Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Takahashi TSA-120 vs Takahashi FC-100DZ

Takahashi TSA-120
Takahashi

TSA-120

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Takahashi FC-100DZ
Takahashi

FC-100DZ

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.

Key differences

+13% focal length
+20% aperture
Faster by 0.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationTakahashi TSA-120Takahashi FC-100DZ
Optics
TypeRefractorrefractor
Optical designTriplet APOApo doublet fluorite
Aperture120mm100mm
Focal length900mm800mm
Native f/ratiof/7.5f/8.0
Image circle44mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesNo
Physical
Weight7.5kg3.3kg
Advantages of Takahashi TSA-120
  • Tighter framing — 900mm vs 800mm focal length
  • 20% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/7.5 vs f/8
Advantages of Takahashi FC-100DZ
  • Wider field — 800mm vs 900mm focal length
  • Lighter (3.3kg vs 7.5kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Takahashi TSA-120
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Takahashi FC-100DZ
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • High-resolution long-exposure work
Takahashi TSA-120 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.29° × 1.53°Scale: 0.86"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.50° × 1.00°Scale: 0.86"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.72° × 0.72°Scale: 0.86"/px
Takahashi FC-100DZ — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.58° × 1.72°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.68° × 1.12°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.81° × 0.81°Scale: 0.97"/px
Takahashi TSA-120 — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Takahashi FC-100DZ — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.

Recommended alternatives