TAL-ly HO!

[AndyH]

I've had a 200K side by side with a 8" sct and the view in the former was more pleasing.Tighter star points, brighter image. In fact I sold myvery good quality, Intes 7" F10 Mak-Cass, as my 200K bested that, which surprised me.

I've had my awesome Carton 60/1000 next to my Alcor(65mm Newt!!). The newt kept up with the renowned Carton lens. No small feat.

Virtually no plastic on Tal stuff. Steel n aluminium. WILL last a lifetime.

Optically excellent, both mirrors and lenses. Being in the military optics game, helps, I guess, with the super tough coatings.

Scopes come with accessories that are not sub standard. Often x2 eyepieces, barlow etc.

Finder scopes, possibly up there with the best straight through types on the market.

Scopes overbuilt. Needs a sledgehammer to dent them.

The interiors smell superb(perhaps the most important point)

2nd hand prices are a steal.

Tripods and pillars are heavy & solid. They laugh in the face of wind.

The 5 types of mount are superb for visual use. No stupid fancy breakable electronics.

Probably seen as old fashioned. I see that as a good thing.

A renowned european dealer said he saw them in the same light as Carl Zeiss Jena. I quote "The TAL Telescopes from Russia are for me like the Zeiss Telescopes from Jena, highest quality of all components, but easy and simple and robust, made for live time use. No fancy electronics which can brake :-) "

Prices aren't what they used to be, but blame that on Russian inflation, increased transport costs etc, etc. Hardly anything is available over here anymore, which is a shame.

It's quite nice to own and use something that ISN'T from China thesedays.

It's also rather nice to be able to converse online(with my translated Russian, badly) with one of the optical designers. Difficult but possible.

Andy.

[twotter]

...some consider the refractors good value (let's call that the "Skoda-factor") and some like the style and feel (the "Lada-factor"). That would explain the enthusiasm

That's good. I like my TAL100R because of both it's good value and it's style and feel. Funnily enough I've just recently picked up my new lease car....a Skoda

I wonder what that says about me??!!!

[nightfisher]

I own, or have owned a lot of refractors...............the Tal 100rs is still optically the best achromat i have come across in the 4" sector , the field is sharp as a tack across the whole field, stars are super sharp right to the edge, unlike chinese 4" achro`s, i own a 3" f16.5, a 4" f10 (tal) and a 105mm f15, of these scopes the Tal has the best optics

[russ.will]

Funny you should say that because "Lada" was in fact my instinctive thought as I noticed the TAL enthusiasm

It depends on which Lada you are talking about. (Sorry it's Russian, but the BBC seem to have taken it down every where else)

Okay, not many people will ever get the opportunity to have a £100k 'make-over' of their TAL quite like that, but we can all aspire.

Mind you, there is a strange parallel with people building their ultimate scopes, in the fact that once the owner had it, he couldn't afford to run it and had to sell it.

Russell

[Marki]

I'm glad Starsteve posed the question. Very interesting to see the responses. I feel like Tony said, and as Steve put it, that there IS an emotional aspect to how I respond to my telescopes - and this in fact has influenced my selections. And I think that this is right - I should have some engagement on all levels with the instruments I use in the hobby I have invested so much money and time on (well as much time as the cloudy skies of Yorkshire permit...).

The first scope I bought was a Celestron 8SE. This clearly offers much more in terms of what I can see than the TAL100rs on EQ5 I bought less than two months later. And yet I enjoy using the TAL so much more, and I find the views though it to be "warmer" somehow (and I know this is in part an emotive response). I bought an ED102mm scope after that (billed as semi-APO), but frankly the TAL blew it out of the water in terms of crispness of views and contrast - ok the ED was a little better colour corrected (but still had some blue bloat around brighter stars anyway, and was NOT flat across the whole field) but not much and certainly not 2.5x better in terms of the price difference. I still have the TAL100rs - I got rid of the ED102 within 6 weeks. Since then I have acquired a longer focus (f13) 100mm refractor using a very good carton optic - this is superior to the TAL100rs, but then it cost me 5 times as much (and based on views alone, the new scope is not 5 times better at all...now, craftsmanship is a different matter!).

I have had the opportunity to look through a few scopes in the 4-5" bracket in the last year. Now the TAL100rs may not beat a good 100mm APO in terms of colour correction. However, it uses quality glass in a classic achro long focus format. It has good colour correction for an achro, and is pin sharp across the whole field of view. Its long focal length makes it tolerant of "cheaper" eyepieces. It is certainly robust in build and will last longer than me! I obviously wouldn't chose it for astrophotography (well, DSOs at least - although I've seen some nice shots taken with one), but for visual use - excellent indeed. The diagonal is excellent (and way better quality than the one that came with my 8SE), and the 6x30 finder is similarly good. The 25mm plossl is better than the 25mm that came with my Celestron too) and the TAL x2 barlow I have is better than any of the other barlows I have owned or used with the exception of the televue 2.5x.

I will admit though I like the classic long focus achromat in general - and the TAL fits the template I have of what a "proper" telescope should be (just need to get a dome to put it in for the template to be complete ).

Plus, nowt wrong with Skodas (every bit the equal of VWs nowadays). Never driven a Lada so no idea about them.

[Qualia]

Would someone care to explain to me what all the TAL enthusiasm is about?

By way of example, Steve, in Spain, the Tal 100rs goes for about €250, that's under £200 and what you get in the package is a cracking 25mm (as good as any LX or Hyperion), an okayish 6.3mm, an excellent diagonal, and a 6x30 finderscope. So, just for argument's sake, we assume the plossls and diagonal and finderscope are about £25 each, then we're talking about a telescope which costs about £100, the price of a mid-range eyepiece.

So, you start reading the reviews across the internet and you start reading them in various languages and you begin to see a pattern: the Tal 100rs is the bee's knees. No matter what the review or language I happened to be reading in (Spanish, Italian, French, English), I saw similar comments over and over again: clean crisp views, no star spikes, no coma, no mushy views, scant aberation, pin point stars, no cool down necessary, phenomenal optics almost as good as ED glass, great for LP city use, no messing with colimation, kind on cheap EPs, and the such.

You try your hardest to read a single negative review of the telescope and nothing comes up. Nothing.

So, you think, well let's try out SGL, this has to be one of the busiest and most respected astro forums in Europe, let's see what folk there have to say, surely someone, some-one-person, will have an opinion that will contradict the reviews, and thus set a balance.

And what happens?

You start coming across thread after thread about the sheer magic and brilliance and quality of the Tal 100rs given by very dedicated, mature and skilled stargazers like Nightfisher, or Andy, or Marki or Astrobaby, or Neil English, not to say dozens of other writers here at SGL.

In fact, the vast majority, nearly 100% of that vast majority, those who have ever owned the Tal 100rs were saying things like "if I could keep just one scope it would be this one", or "it's my most used OTA", "I regret ever selling it", or perhaps a tad more rhetorically, given the sheer quality of the Tal 100rs is the ED100 really worth it?

And regardless of how folk answer that ultimate question (which I've very loosely quoted from the author, Neil English) what is revealing about the Tal 100rs is that most of the reviews and threads on the scope can only end up comparing it with scopes clearly in another price range and supposedly in a class of better glass which, in the end, I think says more about the Russian scope than anything else and perhaps goes a way to help explain just where some of that very rational and coherent Tal (100rs) enthusiasm comes from.

[John]

I think the TAL 100's are very good 10cm F/10 achromats and they are affordable. So if that is the type of scope you want they are very worthy of consideration.

I'm not going to get emotional about the brand though because I feel that their quality control during manufacture could be a lot better.

[Marki]

I'd agree with that assessment, John. I think my response is more to my individual telescopes (as opposed to any brand) and the new worlds they have opened up to me. I certainly don't feel as strong an attachment to the 125r I have, no doubt in part because of the issues I had with it initially as these had affected the views and the utility of the scope as a whole. On the other hand the quirky paint finish on my 100rs does not detract from its function in any way merely adds character for me - and I accept that last bit is not rational at all .

Maybe some scopes are like old british motorbikes..."bags of character" and some swear by them and others swear at them! Others buy a Honda or a Kawasaki or a BMW instead.

[AndyH]

these scopes look the biz for the price..wonder if i could mount the 100rs on my telementor mount..help pls AndyH...

Hi again

A question regarding the Telementor mount.

Are the knobs with red ends the locking screws, the other white ones the slo-mo ones?

Andy.

edit: something I've long wondered but never got round to asking.

[AndyH]

Tony - Be aware that once you get your Alcor home, your wee one may just stake a claim to it. I do know my cousin's wee girl loves hers and still uses it.

Andy.

[AndyH]

Tony - Be aware that once you get your Alcor home, your wee one may just stake a claim to it. I do know my cousin's wee girl loves hers and still uses it.

Andy.

Of all the scopes I have and have had, the Alcor really is the most fun scope I've owned. I guarantee once you have got it home and assemble it, everyone in the room will smile.

A modern 'classic', if there ever was one.

[AndyH]

To be perectly honest, when I bought mine years back for £20 (!!), I got it for the engineering aspect, never expecting it to be a useable scope. I was soon pleasantly surprised by the tiny sharp optics. A nice bit of Tal history too, as it was the first scope type they made.

[TonyD]

Tony - Be aware that once you get your Alcor home, your wee one may just stake a claim to it. I do know my cousin's wee girl loves hers and still uses it.

Andy.

It will keep their fingers off the bigger ones (hopefully)

I like the earlier comment about how the Alkor compared with the Carton 60/1000

[TonyD]

To be perectly honest, when I bought mine years back for £20 (!!), I got it for the engineering aspect, never expecting it to be a useable scope. I was soon pleasantly surprised by the tiny sharp optics. A nice bit of Tal history too, as it was the first scope type they made.

Unfortunately, with comments like this, you are making me wish my life away. I can't wait until the end of next week to open up the box and start playing with it! Incidentally, how much does the entire kit weigh, and what are the dimensions of the box. I'm hoping it will all go into a regular sized case and I can keep the weight under 20kg by removing one or two weighty items and putting them into my handluggage.

[AndyH]

It will keep their fingers off the bigger ones (hopefully)

I like the earlier comment about how the Alkor compared with the Carton 60/1000

I reckon most folks will screw their faces up and shake their head at that.

I would never ever have believed it either if I didn't have the scopes side by side in my back garden. To say I was gobsmacked is not going far enough. The Carton is one of the great small lenses of our times. I was probably making a lot of noise, grunting disbelieving expletives, shuffing from one scope to the other.

Just make sure the Alcor is collimated as best as you can do it by eye in the daylight, them with the highest power, unfocus a star and tweak the primary collimation setscrews to get a concentric set of rings. I've had the tiny primary mirror cell in bits and it's a miniature engineering marvel, just like it's big brothers.

One day I think I'll invest in a better eyepiece and see if it can further improve the views. Nice as is though.

[AndyH]

Unfortunately, with comments like this, you are making me wish my life away. I can't wait until the end of next week to open up the box and start playing with it! Incidentally, how much does the entire kit weigh, and what are the dimensions of the box. I'm hoping it will all go into a regular sized case and I can keep the weight under 20kg by removing one or two weighty items and putting them into my handluggage.

Box is 573mm x 355mm x 170mm

Weighs in at a whopping 13kg !! Yours should be lighter, slightly.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Might it be fair to say TALs are scopes that may not be that much to look at, but they are great to look through? Ultimately, that is what scopes are for.

[AndyH]

Might it be fair to say TALs are scopes that may not be that much to look at, but they are great to look through? Ultimately, that is what scopes are for.

I think that's a perfect statement.

Another is a T-34 and a Tiger I.

The latter was superior in almost every way, but the former just worked & worked, no matter how cold. I believe the t-34's were very user friendly too, according to tank-heads. (Okay......... I know it was really down to the amounts they could push off the production line , so my analogy breaks down there )

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think that's a perfect statement.

Another is a T-34 and a Tiger I.

The latter was superior in almost every way, but the former just worked & worked, no matter how cold. I believe the t-34's were very user friendly too, according to tank-heads. (Okay......... I know it was really down to the amounts they could push off the production line , so my analogy breaks down there )

Except that the Tiger was hopelessly underpowered, and therefore slow, and the motors driving the turret were weak as well. It made up for that by having massive armour, and the dreaded 88mm gun.

T-34s were also much easier to repair, unlike Tiger and (even worse) Panther. Russian engineers understood (and still understand) the KISS principle

[AndyH]

Forgot about the engine issues. Was it the same unit that powered the old MKIII's??? Good info regarding the turret motors. Didn't know that. You learn something new everyday on SGL, even if it's not astro related !!

Wehrmacht tanks ran on petrol, Russians on diesel?????

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, I think it could be quick enough, but if you pushed the engine anywhere near its limits, it tended to break down, so in practice it was sluggish.

But we digress

[AndyH]

Box is 573mm x 355mm x 170mm

Weighs in at a whopping 13kg !! Yours should be lighter, slightly.

Scope all set up on the scales, including pillar, weighs in at close to 7kg

[TonyD]

But we digress

As the originator of this thread, I am completely happy where it is going

You can't get more random than me, and this thread suits my personality and disorder perfectly!

(Does that mean I have a personality disorder??? )

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

As the originator of this thread, I am completely happy where it is going

You can't get more random than me, and this thread suits my personality and disorder perfectly!

(Does that mean I have a personality disorder??? )

No, a disorderly personality

[TonyD]

I like the way Robert Dalby ends up using the, in his words, "a very basic" Russian EQ mount to demonstrate how to use the setting circles!

The mount is discussed at 02:02 and then again at 05:42

Tony