I see a trend that when a new refractor of a new design is introduced, folks assume that the scope will be as fine as the very best that have been produced in the past. As if it isn't hard as heck to produce a fine optic.
Pictures of fine painted tubes seem especially to get the people to assume that the optics will be as good as the paint job. I don't get it.
When I take a chance on a new design, I scrutinize the optic and OTA very carefully. When I got an AP 160EDF I reserved judgment until the scope proved to me what it can do - sure I expected it to perform well but I didn't assume it would. There was no question that the designer and optician is a good one, it was not any stretch to believe the scope would be good.
But new designs from unproven designers and opticians are coming out, and people are already placing them on the same level as the expamples that have already shown themselves to be superlative.
I feel that reputations must be earned, not granted.
Pictures of fine painted tubes seem especially to get the people to assume that the optics will be as good as the paint job. I don't get it.
When I take a chance on a new design, I scrutinize the optic and OTA very carefully. When I got an AP 160EDF I reserved judgment until the scope proved to me what it can do - sure I expected it to perform well but I didn't assume it would. There was no question that the designer and optician is a good one, it was not any stretch to believe the scope would be good.
But new designs from unproven designers and opticians are coming out, and people are already placing them on the same level as the expamples that have already shown themselves to be superlative.
I feel that reputations must be earned, not granted.
