127mm ED Triplet for $1199 at VTI Optics

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

perhaps that should be read as "zero CA visible to my eye "
Sounds like he has a good example of the breed.

Amazing that this thread is now at 258 posts and 13 pages.

Perhaps one could conclude that:
If you want to buy a new 5" triplet refractor and have $1200 to spend this is the best value for money purchase currently on the market.
It is obviously not going to compete directly with AP LZOS or TAK triplets but nobody realistically expects it to.
There may be some compromises with regard to fit and finish as well as the absolute optical quality but overall it will provide excellent views at the eyepiece
and in imaging.

Quoted for accuracy well said.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 (John)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (John)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Rob)]

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]

Originally Posted by Bullockbob

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

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

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

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

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 (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 (Nathan)]

Originally Posted by casstony

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

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?

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

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by Bullockbob

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

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Profiler

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by whzzz28

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

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Profiler (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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...