0.00
#... |
|---|
|
hello everyone any suggestions between these scopes? i dont know what is the best and after a long research i conclude to these telescope. I'm more in the direction of the takahashi and the william optics but im still not sure... any thoughts? thank you!!! |
0.90
#... |
|---|
| Im not a pro, but if using OSC id go with the tak. |
1.51
#... |
|---|
| I don't believe that the WO can be compared to the Tak and win. Taks are known to be pretty much at the top of the line, but that's just my opinion. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Hi, while i can`t really comment on the TAK i do own an FLT 132 and am very happy with it for lunar imaging. Kind regards, Wouter. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
i want it especially for astrophotography... what is it OSC? and wouter, do you do also astrophotography with the flt? because i saw this telescope in images and i was very impressed! thank you! |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| and beside the focal length differences , what is the difference between takahashi and william optics? |
3.00
#... |
|---|
|
Hi HST I have a WO 132FLT with the 3.5” FT focuser and pair it with an original FF68 and FFIV. I have imaged with it for 5 years or so both broad band and narrow band. I have no hesitation in saying that if you employ a good standard of image capture techniques (eg capturing blue subs near meridian) you will collect high quality datasets with the WO and either of the two other scopes you mention, assuming there are no mechanical issues with the scopes, eg focuser sag, and a good mount. I have two Taks - a FSQ85 and FSQ106 - and both have excellent optics. I have never used a TSA120. I have never seen or used an Explore Scientific scope so cannot comment. When you research images produced from these scopes, I’m sure you’ll see super examples from each as well as mediocre examples from each. This more often than not will be the result of processing and capture techniques rather than an inherent deficiency in the scope. The humble doublet Skywatcher ED80 produces incredible high quality images when used with good all round techniques. Having said the above, premium scopes are sought after for reliable quality of OTA/focuser (do not under estimate the importance of the focuser; an FT focuser is second to none) and optics. Your budget will guide you, second hand scopes of 120, 130 size do come up as well, eg APM 130 F6. There is also the SW Esprit 120 I would suggest. Good luck & CS Barry |
|
1.51
#... |
|---|
and beside the focal length differences , what is the difference between takahashi and william optics? The Taks use florite. The FLT uses FPL-53 glass. Tak actually build their own scopes. |
|
3.00
#... |
|---|
| According to the Takahashi Europe website the TSA120 uses FPL-53. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
I agree with Barry’s point that data capture technique and subsequent processing are crucial. Indeed, they may well contribute more to the final result than the scope. Here, for example, is an interesting comparison of a (relatively cheap) Skywatcher Esprit 100 vs an (expensive) Tak 106 FSQ https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/480805-tak-fsq106-vs-sw-esprit-100/ I use scopes from TEC, Takahashi, Williams Optics and Skywatcher. I’ve have had good and bad Takahashis (my FSQ 85 was returned due to its very poor performance). I’ve had good and bad Williams Optics (the Mk I WO Star 71s had significant QC issues). The point is, whatever you get, make sure you test it thoroughly. And, related to this, make sure you get a reliable retailer. When I was having my FSQ85 issues, I was extremely disappointed (to say the least) by the service I received from my Tak retailer and from the Tak distributor for my area. I’d second Barry’s suggestion that you take a peek at the Skywatcher Esprit 120. A terrific piece of kit. The only thing I might quibble with is the focuser - I upgraded the focuser on mine to a FT. |
|
1.51
#... |
|---|
Barry Wilson: Oh yes, that is correct. Sorry 8-( |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
wow! ok first of all thank you very much! i really appreciate it! second of all, i so confused  , i hoped that someone here will say that this this better scope because... or i cant buy this scope because...i will continue my research! thank you for your help!! if there is more help i will be happy!  |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Not sure where you are located. If you are in the UK, I could recommend one or two retailers you can rely on - one of these offers a ‘check’ by a well-respected optical engineer prior to shipping (for a small fee, of course). I wouldn’t get overly confused. If you get a good copy of any of the scopes aready mentioned, it will be a more than capable imaging instrument. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Checkout Astrobackyard on the WO132: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJLOfR8Fpc |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
I’ll give you what you want. ;) The TSA-120 is one of the sharpest, most color accurate triplets ever made. The TSA is a super APO, meaning that the color accuracy extends into the UV and NIR wavelengths. It’s far superior to any scope from WO and especially ES. ES is garbage. Not only the optics, but the build quality is like a toy. I’ve imaged with the TSA-120 for over three years and it has been a fantastic scope. It’s only weak point is the focuser. I have a FeatherTouch 3” on mine now and its perfect. I will never sell this scope. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
wow! can you send some pictures wes? |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
wow!can you send some pictures wes? just look at my astrobin page, many images there are taken with my TSA-120, and I even have an image of the rig. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Thank you! and i think that all the time i thought that from the look of the scope william optics are better from takahashi, more sharper and smooth images. Why you think that takahashi is better then williap optics? ;) thank you!! |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Mass produced Chinese scopes are not bad, but they are not as good as Premium scopes. Quality control, color and aberration correction are much better. Not to mention the build quality. I used to image with a very good Stellarvue 105, which I replaced with the TSA-120. My stars are smaller, color correction is vastly improved (the TSA series are a super APO) and the contrast is also higher... all of which is reflected in the quality of the data I can get with the TSA-120 vs the SV105. You are certainly welcome to making your own choice based on your own beliefs. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
yeah! thank you very much! |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
hi wes just wanted to ask you what kind of field flattener do you use? because i saw that the dedicated field flattener to the TSA 120 is also reducer, and i dont want a reducer, just a flattener! thanks!!! |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
The explorer scientific FCD100 scopes are not “Toys”. My friend and imager uses it to create beautiful images that surpass the qualit of many images using rigs 10s of thousands of dollars more!! It is by far the best bang for the buck for any refractor out there. Don’t believe me? Check out his page here. https://www.astrobin.com/users/Arcturus19/ |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
The explorer scientific FCD100 scopes are not “Toys”. My friend and imager uses it to create beautiful images that surpass the qualit of many images using rigs 10s of thousands of dollars more!! It is by far the best bang for the buck for any refractor out there. Don’t believe me? Check out his page here. https://www.astrobin.com/users/Arcturus19/ |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
what beautiful photos! but i think that i will go with the takahashi even though... thanks! |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
I use a TOA35-RD which is a reducer (that name is very common so you have to be careful what you purchase!). I do not have the flattener, although there is one, but unfortunately it is not threaded. https://optcorp.com/products/takahashi-toa-35-flattener-for-toa-tsa-refractors-with-2-7-focuser |
