I recently purchased a TOA-130 scope, and am looking at reducer options. Is Takahashi TOA-35 the only option, or other third party options can work. If so which ones, thank you !
TOA-130 Reducer Alternative
I don’t suggest pairing it with any other reducer. The whole purpose of the TOA and the premium behind it is the quality of the glass and the quality of the optics. Introducing third party optics could essentially nullify all of that and produce data no better than what you would get from a much cheaper 130mm alternative refractor.
To add to that the TOA-35 reducer itself, while good for what it does, is not good enough to illuminate a full frame sensor. So if you intend to pair it with full frame sensor be warned it will not look great. If you want to use the TOA, I strongly suggest you pair it with its 645 0.99x flattener to get the best performance possible out of those optics.
Helpful Insightful Concise
As Ashraf mentioned, the TOA-35 won't cover the full frame. There's huge vignetting - I know from my own disappointing experience. 
That said, it does a great job on APC-C & APS-H size sensors.
CS
Andy
That said, it does a great job on APC-C & APS-H size sensors.
CS
Andy
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise
Thank you both for input, I’ll get the Tak 645 Flattener.
Well Written Respectful
Interesting, they claim it will do FF on the 130.I have it on a 120, and it illuminates, but doesn’t correct the stars so well.
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Helpful
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
etx007blue · Dec 22, 2025 at 07:52 PM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
That flattener does work well. I used it on the TSA120, which the manufacturer recommends not to do, ironically, and it produced a much better result than the one they do recommend (TOA35 FL). My logic was that all 3 of 120, 130, and 150 used the exact same part for the previous flattener, so it didn’t make sense to me that the 645 would be worse on the 120 but better on the 130/150. To this day I don’t understand why it’s not advertised as for the TSA120.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
etx007blue · Dec 22, 2025, 07:52 PM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
Yes. Insanely expensive. The reason I’ve ran away from getting a Tak attack. I’m not sure I could get enough use out of the investment. I guess I had to learn the lesson the hard way about how a focal reducer, while perfecting the FOV, it rips you off for your focal length. 😠 But I got over the disappointment.
I just want to take reasonable images for my kid videos. Not gallery images. The “shrinkage” of focal length still disappoints me. Wanted to point that out.
A Petzval does my me drool a little though…
Enjoy your beautiful Tak 130!
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025 at 09:09 PM
etx007blue · Dec 22, 2025, 07:52 PM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
Yes. Insanely expensive. The reason I’ve ran away from getting a Tak attack. I’m not sure I could get enough use out of the investment. I guess I had to learn the lesson the hard way about how a focal reducer, while perfecting the FOV, it rips you off for your focal length. 😠 But I got over the disappointment.
I just want to take reasonable images for my kid videos. Not gallery images. The “shrinkage” of focal length still disappoints me. Wanted to point that out.
A Petzval does my me drool a little though…
Enjoy your beautiful Tak 130!
What do you mean by rips you off for your focal length? The point of a focal reducer is to trade focal length for F ratio. You get wider FOV and shorter exposure time. Otherwise you use a flattener to keep your focal length and native F ratio. If you didn’t want to lose focal length, you wouldn’t use an optical device that solely exists to reduce focal length 😆
Well Written Helpful Insightful
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025 at 09:09 PM
etx007blue · Dec 22, 2025, 07:52 PM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
Yes. Insanely expensive. The reason I’ve ran away from getting a Tak attack. I’m not sure I could get enough use out of the investment. I guess I had to learn the lesson the hard way about how a focal reducer, while perfecting the FOV, it rips you off for your focal length. 😠 But I got over the disappointment.
I just want to take reasonable images for my kid videos. Not gallery images. The “shrinkage” of focal length still disappoints me. Wanted to point that out.
A Petzval does my me drool a little though…
Enjoy your beautiful Tak 130!
What do you mean by rips you off for your focal length? The point of a focal reducer is to trade focal length for F ratio. You get wider FOV and shorter exposure time. Otherwise you use a flattener to keep your focal length and native F ratio. If you didn’t want to lose focal length, you wouldn’t use an optical device that solely exists to reduce focal length 😆
I didn’t get a wider FOV, but I did get round stars to the corners, which was what I wanted.
FR/FF, 0.8X . I wanted the longer focal length of 910mm. Settled for the shorter but better with field clarity into the corners.
Just wanted to be sure anybody considering going this route is aware of the side effects.
“The fully-multicoated Astro-Tech #ATREDT30V2 reducer/flattener converts the 910mm focal length f/7 Astro-Tech AT130EDT refractor into a 728mm f/5.6 system for faster and wider field astronomical and terrestrial photography.”
This paragraph has been added since when i bought my telescope. Probably because I squawked about it. Still love my telescope, still getting what I wanted from it. Just feel that leaving out the italicized paragraph, and the resulting focal length reduction was a rip off.
If it was told like it really is, it should be stated that 910mm for visual, but for AP it requires the FR/FF which gives effectively 728 mm at f5.6. Because with out the FR/FF you get a Star Trek warp speed image result. (A bit exaggerated, but you get the idea.) That would be honesty
I don’t care about speed. Speed I tune with exposure length. Most of my subs are 30s to 180s. Which isn’t snap shots. I’m looking for certain things in my subs.
Anyway, I was disappointed I had to sacrifice to get the picture I thought I was ordering. I was looking at doubling my 80mm reach, but I guess I got around 50% more after the FR/FF addition.
SonnyE · Dec 23, 2025 at 12:45 AM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025 at 09:09 PM
etx007blue · Dec 22, 2025, 07:52 PM
SonnyE · Dec 22, 2025, 07:40 PM
I’m one for getting what the manufacturer/vendor recommends for a certain piece of equipment.
While not a Tak fan (too rich for my blood), I got the FF/FR recommended for my 130mm telescope. And it works great for me.
And having had some bad experiences with FF/FR attempts in the past, I learned from the error of my ways.
One other thing I’ve learned. I bought a telescope spec’d at 910mm. After correcting it with the proper FF/FR (0.8), I’m down to a 726mm f5.6 result. I still am very happy with my results, Just not happy getting less than I thought I was buying. So watch out for that Catch 22 with FR’s.
Yeah I had the 910mm TS Optics before, and sold it earlier this year, it works really well with the TS Optics reducer. Hopefully the Tak flattener works well with the TOA 130. The TOA-35 reducer is insanely expensive.
Yes. Insanely expensive. The reason I’ve ran away from getting a Tak attack. I’m not sure I could get enough use out of the investment. I guess I had to learn the lesson the hard way about how a focal reducer, while perfecting the FOV, it rips you off for your focal length. 😠 But I got over the disappointment.
I just want to take reasonable images for my kid videos. Not gallery images. The “shrinkage” of focal length still disappoints me. Wanted to point that out.
A Petzval does my me drool a little though…
Enjoy your beautiful Tak 130!
What do you mean by rips you off for your focal length? The point of a focal reducer is to trade focal length for F ratio. You get wider FOV and shorter exposure time. Otherwise you use a flattener to keep your focal length and native F ratio. If you didn’t want to lose focal length, you wouldn’t use an optical device that solely exists to reduce focal length 😆
I didn’t get a wider FOV, but I did get round stars to the corners, which was what I wanted.
FR/FF, 0.8X . I wanted the longer focal length of 910mm. Settled for the shorter but better with field clarity into the corners.
Just wanted to be sure anybody considering going this route is aware of the side effects.
“The fully-multicoated Astro-Tech #ATREDT30V2 reducer/flattener converts the 910mm focal length f/7 Astro-Tech AT130EDT refractor into a 728mm f/5.6 system for faster and wider field astronomical and terrestrial photography.”
This paragraph has been added since when i bought my telescope. Probably because I squawked about it. Still love my telescope, still getting what I wanted from it. Just feel that leaving out the italicized paragraph, and the resulting focal length reduction was a rip off.
If it was told like it really is, it should be stated that 910mm for visual, but for AP it requires the FR/FF which gives effectively 728 mm at f5.6. Because with out the FR/FF you get a Star Trek warp speed image result. (A bit exaggerated, but you get the idea.) That would be honesty
I don’t care about speed. Speed I tune with exposure length. Most of my subs are 30s to 180s. Which isn’t snap shots. I’m looking for certain things in my subs.
Anyway, I was disappointed I had to sacrifice to get the picture I thought I was ordering. I was looking at doubling my 80mm reach, but I guess I got around 50% more after the FR/FF addition.
But why didn’t you get the standalone FF without the FR if you didn’t want a reduction?
“This Astro-Tech AT130EDTFF 1X field flattener is designed specifically for prime focus astrophotography with the Astro-Tech AT130EDT ED triplet apo. While it may also work well with other brands and models of f/6 refractors that use a 2" focuser, its performance with other scopes is not guaranteed.
The fully-multicoated Astro-Tech AT130EDTFF field flattener leaves 910mm focal length f/7 Astro-Tech AT130EDT refractor in its native state, but flattens the field up to a full frame format camera.”
If it was told like it really is, it should be stated that 910mm for visual, but for AP it requires the FR/FF which gives effectively 728 mm at f5.6. Because with out the FR/FF you get a Star Trek warp speed image result. (A bit exaggerated, but you get the idea.) That would be honesty
I feel like maybe they expect a buyer of such an instrument to have done some research, and if there isn’t a 1x flattener available for the telescope, then you would have to then buy the 0.8x Reducer/Flattener. And should that be the case, you would/should be aware that a 0.8x reducer will factor the focal length by 0.8.
Essentially - I think every manufacturer of a telescope that can be used for both astrophotography and visual, should have a dedicated 1~0.9x flattener, and also a 0.8~0.75x reducer/flattener.
The Askar 120APO for example has a 1x flattener that works for 35mm sensors, and a 0.8x reducer/flattener than works for 35mm sensors also. Essentially, this is what I consider to be ‘the standard’ by which manufacturers should adhere… I bought that scope because I wanted a 840mm focal length, so the 1x flattener was amazing, but during summer (in Australia) having a wider field of view is amazing, so being able to drop the scope down to 672mm is REALLY helpful…
BUT - If a scope is not internally flattened, before you buy it, its your responsibility to find out what flatteners are available… You can’t get upset that a manufacturer told you a 130mm f/7 scope has a 910mmm focal length… That is 100% a fact… it does have a 910mm focal length. The fact that YOU chose to add a 0.8x reducer, then got upset because you no longer had a 910mm focal length is a failure on your part, not theirs.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
Getting a tad off topic here folks - best we keep it to OP's question. 
Well Written
Alex Nicholas · Dec 23, 2025, 04:35 AM
If it was told like it really is, it should be stated that 910mm for visual, but for AP it requires the FR/FF which gives effectively 728 mm at f5.6. Because with out the FR/FF you get a Star Trek warp speed image result. (A bit exaggerated, but you get the idea.) That would be honesty
I feel like maybe they expect a buyer of such an instrument to have done some research, and if there isn’t a 1x flattener available for the telescope, then you would have to then buy the 0.8x Reducer/Flattener. And should that be the case, you would/should be aware that a 0.8x reducer will factor the focal length by 0.8.
Essentially - I think every manufacturer of a telescope that can be used for both astrophotography and visual, should have a dedicated 1~0.9x flattener, and also a 0.8~0.75x reducer/flattener.
The Askar 120APO for example has a 1x flattener that works for 35mm sensors, and a 0.8x reducer/flattener than works for 35mm sensors also. Essentially, this is what I consider to be ‘the standard’ by which manufacturers should adhere… I bought that scope because I wanted a 840mm focal length, so the 1x flattener was amazing, but during summer (in Australia) having a wider field of view is amazing, so being able to drop the scope down to 672mm is REALLY helpful…
BUT - If a scope is not internally flattened, before you buy it, its your responsibility to find out what flatteners are available… You can’t get upset that a manufacturer told you a 130mm f/7 scope has a 910mmm focal length… That is 100% a fact… it does have a 910mm focal length. The fact that YOU chose to add a 0.8x reducer, then got upset because you no longer had a 910mm focal length is a failure on your part, not theirs.
In my case, only the one item is offered for that particular telescope. So, it is a take it as it is, or use this particular item. No way for me to know if your FF would even screw into my telescope. Or perhaps that never crossed your mind? All things being equal, and none of them being the same.
If I was to entertain any future telescopes (No plans to), it would be a Petzval. What you buy is what you get, no flatteners needed.
Since I bought the telescope, they have amended their add to state what the effect is. So my bitching helped the next guy.
Yes, I should have done the math. You would do well to heed that many things are not interchangeable. What fits your Askar probably doesn’t fit others, Alex.
I fixed it as soon as I tried the telescope/Camera for myself. It was less than an additional $300 USD.
But for you and the OP, it is a word to the wise about thinking about shoehorning something NOT Takahashi into his new Tak130. Go back to the horses mouth and get the correct part.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Maybe I should sell the tak and get the new askar sqa 130. Lol
It’s so much hassle getting the tak to work. I had to buy mounting rings and matching flattened
etx007blue · Dec 23, 2025, 10:09 PM
Maybe I should sell the tak and get the new askar sqa 130. Lol
I’ll buy that for a dollar!
SonnyE · Dec 23, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Alex Nicholas · Dec 23, 2025, 04:35 AM
If it was told like it really is, it should be stated that 910mm for visual, but for AP it requires the FR/FF which gives effectively 728 mm at f5.6. Because with out the FR/FF you get a Star Trek warp speed image result. (A bit exaggerated, but you get the idea.) That would be honesty
I feel like maybe they expect a buyer of such an instrument to have done some research, and if there isn’t a 1x flattener available for the telescope, then you would have to then buy the 0.8x Reducer/Flattener. And should that be the case, you would/should be aware that a 0.8x reducer will factor the focal length by 0.8.
Essentially - I think every manufacturer of a telescope that can be used for both astrophotography and visual, should have a dedicated 1~0.9x flattener, and also a 0.8~0.75x reducer/flattener.
The Askar 120APO for example has a 1x flattener that works for 35mm sensors, and a 0.8x reducer/flattener than works for 35mm sensors also. Essentially, this is what I consider to be ‘the standard’ by which manufacturers should adhere… I bought that scope because I wanted a 840mm focal length, so the 1x flattener was amazing, but during summer (in Australia) having a wider field of view is amazing, so being able to drop the scope down to 672mm is REALLY helpful…
BUT - If a scope is not internally flattened, before you buy it, its your responsibility to find out what flatteners are available… You can’t get upset that a manufacturer told you a 130mm f/7 scope has a 910mmm focal length… That is 100% a fact… it does have a 910mm focal length. The fact that YOU chose to add a 0.8x reducer, then got upset because you no longer had a 910mm focal length is a failure on your part, not theirs.In my case, only the one item is offered for that particular telescope. So, it is a take it as it is, or use this particular item. No way for me to know if your FF would even screw into my telescope. Or perhaps that never crossed your mind? All things being equal, and none of them being the same.
If I was to entertain any future telescopes (No plans to), it would be a Petzval. What you buy is what you get, no flatteners needed.
Since I bought the telescope, they have amended their add to state what the effect is. So my bitching helped the next guy.
Yes, I should have done the math. You would do well to heed that many things are not interchangeable. What fits your Askar probably doesn’t fit others, Alex.
I fixed it as soon as I tried the telescope/Camera for myself. It was less than an additional $300 USD.
But for you and the OP, it is a word to the wise about thinking about shoehorning something NOT Takahashi into his new Tak130. Go back to the horses mouth and get the correct part.
I referenced the correct flattener offered for your scope that addresses your complaint. It’s a flattener without reducer specifically made for your scope. What am I missing?
etx007blue · Dec 23, 2025, 10:09 PM
Maybe I should sell the tak and get the new askar sqa 130. Lol
I have a TOA 130 1st generation, one of the first ones which they even signed on the sunshade (dewshield), which I bought I do not remember but maybe >20 years ago¿? Serial number S04047 so it is from 2004.
I also bought a reducer, a TOA 35 FF and a 1.6X on that occasion and honestly was never very happy with this additional optics.
I had my TOA 130 collecting dust until maybe a year ago and the only decent solution to work with the TOA 130 was to buy a camera with a small chip and now I have working it with a Player One Ares-M Pro which has an IMX 533 chip which is small enough to be correctly illuminated without any additional optics.
I bought all my Tak’s many years ago when there were no decent comparabe telescopes and I did not want to bring any telescope from Europe as I live in Mexico and Takahashi America gave me an excellent service.
I own a Mewlon 250, a TOA 130, a FS-78, a Sky 90 and the most modern Tak is a FSQ 85ED and that is it, as well as having had an FSQ 106ED for a short time.
Knowing what I know now and having bought an ASKAR 103APO y would now not buy Tak’s anymore.
That is is my Tak experience and seeing the price for a ASKAR 130PH… or an ASKAR 140APO, well…
ASKAR telescopes are very well built and the optics do not come short compared with the Tak’s…
Rainer Ehlert · Dec 24, 2025 at 01:23 AM
etx007blue · Dec 23, 2025, 10:09 PM
Maybe I should sell the tak and get the new askar sqa 130. Lol
I have a TOA 130 1st generation, one of the first ones which they even signed on the sunshade (dewshield), which I bought I do not remember but maybe >20 years ago¿? Serial number S04047 so it is from 2004.
I also bought a reducer, a TOA 35 FF and a 1.6X on that occasion and honestly was never very happy with this additional optics.
I had my TOA 130 collecting dust until maybe a year ago and the only decent solution to work with the TOA 130 was to buy a camera with a small chip and now I have working it with a Player One Ares-M Pro which has an IMX 533 chip which is small enough to be correctly illuminated without any additional optics.
I bought all my Tak’s many years ago when there were no decent comparabe telescopes and I did not want to bring any telescope from Europe as I live in Mexico and Takahashi America gave me an excellent service.
I own a Mewlon 250, a TOA 130, a FS-78, a Sky 90 and the most modern Tak is a FSQ 85ED and that is it, as well as having had an FSQ 106ED for a short time.
Knowing what I know now and having bought an ASKAR 103APO y would now not buy Tak’s anymore.That is is my Tak experience and seeing the price for a ASKAR 130PH… or an ASKAR 140APO, well…
ASKAR telescopes are very well built and the optics do not come short compared with the Tak’s…
I had an Askar apo 140 and now a TOA-130 with a 645 flattener. There’s absolutely zero comparison between the 2. The TOA improved my FWHMs in the center considerably, by about an arc second on average. And the corners are not much off the center in the TOA, but the askar was noticeably a bit worse, and has a bit of vignetting. They aren’t in the same league. You can certainly get nice images from the Askar, but I’m usually seeing limited with the TOA.
Helpful Concise
Rick Krejci · Dec 24, 2025 at 03:26 AM
I had an Askar apo 140 and now a TOA-130 with a 645 flattener. There’s absolutely zero comparison between the 2. The TOA improved my FWHMs in the center considerably, by about an arc second on average. And the corners are not much off the center in the TOA, but the askar was noticeably a bit worse, and has a bit of vignetting. They aren’t in the same league. You can certainly get nice images from the Askar, but I’m usually seeing limited with the TOA.
Same experience here. Had tried a couple of Askar before (provided by a local vendor) and have a TOA for about 15 years. They are not in the same league. It’s like MLB vs AA at most. (But an AA team is much cheaper than an MLB one. This should not surprise anyone. Occasionally an AA player can directly challenge MLB, but this doesn’t happen everyday.)
The issue with TOA is that its optical design is very unique and has very strong field curvature plus astigmatism. The uniqueness makes it almost impossible to find a good 3rd party flattener or reducer to flatten the highly curved field of TOA. You have to stick to TAK’s own offers.
When TOA was first introduced, FF DSLR or cooled CCD were not that common. Some people still used film back then. So the standard reducer and flattener for TOA were less optimized for FF, even if TAK claimed that they can work on FF. (Remember, this was 20 years ago.) But TAK does provide options (very good ones) for those with larger sensors (like the 16803 CCD or today’s 44×33mm CMOS). TAK made a 67 flattener and sold it for about 15 years. I have one, and have used it a lot with my Pentax 645z MF DSLR. It works very well (after replacing the stock focuser with a FeatherTouch one). TAK also made a 645 reducer, which can also cover today’s 44×33mm MF. This one was remarkably expensive (like 3K USD) for what it does, so TAK only sold it for maybe five years. I doubt that TAK sold more than two dozens of them. (I have one. Anyone wants this can talk to me.) TAK’s modern solution is the 645 flattener, which is a tad sharper than the 67 flattener on the corners of 44×33mm sensors. This one is reasonably priced and is light weight. Anyone who wants sharp images on FF should get this one. I hope TAK can make a modern version of 645 reducer, but I won’t have my fingers crossed given TAK even cannot catch up with the demands for their scopes and mounts. A new reducer for TOA can hardly be a top priority for them.
Since decades ago, maybe from the late 80s, TAK has not been stellar in the flattener & reducer department. Competitors, particularly Pentax, did a much better job in providing a good variety of reducers, flatteners, and even extenders with good image quality. Fortunately, for TOA, the 67 flattener and 645 flattener are both unbeatable.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
I know the askar apo line isn't up to par with the tak. But the newer sqa line has absolutely the best optical quality. The SQA 106 is better than the fsq-106 side by side.
The issue with TOA is that its optical design is very unique and has very strong field curvature plus astigmatism. The uniqueness makes it almost impossible to find a good 3rd party flattener or reducer to flatten the highly curved field of TOA. You have to stick to TAK’s own offers.
Interesting…
Well Written Helpful Insightful Concise
I know the askar apo line isn't up to par with the tak. But the newer sqa line has absolutely the best optical quality. The SQA 106 is better than the fsq-106 side by side.
It would be interesting to see actual data that supports this.
It is always easy to make a claim that a mass produced scope is as good as something like a TAK (or a TEC or AP). But I am not inclined to believe this without data.
What I can say is that I have seen images produced with the TOA-130 in good seeing conditions that I would not have thought possible with a 130mm refractor.
Well Written