Takahashi TOA130 compared to 150?

[nebula]

I am contemplating the purchase of either scope but I want to get some opinions here comparing the Takahashi TOA-130 to the TOA-150. I understand the obvious difference in size but how much heavier is the 150 over the 130? Also, is there a huge difference in image brightness and contrast between the two scopes?

If anyone has compared these two scopes side by side or can offer some information on them it would be greatly appreciated.


Bill

[KenMiller]

I had a 130 and traded it in on a 150.
After a short while, I bought another 130.
The 130 just seems to be an optimal mix of aperture, size, and weight.
I still use the 150 for imaging, but for visual work I just take out the 130.
I have a TSA-102 that I use as a guide scope. The 130 is substantially superior.
I could give up the 150 easier than the 130.
Of course, I don't yet have an observatory. Once I do, the 150 will stay mounted.

So, unless you are mounting it permanently, a 150 is a lot of scope to cart around for the minimal improvement it offers over a 130.

[nebula]

Thank you Ken for your response to my post. I really want to get the TOA-150 but the weight of the scope is what is holding me back. A friend of mine recently picked up a TOA-130 and it was absolutely superb to say the least. The images that I viewed through that scope were incredible. I have not had the opportunity to look through the TOA-150 yet but I can assume that the images would be brighter with a little more contrast due to the extra inch of apperture.

Most of my observing will be taking place in my backyard with occasional trips to some dark sky sites that my friends and I frequent. For the few times that I take the scope portable I don't think that the extra weight will be that much of a factor. Oh well, I guess I kind of talked myself into getting the TOA-150 after all.

Bill

[BT Technologies]

Hello Bill,

Ken really summed it up quite nicely however I have done some A/B comparisons between the TOA-130 and the TOA-150 and there definitely is a discernable difference in terms of brightness and contrast between both scopes. That extra inch of aperture indeed makes a difference however only you can determine whether the difference is enough to justify the added weight and expense. Don't forget that the TOA-150 includes a 4" focuser and CAA (Camera angle adjuster) as standard where the 130 does not.

For myself if portability was not a huge issue and I had the financial resources I would go with the TOA-150.

Originally Posted by nebula

Thank you Ken for your response to my post. I really want to get the TOA-150 but the weight of the scope is what is holding me back. A friend of mine recently picked up a TOA-130 and it was absolutely superb to say the least. The images that I viewed through that scope were incredible. I have not had the opportunity to look through the TOA-150 yet but I can assume that the images would be brighter with a little more contrast due to the extra inch of apperture.

Most of my observing will be taking place in my backyard with occasional trips to some dark sky sites that my friends and I frequent. For the few times that I take the scope portable I don't think that the extra weight will be that much of a factor. Oh well, I guess I kind of talked myself into getting the TOA-150 after all.

Bill

[Murray]

The trouble with all the above logic is that you can rationalise going up or down the scales on the basis that the differences between two similar products are so marginal that no two people are likely to come to the same conclusion - and your wife probably won't notice either.

Too often we know what we want to hear and keep pressing the buttons till at least one person comes out with a version of events which one can take to one's spouse and say "There you are - it's not just me who thinks its a good idea!"

In reality, if there was no discernable difference between a 130 and 150, TAK would not make one of the two scopes - and you can take a guess which one they would drop.

I am also in the market for a 150mm refractor - will it be a TAK or a used AP. But wait - TMB comes flying in stage left. But wait again - if you are going to spend 8K why not look at an RC Optics - its only a few K more.

Hang on a moment, think of the wonderful TAK Mewlons - but aren't they are only souped-up versions of a good old Meade or Celestron SCT - which you can get for a couple of thousand - even with all the bells, whistles and bright coatings to boot.

I am probably no different to dozens of AP wannabees who will end up rationalising their way out of getting what they know they would really love to have - a brand spanking new AP refractor, and end up wondering how the hell they ended up with a beaten-up old Orion SCT (or Meade or Celestron etc).

After an age of deliberation I have decided a 2nd-hand TAK 150mm refractor would be great. If not, then a Mewlon is second best.

However, I did take the momentous step (on the advice of a Paramount-owning friend) to at least buy the best mount I could afford - an AP900, before getting the scope. At least that way I will have a fighting chance of making the best of whatever scope I eventually end up with.

Murray

TAK EM10 GOTO
TAK FS102
A-T 66mm
SX CCD

[KenMiller]

Murray,

<I'm climbing onto my soapbox here>

Certainly every individual needs to assess the relative value of alternatives as it applies to them.

One fellow might just buy both the 130 and 150 and see which he likes better because the cost is insignificant to him. Another might take a year gathering information while saving for the purchase.

I know the biggest challenge for me when it comes to astro gear is a lack of quantitative information. I have had a number of hobbies through the years and I've never seen anything like the lack of quality information that exists in amateur astronomy.

Pilots have detailed specifications for their planes and all the associated gear. Amateur radio operators have more quantitative data than they could possibly want for all their prospective gear. Shooters have (or can easily obtain) accurate information regarding their firearms and ammunition. Photographers have great reviews of gear upon which to base their decisions.

I can't think of a single hobby, outside of artsie-fartsie stuff like music (no offense to musicians, I happen to play classical guitar), where that kind of information isn't readily available.

So why is it that when we go to buy a scope the manufacturers don't provide squat? And even more interestingly, why is it that third partties don't measure and supply this information?

Consumer Reports supplies more detailied information on dehumidiifers (I just bought two) than manufacturers or SKy and Telescope provide for scopes.

Especially given the technical nature of this hobby this situation seems bizarre!

I just found an astronomy magazine published in the UK that provides such reports - Practical Astronomer (http://www.practicalastronomer.com/). I've subscribed to it. Here's an example of the type of quantitative information I'm talking about:

http://www.practicalastronomer.com/ETX90.pdf

If that information were generally available then I think making those decisions would be much easier for most folks. But since it isn't, they probably seek qualitative information as an alternative - with all the hazards and amiguities you mention.

<hopping off of soapbox>

[Murray]

Ken,

Soapboxes are fun - long may they remain so. I think too little time is given over to reasoned argument by way of discussion - as opposed to sound-bites - these days.

I agree with your comments. However, there is something about equipment of this sort which, for some people, makes them go weak at the knees just looking at it. Think of the mistique surrounding an AP scope - there has to be some reason to wait years for what is probably only a marginally better light-gathering-implement than the likes of TAK or a TMB etc etc.

For me, the quality of constrution of the OTS or mount is important. I want to feel that I have bought something that has been built by craftsmen. I used to watch the cabinet makers in one of my father's businesses for hours when I was young. I was transfixed by the ease with which they turned a piece of timber into a work or art. The end product seemed to absorb and then exude all that skill and care.

I hate having to "make-do". Cheaper lighter mounts, a low-end camera, an economy scope (possibly mostly second-hand of course - it is in my case) - all add up to a level of frustration after you progress beyond the stage of just trying to find the target galaxy or whatever. You always end up wondering if the kit has let you down; you soon feel yourself bumping up against technical problems which morph into another obstacle as fast as you can knock them down.

So - I think that everyone does need a little jewel in their collection of astro kit. Something to quietly contemplate (or drool over) on a cloudy night. Something about which they can say "I think this is one of the best in the world". It might be the 2" TV EP - or whatever. It just puts them in touch with a higher plane in terms of kit. It also allows you to say 'I have arrived - I do not, cannot, aspire to anything better than this standard".

I think the TAK 130 TOA might become a classic. A benchmark of a scope. One of those horizons, which , once reached, leave you deeply and possibly irrationally, totally content. You can say to youself that you can now look forward to a lifetime of exploring its potential. The search is over, relax - just worship that scope.

Perhaps we should start a soapbox forum - but I think there is one up and running already.

Murray

[Murray]

Ken,

Just wanted to add that I forgot my main point in the rambling discourse above.

If you reduced everything to a set of data - where would that leave us ? No chance to argue ad-infinitum about the merits of this or that scope.

But - I agree that we need a lot more data to assist decision making. I spend a lot of time trawling the web for reviews of equipment.

Murray

[optwebman]

Bill, I viewed through both and they of course have the Takahashi signature of outstanding views and the 150 was noticeably brighter and the weight was noticeably heavier but where you will see the biggest difference will be on a CCD detector in resolution. The weight was something to consider but nothing unmanageable and I have a bad back.

[BT Technologies]

I would have to agree with this statement. Both the 130 and the TOA-150 provide outstanding views with superb contrast and resolution of intricate details.

The 150 demands a heavy-duty mount such as a Takahashi NJP or EM-400 where you can easily get away with a EM-200 for the TOA-130. Portability wise the TOA-130 wins hands down IMO due to the lighter weight of the OTA but I still would consider the TOA-150 to be portable enough for occasional star party use but is best suited for the home observatory.

Originally Posted by optwebman

Bill, I viewed through both and they of course have the Takahashi signature of outstanding views and the 150 was noticeably brighter and the weight was noticeably heavier but where you will see the biggest difference will be on a CCD detector in resolution. The weight was something to consider but nothing unmanageable and I have a bad back.