Lunt scope woes

[deadsimple]

Hi all,

I received delivery of a Lunt 60mm PT, rushed home and had a fairly bad first light. Perhaps near sunset is a bad time for solar viewing, but I could not see any detail despite sweeping with the focusing knobs and pressure tuning knob as per the included instructions (there are meant to be some fairly visible solar spots at the moment). Just saw a massive red blur (with 15mm plossl). Will try again in the morning.

Some other problems that I was hoping to ask advice for:

1. The eye-piece side of the blocking filter glass isn't perfect. Seems to have a scratch right in the centre. See pic #1. My bulb blower and lens cloth did nothing. Would this be much of a problem or should I send it back? The surface is a dust-magnet and hard to clean. Also what's up with the residual glue?

2. With the blocking diagonal removed, the glass at the inside of the telescope seems very ... dirty/hazy when looked at from an angle. See pic #2. Is this just a deceptive quirk with Ha filters? My ED80 is 100% transparent and clear from all angles.

3. The front glass has dust or something on the inside. Pic #3. Again my ED80 is perfect in comparison.

4. The focuser tube has two long lines/scratches on either side. Pic #4. I noticed this on my ED80 as well (see Pic #5). Is this an issue with either scope?

Apart from the matching lines on the focuser tube, my ED80 looks pretty much perfect and dust-free in comparison, even after several nights of viewing (I received that scope a few weeks ago).

Does anyone have a similar Lunt scope and can provide some advice?

Thanks

EDIT: Granted, some of these dust/haze problems can only be seen if I shine a torch into the glass. Normal visual checks look ok (and the scratch looks even more minor). Then again the ED80 is perfect even with a torch check at all possible angles ..

[gb_astro]

Ash those parralel groves on the draw tube are caused by the bearings inside the scope that contact the draw tube.
Realy a consequence of the design. I have them on my MooLite focuser too.
However the scratching on the Lunt seems very excessive considerring I guess you have only used it a few times.

As for the rest it does look like poor quality control.
I would be going straight back to the supplier with your concerns.

gb.

[deadsimple]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

Ignoring the blocking diagonal for now, I've been inspecting the scope some more and pointed a torch down the glass at the front of the tube. I can see dust and two half fingerprints or scruff marks (hard to tell which) on the front of the etalon at the top and top-right edges.

I had to do some aggressive photography with the 7D and a torch to capture shots of the fingerprints. Please see attached photos from various angles. The marks are a bit more exaggerated than how you see them with the naked eye and a torch (and keep in mind none of this is visible without a torch), but it gets the point across.

Which leads me to consider whether my expectations are a little high and this is typical quality that I should deal with. Is it too much to expect a $2500+ scope to be in pristine condition? Just wanted to get some opinions before I contact the supplier.

[Larryp]

I'd be asking for a replacement! This isn't good enoughfor the money involved

[brian nordstrom]

:mad2: I agree with Laurie , it looks 2nd hand ! , the marks on the draw tube are caused by the 4 small roller bearings inside the focuser and to remove the black anodising like yours takes a considerable amount of time and pressure , it does not effect the use but for a brand new scope it unacceptable !!! and looks horrible ! .
The finger prints , glue fitment ( is that a smear of glue on the inside of the tube as well? ) , dust , scratches , etc ,etc ,,, is way to much .
Send it back with some VERY strong words .
By the way where did you get ? if you dont mind , this might save someone else ending up with this same scope in the future .
Oh yes the marks on the ED80 draw tube are from the locking knob , totally normal .
Brian.

[Peter Ward]

Lunt make no apologies for the bearing marring on the standard focuser. They just work that way.

I always advise Lunt buyers to get the feather-touch...much better build.

Apart from fingerprints, dust ( easily fixed) and a little scratch/dig on the blocker ( not perfect, but will have zero effect on the image ) ...what is the solar image like viewing the sun at around 9:30am?

If there is zippo solar detail or proms, no matter how much you crank in the pressure tuner, it's a dud. Send it back.

On the other hand, if the image has good contrast and you can see fine structure...it's a good scope. Be happy.

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: I would not be happy spending $2500 on this , those marks ( worn out black anodising ) happened in just one use ? I dont think so and what about the fuzzy images ? I have seen the sunspots clearly when the sun is nearly setting .
Not good enough ! .
Brian.

[Peter Ward]

Just so we are clear, I had nothing to do with this transaction...but have seen a good number of Lunt scopes to have a handle on what their "normal" product behaves like.

The silver bearing roller marks on the anodising starts to happen straight away on the Lunt focusers.

Lord knows I've torn my hair out with Lunt over this, but their response is, "yes we know, but that's they way they are" ...did I mention get the feather-touch?

In any event I'd consider it bad-form not to forewarn a prospective buyer that is simply how they are, so if you don't like that prospect, don't buy it.

Daytime seeing, particularly in summer, is nearly always woeful, and can easily account for "fuzzy images", hence I'd suggest any testing before 9.00am before jumping to any conclusions.

Also the H-alpha image delivered by the Lunt-PT scopes is remarkably bright, so much so, it can cause scattering within the eye itself. This is not a fault, but to the inexperienced eye, can look a little weird.

[deadsimple]

Cheers for the information Peter. I won't worry about the tube scratch in this case (nor the dust for that matter), if it's common and only an aesthetic issue. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't part of a bigger problem. Thanks for clearing that up.

Had a quick look at ~9am and got focus with sunspot and prominence detail - perhaps there were tree/cloud obstructions or the diagonal tube was not drawn out far enough yesterday.

For visual use I probably wouldn't be able to tell if there were muddy paw prints and scratches on both the etalon and filter surfaces, but for imaging where you're already pushing the boundaries of the optics on a small sensor at high magnification, you'd want factory-clean optics (no oily fingerprints/residue eating at the coatings, nor scruffs) out of the box - especially at that price. Given 80% of what I do with my gear is imaging, this causes some concern.

I've fired off an email to the retailer (one of the three official dealers, not the "unofficial" one), will see what they have to say. Happy to give more detail about the retailer once the issue is sorted out - the resolution is often just as important as the original "woes", so I don't want to bag them as they've been good in the past. Though given the price I quoted, shouldn't be hard to guess.

[OICURMT]

Reading the thread with interest.

Quick question, does anyone know if oil from fingerprints eventually degrade any coating?

[gb_astro]

Bit of a sad day when we are told to accept this sort of quality as the norm.
The scope might work fine today but it is only good quality control that will ensure it is working five or ten years from now.

gb.

[Peter Ward]

You don't have to accept it. Caveat Emptor!

Though I must admit, to date I've not seen any fingerprints on new Lunt optics.

That print may or may not be the manufacturer's fault, but they are not good (yes, they can degrade coatings) and should be cleaned ASAP.

Dust...well a non-issue in my book. Some dust settling in transit is inevitable and is nothing a can of dust-off won't fix.

[Paul Haese]

The focusor tube scratching is normal for that focusor. I have had three of these scopes and all the standard focusors did this. Those focusors are made by GSO and that is paint not anodising. As Peter has said, you should use a feather touch. I had a spare feather touch and bought an adapter to suit from Starlight instruments. Those scratches have zero effect on the performance of the standard focusor too.

The main issue is being able to be sharp detail on the surface and proms. The surface detail on a single stack scope will be harder to see but it is there in a good unit.

If you are not happy with the unit, send it back and tell the retailer why you consider it defective. The focusor scratching will not be a valid reason but the scratches on optical surfaces are legitimate reasons to return the unit. I am sure the retailer will help you out.

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: So to get a decent quality product you have to spend another $500 on top of a $2500 product !!! , I dont think so .:mad2: .
Buyer beware for sure .
I had a GSO 10-1 retro fitted on my now sold ED80 for 3 years of hard use and it was perfect the day I sold it as the day I got that GSO focuser Oh yea it was anodised by the way , Lunt has a cheek fitting these on a scope worth this amount , I would send it back and get a Coranado .
I would be choking if it was my 2.5k .
Imagine as gb_Astro said , what it will look like in 5 years , embarrassing !! .
My 5c worth .
Brian.

[Poita]

If you purchased it from Sirius Optics up there, take it straight back. They have always been excellent for Lunt gear.

And no, at that price I wouldn't put up with a finger print on the etalon, no matter what the views. If it degrades later out of warranty due to whatever may have been on that finger, I'd be somewhat annoyed.

[Poita]

You get the option of the feathertouch when you buy. I would not like to see feathertouch be the only option, as it would push it outside of affordability for most people.
The standard focuser works fine, but if you want a great focuser like the feathertouch, then you have to pay for it of course.

The cost is in the etalon and blocking filter, they sell on their own for nearly the cost of the scope. If they threw in a feathertouch at that price, they would be losing money.

I've owned a coronado and a Lunt and the Lunt is much better build quality all around.
Having said that though, I would take it back and get a better one, it sounds like the etalon may be decontacted.

[Peter Ward]

I think this needs a little perspective.

It was not all that long ago when a 60mm sub angstrom h-alpha filter would run closer to $5k.

I've also seen a number of very ordinary Meade/Coronado units hence wouldn't think you are home free there.

As to why Lunt standard focusers mar so quickly, it may be they don't use T6 or hard anodizing as theses things cost $ which our bean-counter run society puts a priority on, hence the cheap build.

If you need to meet a specification then the $ can go up significantly. At $2500 don't expect a Benz, when IMHO you really only paid for the Barina.;)

[brian nordstrom]

;) You dont have this sort of quality problem with a $495 PST or $550 35mm lunt now do you ? ( differant focusing system I know , but come on Peter would you be happy ? )
Perspective ? , 2.5k is still 2.5k no matter how you look at it Peter .
A lot of money for us hard working folk , for a sub standard scope no matter what way you look at it .
Brian .

[Derek Klepp]

Just to put my two bobs worth in my Lunt Cak 1200 Blocking filter had a dirty fingerprint on it. As Peter says most of these things don't effect performance .These things happen.I also havs a few adhesive blobs here and there but if its working fine don,t touch it.As for the scope itself I would say that my Lunt PT 100 is the best Astronomical purchase I have yet made.
Still if you are not happy I would check with your supplier and get these problems addressed. Good luck with your Solar venture.
Derek

[Merlin66]

You've heard most of the discussions/ comments so far - but the bottom line is that if it doesn't perform (which hasn't really be raised...) and your unhappy with it - return it to the supplier. If your unhappy now, you'll never be happy with it in the future.....

[brian nordstrom]

:) Wise words , Ken .
Brian.

[deadsimple]

I planned to order from them, but the quoted 3-month wait would have cut it too close to the Annular eclipse in May. So, the remaining retailer (who had it in stock) it was ...



I fully concede that my poor first light was probably due to user error while trying to get a glimpse just before sunset through too much cloud/tree matter in the way and/or poor diagonal tube position.

The view I had during my brief squint this morning was much more pleasant. But it was only brief - I don't plan to use the scope further if it's going back. Can't wait to get into solar viewing once this is sorted, the prominences I saw this morning were breathtaking.



In relation to whether I am happy with the view through the eyepiece - unfortunately I have nothing to compare the optics with to determine if the scope "performs" as well as it should. i.e. given I have no prior experience with this class of telescope, any view of the sun would set a baseline for future expectations.

I will assume for now that the view is good now and that focuser/dust problems are non-issues, but there's a chance of problems developing from the fingerprint/residue/whatever that's inside a part of the tube that's not meant to be accessed outside of the factory. Hence the conclusion is to follow this up with the seller regarding that last point. I appreciate all the input :)

[Peter Ward]

Que??

I have seen PST's that have been absolute rubbish..didn't even come close on on-band, coatings going milky after just a few months, etc. Yet some, have been remarkable. Such is the nature of mass production it seems.

Would I be happy with a $2500 solar scope? Maybe.. :question:

Then again. Probably not... I had to spend about 4x that.... just for the filters....before I got a system that met the specifications, rather than price, I was looking for. Horses for courses I guess :)

[frolinmod]

I have Feather Touch focusers on all my scopes except the EdgeHD. I highly recommend them.

I returned a brand new LS100THa to Lunt last fall. Total turnaround time (including overnight shipping each way) until the problem was corrected and I had the scope back in my hands was one week. Try that with Meade.

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: You are kinda missing the point here Peter , we are not!, all millioneers , and our hard earned dollars , when saved up over months to recieve a sub standard scope , well mate as I said I would not be happy .
For most a $495 PST would be all they could afford , and be happy with it .
Scope snobbery I think ? ;).
Brian.

[Peter Ward]

I'l disregard the implication I'm worth millions or my dollars are less-hardly earnt than anyone else :rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to (unseccessfully, it seems) make is: many products are built to a price, rather than a specification.

A standard Lunt focuser will mar on first use but it's still perfectly functional, and you saved about $600 on the feathertouch.

Shock horror, but you paid $2500 !? Fact of the matter is you didn't pay $3100 for the one that doesn't behave thus.

The price of the product is irrelevant if it is not fit for purpose, i.e. if my PST, Lunt 60, or SM90 does not meet promised performance then, from Oz suppliers at least, I have a right to a remedy.

Like the old Johhny Walker ad: Do you want to take home a Scotch you'd rather drink, or the one you'd rather pay for?

[Steffen]

The one I'd rather drink of course, but I fail to see how this could be an ad for Johnny Walker… :P

Cheers
Steffen.

[Peter Ward]

:lol: agreed!

[mithrandir]

Getting seriously off topic:



There are JWs suitable for drowning in mixers, and a couple that are drinkable. That's not to say I'd drink them in preference to various single malts.