I've owned William optics scopes with tmb glass, and a tmb signature series scopes... even an fsq85...
My Askar scopes are INCREDIBLE.. not better than the Tak optically perhaps, but mechanically, the 120APO is the most robust scope I've owned. It's build quality is flawless, easily the best focuser I've ever used... the machining on all the parts is amazingly good.. I literally can not understand someone spending 6k on an flt120 and flattener when I got my 120apo for less than 3k with the flattener.
Obviously, a TOA130 will destroy the askar counterpart optically, but, to use the car analogy, an F1 car may be the peak of performance, but 99% of people wouldn't know the first thing about extracting all it's potential, and would probably find that a they get similar lap times from an mx5...
It's all horses for courses.
I would get an AP 130 if I could, not that I need the performance, just because I want it.. alas, none were available... the askar 120 has really pleased me thus far, and the 65phq has also. The fact is, I could have bought a wo 120, or hunted around for a tmb115... but, I didn't see the value. Short of a TOA130 or a AP130, which my skills do not warrant the cost of ownership, I don't think there's a better scope in the class.
My Askar scopes are INCREDIBLE.. not better than the Tak optically perhaps.
Sorry...I disagree. There is no "perhaps"
AP, Taka, CFF are incredible.
Askar are simply good value for the price.
There is a real difference......but putting 'Red label' in the same basket would be a
massive mistake if you can't tell it's not as refined as a Scottish 21 year old single malt
Last edited by Peter Ward; 03-11-2024 at 08:46 AM.
Reason: clarification
Not everybody can tell the difference between a $100, $600 and $1600 bottle of scotch, and there certainly is people buying a $1600 scotch to feel cool, or look important around others, despite not being able to tell the difference...
I'm well aware that the TOA 130 and 150 are arguably the most brilliant refractors ever made, and as you would expect, they carry a price to match. The AP SF130EDT, likewise.
But most people are not going to see the $10k difference between the TOA130 and my scope, because they won't have the skill or the skies to support such exquisite optics... better images, maybe... 10k better? I doubt it.
Not everybody can tell the difference between a $100, $600 and $1600 bottle of scotch,......
A handful will. But not many...
Ironically, there was an old Johhny Walker ad that spruiked the idea
"do you want to take home the Scotch you actually want to drink or the one you want to pay for?"
So many choices in life can be like that. The price tag is long forgotten when I use my AP155, which is something I could not say about less refined/compromised scopes I've used over the years.
Ironically, there was an old Johhny Walker ad that spruiked the idea
"do you want to take home the Scotch you actually want to drink or the one you want to pay for?"
So many choices in life can be like that. The price tag is long forgotten when I use my AP155, which is something I could not say about less refined/compromised scopes I've used over the years.
I completely understand, and with your skill, I may well feel the same way.
Given my skill level in processing my data, I'm willing to spend a reasonable amount of money on a telescope/camera/mount setup which is above my skill level, allowing sufficient headroom for growth, but is still squarely planted in the 'amateur' level equipment category (and price bracket).
When my skills advance to a point where the differences between my Askar 120 and the AP130 are going to actually matter to my final images, then I'll find one available.
I know that the AP and Tak 130's are both significantly better optically than the askar... but, again, the TOA-130 is $11,000 more expensive as a bare OTA than the Askar 120APO is as an OTA, rings, dovetail, carry case, and 1x field flattener that produces a VERY flat field across a 35mm sensor, and an electronic focuser..
So - would someone of 'middle of the road' skill level in astrophotography see a benefit commensurate with the potentially $15,000 more expensive Tak... And again, I would say - No. How do I know? Because I never got better images with my Tak FSQ85 than I did with my TMB 80/480 Signature Series, despite the Tak being multiple times the price...
To me - a middle of the road skill level astrophotographer buying a TOA or FSQ scope is kind of like someone getting their open motorcycle license and buying a Panigale V4R SP2... It's very impressive parked at the cafe, but they will spend 90% of their time on it simply trying to tame it and stay alive - rather than actually squeezing the potential out of it...
There is no denying that the most expensive scopes out there, are better than the Chinese counterparts, its just a question of by how much? and does that 'betterness' equate to better images for anyone who uses them, or just to people who have the experience and skill to extract every last scrap of quality out of their data.
We don't all have your skill Peter... For the rest of us, the Askar 120APO or Askar 130PHQ could well be the last scope we ever NEED to buy...
We don't all have your skill Peter... For the rest of us, the Askar 120APO or Askar 130PHQ could well be the last scope we ever NEED to buy...
The question was asked "are they any good" and sure, they are not bad...but if it was me starting out...
I'd be steering clear of the CA seen in spiffy looking, but less well corrected refractors (violet halos would drive me spare) and purchase a really well made 10" Newtonian (or thereabouts) and quality coma corrector. No colour, good aperture and not too difficult to mount. Mounts BTW are the key component to any successful imaging system IMHO.
I've seen imagery from similar systems that is truly remarkable and I think they provide better bang for buck. Would I trade one for my carbon Zerodur RC? ...nup...but given I am now five decades into the hobby, don't have a mortgage, well, yep I guess I can afford a rare single malt every so often.
Last edited by Peter Ward; 04-11-2024 at 06:42 AM.
Reason: typo
That said, looking at the Zygo data, something doesn't add up. The airy pattern and point spread is slightly but very clearly astigmatic....yet they are claiming a Strehl of 0.98??? Who wrote this report? Trump's speech writer?
I'd send my Taka FSQ106 back if it had similar astigmatism.
That said, the mechanical design and inclusions look very seductive. I could be tempted to try one out of sheer curiosity. Assuming you get a copy with
no optical vices...gee...I'd agree it would be had to justify the $14k or so for a Taka FSQ.
Last edited by Peter Ward; 05-11-2024 at 10:07 AM.
Looks great on paper and the sample images are fabulous. Not sure about the 2.8 inch focuser though. It's a bit narrow. I notice the sample images are APSC sized cameras.
I tried in the past to make my 2.7 inch focusers work with full frame and it did not go well. Certainly not for a 16803 CCD but then they are not really being used much anymore.
Looks great on paper and the sample images are fabulous. Not sure about the 2.8 inch focuser though. It's a bit narrow. I notice the sample images are APSC sized cameras.
I tried in the past to make my 2.7 inch focusers work with full frame and it did not go well. Certainly not for a 16803 CCD but then they are not really being used much anymore.
Greg.
That's a really good point to raise. A Taka FSQ106 has a 4" focuser and 88mm image circle. It easily supports 16803 rigs.
Also to that end, worth noting that the FSQ106 with its reducer still works brilliantly with the 16803 sized sensor. And as Greg said, while the 16803 is not a common sensor like it used to be, if you want to produce an amazingly wide field image, at the same time, having beautiful image quality, an FSQ106 + 0.73x + 16803 is THE way to do it.
I guess having the Askar SQA106 is a nice substitute for lower budget imagers, and their spot diagrams indicate sub 3micron spot sizes at r=27mm, considerably larger than 35mm full frame. Vignetting will be a concern with a 2.8" focuser I think... But, If someone was about to pull the trigger on a FSQ106 and a APS-C sensor rig, this could provide them with something that for all intents and purposes, is very similar, for a fraction of the price...
