1.002X OCAPosted By Pat Gillies |
Hi Glen. Is this the same or similar item that Harry talks about in this post? I don't want to misquote so here it is in it's entirety.
"I had a unit similar to this on my web site about 3 months ago and have just taken it off not too long ago. It was a 1.05x. I rarely sold them. And mine was too long (4"+) and I found they stuck a little into the optical path. My unit required entirely too much intravel. My unit required a full inch of intravel. I may put it back on my web site just to offer it as an alternative. But I will probably recommend people stick with my 1.3x unless the lower mag is an absolute must. I never made it down to 1.0x although I was extremely close. I found the closer you got to 1x the harder it was to squeeze optical quality out of the unit.
Harry Siebert"
If it is, he doesn't seem too fond of his unit.
Pat G.
"I had a unit similar to this on my web site about 3 months ago and have just taken it off not too long ago. It was a 1.05x. I rarely sold them. And mine was too long (4"+) and I found they stuck a little into the optical path. My unit required entirely too much intravel. My unit required a full inch of intravel. I may put it back on my web site just to offer it as an alternative. But I will probably recommend people stick with my 1.3x unless the lower mag is an absolute must. I never made it down to 1.0x although I was extremely close. I found the closer you got to 1x the harder it was to squeeze optical quality out of the unit.
Harry Siebert"
If it is, he doesn't seem too fond of his unit.
Pat G.