New Eyepieces - adjusting expectations downward

[Saturninus]

In a previous posted, I asked for opinions on a new Explore Scientific 100 20mm eyepiece that appeared to have a dirty light baffle. I included a picture, which showed white residue on the inner baffle that showed up as reflections on the inner lens elements. Just about everyone commented that I should return the eyepiece...

And so I did. And then I received a replacement lens directly from the manufacturer. It was cleaner...but not as clean as I imagined it should be. A QC guy at the retailer gave me the impression that lots of eyepieces come this way. I was not inclined to believe him at first. But after receiving a replacement lens from the manufacturer that showed another dirty light baffle (less dirty than the first one, for sure), I am left to believe that these eyepieces, even with their less than pristine light baffles, are within ES build tolerances. I am also guessing that the impact on performance is not significant, despite being aesthetically displeasing.

But why? A Baader eyepiece that I received at the same time is pristine by comparison, and I had perceived Baader and ES to be in the same league. Also, an ES 11/82 I received was also pristine. I understand that the ES100 is a complex, challenging design, but I would have thought that making sure the light baffles are clean would be a relatively simple step in the manufacturing process.

So here are pictures of the lenses. The first is the original lens. You can see how dirty the light baffle is - the reflection of the white residue shows up clearly on the surface of the internal elements.   

The second is the replacement lens, sent directly from the manufacturer to replace the original. Much cleaner, but not pristine. Since this was sent by a customer service rep at ES, I'm guessing that this piece meets their production standards. I can live with this, as long as it doesn't hurt performance. It's just not what I expected. But oh well. 

The third picture is a Baader 36mm Aspheric. I couldn't help but be impressed with how clean it looks by comparison. 

Having said all that, I am happy with the view through the eyepiece, and I guess that's the important thing in the end. 

[Pig]

I agree with you I would not accept them in this condition, It makes the eyepieces look tatty and aged.  If they are within the manufacturing specification they need to listen to the customer and change the specification.

[Naemeth]

I think this may be a case of less QC to lead to a more competitive price. Not a good thing if you get a bad one that slips through.

[Moonshane]

the point of the baffle is partly at least to reduce or eliminate light scatter on bright objects. whilt as you say, the view is unlikely to be affected so that you'd notice, I feel that it is quite poor. I am not sure that they are dirty, rather have not been anodised/coated effectively.

[alan potts]

With the exception of the BGO's I have I am not that impressed with Baader stuff, the Vario Finder they do is rubbish.

Alan.

[Pig]

I have the Baader Steeltrack and Super Surfer V RDF and they are very well made & finished.  

I am not going to comment on the BGO I had

[John]

I think it's fair to say that any brand can let under par items slip through the net. What matters is how a vendor reacts when this is the case - it tends to separate out the good ones from the not so good ones !. 

I bought a used ES 20mm / 100 from an SGL member and it was in really excellent order, looking just like a new one should. That was the condition I sold it in as well. Even the replacement eyepiece you have been sent looks less than pristine to me. 

If the person responsible for QC at the retailer felt that these examples were OK and normal then I rather think they are in the wrong job !

[Saturninus]

The retailer was great. Called the manufacturer himself to arrange for an exchange. Even the customer service guy was good. He reached out to me sent a replacement right away.

Unfortunately, after all that, I didnt end up with the kind of pristine piece that one typically hopes for when making an investment of this kind. I'm guessing that optically it works fine. It's just somewhat disappointing. The same as if i had received an EP with a scratch on the outside metal barrel. Wont affect performance, but just not what you would expect from a factory new piece

[Reeny]

Although my 11mm 82 degree is perfect, I also have two MaxVisions from Explore Scientific.

I have one minor problem with them.

The filter threads have been coated with a soft black paint.

It means that:

a - the paint comes off (and makes a mess) the first time a filter is screwed in.

b - the barrel now has several mm of shiny stainless steel threads at the bottom, where the paint used to be.

c - the filters feel slack when being fitted into the enlarged threads.

It's a glitch I can live with.

But I would be horrified to pay full retail price and get soft, tatty painted surfaces which fall to bits during first use.

My remedy was to swap the barrel over with a better quality one from a £23 Revelation Plossl.