Quote:
Originally Posted by casstony
I had essentially the same scope in William Optics guise (Megrez 88) and it had very good optical performance. Centering of the elements is critical in such a fast doublet and I wonder if that was the issue in the poorly performing scopes?
There have been problems in the past with WO scopes (made by LP)having incorrect spacing of elements leading to severe spherical aberration - nicely ground/polished lenses, nice tubes, but poorly put together, though easily rectified by the manufacturer.
|
Tony, what you say has much merit, for a lot of the problems can be related to quality control. I have seen this in many, run of the mill, products and it isn't until you get into the very high quality products that you get consistency between the units. Take a Takahashi, for instance, you would be very hard pressed to find any
noticeable difference between scopes, of the same model, but the price
is commensurate with that level of quality.
Quality control comes at a cost, you simply can't have high volume manufacture with consistent high quality at a low cost, it simply can't be done. Yes, you will get some good units and some bad units, it is, essentially, unavoidable. But, that said, it is what warranty is all about.
We often take pot luck with quality when we pay a modest price, and this accounts for the varying comments about any particular product.
I was lucky, I got a great example of the WO FLT 110, and I did know that I was taking a risk buying this scope, at the price of $2300. I know I would have been better off with a Tak 106ED or a 130NFB, however, I simply couldn't justify the 5.5k and 8.5k respectively, never mind all other Takahashi specific accessories.
It is all a matter of cost. Yet, we are seeing a lot of examples of well priced quality scopes, fortunately. If this wasn't the case, we would all have Takahashi's or its like.....or nothing. Back to grinding our own mirrors, we would be!
Cheers Pete