Long Perng actually can make some decent scopes-they make more than 50% of all William Optics scopes.
The 90mm we are talking about was very well made -its just the lens that was crap!
Hi Laurie,
It is all about QC Laurie. If you are taking more time with QC, it will cost more.
I could probably go to Long Perng and order a large quantity of telescopes and say I don't want to pay any more than $50 a piece (yes, I am being a little ridiculous, but it makes the point). Long Perng will make them to that cost, with the cheapest materials, so I couldn't expect to receive good quality for that price point.
However, if I say to Long Perng, I want a telescope made to a particular high specification, rather than a price, they will be able to do that too, but it will cost me accordingly.
I think this is an issue when people are comparing scopes that come out of the same factory, under different brand names. They may all look the same, but have vastly different pricing. And, I have discovered that they are not all the same optically, at a given price point. There will even be variation from scope to scope, unless you have exacting QC, but this is an added cost. This probably accounts for why some people say that mine was okay, whilst another will say their's was crap.
It all comes down to economies of scale. A high manufacturing run, with lower QC costs, will result in a cheaper scope. I might add too, that it is also subjective, as one's expectations can have a bearing on whether you think it is good or not. I had a friend who swears his telescope is the best he has seen, but to my critical eye, I think it is very average, as my expectations are much higher.
Whatever the case, I am extremely happy with the optics on my WO FLT 110, no matter who actual manufactured it. But, I did take a gamble in buying it though, as I had never seen through one, and only went on other, independent, reviews. It was a calculated risk, as the price was right, and one that I am very happy that I took.
Cheers Pete
Last edited by Stardrifter_WA; 12-04-2014 at 10:59 PM.
Hi Peter-I wasn't trying to disparage W.O. scopes-in fact I once owned a ZS110 and was quite satisfied with it.
Your summation, in a nutshell, is you get what you pay for. The Long Perng 90mm may cost $800 or so, and be a poor quality scope, but in comparison, I had a Stellarvue 90mm Apo which was an absolutely superb scope, but cost $1900.00.
But I still believe NO refractor should have the colour error that Long Perng had-it was at least twice as much as any achromat I have ever looked through-I expect much more than that for my $800.00
Cheers
Laurie
Hi Peter-I wasn't trying to disparage W.O. scopes-in fact I once owned a ZS110 and was quite satisfied with it.
Your summation, in a nutshell, is you get what you pay for. The Long Perng 90mm may cost $800 or so, and be a poor quality scope, but in comparison, I had a Stellarvue 90mm Apo which was an absolutely superb scope, but cost $1900.00.
But I still believe NO refractor should have the colour error that Long Perng had-it was at least twice as much as any achromat I have ever looked through-I expect much more than that for my $800.00
Cheers
Laurie
I did realise that Laurie, I didn't think you were being disparaging in any way, as I do realise you are not like that. I wasn't being defensive, just putting an alternative view forward so, sorry if it came across that way.
Although I love my 110, I would trade it for a Tak any day, but I cannot justify the additional cost, I am just not that rich. Sure, the Tak is unquestionably better, but is it three times better? How much do we pay for that little bit extra? Like anything, there are limits. Unfortunately, my bank says no!
Although the 110 is the best refractor I have ever owned, I am not saying, in any way, that it is the best out there, as it simply isn't, but at around $2,300, it met my price bracket vs quality, so was the best I could justify paying for, and it is worth every cent, but that is just from my perspective, no one else's. It has no CA, and that is important to me.
I would love a Tak 150, but at $15,000, plus a mount to suit, probably another 10k, it ain't gonna happen, ever. Besides, it would be too big and heavy to be portable, which is why I like the size and weight of the 110, it suits me.
Cheers Pete
Last edited by Stardrifter_WA; 12-04-2014 at 11:25 PM.
I did realise that Laurie, I didn't think you were being disparaging in any way, as I do realise you are not like that. I wasn't being defensive, just putting an alternative view forward so, sorry if it came across that way.
Although I love my 110, I would trade it for a Tak any day, but I cannot justify the additional cost, I am just not that rich. Sure, the Tak is unquestionably better, but is it three times better? How much do we pay for that little bit extra? Like anything, there are limits. Unfortunately, my bank says no!
Although the 110 is the best refractor I have ever owned, I am not saying, in any way, that it is the best out there, as it simply isn't, but at around $2,300, it met my price bracket, so was the best I could justify paying for.
I would love a Tak 150, but at $15,000, plus a mount to suit, probably another 10k, it ain't gonna happen. Besides, it would be too big and heavy to be portable, at least, for me.
Cheers Pete
You have a great collection of scopes anyway, Peter-all good stuff! I actually wish I had never sold my Stellarvue 90mm Raptor-it was a magnificent scope, and its new owner is rapt.
You are quite right about Taks-very expensive for a slight improvement, but its the same with anything-you can get to 95% quite readily, but that other 5% costs the earth!
Cheers
Laurie
You have a great collection of scopes anyway, Peter-all good stuff! I actually wish I had never sold my Stellarvue 90mm Raptor-it was a magnificent scope, and its new owner is rapt.
You are quite right about Taks-very expensive for a slight improvement, but its the same with anything-you can get to 95% quite readily, but that other 5% costs the earth!
Cheers
Laurie
Yeah Laurie, I bet that pun was intended?
I didn't realise you had sold the Raptor. When you got, you were so 'rapted' in it.
That is why I rarely sell anything, as I know I will regret doing so. I just put it in the back room, like, open the door, through it in and shut it quick so that nothing else falls out.
But, the exception to the rule, did occur recently when I sold a scope, but only because someone, who shall remain nameless, really wanted it, and kept asking me to sell it.
All going well, I may be downsizing my equipment collection in a year or two, but, most of it will go to my son anyway. I am heading towards a Lunt 80mm PT solar scope, as I am more interested in this, since I saw Ha scopes at Stellafane last year.
North Group 127ED. TERRIBLE mechanicals, sloppy retractable dew shield, and grossly soft focus (and adding a Moonlite focuser made NO difference). Even just looking at the glass I felt it was terrible quality. New owner seems happy, so horses for courses.
Bushnell 8" Dobsonian. I owned it for about 8 years. It had horrific coma, but on axis was OK. Even slightly off axis, and it was unusable. It almost put me off Dobsonians for life.
I have one of the Aldi mini-dobs for my daughter. I got lucky, as it is a good one. It is SURPRISINGLY good! And cheapest yet for me! (I got it cheaper as the disc etc was missing from the box)
My biggest disapointments were with the 5 and 6inch acro refractors. After being amazed looking through a 4inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the late seventies, on returning to this hobby in 2002, i drooled over the big acros. After using 4,5 and 6inch f/8 to f/10 units, i found the average 6 to 8inch newts were much better. I currently have an Celestron C8 new, and a 8inch f/6 eq. mounted newt with a Parkes mirror in it. No substitute for quality i guess. I really did want those acros to work. The worst scope i had was my first main one, a KMart 114 eq reflector. I discovered the secondary was distorted by too much by back pressure in the mounting, pushing it against the two points on its major axis. Replaced it with a new one by mounting it with double sided foam tape. With the secondary bent along the minor axis it showed stars as crosses at focus. The C8 has very good optics, and on a eq5, is a comfortable observing experence.
That M42 looks VERY similar to the images the NG127 did for me. Nearly ALL the NG127 images I find on the net have the same soft focus, and particularly soft in blue (makes the stars look ghostly).
Some got good 127's. I also know quite a few who did not. I was unlucky.
That M42 looks VERY similar to the images the NG127 did for me. Nearly ALL the NG127 images I find on the net have the same soft focus, and particularly soft in blue (makes the stars look ghostly).
Some got good 127's. I also know quite a few who did not. I was unlucky.
I nearly bought one of those, but after doing my research, I decided that it was a case of "pot-luck" in getting a good example, as most reviews I saw were kind of critical about the CA. Whereas, when I first looked at the WO, they seem to have good reviews, apart from the focuser, which is crap, but that can be replaced.
Whenever buying anything of value, I do extensive research, as I am not rich, so can't afford to make mistakes, and if there are more than a few negative comments, I steer clear.
I was lucky, it seems......I didn't buy one.
Fortunately, I have never had any issues with the optics on any telescopes I have actually purchased. Mounts, that is a different matter, although the problems with mounts is, pretty much, all down to software issues. I know this much, if some of these mount manufactures where doing the programming for passenger aircraft, I wouldn't get on the plane, as I would likely end up on the Moon. However, I now have most of it sorted, so I am happy.
Last edited by Stardrifter_WA; 13-04-2014 at 02:12 PM.
North Group 127ED. TERRIBLE mechanicals, sloppy retractable dew shield, and grossly soft focus (and adding a Moonlite focuser made NO difference). Even just looking at the glass I felt it was terrible quality. New owner seems happy, so horses for courses.
Bushnell 8" Dobsonian. I owned it for about 8 years. It had horrific coma, but on axis was OK. Even slightly off axis, and it was unusable. It almost put me off Dobsonians for life.
I have one of the Aldi mini-dobs for my daughter. I got lucky, as it is a good one. It is SURPRISINGLY good! And cheapest yet for me! (I got it cheaper as the disc etc was missing from the box)
Here I am describing two lousy relatively inexpensive telescopes, and you've bought two expensive lousy telescopes! Glad the Aldi one worked out for you.
Regards,
Renato
My biggest disapointments were with the 5 and 6inch acro refractors. After being amazed looking through a 4inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the late seventies, on returning to this hobby in 2002, i drooled over the big acros. After using 4,5 and 6inch f/8 to f/10 units, i found the average 6 to 8inch newts were much better. I currently have an Celestron C8 new, and a 8inch f/6 eq. mounted newt with a Parkes mirror in it. No substitute for quality i guess. I really did want those acros to work. The worst scope i had was my first main one, a KMart 114 eq reflector. I discovered the secondary was distorted by too much by back pressure in the mounting, pushing it against the two points on its major axis. Replaced it with a new one by mounting it with double sided foam tape. With the secondary bent along the minor axis it showed stars as crosses at focus. The C8 has very good optics, and on a eq5, is a comfortable observing experence.
Very interesting about those big achromats.
Good to see another fellow K-mart Focal 114mm owner. As I mentioned below, it only took me ten years to get it collimated correctly (we didn't have the internet back then), but when I did so, and put a 6X30 finder on it, it became a joy to use. I still have it, and I especially enjoy the 4 spikes on each star - gives me the feel of those astrophotos from big research telescopes I used to see published when I was growing up.
On the positive side, though rudimentary, the instructions with that telescope did tell you about collimation. I bought a good quality 5" reflector in Italy seven years ago. But it was out of collimation and I fixed it in 3 minutes. However, when I looked at its otherwise very comprehensive manual, it did not mention collimation once.
Cheers,
Renato
Interesting question. Depends on the meaning of "worst".
My first scope was one of those Focal 114mm newts on a EQ1. I bought it when I was 15, about 40 years ago. I got to see Saturn and it was quite magical. I hit the limits pretty quickly though - no navigation ability as the setting circles were too small to do anything with. Had no info so star hopping was not an option.
Fast forward to 2007. Bought an 8" Optec newt on an EQ1 for $100. OK collimation, same problem with navigation. Sold it, but now I knew I wanted something which would GoTo.
Bought a Meade ETX80 backpack scope (80mm achromat on alt-az goto mount). Average optics, noticeable CA as you would expect from an achromat. But Goto was magical. Lack of a finder scope was a big limitation. Now I knew I wanted GoTo and reasonable aperture and that meant a SCT.
Bought a second hand Meade LX90-8" (alt-az mount) and loved it. Awesome scope. Did everything. Great views. Excellent gotos.
Then I got aperture fever, and bought a new Meade LX90-10" ACF … and it took 4 months to sort it out. The optics were good. But the mount was rubbery and would vibrate with the slightest touch. Eventually took it apart and found there were three silicone grommets where they shouldn't have been in the mount, on the flange between the base and the spindle. Removed them, removed the useless azimuthal scale, and spun down the base exterior where the scale used to sit (on a lathe), so that the mount could spin freely on azimuth when bolted together. It transformed the mount and it is now a great performer. Optics are excellent. Unguided tracking is near to perfect. Focal length is a bit too great but that is part of the SCT recipe.
The last scope I don't own (but have the use of) and that is the Evans 30" Dob at Linden Observatory. This scope is an awesome machine, and it has ruined me for smaller scopes. It is susceptible to wind, and it is so big that it takes two or three people to safely operate it. It won't drop below 10 degrees altitude, and you are climbing ladders to view anything over 20 degrees altitude. But it delivers views of astronomical objects that simply cannot be beaten visually.
Each of these scopes was / is deficient in some way. But each solved one more problem and showed me the way forward. I consider all of them good scopes.
Is there a worst scope ? I am not sure about this. As my physics teacher advised me forty years ago, "No experiment is a complete failure. You can always use it as a bad example."
With big achros, CA gets worse with larger diameter and shorter f/D ratios, but even my 80mm F15 achro has blue fringing around bright stuff like Jupiter.
Interesting question. Depends on the meaning of "worst".
Then I got aperture fever,
Regards,
Tony Barry
Hi Tony,
Yep, had aperture fever too Tony, but it is always a trade off, particularly their cost. Large apertures are big and heavy, difficult to transport, unless, you have lots of money to set up trailers etc. Saw some awesome set ups at last years Stellafane.
The other downside is getting the mirror realuminised. I need to get my 16" realuminised, but I am thinking it might be easier just buying a new mirror, particularly considering that I cannot find anywhere that can realuminise it with an overcoat, at a reasonable cost, unless I send it to the states, but then freight is an issue.
I am getting too old to lug heavy stuff around any more, so portability is the main criteria these days.
I use my 16" from my back yard, just wheel it out of the shed, in suburban Perth, but I have much more enjoyment with my 110 in a dark sky! See much more too, compared to my 16" in the city, despite the smaller size. I also use an 8" SCT in my observatory, and even this is heavy for me to lug around too, which is why I got a Sirius observatory. I would love to replace the SCT with a large Apo refractor, but that isn't going to happen, unless, a miracle occurs, like winning Lotto, but I won't hold my breath.
The 110 set up just suits me now, not hard to transport and set up, has no maintenance requirements, has very sharp images, so I just take to dark sky sight, use and enjoy. It is certainly much more comfortable sitting in an observing chair, instead of balancing on top of a ladder.
There comes a point when aperture stops being fun, particularly when you have a stuffed back.
Cheers Pete
Last edited by Stardrifter_WA; 13-04-2014 at 03:49 PM.
Interesting question. Depends on the meaning of "worst".
My first scope was one of those Focal 114mm newts on a EQ1. I bought it when I was 15, about 40 years ago. I got to see Saturn and it was quite magical. I hit the limits pretty quickly though - no navigation ability as the setting circles were too small to do anything with. Had no info so star hopping was not an option.
Fast forward to 2007. Bought an 8" Optec newt on an EQ1 for $100. OK collimation, same problem with navigation. Sold it, but now I knew I wanted something which would GoTo.
Bought a Meade ETX80 backpack scope (80mm achromat on alt-az goto mount). Average optics, noticeable CA as you would expect from an achromat. But Goto was magical. Lack of a finder scope was a big limitation. Now I knew I wanted GoTo and reasonable aperture and that meant a SCT.
Bought a second hand Meade LX90-8" (alt-az mount) and loved it. Awesome scope. Did everything. Great views. Excellent gotos.
Then I got aperture fever, and bought a new Meade LX90-10" ACF … and it took 4 months to sort it out. The optics were good. But the mount was rubbery and would vibrate with the slightest touch. Eventually took it apart and found there were three silicone grommets where they shouldn't have been in the mount, on the flange between the base and the spindle. Removed them, removed the useless azimuthal scale, and spun down the base exterior where the scale used to sit (on a lathe), so that the mount could spin freely on azimuth when bolted together. It transformed the mount and it is now a great performer. Optics are excellent. Unguided tracking is near to perfect. Focal length is a bit too great but that is part of the SCT recipe.
The last scope I don't own (but have the use of) and that is the Evans 30" Dob at Linden Observatory. This scope is an awesome machine, and it has ruined me for smaller scopes. It is susceptible to wind, and it is so big that it takes two or three people to safely operate it. It won't drop below 10 degrees altitude, and you are climbing ladders to view anything over 20 degrees altitude. But it delivers views of astronomical objects that simply cannot be beaten visually.
Each of these scopes was / is deficient in some way. But each solved one more problem and showed me the way forward. I consider all of them good scopes.
Is there a worst scope ? I am not sure about this. As my physics teacher advised me forty years ago, "No experiment is a complete failure. You can always use it as a bad example."
Regards,
Tony Barry
Hi Tony,
Very interesting the direction that you went - GOTOs. I don't own a single GOTO telescope, because I went the other direction and just bought better finders, and used them in combination with red dot finders and Telrads.
The list of K-mart Focal 114mm owners has just increased again, I think you're the fifth or sixth on this thread.
Did you ever ask Meade what the story was with those grommets?
How's life in sunny Penrith? I used to visit it several times a year when I was working. Every now and then my mouth waters when I remember the plate hamburger meal I'd get at Panthers Bistro. Unfortunately, I was always flying so never took a telescope there, but used to enjoy seeing Deneb and Cygnus with binoculars, which is tougher to see down here.
Cheers,
Renato
Yep, had aperture fever too Tony, but it is always a trade off, particularly their cost. Large apertures are big and heavy, difficult to transport, unless, you have lots of money to set up trailers etc. Saw some awesome set ups at last years Stellafane.
The other downside is getting the mirror realuminised. I need to get my 16" realuminised, but I am thinking it might be easier just buying a new mirror, particularly considering that I cannot find anywhere that can realuminise it with an overcoat, at a reasonable cost, unless I send it to the states, but then freight is an issue.
Quote:
iI am getting too old to lug heavy stuff around any more, so portability s the main criteria these days.
I use my 16" from my back yard, just wheel it out of the shed, in suburban Perth, but I have much more enjoyment with my 110 in a dark sky! See much more too, compared to my 16" in the city, despite the smaller size. I also use an 8" SCT in my observatory, and even this is heavy for me to lug around too, which is why I got a Sirius observatory. I would love to replace the SCT with a large Apo refractor, but that isn't going to happen, unless, a miracle occurs, like winning Lotto, but I won't hold my breath.
The 110 set up just suits me now, not hard to transport and set up, has no maintenance requirements, has very sharp images, so I just take to dark sky sight, use and enjoy. It is certainly much more comfortable sitting in an observing chair, instead of balancing on top of a ladder.
Quote:
There comes a point when aperture stops being fun, particularly when you have a stuffed back.
Cheers Pete
Have to agree with you, Peter.
My TSA120 is right at the upper limit of portability for me, and even so, I have only used it once since I bought it due to medical problems!
The worst telescope I own is one of those tiny Celestron First Scopes that came out for the 2009 Year of Astronomy. It probably did more to damage amateur/recreational astronomy than anything else that year or since. I paid $20 for it on Ebay, and that was too much. Anyone who paid $90 or so dollars for it new, I suspect would have been bitterly disappointed.
At the time, it was either US Sky & Telescope or US Astronomy magazine that did a glowing review of it stating how good it was for such a price, and the sharp images it produced. Whichever magazine it was, it must have damaged its reputation, because yes you can get a barely sharp image, but only if the object you are looking at is held exactly in the centre of the field of view. Any slight movement away from the centre makes the star or planets start to distort shockingly, to the point of being abysmal at the edge of the field. Any pair of binoculars showed better images of the moon than this "telescope".
The only thing good about that telescope is that it looks pretty neat on top of a book shelf, and it impresses my friends' kids (though I won't let them look through it and ruin the illusion).
But the absolute worst telescope I've ever seen was two years before the Celestron First Scope came out when some friends spent several hundred dollars on a telescope to look at ships in the bay, and asked me to have a look at it, as something was wrong. The telescope was a Tasco Galaxsee 114mm reflector with a tube length half the size of what one usually sees, 500mm focal length from memory. They lent it to me, the images of stars were junk, I collimated it, the images were still junk. I made up little aperture masks which should have shown me several pin point dots of the stars, but instead showed huge flares/ little comet shapes aimed at the edge of the field.
What the Galaxsee in fact was, was the big brother of the later Celestron First Scope. I was really quite astounded. At the time, I'd actually been quite impressed with cheap Tasco refractors and Tasco long tube reflectors, as they were noticeably better than the cheap telescopes that were around 15 years earlier. I just couldn't believe that a company like Tasco could put their name on such a piece of junk, and charge big dollars for it.
What's the worst telescope you've owned or have seen through?
Regards,
Renato
Haven't looked through one and don't plan to, but the $79.95 70mm "525 power" refractor Kogan is flogging at the moment is isn't exactly going to give a lot of folks a lot of fun....
Sure, the Tak is unquestionably better, but is it three times better? How much do we pay for that little bit extra? Like anything, there are limits. Unfortunately, my bank says no! 
Funny that... had to "sell the farm" to buy the Takahashi - a life-time investment.
