Roy Challen

Lots of good comments above. All I can add is that when I started out, I had a cheap alt-az goto mount with a 70mm achro (Meade ETX70). It was very easy to set up, lightweight, and reliable. Using a compass was definitely 'good enough' if you couldn't see Polaris. The optics were fine, I didn't know that eyepieces needed upgrading until the internet told me what I had was poor quality, and I was perfectly happy with what they showed me.

The telescope showed me all the major planets, in 'good enough' detail, plenty of Messier objects (some of those, I have never even looked at since, even with larger telescopes), much detail on the moon, and even sunspots - you MUST use the correct filter when doing this though. In the 10 years I used this telescope, I never thought that it lacked in anything, and I found it invaluable in helping me learn the sky. If  your daughter can operate a mobile phone or tablet/computer, I doubt a goto mount will present any difficulty.

So, to conclude: lightweight is a necessity,and alt-az mounts would definitely make life easier (directions such as up/down left/right are intuitive). Goto is nice to have. Whatever you choose, just get out and enjoy it!

4 hours ago, Sunshine said:

Fantastic! also, your SGL name reminds me of X-files episode season 5 episode 8 of same name.

Yes! I knew I'd seen it somewhere else!

5 minutes ago, Alfian said:

Is the diagonal attachment to the focuser in the RS different to the R, that is can you swap out/in any other chosen  diagonal?

Yeah, for the version with the 2" crayford focuser that's certainly the case.

I read that some early RSs had a different focuser, but not many tubes seem to have been fitted with them. Most RSs I've seen have the 2" crayford. 

4 hours ago, Alfian said:

I have the 100r and optically its a very good 'scope, no quibble. However as John and Roy have pointed out the RS with the 2" focuser opens up the options.  Related to this, the 100r  diagonal is connected to the focuser in an unusual way rendering the use of alternative diagonals impossible without some expert re-engineering.  I don't think the RS is the same,  someone might want to clarify that, so its worth being aware of that. The 100r diagonal is OK but if there is an issue with it at some point then it will be a problem. All that said if you can get a 100r in nice condition at the right (low?) price and you accept for what it is, a vintage scope with great optics,  then I doubt if it will disappoint. 

Agree re diagonal for the R. Any 1.25" or 2" can be used in the RS.

Your best bet would be to keep an eye out for one in the classified ads on here, or astrobuysell, or possibly eBay.

The bracket that fits the tube turns up occasionally - as in once every two years.

You also post a wanted ad.

Wide angle eyepieces (80 degree+) can occasionally exhibit what is called the 'ring of fire'. I've forgotten the proper name for this. I'd be surprised if Televue EPs showed this though.

Planets can also display false colour due to atmospheric dispersion. This happens when you look at an object through a lot of atmosphere, ie when it is low down. There are devices that can correct for this.

Unless your mirror is really dirty, I'd leave it alone. The easiest thing to do would be to wait until the object you want to view is higher up. Also you could try an eyepiece such as a plossl (50 degree) or a wide angle eyepiece such a BST Starguider.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Chris! Haven't seen a transit for a long time, forecast didn't look great a few hours before, but turned out great in the end.

Agree with above comments, very good seeing here in Watford. Jupiter looked great, watched most of the transit.

If I had to choose between the two, I would take the RS - the later one with the 2" focuser.

I had both at one point, and I kept the RS, still have it in fact. Also, contrary to many opinions, I found the RS lens to be slightly better. Having said that, they're both good.

Hope that helps.

On 04/08/2021 at 20:58, JeremyS said:

For really dark skies I like nothing better than binoculars. And if the Milky Way is on view, some of those vixen ultra wide field opera glasses

Vixen SG 2.1 x 42

I was gonna say this too. I've been fortunate enough to experience Bortle 1 skies (if there was ever such a thing as Bortle 0, this place would be it), and I only took my 12x50s with me. The views are absolutely unforgettable.

Larger optics would've been great, but not a necessity by any means.

Telescopes such as this are not impulse purchases, they are an example of the head agreeing with the heart.

Nice scope, btw.

My Tal 1, which cost £0, unless you count the fuel cost, split the double double last night. Wasn't as easy as I expected though, needed the 15mm and the x3 barlow to guarantee it.

First light for the Tal 1. I picked this telescope up for free, from Tring, and the feet for its pier from Somerset, also for free. The condition is a little tatty, and the mirrors needed to be cleaned. It is a 110mm Newtonian reflector, with a spherical main mirror of 803mm focal length. The focuser and eyepieces are bespoke to the Tal 1 and other 1.25” eyepieces don’t come to focus.
The equatorial mount is similar to the Tal 100R except that the rings are integral to the mount. It is fitted onto a sturdy aluminium pier, and contrary to many peoples’ opinions, I think it is reasonably light and can be considered ‘grab-n-go’, as long as the go is from house to garden. The whole feel is very ‘Tal’, some people like it (me), others find it a little crude. Overall, it feels like a quality set-up.

I thought I’d star-test it before collimating the mirrors. Arcturus was in a suitable position for star-testing. In-focus was excellent, out-focus slightly less so. This was a very brief look, so a fuller test in perfect seeing will be carried out at some point. As it stands, however, this scope is very usable as it is.

I looked at the Double-Double next. The wide-field view through the 25mm was very nice, but the doubles weren’t split. Neither were they with the 15mm, or with the barlow and 25mm. Only with the 15mm and the below were they cleanly split, but at that mag (x162)  it was a very good split.

Next, I headed over to Albireo. At all magnifications, the pair were split. However, the colour difference wasn’t as pronounced as I have seen in my refractors, which is unusual as there is no false colour in a reflector to affect the view. Slightly disappointing, tbh.

The Mizar system was my final destination. In the 25mm the wide-field view was beautiful, upping the mag didn’t really change that.

Overall impressions are that this telescope has good optics, but may need to be tweaked to get the best from them. It is a bit basic, but that is the nature of Tal telescopes. I found that the eyepiece position changes depending on the target, which can result in uncomfortable observing positions. With a refractor, you can simply rotate the focuser to a suitable position, the reflector tube would need to be rotated to achieve the same effect. The mount is sturdy, but also needs a little work to get the best from it. The slo-mos are a nice size, but a lack of lubrication causes juddering which creates vibrations that take a while to die down.

It would be nice to compare it side by side to my 100RS even though it would be a very unfair comparison as the RS is mounted on a Tak mount that is at least three times the weight of the Tal 1’s mount, and is essentially vibration free. However, the scopes aren’t so dissimilar in focal length, ratio and aperture, as to make a comparison pointless. One area the Tal 1 is already ahead on is its portability, and that always helps.

Huge thanks to Nigel, aka @Astrobits for the Tal 1 pier feet I picked up this morning. I now have a fully useable setup.

It just needs a little grease here and there to make it smoother.

1 hour ago, Spile said:

What is the view through a cap/sight tube?

Don't know, having never owned a newt before, I have no collimating devices.

2 hours ago, banjaxed said:

Nice job, I couldn’t help wondering why your scope looked a bit strange until I realised the focuser and finder are on the opposite side of the OTA to most scopes.

True, I hadn't noticed that. I don't often bother using the finder, so using my left eye will feel weird until I get used to it!

9 hours ago, Les Ewan said:

I hope you  get the feet for the pier because it would be nice to keep this setup as original as possible. 

 

Yeah, I would prefer to keep it original, but I'm not too fussed really, my 100 RS isn't in original condition either. As long as they both work fine.

7 minutes ago, Saganite said:

To my shame I have not yet used it.

Well, these things take time, especially for a frac fan such as myself! Not only is this my first Newt, it's also my fastest scope and also largest aperture 😂 - I'm going galaxy hunting!

Actually, the closest scope I have to compare is my 100RS, (not close at all really) I expect the only significant difference will be the lack of CA in the the newt and maybe it'll be a bit brighter. 

It is noticeably shorter than my fracs though, so easier to handle and mount, and the tripod for my Vixen Polaris is for a newt, so it should sit quite nicely on that, whilst remaining reasonably portable.

25 minutes ago, Les Ewan said:

 but like yours the mirrors will need recoated.

 

.

I just cleaned the mirrors, they look fine to me, just a few tiny marks that wouldn't wash away. The last image is before cleaning.

I have only ever owned refracting telescopes - not by design, it's just the way things have been. In fact, I've never even looked through a reflector...until now.

I picked up a Tal1, for free from ABS. The mirrors were a bit grubby, the mount is missing its feet, and it's a little bit tatty. However, the mirrors cleaned up nicely after a rinse under the tap and a wipe over with some Zeiss wipes. I'm not too bothered about the paint - let's just call it patina. The eyepieces are push fit (I think this is an early model, dates from 1995), but also cleaned up nicely.

I'm also happy to drill a couple of holes for a Vixen dovetail if I can't find feet for the mount, and if that happens, then I'll happily give the mount to someone else who can use it.

I had a quick look through the kitchen window, seems to be all fine. The focuser is a little coarse, but nothing that can't be fettled out later. I'll check the collimation if  a star test shows it needs it (new skill to learn).

I'm rather looking forward to first light😊

To me, the HDF and its like suggest that our physical position in the universe is fairly normal. Certainly nothing unsettling.

Imagine we were at the centre of the Bootes supervoid, everything else in the universe would be so faint we wouldn't have discovered anything until the middle of the last century. We would be wondering why everything is so far from us. But, that would then be our 'normal' anyway.

7 hours ago, callisto said:

I find the image mindboggling, but what makes my head explode is the thought that for every grain of sand on the entire planet there is 10000 stars out there and approx 500 billion Galaxies  😲 + 🤪

Here, try this for size!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

At least the number of stars and galaxies is a normal number, that can be written down on a piece of paper 😉

I agree with the above responses and would just add that patience and practice are the keys to planetary observing. It takes time to get the best out of your kit and of yourself.

This new update thingy, the little rocket on avatars, when you click on it it goes to a chart of 'rankings'. Near the bottom (top?), there is 'game ray burst'. I presume that's supposed to say 'gamma ray burst'.

You have sun today? I'm envious 😃!