TakFS-60CB vs WO star 71 vs SW ED80 vs 150-600mm lens?

[Lognic04 (Logan)]

I am looking for a widefield scope to get in the future, around 400mm and ~1k budget, which of these would suit me best?
TakFS-60CB vs WO star 71 vs SW ED80 vs 150-600mm lens?

[LewisM]

All have pros and cons.

None, new, will be under $1000 - all are over. Second hand you can get the ED80 under $1K, but usually not the Tak or WO.

[glend (Glen)]

You can buy a Teleskop-Express TS80 Photoline f7 (f5.5 reduced) APO, FPL-53 for less than $1k, in fact you can get it shipped to you for less than $1k, i know because i just did it.

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop...n-focuser.html

I already had the 3" Photoline Reducer Corrector for my larger APO so i did not need to buy that to run at f5.5.

Focal length is 560mm at f7, 432mm at f5.5.

It has a good strong rack and pinon focuser, the same 2.5" focuser used on the 115mm APO.

With the Tak your paying a premium for the name

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by glend

With the Tak your paying a premium for the name

You may rethink those choice of words if you ever own or seriously use a Tak Glen. Just sayin'...

WO71 doublet - wouldn't go near one again. TERRIBLE CA and astigmatism. Very hard to balance it on a mount.

The tak FS-60 is my least favourite Tak ever made, but many love them. Still, it is a better scope than the old WO 71 and the ED80.

I would have gladly traded my Esprit 80 for the MT160, until I kept reading of the woes and modifications done by a prior owner/seller...

[glend (Glen)]

I have looked through a Tak, and i would never own one. While nicely made, from a performance perspective, i regard them as over priced. I saw a quote recently that summed it up nicely, it was in an article on flourite verses FPL-53 and it went like this:

" If there is a difference it is most likely seen in the Takahashi profit figures". In other words, they are very successful in elite branding. There probably was a time when there was a performance advantage but those days are gone.

I will try to find the article for you.
Of course the wolfs will be after me now for daring to question Tak supremacy.

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by glend

I have looked through a Tak, and i would never own one, i regard them as over priced. I saw a quote recently that summed it up nicely, it was in an article on flourite verses FPL-53 and it went like this:

" If there is a difference it is most likely seen in the Takahashi profit figures". In other words, they are very successful in elite branding. There probably was a time when there was a performance advantage but those days are gone.

I will try to find the article for you.
Of course the wolfs will be after me now for daring to question Tak supremacy.

I doubt there will be any wolves after you Glen You are perfectly entitled to voice your view as is your Guide Dog no doubt

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Kunama

I doubt there will be any wolves after you Glen You are perfectly entitled to voice your view as is your Guide Dog no doubt

Thanks Matt, you owe me leather cleaning after soft drink came out my nose all over the car...

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by glend

I have looked through a Tak, and i would never own one. While nicely made, from a performance perspective, i regard them as over priced. I saw a quote recently that summed it up nicely, it was in an article on flourite verses FPL-53 and it went like this:

" If there is a difference it is most likely seen in the Takahashi profit figures". In other words, they are very successful in elite branding. There probably was a time when there was a performance advantage but those days are gone.

I will try to find the article for you.
Of course the wolfs will be after me now for daring to question Tak supremacy.

Wolves vs Chows I guess

Come to Canberra one fine night. We'll gladly show you what Tak and A-P show you. You may be surprised rather than regurgitate someone else's view.

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

You may rethink those choice of words if you ever own or seriously use a Tak Glen. Just sayin'...

WO71 doublet - wouldn't go near one again. TERRIBLE CA and astigmatism. Very hard to balance it on a mount.

The tak FS-60 is my least favourite Tak ever made, but many love them. Still, it is a better scope than the old WO 71 and the ED80.

I would have gladly traded my Esprit 80 for the MT160, until I kept reading of the woes and modifications done by a prior owner/seller...

Always worth reading the original post before bashing the competition, Lewis

The Star 71 is a quadruplet, no CA, 45mm flat field.

This is NOT the same as the WO Zenithstar 71, cheap doublet, which has plenty of CA...it's actually fine for visual, you just get blue halos when imaging.

[LewisM]

I was making reference to Beren and the 71 doublet

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by beren

I think the first generation of WO star71's had issues with star shapes, pinched cell ?. The WO zenithstar 71 doublet is very nice, not sure if it's discontinued now but when I brought one it came with a case and flattener and well under a 1000

Reference to the original 71s I bashed. They were AWFUL even visual

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Scary muff

[glend (Glen)]

Anyone wanting a less biased appraisal of performance might find these interesring:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...luorite-vs-ed/

And this comprehensive look at various objective materials in combination (note the Strehl figures from #15 onward).

http://telescope-optics.net/semiapo_...o_examples.htm

Eddgie's examples of comparative Strehl figures for FPL-53 and Flourite are worth a look, see posts # 13 and 14 in the CN thread.

What i take from the chart is that any historical (or hysterical) flourite advantage is no longer relevant if your choosing FPL-53, even to my guide dog,

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Reference to the original 71s I bashed. They were AWFUL even visual

Maybe that's why they redid 'em in 2013...

In contrast, the Z61 I have now has no CA, even with a camera behind it...FPL-53 doublet.

[Lognic04 (Logan)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I would have gladly traded my Esprit 80 for the MT160, until I kept reading of the woes and modifications done by a prior owner/seller...

Shame isn't it lewis

[issdaol (Phil)]

Originally Posted by glend

I have looked through a Tak, and i would never own one. While nicely made, from a performance perspective, i regard them as over priced. I saw a quote recently that summed it up nicely, it was in an article on flourite verses FPL-53 and it went like this:

" If there is a difference it is most likely seen in the Takahashi profit figures". In other words, they are very successful in elite branding. There probably was a time when there was a performance advantage but those days are gone.

I will try to find the article for you.
Of course the wolfs will be after me now for daring to question Tak supremacy.

Originally Posted by glend

Anyone wanting a less biased appraisal of performance might find these interesring:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...luorite-vs-ed/

And this comprehensive look at various objective materials in combination (note the Strehl figures from #15 onward).

http://telescope-optics.net/semiapo_...o_examples.htm

Eddgie's examples of comparative Strehl figures for FPL-53 and Flourite are worth a look, see posts # 13 and 14 in the CN thread.

What i take from the chart is that any historical (or hysterical) flourite advantage is no longer relevant if your choosing FPL-53, even to my guide dog,

So Glen......we have gone back to quoting the "Theoretical Sacred Scrolls" and some third hand comments.

So you have had look through a Tak ......once ?? more ...how long?...how many different Tak? Observing location and Conditions? Did you do extensive side by side observations with the same EP's and Diagonals on the same targets on the same night and location???

The fact is Tak produces both Flourite and FPL-53 scopes so a potential purchaser can buy what optical configuration best suites their purpose and/or their preference. So where is the argument for or against Tak given they offer both ??

In the link to the Telescope Optics test website .....and the table you refer to...the highest Strehl Ratio was a F10 scope ....so better corrected refractor due to FL and a great achievement......but still not comparing apples to apples in terms of FL's

In fact the next highest Strehl in that Table is the FPL53 -BSL7-FPL53 triplet and only one manufacturer in the world makes 2 versions of that design i.e. TAKAHASHI ....so how does that support your anti Tak argument !?!?!

Rohr Tests have shown TOA 150 samples with Strehls of .99 which again does not support your Tak bashing.

So can you please provide detailed information and real work practical examples to support your argument ???

Or is this just the case of some very poorly and misread bashing due to being disgruntled because some people make a personal choice to pay a little more for a Tak for that extra bit of mechanical and optical quality??

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by LewisM

The tak FS-60 is my least favourite Tak ever made, but many love them.

It does make for a nice finder scope, I suppose

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Kunama

I see these charts brought up regularly as a justification that CaF2 is not needed to make a great objective and yes that is true,Tak have shown that with the TSA and TOA series. What these charts don't disclose is that it isn't just the material that matters, it is how well it is figured, polished and put together. Yes it is true that glasses have gotten better and closed the gap to CaF2 but I think with workmanship you get what you pay for.

Seems everyone focuses on chromatic aberration as the big evil of optics and very little is mentioned of the actual work that the glasses undergo. I am sure the Chinese have opticians capable of outputting objectives that match the likes of Tak, TEC and AP but I think most of their product is built to a price and thus fall short of the premium brands.

Don't forget the perfect Tak FSQ-85ED/106ED/106EDX/106EDXIII/106EDX IV/130ED.... all incredible telescopes, highly coveted by top imagers globally (almost as much as the FSQ-106N Fluorite).

I joined the A-P side recently, and find them every bit as wonderful as the Taks.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by issdaol

So Glen......we have gone back to quoting the "Theoretical Sacred Scrolls" and some third hand comments.

So you have had look through a Tak ......once ?? more ...how long?...how many different Tak? Observing location and Conditions? Did you do extensive side by side observations with the same EP's and Diagonals on the same targets on the same night and location???

The fact is Tak produces both Flourite and FPL-53 scopes so a potential purchaser can buy what optical configuration best suites their purpose and/or their preference. So where is the argument for or against Tak given they offer both ??

In the link to the Telescope Optics test website .....and the table you refer to...the highest Strehl Ratio was a F10 scope ....so better corrected refractor due to FL and a great achievement......but still not comparing apples to apples in terms of FL's

In fact the next highest Strehl in that Table is the FPL53 -BSL7-FPL53 triplet and only one manufacturer in the world makes 2 versions of that design i.e. TAKAHASHI ....so how does that support your anti Tak argument !?!?!

Rohr Tests have shown TOA 150 samples with Strehls of .99 which again does not support your Tak bashing.

So can you please provide detailed information and real work practical examples to support your argument ???

Or is this just the case of some very poorly and misread bashing due to being disgruntled because some people make a personal choice to pay a little more for a Tak for that extra bit of mechanical and optical quality??

It's called justification of choice

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Steffen

It does make for a nice finder scope, I suppose

Might get one to put on the A-P