Skywatcher, TAL or Celestron

[JonF]

I'm feeling the lure of a refractor for planetary work, and I'm torn between a number of options. I've been looking at the Skywatcher Evostar 120, Celestron Omni XLT 120 and TAL 100RS. They're all about the same price. Any views on which would be best? I already have a beefy mount so I just need the OTA. I'm edging towards the TAL, but the SKywatcher and Celstron give a bit more aperture for the money.

[nightfisher]

in my opinion, the Tal gives the sharpest views, and has a better focuser and a little more "appeal"

[Caldwell 14]

in my opinion, the Tal gives the sharpest views, and has a better focuser and a little more "appeal"

Second that totally

You wanna be quick though if you want a TAL, they are going fast and who knows when the next lot will be available!

[AstroMum]

If you decide on the Evostar, bear in mind you might not get one for a while. I've spent the last two days ringing retailers trying to find one and the UK supplier has no stock until at least the end of the month.

The Celestron is effectively the same 'scope, but I need a better mount and GOTO which aren't available for it.

I'm also feeling tempted by the Tal, it's smaller but members here are raving about the quality.

Don't think I helped your decision making did I?

[hunterknox]

When you say "work" what do you mean? Visual use? Taking pictures? The aperture of the 120s will give them the edge in terms of resolution but they're a bit more bulky.

Of the 120s I'd err towards the Omni, as it has a collimatable lens cell, which is useful if needed. The 120s focusers are easily upgraded too, if you find they don't suit.

Having said all that, I would definitely put a word in for the Tal. I've had two and they both had essentially perfect optics (within the limitations of their design). In fact I've still got one, converted to work with a PST.

I also had an 120mm Omni, which was slightly less sharp but capable of showing a tad more.

If it were my choice I'd have the Tal, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend the same to others. I think a 120 could be the more rational choice if you can get a good one.

[wrinkly]

Jon, me old sax mucker,

If you want to lease my ST80 to see if you fancy a refractor, pm me. It's flocked and had the Dion mods done on it.

*This star means that Jon can't read this bit, if he borrows the ST, he'll have to loan me the Tal, which you are going to recommend, aren't you, on pain of pain*

The Tal is the Bauhaus Walstein of refractors.

[nobbytate]

Another vote for the TAL

[Carbon Brush]

Maybe a bit of a 'politically incorrect' response. But here goes.

I have never used the particular scopes you are asking about.

I have though looked through and owned various other scopes from these manufacturers.

The general outcome has been that Russian is way ahead for the ££ spent.

The only downside of some Russian kit has been weight and style.

Weight might be an issue for grab n go.

Style - who cares? You are using it in the dark for performance.

It is not a drawing room ornament.

[John]

Let's keep things in perspective here. In my opinion, TAL scopes and optics are good, a little better than the chinese counterparts and good value. Their engineering is solid but can be quirky and the finish rough around the edges. When you compare TAL to other Russian products from Intes and Intes Micro, the latter stand out in all respects but are more expensive of course.

The TAL 100R is a nice F/10 achromat and it performs as well as the well regarded Vixen 102 F/9.8 achromat. The TAL is not a "semi-APO" or "semi-ED" though. It shows CA around bright objects as physics determines that any F/10 achromat will.

A 120mm F/8.3 chinese achromat will outperform the TAL 100 noticeably on deep sky objects as you would expect - 20mm of extra unobstructed aperture is going to make a difference.

I'd also suggest that the 120mm F/8.3 will show more lunar an planetary detail when the seeing conditions are good and more so when used with a suitable filter to control the CA as Ant McEwan is doing here with a chinese 150mm F/8:

http://stargazerslounge.com/2144142-post12.html

[wrinkly]

TAL scopes and optics are good, a little better than the chinese counterparts and good value. Their engineering is solid but can be quirky and the finish rough around the edges.

Jon rides a Beemer, so will he notice?

[johninderby]

If you can afford a bit more there's the Lyra Optics 102mm f/11.

See this thread.

http://stargazerslounge.com/members-equipment-gallery/161605-lyra-optic-4-f11-refractor.html#post2012780

John

[JonF]

Jon rides a Beemer, so will he notice?

Oh, very funny Bill. You're only jealous, all those years riding around on old British knockers leaking like the Amoco Cadiz (for those who don't understand and think this is some sort of double entendre, it isn't, it's a bike reference).

Might take you up on the offer of the loan of the 80, although I did fancy something with a bit more aperture.

[wrinkly]

Oh, very funny Bill. You're only jealous, all those years riding around on old British knockers leaking like the Amoco Cadiz (for those who don't understand and think this is some sort of double entendre, it isn't, it's a bike reference).

Might take you up on the offer of the loan of the 80, although I did fancy something with a bit more aperture.

Absolutely true, Jon. Most of the decent bits on the Honda T125, the 250 WR Trials Kwacker and the XBR Honda were made in Britain.

ST80 yours after a pm to see if 'fracts, well cheap ones, do appeal as much as Martins and you can have a peek through the ancient eight at the wonderful Croydon LP,