Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelandscott
I think the big question is how much you are willing to spend?
Depending on your budget, folks can point you in the right direction.
|
When looking for quality, I'm not thinking of a price point. When I make my mind up, that will be my budget. I was looking for a bit of feedback to justify up to $8k for a good scope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler
If you are seriously thinking about a 130 size AP or Tak then you should also at least consider the the TV-127is.
IMHO there is a distinct difference in the quality of refractors which does justify the big price differences - otherwise we would all be buying the same scope variously rebadged and repainted as either WO/Astrotech/Orion and Tak, TV and AP etc woud all be out of business tomorrow.
Ironically, I had a M110 also some time ago and one of my most poignant astronomy experiences was looking through it alongside a humble TV Ranger. I still have the Ranger but I sold the WO long ago.
The moral of the story is that you do get what you pay for and essentially if you are spending big dollars on a genuinely hand-made quality refractor like a Tak, TV, AP etc with very high QC you wont be disappointed with any of them.
|
Hadn't thought of TV. I'll have a look. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky
I have a WO FLT 132 on loan at the moment, and the quality of the finish and machining is on a par with anything I've ever seen from Tak, AP or TV. I don't think it's fair to lump this scope in the same bucket as the more economical brands. It's not a light scope, the OTA is about 10kg, about the same as my old Meade starfinder 10" with four times the light-gathering ability...
As for the increase in aperture over your 110 - I had this side by side with an old Unitron 4" (@same magnification), and yes, the contrast was a bit better, and I could notice some colour in the old beast after looking through the WO, but it wasn't that different and there wasn't a great deal of detail leaping out of the eyepiece that couldn't be seen in the 4". You'd definitely want to look through and at one of these things before buying it.
cheers,
Andrew.
|
It is a small increase I know. But just a bit of this and a bit of that can make the difference to an image,
Quote:
Originally Posted by issdaol
hi gray,
It might be worthwhile catching up with a few users on here that own and use each of the scopes you have listed.
I do not own one, but I have used the Tak TOA130 owned by a mate of mine, and I found the fit and finish to be superb.
Sometimes you look at scopes and they appear to have been made from inexpensive mass market materials.
This is not the case with the TOA130 . All of the components look and feel as if they have been custom made for the scope and finished off with that nice pebbly paint finish (this is similar to other Taks like the TOA150 and Mewlon 300).
Visual performance is fantastic as well with pinpoint stars and no sign of any colour effects.
Given the outstanding build quality and performance, this is a scope that I believe could be handed down to the next generation.
I have also been seriously considering one for myself as a traveling "grab'n'go" unit as my Mewlon 300 takes a bit of effort to move around.
|
I hope they pop in here and impart a bit of info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky
Not only that, but since it seems you're interested in astrophotography it's relatively easy to google up examples of images taken with exactly the scope and mount combination (and probably camera) you're considering. I guess the key thing for imaging is focal length, the amount of effort that needs to go into guiding increases quadratically with FL! The FLT132 I have has taken some very nice images on the back of a NEQ6. PM me for the link as it isn't my work.
cheers,
Andrew.
|
Will do, thank you.