C5 V TAL 100RS

[Voxish]

I have the opportunity to buy either a TAL 100rs or a C5 both with Tripods and both around the £350 mark, which would you buy?

BTW the C5 is mint with a wedge and the TAL has a EQ5

[Roy Challen]

I'm heavily biased toward refractors, Tals in particular. I don't know which of the two choices you have is 'better' though. However the RS is a super scope and you won't regret buying it:)

[nightfisher]

You just know what i would choose................and its made in Russia

the TAL should prove the most versatile

[John]

I have actually owned both at the same time. Both very nice scopes and pretty decent performers. The TAL refractor is a little sharper and more contrasty on the Moon and planets, double stars are better resolved. The extra aperture of the C5 means that deep sky objects show a little better, globular clusters show a little more resolution etc. The C5 is easier to mount because it's shorter but it does take quite a bit longer to cool down and needs dew management additions pretty much most of the time.

Over the years I've owned 3 C5's and 2 TAL 100's so I'm fond of both.

TAL 100's can be picked up at a somewhat lower cost on the used market than a C5.

[Voxish]

And the TAL seems to be edging it. P

John you seem to have had some reservations in the past about somewhat rough built quality of TAL telescopes. I have read a number of posts and a review of a TAL scope you have published , do you still feel that dodgy build quality of these Russian scopes still be an issue?

[John]

And the TAL seems to be edging it. P

John you seem to have had some reservations in the past about somewhat rough built quality of TAL telescopes. I have read a number of posts and a review of a TAL scope you have published , do you still feel that dodgy build quality of these Russian scopes still be an issue?

The TAL 100's are generally well sorted now I believe although the newest one I've had is 14 years old !. The ones I've owned have had a basic level of finish and function but a 4" F/10 refractor is not a complex scope. I've had a couple of their much more expensive Apolar 125mm refractors loaned to me that were quite poorly finished for flagship £1,000+ scopes.

The Celestron C5's I've had have been much better finished but they also cost more. I buy all my gear on the used market by the way.

When assessing the responses bear in mind that 2 out of the 3 you have had are from self confessed TAL and refractor fans. If I was going to spend £350 on a scope right now for visual observing (which is what I do) I'd spend £270 on an 8" F/6 Skywatcher dobsonian which would outperform both the C5 and the TAL 100 by a margin, or quite a big margin on deep sky objects.

Sorry to introduce another option !

[Voxish]

Many thanks for the clarification. It seems neither of these scopes are really up to it on the performance front for at the price and I could almost add an extra 2 inches again for 350 quid.

I have to ask why would anyone bother wasting their money on a refractor

[John]

....I have to ask why would anyone bother wasting their money on a refractor

Because the views are lovely. There is no escaping that larger apertures and more overall visual performance can be bought for the money but refractors do have a very appealing quality to their images and perform really well for their aperture.

[Blazar]

My first scopes were TAL's...and all three are still here. As John says the views are just crisp. You have to set your expectations though over what  you want to look at. Regardless of whether I use one of my TALs or the Edge800 Jupiter is still really just a pea sized object. The TAL shows a crisper brighter image, but eventually the 800's aperture will be able to get closer. The TALs on the lunar surface are great, and they excel at double star splitting (the differing star colours showing really well.

I have now also converted one of the RS to be a solar scope (via a quark)...and its doing very nicely. The don't need collimation, don't have to cool down, and thrown one an manual mount make a great grab and go set-up (plus they look like real scopes ;-)) I also have a small refractor but that is purely for wide field imaging...so you see it depends on what you want to look at, and what your expectations are. You don't find many TALs come up that often...and they are snapped up pretty quickly. I for one will NOT sell any of mine...they are like family now ;-) Only other TAL owners will understand...

good luck in your choice though!

[Chris]

Why buy a refractor. 

Virtually no collimation worries, fast cool down, superb contrast, the tightest stars, very little dewing issues, easy to store OTA's, great for white light solar with Herchel wedge, great for binoviewing, great for DSO imaging, wide field of view, great for double star splitting, lovely eyepiece position when seated, the F/ratio can vary from about f5 to f/17, they are the original out of all the telescope designs, and they look fantastic.

Sorry about the long sentence, got carried away

[Voxish]

Ok, it's not all about the size of the scope then? Mmmmm, I don't know what to do now

[dweller25]

Ok, it's not all about the size of the scope then? Mmmmm, I don't know what to do now

If you meaningful performance buy a C8 or an 8" Newtonian (Dobsonian or equatorial mounted)

[MAN or ASTROMAN]

Ok, it's not all about the size of the scope then? Mmmmm, I don't know what to do now

It's not all about apperture-though I can quite understand how people can get carried away by'apperture fever'. It's also to do with what is practicable for you and largely where your interests mainly lie. I live in a light polluted area,and most DSO's that are raved about are either invisible or so-so ("is THAT it??) from my location. Double Stars are of increasing interest to me,and don't suffer too much from LP.Therefore the TAL 100RS seemed an eminentally suitable budget scope for me.I got one in the new year,and love it!

[happy-kat]

I have ended up with one of each type, frac, mak and newt. The newt has the biggest aperture, the mak the longest focal length and the frac with CA, the best views of stars and the velvety background come from my cheap refractor. (none of them were expensive they are all small items, 80mm, 70mm and 130mm).

If you can get to a star party and look through different scopes or accept in time you might end up with more than one telescope and plumb for the one right now you think you would get the most use out off.

[nightfisher]

The C5 will be easier to mount but the central obstruction will rob some contrast, the Tal will give sharper images

[Alkaid]

The Tal will also hold value - they aren't making them anymore.

[Jim Steele]

Another vote for the tal but I'm biased

Great little scope, simple and easy to use. I would like an altaz mount for mine as setting up the Cg5 (similar to the eq5) takes a little time to setup and lug the counterweight. Other than that I can be observing in 10-15 mins

[Roy Challen]

My Dad just bought my Tal R complete with tripod and mount in coffin. I wasn't really intending to sell it, but he loved the look so much he offered me £250 then and there:)