Tak FSQ 106 Help

[HCR32 (Peter)]

Is a Tak FSQ 106 any good for visual planetary?

Would it be a waste of money?

Or is there a better option for the money.

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Having used a FSQ-106N with Extender-Q for that very purpose I would say no because it lacks the aperture to give nice detailed views. If you want to use a refractor then the minimum size would be 5" preferably 6" otherwise spend your $$$'s on a good sized reflector or SCT or better still a Mewlon...I have Mewlon 250 and it's offers superb views on planets and the Moon

[gregbradley]

The FSQ is designed to be an astrograph but I believe it is still quite good for visual. I would have thought it a bit short of aperture for serious visual but there was an excellent review by Art of Texas Nautical in the US for the FSQ85.

He said it acted more like a 5 inch APO.

I only looked through my FSQ106N and it was a nice sharp widefield view but it was a bit nagler like in that viewing offaxis gave distortions. You had to look straight ahead to get a clear undistorted view.

For planetary I would have thought a nice big mother SCT was the go or a Mak Cass or a Mak Newt with Televue powermate. Or a giant Dob.

The best planetary views I have had were with a Celestron 11 inch SCT.

I have seen some nice steady Jupiter views with a Tak FS152 but it was a bit small. Perhaps a powermate would have made it better.

Greg.

[rmcconachy]

For visual use the best planetary views on a bang per buck basis will be had with a well cooled Dob using high quality optics and some kind of tracking, e.g., a tracking platform. Note the two italicized phrases. I like refractors and own a small APO as well as a Dob but no matter how good apochromatic refractors are per inch of aperture, a good quality well cooled larger Newt will do better for visual use for the same money or less.