127mm ED Triplet for $1199 at VTI Optics

[casstony]

There are obviously good and bad samples. In light of VTI's list of disclaimers I would suggest anyone ordering the scope think about what standard they expect the scope to meet and ask if VTI can supply that standard.

Personally I can tolerate scratches in the paint, dust and parts needing adjustment, but the objective and coatings shouldn't have any significant faults. Coma certainly shouldn't be in their list of disclaimers since it results from decentering of the lens elements.

If you can get a decent one $1300 isn't bad value for a 5" near-apo refractor with accessories.

[johnt]

There was mention of "comparisons with a Tak" on the VTI site. But is anyone actually seriously comparing them to a Tak? I think most owners would be more realistic than that. As a $1299 scope, if it works as described, it is good. I think the concern is more if someone ends up with one of the "bad ones" in the batch. Then I suppose rather than wasting $1299 on a bad example, or having to spend even more $$$ fixing the defects, or spending $$$ on a scope that will never be up to scratch like the others, then, sure perhaps spending more money from the start on something else may be a preferred option. But, you need hindsight, a crystal ball, or be a very careful buyer to do that.

[LewisM]

Yes, but who knows WHEN a bad one will crop up???

Why risk it - buy a scope that is PROPERLY QC'd in the first place, rather than some mass produced gamble.

I don't mind what anyone else does with their money, but gambling the NG odds is a REAL gamble.

It's obvious no one is going to change anyone's mind here, so if you think you are getting a bargain at $1100, then by all means, go for it. Hopefully, the purchase is good. If it's not, well, sorry, the warnings were there.

[johnt]

Can I ask, when making the comparison, and conclude that the FL102S was much better, are you mainly using it for astro- photography, or mainly visual?

[Nikolas]

Um I have the NG version I bought second hand from ma fellow forum member and have posted a few examples. Unfortunately the weather in Melbourne has been less accommodating. Tofollow up. I have zero CA and have had no issues with the focuser or blur. the scope is tack sharp.

[johnt]

Nickolas,

I wish I had bought that one now. I bought new, but no comment yet.

Tack sharp? Boy were those carefully chosen words. Lucky you did not accidently drop the "c", I think that would have attracted a few posts regarding the comparison with a Tak. :rofl:

[Moon]

That is a very bold statement and in fact defies the laws of physics. How did you measure it?

[UniPol]

Just get a Tak , even if it is an FS-60c/csv/csb, then work your way up. People would be and are surprised just how competent they are for visual and imaging. I saved for my first Polarex/Unitron achromats which just stood out from the rest back in the 1960’s and are still great to this day. They have given much me much pleasure over the years not only for their mechanical design but their excellent optical qualities as well.

Even grinding my own mirrors around the F6/7 mark proved to be very challenging but the results were worth it, if anybody has looked through a decently made reflector will attest to.

Everything is made to a price (albeit dictated by exchange rates) and it all comes back to what you can afford, what your priorities are and whether you are prepared to buy second hand (pre-owned/pre-loved as some would say).

[Ian Flowes]

Total in agreement Matt.

[Nikolas]

I have an eyeball I could not see any CA
I took photos of high contrasting subjects during the day ie leaves against the sky, zero CA
I looked at the moon zero CA
I looked at jupiter and Saturn zero CA
I did not sit there with a spectrometer and try and analyse it I just used the damned thing and it works, very well.
I do not have a $6000 scope to test it against but it beats the crap out of the c8 SGT and the 10 inch DOB for pinpoint clarity, contrast and eye candy.
Subjective? Damned right it is.
Snobbery? Not from this little black duck.
Everyone's experience varies obviously, mine has been good. Many others who have this or a similar scope on this forum and many others also see it as a good one. There are a few on here who had bad experiences, such is the nature of the beast, but those who have had the bad experience go on and on and continually crap on it because THEY had bad experiences and it is unfair to those (the majority) who have a good version and don't say much.
If you have a good model then it's a great scope, if you blew your grand then return the damned thing as our consumer laws are very strict when it comes to what is being offered.

[Nikolas]

Quoted for accuracy well said.

[LewisM]

BOTH.

Imagery is superb, visual is mind blowing. The contrast differences between fluorite glass and ED glass (or whatver the NG's are made of) is not just a figment of my imagination.

[johnt]

OK, Thanks.

What about brightness for visual? The maths suggests that the 127mm will bring in about 50% more light. Did you not find that the Vixen 102 was in general dimmer? ( For visual that is).

[LewisM]

The fluorite more than makes up for it in contrast.

I found because of whatever issues the objective of the NG had greatly impacted on the visual view.

I have VERY little issue imaging even the faintest DSO's. Just takes more time. I have plenty of that.

[johnt]

OK thank you. That's why I asked if it was for imaging or visual.

So, I take it that the Visual image on the ED127 was actually brighter, but for some reason not as good (not as contrasty).

As you said, for imaging, its irrelevant anyway, more time, good enough mount, go for an even smaller scope.

[Bullockbob]

After becoming *very* interested in this scope, the thing that put me off purchasing one were their "conditions of purchase" on their website.

Not so much the admission that their product isn't perfect (anyone would have to admit that the price/performance ratio is pretty darn good), but the fact that they wouldn't accept returns or warranty on things like scratches, finger marks on objective, bad focusing ...

Are they serious? Aside from the fact that our consumer laws say different, that really is just plain bad marketing.

[Kunama]

Maybe they should just market them as "cosmetic 2nds" Rob.

[casstony]

Perhaps you should email VTI, express your concerns and see what their response is. Ask if they can supply a properly collimated objective without scratches and permanent finger prints.

I suspect the conditions are a sign of an inexperienced retailer/marketer rather than an attempt to deny after sales service.

[Bullockbob]

I suspect you're right, but I can't say I've ever seen anything like that written on a product website before.

It certainly can't hurt to talk with them directly, agreed.

[Bullockbob]

Yes ... "brand new, but comes with scratches on the tube and finger prints on the objective" :rofl:

Seriously, its not the above that concerns me (although finger prints could translate to scratches too), but rather the fact that if you did get one with dodgy optics then too bad (according to their website).

[casstony]

I see the price has increased by $100 to $1400 delivered.

[Profiler]

As the old expression goes - "you get what you pay for".

At this amazing price point bracket of something claiming to be 127mm APO at $1200 (when the 5" refractors from virtually every other manufacturer start around 3k and up) you should anticipate plenty of compromises in the manufacture/production process along the way to achieve this fantastic price.

As I have said in previous posts these are spectacular value for money but buyers should go into purchasing one with their eyes wide open about what they may or may not actually get.

The Law is a wonderful concept and I am sure other IIS members who play in the legal game will also know the unkind expression "justice is only for the rich". I have no doubt the TPA provides various feel good provisions and protections. I also suspect enforcement of those rights will be a long and tedious process and will probably add up costing more than the telescope in your expended time.

Caveat Emptor is the seminal legal doctrine to purchases. When the vendor openly lists various disclaimers about no quality warranties etc I "personally" would be thinking about spending my time and money at the TAB.

[whzzz28]

The price is a nightmare to figure out.
$1399 in the title.
$1299 in the price.
$88 shipping

1299 + 88 is not 1399...
So whats correct? :question:

PS: If anyone is interested, you can get the carbon fibre version of this scope from Northgoup directly imported for around $1800

[Wavytone]

You may find those "fingerprints on the objective" aren't... I have a 102ED refractor like that, but whatever the marks are they aren't removable. While they were "cosmetic" when it was new, minor and made no difference, after 6 years the anti-relection coatings are noticeably deteriorating and I guess after 10 years it will be basically trash.

If you're using a scope often so that you can feel you're getting your money's worth anyway after 10 years, this might not matter. Mine is only used maybe 3-4 times a year so I am a tad disappointed the objective won't last a long time.

[Bullockbob]

While I pretty much agree with your post, my point was I would've taken the risk of purchasing one in the knowledge that I may get a less than "perfect" example (compared to some of the lucky ones), but I would expect to have some recourse with the company if that was the case. Their website states otherwise. That is what has put me off.

They could easily market them as "semi-apo", and "not totally colour free" etc, instead of the blurb they used.

[casstony]

There's more room for problems with carbon fibre - the objective cell and focuser would be bolted/screwed to the tube, which is less secure than the threaded ends on the aluminium tube.

[Bullockbob]

Thats a real bugger indeed. Sorry to hear it. And that raises an interesting point which doesn't often get talked about.

[Profiler]

Rob

Caveat Emptor - Caveat Emptor

The doctrine places the onus of vigilance in the transaction upon the purchaser. You assume the risk - and when the disclaimers from the vendor start being listed - the assumed risks are further ratified and compounded upon you.

Either go into the transactions with your eyes wide open as a 'gamble' or simply save your money and buy a scope that has a more secure brand name behind it with QC and quality assurance that will give you peace of mind in the long run.

[Astro_Bot]

They charge a small handling fee, usually $12. You see it in the checkout stage.

[LewisM]

And that is exactly one of the problems I experienced. The objective screws had significant issues that I had to rectify, but only a matter of time before they will work loose again.

I have seen the prototype Allan talks about earlier (and it is an aluminium tube), and it is VERY nice indeed, and is not even comparable to the carbon fibre one I had.

I guess after making good initial runs, NG figured they could make more money out of selling 90% acceptable scopes. If an importer can sell them for $1200, heavens knows what the actual base cost is for NG, and how much profit they make on each unit!!! After seeing and using my example, I can guarantee they don't pay their fitters and QC people much...:rofl:

[David Niven]

Someone do qualify for the king Craps title of the year.
Seriously, I am beginning to doubt, if he owned one of these?

[LewisM]

If sir, you doubt I owned one of these, kindly ask member and contributor to this thread, whzzz28. I bought my example from him, and you'll note he does not say many glowing things about the scopes either. I presume you did not read the entire thread if you missed these facts, as it was stated.

King Crap... perhaps... but there is not a lot of superlatives about these scopes. If you are happy with yours, then fine, but I resent having paid for a sub-standard scope. I hope your mileage varies.