Takahashi TOA-130 or Williams Optics FLT-132

Grahame (Grahame) · #1 27-02-2007, 12:43 PM

Hello everyone,

I have been researching scopes for the last few months and come up with a short list of these two. It will be for astrophotography using a losmandy G-11 mount. Between these two scopes there in a big difference in price (about $3000 AUS) but they are very similar in specs... Any ideas or sugestions as to which is going to be the better all round??
Equipment used on it will be a Canon 20D for photography and a philips toUcam (840K) for the planets etc.

Thanks guys - this has been on my mind for a while now and is driving me insane trying to make a decision!!

Regards,
Grahame Kelaher.

Striker (Tony) · #2 27-02-2007, 12:55 PM

Ummmm.....the Tak but I am bias.

You pay for what you get but you may be happy with the WO

I was thinking of the same 2 scopes about 2 months ago Grahame but then I was pushed into the TOA150 by Rocket Boy......lol

Grahame (Grahame) · #3 27-02-2007, 01:01 PM

unfortunatly the TOA-150 is a little out of my price range I think

the question is - are you happy with the results of your taka - I am a little biased towards them too after using a few of them before!

RB (Andrew) · #4 27-02-2007, 01:02 PM

G'day Grahame.

The TOA 130 is in a class of it's own.
I absolutely love mine and I use it with the Canon 20Da and the webcam.
Big enough for the job yet still portable enough to take to star parties.

You won't be sorry.

Andrew

Grahame (Grahame) · #5 27-02-2007, 01:05 PM

after only 2 replys I must admit I like the way this is heading

The FLT-132 is a new scope too - I wonder just how many people have these and are activly using them for imaging so far.

MortonH · #6 27-02-2007, 01:05 PM

I wish I had your problem!!!

I've been drooling over the FLT 132 ever since it was announced. I reckon only a tiny, tiny number of people would see any difference between the two, let alone a difference that's worth $3,000.

Get the WO, and if you don't like it, sell it to me at a knock-down price!

Morton

P.S. And on another frivolous note, I think the FLTs just look so much nicer than any other scopes.

Striker (Tony) · #7 27-02-2007, 01:06 PM

Cant tell you as it's not due till early March.

I suppose the question is are you prepared to pay more for a scope that is off higher quality and has been a proven performer for some years now.

Also consider resale value.

I'm not saying anymore otherwise some members will start emailing me about knocking WO.

Dennis · #8 27-02-2007, 01:30 PM

Join the WO Yahoo Group and do a search on FLT-132 and FLT 132. There is some stuff on there you might want to read as part of your data gathering process.

Cheers

Dennis

Grahame (Grahame) · #9 27-02-2007, 01:41 PM

Thanks dennis - I have not ventured into the yahoo groups yet, but it seems I should have done so!

rogerg (Roger) · #10 27-02-2007, 02:31 PM

Some general comments.

I have only been impressed by the WO gear I've owned. There is often a better option but it's always much more expensive. If I won lotto I'm sure I'd buy the most expensive, until then WO is good.

I remember doing webcam work of Mars through a WO FLT 110 with a 2x and a 3x barlow stacked. Stunning clarity on Mars. Much better than I had ever seen through my 12" LX.

I was closely following WO and Tak Yahoo groups for a while (probably 2 years ago now). There was one dramatic difference between Tak and all other Yahoo groups, and that was the type of comments being made:
- Tak group had 0 negative comments
- Tak group had 0 threads on 'how to tweak' or 'how to fix'
- Tak group was much more friendly, everyone was happy.
- All the other groups were always bickering about what was good, what wasn't. What could be better, what couldn't. If it was good for the money, etc.

Having said that, I'm not sure that I'd buy tak for a few reasons, but I think that's off-topic for this discussion. I'd be happy with the WO in this situation simply because I don't have the $ for the tak

Roger.

wavelandscott (Scott) · #11 27-02-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogerg

Some general comments.

I was closely following WO and Tak Yahoo groups for a while (probably 2 years ago now). There was one dramatic difference between Tak and all other Yahoo groups, and that was the type of comments being made:
- Tak group had 0 negative comments
- Tak group had 0 threads on 'how to tweak' or 'how to fix'
- Tak group was much more friendly, everyone was happy.
- All the other groups were always bickering about what was good, what wasn't. What could be better, what couldn't. If it was good for the money, etc.

Roger.

While I will qualify my comment by saying I've never owned either brand...I have followed and read many different scope forums and sites and I think the above comment is appropriate...

I'm not sure where I would fall on the "value for money" basis but in terms of owner satisfaction and resale I think the Tak is hard to beat if you are serious about it...

After all, over the course of a lifetime the difference in price is not so big

rsbfoto · #12 01-03-2007, 06:38 AM

Hi,

maybe if you look at this 2 pages the difference between a TOA 130 and a WO 132 is somehow clearer. Take specifically a look at the color curves of both scopes.

http://www.optique-unterlinden.net/hp_toa130.htm

http://www.williamoptics.com/prod_te...32/chrommb.gif

Maybe some experts can also add some explanation to this curves.

RB (Andrew) · #13 01-03-2007, 09:37 AM

Here's another link to a site showing 3D field curvature graphs of various scopes.

Greg Bryant · #14 01-03-2007, 09:35 PM

As it turns out, the upcoming May/Jun issue of Australian Sky & Telescope has reviews on the Williams Optics Megrez 90 APO and the FLT-132 APO. Very favourable reports.

Grahame (Grahame) · #15 07-05-2007, 02:12 PM

Thanks to everyone's thoughts on this matter - I decided to go with the WO FLT-132, which I received 2 weeks ago now. If anyone is interested I'll post a few pictures I have managed to take before the moon spoiled the sky.
I have no problems with this scope yet - I am able to image with it as expected and visually it is excellent!

Regards,
Grahame

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #16 07-05-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grahame

Thanks to everyone's thoughts on this matter - I decided to go with the WO FLT-132, which I received 2 weeks ago now. If anyone is interested I'll post a few pictures I have managed to take before the moon spoiled the sky.
I have no problems with this scope yet - I am able to image with it as expected and visually it is excellent!

Regards,
Grahame

Hi Grahame - I'm very interested in your opinion of this scope. I, too, am looking at one soon and would love to see some more photos of it. I have other WO scopes and love them. As far as mechanical quality goes, I don't think that the Tak is any better. Optically, I'm unsure - but not by much if any. How is the case that it came in - I heard it's the best in the business.

Cheers
Chris

Stephen65 · #17 07-05-2007, 05:03 PM

I have an FLT-132 on order and it should arrive in a couple of days.

I considered the TOA-130 but I couldn't justify the price difference ($5600 v $9100 for the bare OTAs). Takahashi have the superb reputation but everyone I know who has had a WO scope has loved it and all the comparison reviews I read say the optics and mechanicals are just as good in the WO scope. Maybe if price was no object I would have bought the TOA.

Stephen65 · #18 07-05-2007, 05:14 PM

The other options I looked at in the 5" APO refractor range were the TV NP-127 which had a similar stratospheric price to the TOA and the Orion 120ED. But I couldn't see the sense in paying $4800 for a 120ED when for $800 more I could have an FLT-132.

jase (Jason) · #19 08-05-2007, 09:13 AM

I'm going to stick my head out here and question whether anyone here can truthfully compare the WO FLT-132 against the Takahashi TOA-130F?
Other than similar aperture and 4" focuser, there are no further comparisons. IMHO, both scopes are in totally different classes.

If WO continued to use TEC optics instead of TMB, I think we'd have a closer performance comparison.

Stephen65 · #20 08-05-2007, 10:58 AM

As I understand it both are triplet air-spaced APO's using FPL-53 low dispersion flourite glass in the objective. The TOA has a slightly longer focal length (7.7 v 7) which might help slightly with CA but at the cost of a longer tube and less suitability for photography.

What differences do you think might exist that contribute to one being in a totally different class? I know Takahashi have the long reputation but to get a large difference in quality you would need either a significantly better design, better components or better assembly.