak for the 120 but I own a TOA130, it will blow you away probably the sharpest views you will ever get, but yep its reasoanbly heavy, and a bit expensive. The only down side with Takahashi are the accesories now they are bloody expensive

[Exfso (Peter)]

The only down side to Tak scopes, if anything goes wrong they cannot be fixed here in Aust despite claims by some that they are able to work on them. They have to go back to Japan, I can relate to this from bitter experience.
Aust need a company like TNR to do local maintenance of the Tak scopes.

[gregbradley]

The best visual scope I have had was a Tak FS152. Not ideal for imaging though as too much chromatic aberration but fabulous for visual.

And yes a C11 is superb for visual especially if using the tour function of the GPS mounted versions. Very quick and easy.

Greg.

[thomqos (Russell)]

Copied from my post on CN.....

Thanks guys for all your opinions.
I decided to go with the TSA-120... Am waiting on the invoice to come through. Lead time of a few weeks. Have ordered rings for it from Joe at Parallax.
It was a very tough decision for me. Could have gone either way. Am sure I would have been thrilled to the back teeth with the TOA, but in the end, my decision came down to just the following:-

a). Cost. The money I saved will pay to rebuild my 10" f6 so I can use it on the G-11 (rotating rings, moonlight focuser, etc.). My wife has been very supportive of my going through this process, so I need to reciprocate that support by showing at least some restraint in my spending; I've just purchased a TSA-120, G-11, AP Maxbright, rings, etc. I also need a hard case still & I plan to get a 41mm panoptic for the TSA, as well as a high power nagler/delos, so I think I've had a fair go at spending money! Additionally, I have kids to educate, mortgage to pay, etc.. So I decided to draw the line at the TSA-120.

http://www.cloudynights.com/public/s...fault/cool.png. Portability. I wanted a scope which will be happy on a lightweight mounting one day if needed. The TSA-120 looks to be a pretty portable scope for an almost 5" refractor.

If I didn't already have a 10", I would have gone for the TOA.

I just hope the scope lives up to my expectations... though people overwhelmingly talk glowingly of it, I've nonetheless read some stories about scopes having to go back to Takahashi in Japan several times to fix problems. It's a little unnerving spending such a large amount of money on something you've never actually seen up close or touched... or indeed looked through.

I'll post back after first light...

Russ

[RD400C (Garth)]

Don't worry, when the box does arrive and you unpack the scope, it will be better than you had expected. I'm looking forward to reading your first light impressions. Good selection from a huge range of possibilities.

[Exfso (Peter)]

That cloudy nights link does not want to open for me, I have tried IE and Chrome.

[beren]

Congrats on the purchase.....went through the same dilemma as yourself with the TOA but ended up with the TSA-120. Unfortunately work commitments and weather have only allowed a handful of outings with it but I think you will enjoy it . The 120mm still has some reasonable weight to it I think you will be surprised.
I have seen very little negative feedback from Tak users although Peter here had bad luck with his TOA. It's unfortunate AEC doesn't cater to the same degree as the American Tak dealer TNR but I would rather have a scope sent back to the Japanese factory for repair.

[Exfso (Peter)]

Yeah the bad luck was the result of an accident causing the collimation to go slightly out, and getting recommended by the local distributor to an Australian company that said they could re-collimate the Toa130. They instead totally stuffed it up and it had to go back to Japan for a complete re-build. I was totally miffed I can tell you. It is as new now, but it cost me big dollars. So if anyone tells you that there is someone in Australia that can fix a Tak Refractor, they are talking crap. You would not believe what the Tak rep told me about the job these guys did on the scope and the condition it was in when they received it. Absolute amateurs!!

[netwolf]

is it not the same with most refractor telescopes and even some others that you must send back to manufacturer for repair.
I am fortunate that thus far my only requirements have been for SCT's and Bintel have been excellent in dealing with this for me, time and again.

But take AP, TEC, or William Optics does anyone repair those here locally?
And is it any less expensive to send these to there manufacturer for repair.

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by netwolf

is it not the same with most refractor telescopes and even some others that you must send back to manufacturer for repair.
I am fortunate that thus far my only requirements have been for SCT's and Bintel have been excellent in dealing with this for me, time and again.

But take AP, TEC, or William Optics does anyone repair those here locally?
And is it any less expensive to send these to there manufacturer for repair.

I don't think I would be letting anyone in Oz fiddle with my refractors, no matter
what brand.

[thomqos (Russell)]

Yes, i have nothing but praise for bintel, based on my dealings with them over the years. Years ago I brought a focuser from them & didn't like it. Mike took it back, no questions asked. That said, refractors do appear to be a specialty item when it comes to collimation.