Alfian

Great stuff, the Tal finders (like most things Tal) are optically very nice and well engineered.

In my experience the the 130 will be maxing out the EQ2. The EQ3/2 is a nice and very noticeable step up from the EQ2 but a 150mm F5 is the useful maximum in terms of reflectors. As has been said you are looking at an EQ5 or an equally substantial Alt/Az mount. Why not go for a home build dob mount for it. I'm guessing that there will be plenty of members who would assist with advice on this.

A tricky one this, for reasons outlined in above posts. We want bigger, deeper but not the weight or the need to mount, but can we live with the limitations of a hand held bino? I had a Williams Optics 10x50ED (ba8) binocular which were optically always impressive - they had that wow factor which made me smile. I parted with them because they were heavy for a 10x50 and the eye relief wasn't so easy. I have a Helios Q4 15x70 (63?) and they are good and show a little more than the 10x50s but the image quality does not have that special something that made the Williams Optics stand out. In that respect I have "missed out" on losing that quality element. My advice therefore is that for what ever budget you have, get the best (optically/mechanically) that money will buy you. If that works out at a 10x50ED, it will ultimately be a more satisfying binocular than a lesser quality 20x80.

Regarding the 100r focuser, following experience with a Tal1 1.25" focuser which had very limited travel, and could only be used with a limited range of eyepieces, I didn't have big expectations when I got my 100r. To my surprise and joy it will bring to focus all of my 1.25" EPs and I can use the Baader Q Turret barlow too. Sure, the ability to use a 40mm 2" EP giving nice wide views would be good but much of the time that's not an issue as I can use other 'scopes for that.

A very nice find and assuming all is well with the optics I think you will be more than pleased with way it performs.

Some good advice and guidance on Steve Tonkin's binocularsky website: http://binocularsky.com

That's an interesting question which in reality I don't think I have sufficient experience, (compared to many others here) to answer in any meaningful way. I have had a SW ED100 which should have been more than enough to tick my boxes very nicely, and indeed it was a great scope, but somehow I found myself, rightly or wrongly, parting with it. I then acquired an old Tal100r and despite the Tal "mystique" and reputation I didn't expect it to perform as well as the ED100. Yes there is some colour but somehow the view through it are more absorbing and it makes me smile. I can't really explain that but I assume its down to the way Russian optics have that "something". So to my mind achromats can still cut it - but there again I suppose it depends on what you demand of your optics and maybe I'm not as demanding as some.

There may have been a pause John but you haven't lost your touch. Very nice.

Hi Todd and a warm welcome. There are many bino' enthusiasts here who are happy to share their experience. One hitch in terms of Oberwerk Binoculars is that I don't think they are sold in the UK (which is unfortunate) so apart from those that have been individually imported from the USA there will not be that many around. However, I believe that the Oberwerk Ultra range is the same or very similar to the Helios Apollo's that are in the UK so hopefully someone will be able to help out.

Yes the Pentax 20x60s are very nice binos. Certainly smaller and lighter than a 20x80, but very well built and with nice touches like the focus lock. The thing that bugs some people is the 2.2 degree field of view, compared to the wider fov of most 20x80s, BUT those 2.2 degrees are very sharp across very nearly the whole field of view and star clusters are just lovely through them and as John has mentioned, to see the rings of Saturn (albeit very small and no detail) is surprising given the small aperture when all you would expect to see is an oval shape. In the 20x80 format maybe the Helios Stellar 2 might be worth a look but next up is something like a Helios Lightquest. 80mm which calls for deepish pockets. With respect to the Pentax 20x60s Neil English does an in depth review here: https://neilenglish.net/product-review-the-pentax-pcf-wp-ii-20-x-60-binocular/

What a grand pair they make Paul, if they were mine they would be Stan and Ollie! Enjoy.

I've had both a 150p and an ED100 (f9) both should have been more than enough to keep me happy - so your analysis is pretty well spot on. However, I'm beginning to think that when it comes to 'scopes its a bit like an itch that you scratch but the itch then gets worse. Scratch, scratch, scratch! Of my current scopes, if I had to keep just one, the 102 Mak on the Goto would make the most sense but the Tal 100r has that smile factor that is so winning.

Thats quite a makeover! I replaced the focuser in a Tal1 reflector and that involved enlarging the focuser hole so I can visualise that work. Anyway that's all academic for now. Thanks John.

Thanks all, that's reassuring so looking promising. John, that looks a very nice set up - complete with a splash of green.I'm assuming that the scope shown is a 150PL but clearly it has a 2" dual speed focuser. Was that something you added yourself and if so was it easy surgery? At the moment I cannot see me going to a 2" but who knows what the future holds.

Hi Jules, yes I have thought that might be the case, but figure a little forethought regarding the positioning of tripod legs might alleviate that one.

I've long thought that the 150/f8 reflector with the smaller c/o would be a useful scope and although still a speculative idea I'm really edging towards giving it a go. I have a Giro ii Alt Az mount on a Celestron CG5 tripod (2" steel legs) which is very sturdy and should easily take the weight. Balance is everything with the Giro but that's easy to deal with. What is niggling at the back of my mind is the bulk of the 150PL acting as a bit of a sail catching the wind! I have enough equipment options to match scope to conditions so its not a case of having to go out with it when its a blowing a bit but if its going to quiver at the slightest breeze its a non starter. I had thought of the 6" skyliner dob option - and try it with tube rings on the Giro and maybe have the best of both worlds (?) but a Dob doesn't suit my current situation well and the 2" focuser, though obviously useful will be lost on me as I want to stick to 1.25: EPs. Has anyone any experience of using the 150PL on a Giro type mount or similar? Any comments on this set up or useful information would be appreciated. Thanks

I tend to agree. I have the same tripod on the Avant mount. Its not dreadful but it could be better. A good, (2nd hand Manfrotto?) photo tripod would work. Going the other way I've tried the Avant on an aluminium legged eq3 tripod using a 3/8ths bolt and that firms things up OK but although not heavy it is bulky. That would likely work with the AZ5 mount too but not exactly a hand luggage item!

A little late to the thread but I'm wondering whether an AZ4 will be too much for something as light as an ED72. The AZ4 is a sturdy useful mount but it tends to suffer with "stiction" where it can need a little bit of extra nudge to get it moving. With a scope that has a little bit of weight with it like a 150p or a 4" refractor the scopes mass helps. Would an AZ5 be a better option?

Thats a useful photo John. The 6x30 is clearly just that tad shorter on the eyepiece side and may well be the better option depite the smaller size.

I've come across this blog on the Altair website. Its a few years old so no mention of the Ascent series but I would assume that Altair still stand by the content otherwise they'd take it down - wouldn't they? I found the first part interesting with respect to the mention of using various contractors but in terms of optics it appears that they do their own quality control and a test can be provided if requested - unless I'm getting that wrong. Perhaps a message to Altair might clear that one up. With respect to glass type I'm guessing that the F7 Ascent uses something like an equivalent to FPL-51, why else would the price be so much less than the Starwave ED-R, and that might work well in the F11 but perhaps not as well in the F7 but again I'm just speculating.

I can see (pun unintended) that with a 45 degree diagonal there would not any issue of nudging the finder with the forehead when looking through the EP. I imagine its also easier to just glance up and wince through the straight though finder from that position too, however I'm not so sure that using a 45 degree diagonal works so well for astro' purposes compared to the ease of a 90 degree.

I don't know the size of the 30mm raci, its obviously smaller in diameter but its the length that will make the difference. No doubt an email to the helpful team at FLO would help here. The 9x50 is quite a big finder and it did look a little incongrous on the 127 Mak but the 50mm does make for a bright clear image, better than a 30mm

Its the SW 9x50 (from FLO). See my earlier post re the position of the finder. A little adjusment on the diagonal and the raci makes it easier.

Not the best photo in the world but you can see how the RACI looks on a Mak 127

Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here and I'm definitely shooting in the dark but I find it hard to credit that Altair do not know what they are putting their name to. If they are commissioning a product that is produced by different factories I can see that there could be quality control issues. I'm also reminded a little of the question of what glass is used in SW ED72. Its not FPL53 but its good but because there isn't a label on it, it unsettles that sense of wanting some yardstick to use for comparisons. However ambiguous comments from suppliers that say nothing is not helpful and only undermines confidence and isn't conducive to selling scopes. Hopefully with time things will become clearer.