I had considered the TAK's they are very pretty. I am really trying for a triplet though much as the TS128 looks great its still only a doublet isn't it?.
Yes TEC and AP are at the top of the tree for high quality hand made APO's. If I was spending that money on an OTA for imaging I would look at the Tak triplets. Hugh's images using the TSA120 are awesome. The FS and FC scopes are very nice for visual, but not at the TSA level that suits imaging. You could consider an FSQ106 or NP101is if max wide field is your thing.
I had considered the TAK's they are very pretty. I am really trying for a triplet though much as the TS128 looks great its still only a doublet isn't it?.
Also I don't quite have the money just yet lol.
Whilst not in your aperture range AEC has a FSQ-85 advertised under it's customer listing. Not sure what price is being asked. AEC seems to be having a dummy spit regarding listing prices so it may pay to ring Claude if interested but be warned (not in a bad way) he likes to talk.
No - but Astro gear is in a free tariff category anyhow. What this means is that other than the cost of the item, shipping and custom processing fee (roughly $48) all that has to be paid is an extra 10% for GST.
Televue - well, I find them odd. Good optics, ugly as mud (weird retro-60's look about them to me)...
This begs the question; what makes a telescope aesthetically pleasing?
I personally like the looks of the NP-101 and NP-127 but not so much the NP-101is or NP-127is even though the 'is' versions have many more features more suited for astrophotography but can be used for visual. (I am mainly visual and for that I don't even need a fine focuser as the telescopes I use snap to focus nicely for me).
On the other hand I find the Takahashi very clinical in appearance always reminding me of a piece of equipment used in a medical imaging facility. I think it's the colour scheme that is somewhat unaesthetic. I cannot comment on the optics as I have never looked through a Tak but I'm sure they are superb based on comments by other users.
One of my personal favourite (no longer commercially available) telescope is 6" f12 Super Planetary by Astro-Physics. There's just something about a long refractor mounted on a high mount. I didn't own one but got to use one on many occasions. After saying that though, I really like the looks of the 130mm f6.3 'Gran Turismo' by Astro-Physics as it is much more practical but also 'good looking'.
Aeshetics is a complex thing; What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another. Form and function both make for good design though and one could argue that as long as the images are exquisite, it doesn't really matter what the telescope looks like.
You must admit though, has Celestron made an aesthetically pleasing product for the past 25 years? Always got totally useless, bulging curves, festooned with plastic and then bedecked in "Hey, look at me" orange.
I find the Tak green very appealing oddly- for the very reason you mention - they look like professional, clinical instruments (some of the SEM's I work with are a similar tone). Their older Neutral Grey colour for their castings was a bit weird. Vixen's old hammertone green I love, though the newer all white is just like a snowball. WO's varied anodising is either good or bad, depending on which colour they use (the gold is a put off for me, but the red is fine)
None of it impacts on the optical quality, but it does have a bearing on how we perceive our scope. Some couldn't care less about the looks, and their scopes usually show it too (rust, dirt, scratches...)
This begs the question; what makes a telescope aesthetically pleasing?
I personally like the looks of the NP-101 and NP-127 but not so much the NP-101is or NP-127is even though the 'is' versions have many more features more suited for astrophotography but can be used for visual. (I am mainly visual and for that I don't even need a fine focuser as the telescopes I use snap to focus nicely for me).
On the other hand I find the Takahashi very clinical in appearance always reminding me of a piece of equipment used in a medical imaging facility. I think it's the colour scheme that is somewhat unaesthetic. I cannot comment on the optics as I have never looked through a Tak but I'm sure they are superb based on comments by other users.
One of my personal favourite (no longer commercially available) telescope is 6" f12 Super Planetary by Astro-Physics. There's just something about a long refractor mounted on a high mount. I didn't own one but got to use one on many occasions. After saying that though, I really like the looks of the 130mm f6.3 'Gran Turismo' by Astro-Physics as it is much more practical but also 'good looking'.
Aeshetics is a complex thing; What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another. Form and function both make for good design though and one could argue that as long as the images are exquisite, it doesn't really matter what the telescope looks like.
IMO no refractor is more aesthetically pleasing than Tim Wetherell's own, but now sold, 200mm APO refractor. Optics by TEC...tube custom built by Tim.
I vote for the Tak TSA 102: lovely scope. I have used the TEC 140, and it wasn't quite there in comparison.
I had an interesting discussion with the people at Williams a couple of years back when I asked if they could guarantee their FLT110 would reach 50x per inch for planetary viewing on a good night. They just said "It will give lovely sharp images." When I said I was considering the Tak, the guy said "We can't beat that."
Guess what I bought?
Oh, and if you want pretty, check out: http://www.moonrakertelescopes.co.uk/custom-builds.html
Perking your interest back to the original list, why not the APM 107 f6.5. I believe that the Astro-tech 106 is the same lens and they can be had for around $1500. Though I do not do photography, I have been very impressed with my AT106, it compares favourably with my Astro-Physics 130EDT. The field is not as flat, but a flattener can rectify this.
I have one of the new FC-100 scopes since about one year. I only do visual but I and an experienced friend of mine cannot fault this scope, we did Sirius companion with it.
Depending on the object it takes up to 250x easily.
Well in you price range, very fast cool down and due to low weight easy on the mounts.
I would prefer the photographic version which came out this year it as a bigger focuser (like ex Sky90).
I vote for the Tak TSA 102: lovely scope. I have used the TEC 140, and it wasn't quite there in comparison.
That's an interesting observation Dean. The TEC 140 should blow the TSA 102 away. Double the surface area. Oil versus air spaced triplets, both are optically very good. The TEC has a better focuser and that nice hand crafted build quality.
