This lens looks terrible!

[coliea]

The link below was posted on the Burgess Refractors group stating that this Scopos looks identical to the Burgess 91 Triplet - the post was promptly removed. I'm sure we would have heard if the BO91 was using this lens but I think it is odd that the original post was pulled rather than Burgess defending their scope and explaining how it differs from the Scopos - the two look identical in every respect.

While the site is in German it seems pretty obvious (to me at least) how poor this lens is. You can use Google Translate for a rough English translation: http://tinyurl.com/2tw2n7

I was going to get one of the next batch of 91s, but now I'm not so sure. What do you guys think?

Col

[philsail1]

Yes, from the first picture of the "star" test, where the "intrafokal" and "extrafocal" (no translation needed here!!) clearly seem to show that there is something wrong with the quality of manufacture in this lens.

As to the other test photos - well I've heard of the term "Ronchi" but the interpretations are too technical for me.

At least they are giving an honest appraisal of the lens. Looks like one to avoid though.

Regards,

philsail1

[russ]

Not sure what to make of that. No doubt that lens tested looks a load of rubbish but is it really the Burgess lens? The Burgess has recieved positive reviews from the people who have used it. Ade Ashford being one of them.

Russ

[Ant]

A lot of that report wouldn't make much more sense to me if it were in English

But I do agree that it doesn't look good, but just how bad it actually is I couldn't say. But the inside and outside of focus images look particularly bad!

Ant

[EA2007]

What are you on about....thats a quality lens!

Ha ha, joke.

I thought German's were good at making things!

[Macavity]

Makes my ST102 look good. At least I get quite good diffraction rings on ONE side of focus.

Hmmmm... "Experimental(ist) Error"? :mrgreen:

[jcm]

I went straight to the STREHL ratio which is quoted as 0,162

I thought these ratios went from about 0.9 upwards and say 0.97 was perfect?

John

[coliea]

is it really the Burgess lens? The Burgess has recieved positive reviews from the people who have used it. Ade Ashford being one of them.

That was my take Rus - surely couldn't be the same lens Burgess are using.

[russ]

That was my take Rus - surely couldn't be the same lens Burgess are using.

indeed. Until i see or hear of any contrete evidence, i'll take those results as being fake or a completely different lens.

Russ