Who sells the Tak FS/FC 60 O.T.A?

Google was not my friend today.
-Tom

It seems I found it at Oceanside Telescope. $895.00. Ouch.
Seriously, if money was no factor, which would you prefer if
you could just have one scope for a year, the Tak 60 or the
Orion 80ED? ...or the new Celestron 80ED (but the reviews
aren't out yet).
-Tom


"Tom E." wrote in message
...
Google was not my friend today.
-Tom

Here you go:

http://www.optcorp.com/cart/ProductD...ProductID=2179

Is your 10" Dob feeling lonesome already? ;-)


- Robert Cook

"Tom E." wrote in message
...

Seriously, if money was no factor, which would you prefer if
you could just have one scope for a year, the Tak 60 or the
Orion 80ED? ...or the new Celestron 80ED (but the reviews
aren't out yet).

FWIW, IMO, unless you have a specific requirement for a small aperture high
power scope, the far less expensive Celestron C102 F5 achromats (same size
as the ED80, _and_ more aperture) are quite acceptable for touring a dark
sky. The additional costs of an apo, get you color free planets, and better
wide-field astro-images, but if you aren't going to use the scope
specifically for those purposes, you can save yourself some money.

At the very least, if you've never owned a small, fast refractor, it might
be a good idea to start with an ST80... they're cheap enough. Used on
Astromart they often sell for under $175 _with_ the EQ-1 mount. I bought
mine new for $199, from old stock at a local shop a few years ago.

Later, given the choice between an apo and more aperture, I chose more
aperture and moved up to the 100mm F5 achromat. I wanted more light, not
better color correction. I use the scope primarily for quick looks at the
larger open clusters and Milky Way starfields at low power (20x, 3 degrees,
5mm exit pupil), and DSO's where an upper bound of 2mm to 1.4mm exit pupil
(50x to 70x) is preferable. It isn't until you get into planets that exit
pupils smaller than 1mm (100x and above) beg for apo performance.

Stephen Paul

"Tom E." wrote in message ...

It seems I found it at Oceanside Telescope. $895.00.

It's $829, actually (minus sales tax).

Ouch.

Compared to similarly-priced decorative brass telescopes, it's a
bargain. :-)

Seriously, if money was no factor, which would you prefer if
you could just have one scope for a year, the Tak 60 or the
Orion 80ED? ...or the new Celestron 80ED (but the reviews
aren't out yet).

If I could only use one telescope during my entire life, and it had to
be one of these, I'd choose the 80ED without question, due to its
advantage in aperture. But if it's just for a year, with no other
limitations, then I'd pick the Tak. It would be interesting to be
able to use a truly fine instrument for a while, because virtually
everything I've ever owned or used--telescopes or anything else--has
been second-rate at best (by my own choice, these days). No, that's
not a whinge in a world where many people go hungry every day, but you
know what I mean. ;-)


- Robert Cook

On 7 Sep 2004 11:43:16 -0700, (Robert Cook) wrote:

"Tom E." wrote in message ...

It seems I found it at Oceanside Telescope. $895.00.

It's $829, actually (minus sales tax).

Ouch.

Compared to similarly-priced decorative brass telescopes, it's a
bargain. :-)

Seriously, if money was no factor, which would you prefer if
you could just have one scope for a year, the Tak 60 or the
Orion 80ED? ...or the new Celestron 80ED (but the reviews
aren't out yet).

If I could only use one telescope during my entire life, and it had to
be one of these, I'd choose the 80ED without question, due to its
advantage in aperture. But if it's just for a year, with no other
limitations, then I'd pick the Tak.

The Tak, like TeleVue's 60mm are pretty much for extreme portability
and there they have it over the 80mm products, except for the Chinese
80mm f5 achros which are pretty light and short. They position the TV
as a birding scope as well as an astronomical scope. I had the Tak 78
and it produced a near textbook image and was fairly portable.
-Rich

"Robert Cook" wrote in message
om...
Here you go:

http://www.optcorp.com/cart/ProductD...ProductID=2179

Is your 10" Dob feeling lonesome already? ;-)


- Robert Cook

Naw, I just wanted something for planets. Something I can take out of the
house without a fuss. The Tak 60 would really have to be jacked up with
that 350mm f/l.
I may pass on it.
-Tom

"Tom E." wrote in message ...

Naw, I just wanted something for planets. Something I can take out of the
house without a fuss.

I'm quite familiar with that niche. I don't think that a 60mm refractor
makes any sense at all for it. Not that I have anything against 60mm
refractors; they have many virtues. But the amount of planetary detail
that you can see with such a minimal aperture is extremely limited.
And if carrying out of the house without fuss is your limiting
factor, you can easily handle a *much* bigger scope, giving you
much more planetary detail.

If cooldown time is an issue, a 4" refractor would probably make
sense, and if not, a 6" - 8" catadioptric or Newt would be better
yet. You can also get a Newt to cool down reasonably well in you're
willing to install a fan.

- Tony Flanders

"Tony Flanders" wrote in message
...
"Tom E." wrote in message
...

Naw, I just wanted something for planets. Something I can take out of
the
house without a fuss.

I'm quite familiar with that niche. I don't think that a 60mm refractor
makes any sense at all for it. Not that I have anything against 60mm
refractors; they have many virtues. But the amount of planetary detail
that you can see with such a minimal aperture is extremely limited.
And if carrying out of the house without fuss is your limiting
factor, you can easily handle a *much* bigger scope, giving you
much more planetary detail.

If cooldown time is an issue, a 4" refractor would probably make
sense, and if not, a 6" - 8" catadioptric or Newt would be better
yet. You can also get a Newt to cool down reasonably well in you're
willing to install a fan.

- Tony Flanders

I already have a 114mm newt, a cheapo, and don't really want another one.
The supplied eyepieces were a 20mm, which at 900 f.l. only shows a small
white disk for Jupiter, and the supplied 4mm couldn't resolve. I guess a
9mm
could actually work. Anyways, X-mas is coming up and I have the scope
fever.
Those Mak's look perfect for planets. Would the EXT 90 fork mount track a
planet well enough to photograph? I can't quite see a heafty camera riding
on that
thing, so CCD is a thought. Can it track obects such as M31 well enough?

Is that Stellarvue Nighthawk any good? Better or worse than the Orion ED?
I sort of like the refractor idea because I can eventually put it on an
accurate mount
such as the cheaper Losmandy or Vixen models.
-Tom

"Tom E." wrote in message
...
"Tony Flanders" wrote in message

If cooldown time is an issue, a 4" refractor would probably make
sense, and if not, a 6" - 8" catadioptric or Newt would be better
yet. You can also get a Newt to cool down reasonably well in you're
willing to install a fan.

- Tony Flanders

I already have a 114mm newt, a cheapo, and don't really want another one.
The supplied eyepieces were a 20mm, which at 900 f.l. only shows a small
white disk for Jupiter, and the supplied 4mm couldn't resolve.

The 114 "cheapo" is a poor example of what a Newtonian can do. Also, focal
length really is not the limiting factor for achieving high
magnification/high resolution, it is only one of two factors in achieving
the desired image scale (50x, 100x, ... 200x).

Resolution is an aperture thing in combination with a telescope objective's
ability to maintain a high contrast transfer of energy through the system.
IOW, it takes bigger aperture with higher contrast (better quality of figure
and smoothness) to improve the views, not more focal length.

For this discussion, focal length is just a factor in choosing your
eyepiece. A 1000mm focal length, 4" aperture telescope, with a 10mm eyepiece
provides 100x. But so does a 500mm focal length, 4" aperture telescope, with
a 5mm eyepiece.

Beyond that discussion, focal length of the telescope does limit the maximum
field of view. A 500mm scope with the largest "useful" focal length eyepiece
in a 1.25" barrel gives around 3 degrees true field of view, where the
1000mm focal length telescope will be half as wide a field in that same
eyepiece. In the longer focal length telescope, some of this can be overcome
by going to a larger barrel, a 2" eyepiece, but there is nothing to prevent
you from using a 2" eyepiece in the shorter focal length telescope either,
increasing the 3 degree field even further, out to around 4.5 degrees!

Those Mak's look perfect for planets. Would the EXT 90 fork mount track a
planet well enough to photograph? I can't quite see a heafty camera
riding
on that
thing, so CCD is a thought. Can it track obects such as M31 well enough?

Unlike planets, imaging deep sky objects like galaxies demands a short focal
length telescope. First, to get a wide enough field (as discussed above) to
frame the object (get the whole thing on the film plane), and second to
decrease the exposure time. Decreasing exposure time is even more important
for mounts that don't track well. With CCD cameras you can take multiple
short exposures and stack them through software. The "faster" (shorter focal
length) the telescope, the better for this purpose. A mount that can track
accurately for just two minutes, can give excellent CCD results with a fast,
F5, telescope.


Is that Stellarvue Nighthawk any good? Better or worse than the Orion ED?
I sort of like the refractor idea because I can eventually put it on an
accurate mount
such as the cheaper Losmandy or Vixen models.

Refractors _are_ awesome, providing the best performance per inch of
aperture of any design. The decision process in buying one however, is
really a matter of purpose. Understanding what purpose each scope serves
well, is the first step.