Takahashi Sky-90

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Takahashi Sky-90

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 1

Takahashi Sky-90
Bought Sky 90 serial #0010 in Feb 2001 returned it two weeks later. Another person owning serial # 0008 did the same.I bought it with the intention of replacing both my TV101 and Tak FS102 since the Sky 90 could be fitted with the Q extender and transformed into a f/8. I did numerous side by side comparisons with the TV 101(f/5.4 540mm) using matching TV Everbrite diagonals and matching eyepieces.I expected the performance to be virtually identical but with the 90 being a bit dimmer. I found that the Sky 90 was clearly not up to the task of replacing the TV101.It lacked the crispness and contrast of the 101 and had noticeable false color on Venus, Sirius and Rigel.The color was not bad but it was there whereas it was non existent in the TV 101.I communicated a lot with the owner on #0008 and with Mike at Astronomics. He felt some of the problem might be caused be the relatively wide airspace between the doublet. All I know is the scope would not give consistent performance. One night it would perform at 90% of the TV 101 and the next markedly below.Meanwhile the TV 101 would jist keep on giving outstanding performance.It seemed abnormally sensitive to atmospheric and/or thermal distrubance. Mind you both scopes were stored side by side in an unheated garage so it was not lack of cool down. The Tak 1.6 Extender Q helped quite a bit but when I used it with the 101 again the little Sky 90 couldn't keep up.I noted some false color on Venus and bright stars such as Sirius and Rigel.Jupiter was colorfree but iy simply was not as sharp and crisp as I felt a Flourite apo should be. In fact the Sky 90 was not as good as my Celestron C70 Flourite. The C70 is a hard act to followbut the Sky 90 should have been as good. Nor did I feel the 90 was equal to my TV85 but I did no have the 85 to compare it to.Both Mark, the owner of #0008 and I feel that there is perhaps a design problem. Something is going on with the Sky 90 but we do not know precisely what. Ghosting was another problem. Jupiter and venus were surrounded with a ditracting bright halo whereas the TV101 present stark black background.We both concluded that the concept was great, It is a beautiful well made scope but it is not worth $2200 for a plain ota. You are talking $300+ for the Q extender and another $300 for a Tak 7x50 finder and a $100+ for rings and you still have not got a diagonal,case or eyepiece. If you are looking for an excellent travel scope in the 80-90mm range go with the TV85 a much better
choice.If travel isn't an issue stick with the FS102 or TV101 with photo and
visual use is your interest. Is the Sky 90 a bad scope? Not at all.Is it a
great scope? No Way!In some ways it struck both of us as a well above average $2200 Orion Short Tube 90 and that is not a great deal.I may have been happy had I not done the side by side comparison in that I might have concluded it was bad seeing.As I said sometimes it would perform very close but never equal to the TV 101. But when I saw Mark was selling his I felt something was going on and he confirmed my suspicions.If Tak can get the Sky 90 to perform up to the level expected of a Flourite apo they will have a real winner. size and weight are fantastic and it did quite well on richfield work but in my opinion there is a problem or at least there was in Numbers 0008 and 0010.If you buy one be sure you can return it for a full refund if you run into these problems. I might add on the star test outside focus presented sharp but purple diffraction rings. Inside the rings were indistinct and greenish/yellow.By comparison both my TV101 and C70 FL were virtually identical on both sides of focus and very close to prue white.In focus stars were pinpoints but on the Sky90 they were very slightly flared and enlongated. I could not get pinpoints which I have come to expect.Maybe I expected too much but I do not believe so. Mark switched his for a Tak FSQ106 and is quite happy.Buy with caution and a critical eye.
Randy Hester 3/10/2001
Dallas Tx
hesterwil@home.com

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41011

Takahashi Sky-90
I had high hopes for this scope. I received the first scope from Anacortes. The stars looked like comets. The detail on Jupiter, Saturn, and the moon were below expectations for an expensive refractor. The contrast was inferior to my TAK FC 60 and even my Meade LX 90 and Celestron C5. I bought the scope to get excellent views of the planets and as a complement to my LX 90, but the contrast and amount of detail in the LX 90 was far superior. Other members of my astronomy club concurred. The TAK 90 did not match up to any of the Televues available. In addition, the lense cover on this scope was on very tightly to the point were the felt on the cover wore off on the due sheild.

While I believe the retailer doubted the accuracy of my comments, they listened and were helpful, and arranged for me to received another scope from Texas Nautical Repair (TNR). The folks at TNR sent me another scope that had been reportedly checked and collimated (note: Collimation is such a problem with the TAK 90's that TNR sent for an optical bench from Japan so they can collimate the scopes in the U.S.). The second scope was no better, except for the lense cover was easier to remove. The problems appeared by design-based, not a result of collimation. This scope was returned as well.

While it is being denied by some retailers and TNR, there is information on the internet, including this site, that report poor views and suggest there may be some design flaws in the TAK 90. This is a scope that reportedly Takahashi would not normally have produced, but there apparently was a realization at TNR and then TAK that there was a lot of money to be made on small, high quality refractors (i.e., AP Stowaway-type scopes). One could speculate that design and manufacturing was rushed to meet the demands of the American market. However, it would be difficult to get any of the parties involved to admit there may be problems. I am not an optical expert but I have owned and looked through many high quality refractors. The views through the TAK 90 did not measure up. I gave the scope a "6" as a reflection the relatively poor views for a scope that costs $2,400.00.

jmarkken@aol.com

Overall Rating: 6
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41012

Takahashi Sky-90
Footnote to the above two reviews: Here in Japan, These image problems have not gone un-noticed by the main Astronomy magazines! One of them specializes in lens & mount testing, and had some rather scathing (by Japanese standards!) remarks to make about the Sky 90's optics.It was given a lower rating than the Vixen(Orion) equivalent,and it failed miserably when compared to the FS-102 & FSQ-106,both of which gave outstanding performance tests. I personally can vouch for the FS-102. It is superb!

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41013

Takahashi Sky-90
I'm the owner of No. 61 and had the same problems as the other writers have or had. I bought the scope in France (Optique Unterlinden) at the end of December 2000. I carefully re-collimated the optics and most of the problems were gone away.

If I use the telescope without a diagonal, its performance is absolutely world class, but if I use it with my 1.25" Televue mirror, there are some optical problems when I turn the mirror. If possible I observe in the same position with the mirror. There is really a design problem with this telescope. In the center of the view quality of the picture is near perfect, but outside it isn't.

With my Nagler's and Panoptic eps there is color seen at brightest stars. But with my Pentax XL color is NOT seen in focus!!! PLEASE DON'T FORGET: IT'S A F/5.9 DOUBLET - NOT A TRIPLET!!!

The little Tak is a very good telescope for its focal length, but if you don't need a telescope for travelling buy an FS-102, TMB, ...

My other scopes are:
- Celestron 70mm fluorite
- APM/TMB 102/650 (the older version of the new 105/650)
- Intes Micro Alter 703 std.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41014

Takahashi Sky-90
Sorry but there are some mistakes in my short statement, and there isn't a possibility to correct it.

I'm the owner of No. 61

- It isn't F/5.9 it's F/5.56
- My e-mail is: manfred.hotz@immo-trust.ch

I'm interested about your experiences with this little telescope.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41015

Takahashi Sky-90
The only true portable scope available which can give both wide fields of view as well as decent planetary images (the false color which shows up on very bright objects is almost totally eliminated by using the Extender-Q (increases the focal length from 500mm to 800mm (changes the scope from a f5.56 into an f8.9 instrument while correcting the optics - not just a barlow). Extremly well-built. If you are really picky, you could say its a poor man's Stowaway since I've heard Stowaway's have been sold for well over $5000 on the open market !

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41016

Takahashi Sky-90
I am no optical expert, but I have had my scope now for only a few days, and I'll tell you this: -
At f/5.6 I am astouned at how good this scope is for its size.
It sounds as if those above who have had poor experiences have picked up one which is poorly collimated. Unusual, I know, but my dealer warned me before buying that a fair number lose collimation during shipping. I was fortunate to be able to check before selecting mine, and out of 2 I checked, one was way out of collimation, and the one I bought was perfect.

I had this up to 220x on Mars when the seeing was about 4/10 (transparent, but blowing a force 5-6), and the planet just seemed to snap into focus showing hints of the polar caps and quite clearly the dark maria regions.
Stars were perfect pinpoints, with some colour inside and outside focus, but what matters, is that in focus it was colour free.

For anything other than large deepsky objects, the Vari-Q extender is a must have, and increases the f-ratio to f/8.9, improving the optical qualities further (if that was possible!).

In summary, I will take this scope absolutely everywhere.............(and aren't they the best?)

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41017

Takahashi Sky-90
I have had my SKY 90 now for several months. I am relatively new to astronomy but wanted a very portable, high quality refractor that I could also use for astrophotography. It is well made, focuses smoothly and is very portable and easy to set up. The extendable lens shade works well. The optics are excellent especially for an f5.6 short tube. Mine is in collimation, and the stars are pinpoint. There is a trace of color which is eliminated with the extender Q-especially nice for planetary viewing. On a good viewing night, mars is sharp and markings are seen. With a Maxbright 2' diagonal and a 35mm panaoptic, the views are wonderfully bright and wide angle-in fact I use this as the finder. Incidently a celestron star pointer screws directly into the holes for the finder-very quick. Then I use a Vixen 8-24mm LV zoom and go with a 3mm Radian for most high magnification viewing. The scope is so short you can star hop easily. Moon viewing is excellent at great magnification-I use a 5X powermate with the zoom-all sharp. Deep sky viewing of course is limited by aperature, however open clusters are beautiful. Sky 90 has done well on the summer nebulae and globular clusters.
Although I use an inexpensive equatorial mount, for maximum portability, I have mounted the SKY 90 on a bogen wilderness tripod using a junior gear head-very steady.
I have had some minor issues with the compression ring. It works fine with the 2inch diagonal, but it will not hold the one and a quarter diagonal or the extender Q setup. You will need to get the regular screw ring which they sent me from Texas Nautical. This works well.
Yes all this is quite expensive. Whether it is worth it depends on your interests and budget. Certainly one can purchase less expensive portable scopes that do very well. However I rated this highly because I am very satisfied. Unfortunately some have had a bad experience with early releases, perhaps due to collimation problems, but this nice, portable scope does not deserve such low summary ratings.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41018

Takahashi Sky-90
Last night started out very clear with excellent steady seeing, so I decided to informally compare the Sky 90 3.5" Fluorite APO refractor(inc. Vari-Q extender) with an 8" Meade LX10 SCT (which I used to own, and is optically an absolute peach) and a 5" Celestron C5+ SCT. The results are below.

Shortly after sunset, the waxing moon was the target, specifically the grouping of the 3 craters around Theophilus. In a still blue sky, beautiful contrast and very sharp focus was maintained with the Sky90 at 170x (4.7mm Meade UWA).
At this magnification views in all 'scopes were very similar, with the 8" SCT showing slightly greater resolution, and the Sky90 showing clearly better contrast at the moon's limb.

Racking up the magnification, I added a 2x Ultima barlow to the Sky90 increase mag to 340x. The view remained sharp, although not quite as snappy as at 170x. Contrast was still excellent, absolutely NO colour was visible.
At this magnification the image in the 5" SCT was already starting to breakdown. The 8" SCT was holding out fine, but contrast was inferior to the Tak.

Next step, the barlow was replaced with a Televue x3.
Mag was now 510x !!! The view now was not as sharp as before, but still quite sharp enough to see significant detail in Theophilus. 4 central peaks were clearly visible, with the suggestion of a smaller 5th. Terracing was obvious on the crater's edge, as were small ridges or faults in the crater floor.
The mount (Eq-2) was woefully inadequate for this scope, as it wobbled intensly at anything much above 300x. It is my intention to upgrade this to a GP or similar mount.
However, despite the mount, I was pleased to note that there was still NO false colout in the image. At this mag the 8" SCT showed significant false colour around the 4 Theophilus peaks, starting to break down, but still a fair to middling image. We had already given up on the 5".

So, given that the Tak was still not breaking down, we ramped it up again.
The 3x TV barlow was placed in front of the Tak diagonal (making about 4x). Estimated mag about 680x.
Well, what can I say. Still little if any colour, although a sharp focus was proving harder to achieve, more a symptom of the poor mount, although the scope was not snapping into sharp focus. However, this mag was only about 10% worse in terms of sharpness than at 510x. It held up well, but I found it more confortable, and no less detailed viewing at 510x.

Overall, however, I think that the best all round view (sharpness, contrast, detail) was had at 340x.

In summary, then, we should allow for the fact that the eyepieces were only swapped between the 8" and the Sky90. The C5 was using a quality eyepiece, but not directly comparable to the TV Radian/Plossl and Meade SWA/Plossl used on the other two.
However, the 8" would be expected to outperform the 5" anyway, as the optical designs are more or less identical.
The SKY90, however won clearly over the 8" SCT on the bright object (moon) and probably would have had a better result had the mount been more substantial.

Winner : Takahashi SKY90
2nd: Meade LX10 8" SCT
3rd: Celestron C5+ 5" SCT

Note: This review is the opinion of the author about the optical performance of these scopes, and does not take into account cost of the scopes reviewed.
Value for money is an equal consideration, and in that event the 1st and 2nd place positions would be more closely contested between the Tak and Meade.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41019

Takahashi Sky-90
This is practically my smallest scope.
I take it with me when I go to the Greek islands, camping etc.
But this scope is really heavy for a 90-mm.
Whatever, the optics are good, very good.
It actually costs more than the FSQ-106! The bad thing about this
scope. I don't know, I guess I should take the ETX-90 with me
next time.

Overall Rating: 7
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=41020

Takahashi Sky-90
This scope is overpriced for the level of performance and the quality of construction.

The OTA is made of a very thin metal and the scope doesn't feel as sturdy as the Tele Vue offerings.

On the plus side, the focuser is very smooth and the sliding dew shield is very nice.

The optics are okay for a doublet, but there seems to be a yellow cast to the planets.

It should really sell for about $1800. And it may be best to buy the scope used (you do lose the five year warranty, however).

Overall Rating: 7
Optics:8 Ease of Use:10 Value:6
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=47530

Takahashi Sky-90
I have to agree with the above comments.
Don't get me wrong, I like this telescope.
But it is over priced for what it does. Cool
down time is fast, but not as fast as I would
have hoped in a refractor. (This is probably the
largest size refractor that I'd probably want
to own). Optics are good. There is a tiny
bit of color on certain bright objects (for me
it isn't objectionable, but for others it
will probably be so). If you're looking
for a color free refractor in this size, take
a look at the stellarvue at1010 and ask Valery
on how to add a chromacor to the scope.
It's a very versatile instrument -
it can perform well on planets and wide
field. It is what you'd expect from a
90mm refractor (sharp, but aperture
limits what you can see). One caviet is
that the instructions say that you
shouldn't store the telescope in a place
where the temperature can get above 75" F.
Otherwise the flourite elements may get
damaged. I haven't tested this telescope
under excellent sky conditions yet, so
can't comment on this scope's ability to
acheive super high magnifications.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=54008

Takahashi Sky-90
Forgot to add vote to comments on last report...

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Ease of Use:10 Value:7
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=55312

Takahashi Sky-90
I've done some more testing on the Tak Sky 90 now that I've had it for a while (see previous comments on what I said about it) and after I've gotten the 1.6 extende-Qr. If you want to use this scope for planetary observing, then I'd 100% recommend getting an extender-Q. When observing without it and are looking at Jupiter, you think about the color and the planet. With the extender-Q you just think about the planet (you can see color with the extender-Q, but you have to consciously think about looking for color to see it. Otherwise you'd ignore it). Up to 100x magnification it compared well with my 10" teleport. Beyond that, however, the 10" zambuto mirror surpassed the tak sky 90's ability on planets. Comparing it to the nexstar 5 and the celestron 8 that I used to own, I'd have to say that the planets tend to be better in this scope, then the SCT's that Perhaps only marginally better than the 8" SCT (some would say equal against a well cooled down one. The optics and collimination on these SCT's somewhat, so it's really hard to say how one will do compared to another). Against a 10" meade sct, however, it was no contest. The 10" meade sct won. Be sure to read Todd Gross's review of this scope. The scope tends to perform more poorly in bad seeing conditions than that of other refractors due to it's design. On very good nights with city viewing, I can see about 80% of the detail that I can see with the 10" teleport (no joke, but this is city viewing, not suburban or dark sky viewing). One thing that the nexstar 5 did do better on against this scope was the moon (and the sun). Although why the nexstar 5 performs worse on the planets and yet better on the moon is a mystery to me (tak performs about 80-90% of of nexstar on moon). Quick cool down time means that you can use this scope for 10-15 minute veiwing sessions (unless you want tracking).
Overall, I have mixed feelings about this telescope. On the negative side it's expensive for what it does, and it's heavy for a 90mm telescope. On the positive side, it is very versatile (you can even use some binoviewers with this telescope if you take out the optical element of the extender-Q and put it into a 2" adapter-Q), and you can see good detail on jupiter and saturn on a moment's notice. In addtion to the wide field of view (and the sharpness does make a difference on many deep sky objects).

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=65361

Takahashi Sky-90
I use the new version of Sky90 with many tiny collimation bolts under the dew shield. I have not adjusted them yet, it is perfect. I use it on an alt-az mount, so I am not rating any mount, but the rest is all "10". Why? Because I think this is a revolutionary concept that performs well. I use 2" eyepieces for wide rich field low power. All high power is done with the integral Extender Q, which makes planetary, lunar or close double stars work a pleasure. Compactness of this light scope is a plus for travel, as well as for stability: Sky90 does not shake in light wind. I love using the TV binovue, two eyes perceive significantly more.
Fit and finish are of high quality without pretense, materials used are first rate, the baffling produces excellent contrast. A very tiny, fat, light scope, a winner!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=69626

Takahashi Sky-90
A great short focus refractor that is great for travel, also nice for CCD with the expensive reducer. Close to the performance of the 92mm AP Stowaway, and more important, available now. Too large for the Sky Patrol mount...OK on larger mounts. The clamshell tube holder does not fit onto the gilbralter mount, which is a shame because that would be a perfect fit.
The scope is reasonably priced, but the accessories are too steep.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Ease of Use:9 Value:9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=385239

Takahashi Sky-90
I think the Sky90 is quite expensive for a 90mm refractor.
Okay, it is a hell of a refractor but than again 90mm only!
The views are marvellous! Special on Richfield! It's a very portable scope that easily finds its way somewhere in your luggage. I personally think the Extender-Q should be a item that should go standard with the Sky90.
The colour seen at Vega or the moon are a absolute minimum! I don't understand why people are mention this so often. My Sky90 has non what I can see! (Without the Ext-q) Only at poor seeing you see some ghost colour, from which I understood is quite normal according the opinion of optic engineers.
So if you can effort it, this is the small scope you are looking for!
Bonzo from The Netherlands

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:10 Mount:8 Ease of Use:9 Value:8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=406687

Takahashi Sky-90
I recently bought a used TAK sky 90 without the telextender. (1990 version non-collimatible, too bad for me I suppose). I have now used it with assorted eyepieces and a binoviewer, and I am frankly at a loss as to the dissatisfaction among the other voters. My experience is totally at odds with the others, in other words I found no color on bright objects, Jupiter showed more detail than any other comparable 90mm scope I have ever looked through, and the view was superior to a TV 85 I compared it to. The baffling and tube design lends itself to extremely good contrast making deep sky views wonderful for a 90mm scope. . This was all without the telextender, which I have been told makes views even better. (I have no need to buy one). I have to give it 9 out of ten because the perfect scope is still out there, but ease of use is completely subjective anyway so I can give it a 10 because it is extrmely compact, easy to focus, easy to mount, etc. Expensive? Maybe, but this is one of those few scopes I have used that seems worth the higher price. Maybe other problems stem from collimation, so send it back to TAK to recollimate or have some refractor dude collimate it for you.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Optics:9 Ease of Use:10 Value:9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=580473

Takahashi Sky-90
My post above saying I got the sky-90 was made in 1990, is incorrect, it was made in 2000. Apparently a 10 rating is very common for good telescopes on this site, so to be consistent and fair I raise my vote for the TAK sky-90 to a 10.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Optics:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=580519

Takahashi Sky-90
I am a veteran observer and love to give back in terms of ratings for equipment as they have assisted me in my purchases many times over the years.

I used to have a Vixen 80ss that took great images on the back of my 7"LX200GPS. (Please bear with me as I will occasionally compare the high-end Sky-90 to this (great) Vixen cheapo.) The 80ss would grab galaxies and other deep sky wonders out of the darkness with sharpness and clarity. Of course, because it was an inexpensive achromat, there
was false color and coma, and it didn’t handle power well-which never particularly bothered me because I paid just over $200 for the scope brand new. Because of the coma and a recently negotiated raise for NYC employees, I thought I would treat myself to a nice high quality refractor that could take images like the Vixen, but also give me well-resolved views of the moon and planets when I didn’t feel like lifting the heavy 7”. I also wanted versatility to allow me to piggyback the scope to take images with my Canon 40D. The new short Tak looked promising.

So in the fall of 2009, after much research on many small scopes, I settled on the Takahashi Sky-90sv. It was $2100, plus these accessories, none of which I ever needed for the Vixen, I might add.

-Focal reducer/flattener = $360
-5 ELEMENT Extender-Q = $270
-Adapter-Q - WHAT? = $60
-Microfocuser (because the Tak’s focus wheel is so hard and stiff (I’m sure it will loosen at some point) you need a better ratio-AND the ratio on this new microfocuser is still inadequate, as a small turn makes the drawtube move too far still. I’m sure Tak will come out with a micro-microfocuser for another 2 bills) = $235
-EOS Camera T-mount - a “special” mount that you must buy from Takahashi = $70
-TCA1020 - a “special” ring that you must buy from Takahashi that attaches to the T-mount and to the focal reducer = $60 (I guess it’s some sort of crime in Japan to allow one adapter to fit directly into another without having to invent another to go in between)
-ANOTHER ring that YOU MUST BUY FROM TAKAHASHI called a Keitel adapter which then FINALLY allows you to reach focus with the EOS cameras THAT ARE VERY COMMON CAMERAS = $100
-Necessary right-angle finderscope that was cheaper and much better than the straight-through Tak version-bought from that fantastic company called Orion T&B for $110
-And of course, you will need the Clamshell adapter for another $140. I had to buy two because I wanted to use the scope on a separate Vixen Porta-mount also. Of course, the Vixen scopes keep the consumer in mind and have a simple threaded hole in the bottom where you just have to SIMPLY bolt them onto a mounting = $280 Admittedly, the clamshell holds the scope more securely, however the C/G is too far back-where do you think the eyepiece/binoviewer/camera go when the drawtube extends? DOWN. The Vixen never had that problem, as much of the scope was AHEAD of the mounting hole.

Please note that the Vixen astrophotography setup had a simple T-mount (bought from anyone) that attached to a simple tube adapter (bought from anyone) and the simple assembly slipped right into the 80SS and any other telescope with a 2” barrel. Another great thing about this was that you could simply slip the assembly or trade the assembly with your eyepiece in the main scope.

So the entire package (no diagonal or eyepiece) was $3,660 + shipping.

I assumed before I made the move that this gem would exhibit a flat field (despite the wide light cone) with no attachments even though it is a fast doublet. I mean, why else would it be so expensive? This from a guy who is by no means a tightwad. I am actually very (too) loose with my money-my mother always telling me I had no idea of its value. And I was 35 all those 14 years ago, but that’s another story. -When I posted my first coma concern - seeking guidance on the Takahashi Yahoo Groups forum, I received understanding from a few nice folks, but from one user I was told that expecting a flat field was an “unreasonable” expectation with that type of scope. Unreasonable? For that kind of money??? For a scope of a mere 90mm??? I have since resigned myself to the fact that the Sky-90sv is flawed (deliberately undercorrected for astrophotography) in that respect. And as Dr. Phil would say, “I get that.” But I’m still waiting for my check of about a grand to compensate me for what this scope lacks in visual performance. You see, Takahashi never displayed a disclaimer that the scope is inadequate visually, so how was I, or others who are visual observers, supposed to be warned? Having an open mind and free medical benefits, I immediately underwent a full eye examination. They were/are perfect. No uncorrected astigmatism. And my exit pupil is the same as everyone else’s. I find that folks that own Takahashi equipment (the Sky-90 anyway) are in a sort of denial about how much money they have spent and how “great” the scope is. Indeed, I could have gotten the same performance and aesthetic “beauty” (if you consider lime green beauty) from other scopes that are a third of the price. I sincerely do not see anything special to warrant the outlay for this setup, given the aberrations inherent in the design. In fact, I feel downright insulted by the entire escapade, and kick myself constantly for not going with my second choice, the NP-101. It wasn’t until I discovered the coma anomaly that I searched the Yahoo site for that specific issue. I found pages and pages of coma problems relative to the Sky-90, so rest assured it’s not just mine. At this point I should mention that if you are only going to use the scope for AP, then your will have quite an excellent and totally satisfying rig on your hands.

When I received the scope, it was just as many said it was going to be. Packed extremely well and very well built. However, I didn’t deem it any more well built than my Vixen 80ss. In fact, the Vixen is more attractive, and the focuser moves more smoothly (from day one until 2 years later) and easier so the entire scope doesn’t have to move when you turn the knob. I found the Vixen to be as strong as the Tak as far as carrying weight on the end of the drawtube, and to the day I sold it, had no backlash whatsoever. The Sky-90 had a dew shield that was chipped, (the Vixen always perfect) and Art at Texas Nautical Repair sent me a new one even before I sent the old one back. Whatever I may claim about the Sky-90sv, make no mistake that the service at TNR is absolutely great. Not just me, but many, many users of Tak scopes are extremely pleased with their personalized U.S. support through TNR. However, you have to wonder why these overpriced instruments need so much service. The Sky-90 models are notorious for being out of collimation, and according to the Yahoo site, are constantly (maybe too strong a word) sent in for adjustment. Art graciously suggested I speak to TNR’s expert, Fred, and I have.

First light - from my notes - I’ll not bore you with an object-to-object description:

I immediately noticed that the field with my 22mm Nagler was exhibiting seagulls outside of the inner third of the frame. The problem was certainly coma by the looks of it, and not field curvature. I tried a 35mm Panoptic, and two 24mm Panoptics. Then a Televue 25mm plossl, 32mm plossl, and another 25mm plossl. Same thing. What gives? These have 50 degree fields! So now I'm thinking, man, this is the same as the Vixen! I then tried it with a Denk diagonal and an Everbrite diagonal, then with no diagonal. With and without the Extender-Q. Same results. Then I grabbed a view of the moon and it was tack sharp for a 90mm scope. I knew the collimation could not have been off with sharpness like this. I invested in a Cheshire and a Vixen 2.5mm ocular ($200) just so I could check it and as I suspected, it was dead on. It's a good thing too, because I read in numerous places that Takahashi has a habit of threadlocking the set screws (inside the hex opening) so you can't adjust the scope yourself. -At this point, I was pretty miffed because I can't use the scope with my favorite eyepiece, the 22mm Nagler, not to mention any other eyepiece without dealing with comets flying into the edge of the field. And I was looking forward to purchasing my first Ethos!

I know every telescope has compromises, but really-for this kind of money? Luckily, (I use the word loosely,) I use
binoviewers with 19mm Panoptics most of the time, and the coma in this situation is hardly noticeable. And it's a big plus that the Extender-Q allows viewing with only a 1.6 increase in mag., and not double, like the Vixen and so many other refractors. I will not forget to add that the views through the Tak with binoviewers of open clusters are very fantastic – graced with a black background from all that velvety baffling. I will also not forget to mention that I removed the binoviewer setup and transferred it to my $200+ Vixen which was feet away and the view was still fantastic, albeit a bit less contrasty. And the flaring in the Vixen also began a bit nearer to the center of the field.

So my opinion and the general consensus regarding the Sky-90sv is that it is a very high quality instrument. The views of the moon and planets of course come nowhere near my Meade Mak, but for a grab and go scope, it does a great job WITH BINOVIEWERS. If I had sifted through all the (accurate?) accolades on this scope and found the coma issue, I definitely would not have purchased it. I would have gone with a corrected scope of more elements and a longer focal length-since I have the Extender-Q on all the time anyway. In fact, I would sell the Sky-90 now if I were not going to lose so much in the process. I already sold the focal reducer and adapters because the drawtube comes so far back that it completely throws off the balance of the LX200. The Vixen never did. I plan on using the Sky-90 without the FR/FF and the Canon inside the Everbrite and deal with the resulting coma. At least my scope will be balanced and the camera won’t be in my face while using the Mak. It will even be at a right angle like it should be-never needing to be spun around constantly with a camera angle adapter. But, like all else pertaining to this scope, everything is complicated. The camera will not come to focus in this configuration, so now I either have to track down ANOTHER adapter, or file some of the existing adapter off, as all I need, it seems, is about four millimeters of infocus.

The wide-field performance of the Sky-90sv is just about on par with the cheapest achromat, although color on the cheapie would be blatant, especially on chips. The Sky-90 has better contrast too, but I really had to run back and forth and tightly focus and tightly focus and tightly focus to discover this with the Vixen. It’s only when you use binoviewers or plan to use the scope as a serious astrophotography tool that you will be very pleased. If you’re one of those guys that doesn’t notice comatic flaring, I guess you can just disregard this review and go to one of the others that just don’t even mention it. It’s difficult to see bad things in a high-end instrument after you pay thousands of dollars for it. It’s supposed to be the best. What can be wrong? -Believe it or not, I have come to love my new Sky-90sv. The package is wonderfully portable and convenient to use. And it’s nice to own a Tak. As long as you develop memory loss as to how much you unnecessarily spent on your new setup.

So at this point, I realize it’s not the scope that’s horrible. It’s the amount I paid for it.

Pros:

-Extremely portable
-Very fast cool down time
-Crisp contrast ON AXIS with steady seeing
-Strong resolving power
-Performs extremely well with binoviewers (with Extender Q) At times, you will convince yourself the expense was justified, the views are so good
-Excellent astrophotography platform - with hundreds of dollars worth of additional accessories that transform it into a nice astrograph
-Excellent build quality
-Dew shield held in place by a convenient single screw which when released, produces a nice, smooth glide
-Very well baffled
-Very thoughtfully packed and delivered quickly-as long as you pay the additional $135 to have it shipped two-day air. You can’t have this instrument jolted in transit. The coma might get worse.

Cons:

-With the required accessories, the scope is UNQUESTIONABLY, UNQUESTIONABLY, UNQUESTIONABLY OVERPRICED
-Necessary accessories should not be necessary and are overpriced
-Coma without the Extender Q
-Coma with the Extender Q
-Useless visually unless you happen to be into binoviewing-or your Sky-90 is the only scope left on the planet and you’re forced to use it –OR you are so new to astronomy, your mind can’t see the imperfections in the field of view
-Focal reducer/flattener won’t allow for visual observing-where it is required most
-No threaded hole on bottom of OTA for simple mounting – needed because the clamshell itself is very heavy and causes problems in many mounting scenarios.
-When piggybacked, the drawtube extends too far back-into main scope’s binos or eyepiece and causes balance issues on some scopes – unless you work with one of those squirrely (okay, and extremely accurate) equatorial mounts
-Difficult to achieve perfect focus with standard focuser
-On bright objects, there’s color all over the place - Flourite???

Good luck on your decision and clear skies!

Chris Thomasel NYC - ithesubwaypusher@aol.com
Newbie here, but excellent references in Cloudynights.com

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:7 Mount:8 Ease of Use:10 Value:5
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=592556

Page 1 of 1

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Checking Your Telescope
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
[Get rid of the ads!]
Voting Guide