New Bresser 90mm f/13.3 - Unboxing and initial thoughts

[John]

Good to hear some positive stuff on performance anyway Chris

[Stu]

Interesting review so far Chris. I guess for the price it is hard to expect more, but it does sound a little too plasticky  

[Chris]

18 minutes ago, John said:

Good to hear some positive stuff on performance anyway Chris

Yes John, all good there I must say, I enjoyed the views!  

 

16 minutes ago, Stu said:

Interesting review so far Chris. I guess for the price it is hard to expect more, but it does sound a little too plasticky  

Hi Stu, I think you've hit the nail on the head! Bresser have clearly put every penny into the lens which is great in one way! Sadly I feel most people with scope experience under their belts would feel that the build is not fit for long term purpose, well, without replacing at least several components. The Bresser AR127L I had was so much better in this respect that this scope shocked me a bit when I unboxed it. I think Bresser should increase the price a bit and at least give the scope metal rings like the 102 version, and a bit more metal on the focuser and lens cell wouldn't go amiss too! 

Also I know the diagonal they include is only a starter diagonal, but Synta have them beat hands down on it! The Bresser diagonal has a chromed plastic nose piece and the mirror doesn't look that bright/reflective, and the thumb screw was difficult to turn like it was cutting a thread in the plastic.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Chris Lock

[Stu]

Any thoughts as to whether it will stay with you or go back Chris?

[John]

48 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

Also I know the diagonal they include is only a starter diagonal, but Synta have them beat hands down on it! The Bresser diagonal has a chromed plastic nose piece and the mirror doesn't look that bright/reflective, and the thumb screw was difficult to turn like it was cutting a thread in the plastic.

If it is of any consolation, that is the standard diagonal that used to be supplied with the larger ES refractors as well as the Meade AR5 and AR6. At one time the last scope cost £1K plus and it came with a £10 diagonal !

 

 

[RobertI]

Thanks for the update Chris. I like the pictures by the way, the action shot of the scope pointing at the moon, and the other shot with the dob peeping out from behind the shed door, as if trying to get into the picture too!

I guess for many of us, much of the joy is in the ownership, as well as in the use. It's a real shame that this scope is not yet giving you much ownership satisfaction. Really appreciate you being an 'early adopter' and trying this new scope out for the benefit of us all. 

[Chris]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Any thoughts as to whether it will stay with you or go back Chris?

My gut feeling is that it will be a bit too much hassle and cost upgrading the cradle to rings and a dovetail, and the focuser to metal versions. So I'm going to look at upgrading to one of Bresser's better scopes.

I might have been wrong to expect the same quality as the AR127L, but I'm hoping Bresser won't mind if I'm returning this scope to upgrade. This scope doesn't feel like it has longevity and that will just really bug me every time I use it....this is despite the optics being good from first impressions. Just too much plastic!!    

[Chris]

7 hours ago, John said:

If it is of any consolation, that is the standard diagonal that used to be supplied with the larger ES refractors as well as the Meade AR5 and AR6. At one time the last scope cost £1K plus and it came with a £10 diagonal !

 

 

 That's bad!

[Chris]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

Thanks for the update Chris. I like the pictures by the way, the action shot of the scope pointing at the moon, and the other shot with the dob peeping out from behind the shed door, as if trying to get into the picture too!

I guess for many of us, much of the joy is in the ownership, as well as in the use. It's a real shame that this scope is not yet giving you much ownership satisfaction. Really appreciate you being an 'early adopter' and trying this new scope out for the benefit of us all. 

Thanks Rob  I really do have a thing for classic refractors, so I had pinned my hopes on these scopes knowing they are rarely mass produced now days. I was really keen to be one of the first to review this scope in the hope that it would encourage others. I can't say it went the way I had hoped, but at least others considering the smaller of the two in the range will know what they are buying into now.

I must point out that the larger of the two scopes, the 102/1350 looks to be a much better proposition quality wise with it's metal rings, and focuser. I wished I had a mount that could cope with that one now.

Bresser: I'm guessing this was aimed as a first scope so people would not know any better in terms of quality, the optics are good and it is cheap, but please upgrade the spec of the 90mm, it's a very long scope and that plastic clamshell taken from your much shorter 90mm fracs just isn't right for it....how much more would it cost to sort this out?

I can't be doing with trying to find third party upgrades so it's going back.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Chris Lock

[Chris]

Oh ermm? what to exchange it with? 

I could upgrade to the 102/1350 and wait to upgrade my mount head (again), or I could opt for the 102/1000 which my mount would just about cope with as is.

[Mark at Beaufort]

Chris thanks for the very honest and detailed report on this scope . It would be interesting if a staff member of Telescope House read your review especially as they are owned (I believe) by Bresser. They could report back with your suggestions which makes very good sense because I would not be recommending this scope based on its current position.

[Starlight 1]

15 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

I can't be doing with trying to find third party upgrades so it's going back.

I do the same if something bug me I can not sleep  till its done and looking at what buging you it was made for toy r us.

[Timebandit]

 

Interesting and eye opening review. I suppose if you are on a budget and looking for a decent quality first scope, then from the optics point of view then Bresser has done there job from your initial impression. With the lower cost scope end of the market then you obviously do have to make compromises to allow such a scope to be sold at the price it is. The focuser and clam shell seem to of been the area where the price savings were achieved. I suppose when a SGL member of more advanced stages who have been used to handling and using many other scopes(probably at a much higher price point) has the product, then they are going to be far more critical of a scope and it's shortfall. A beginner on a budget may take a different view as they could have far less experience, and be happy with a lower priced refractor with decent optics, and live with the focuser and clam shell.

I think this is a just a prime example of "You get what you pay for"

[FenlandPaul]

Very interesting report, Chris. That's too bad that Bresser have compromised quality (though not on optics by the sound of it) to get this into a certain price bracket. The AR127L restored my faith in companies' willingness to produce a genuinely well-built and desireable product on a budget, and like you I'd assumed that USP would exist throughout the range. Plastic on a clamshell? Come on Bresser that's a poor show.

i think your decision to send it back is the right one. And your knowledgeable and specific feedback should be very valuable to them. It's disappointing but the alternative is to constantly wonder when those plastic bits will perish!

On the plus side, it does look like a lovely scope in those pictures! I can see why you'd need two Little Tikes cars to carry it around!

Paul

[Rick_It]

Hi, I had the opportunity to see both refractors in Paris last november.

There's a logic behind those scopes and I do not agree that Bresser has "compromised on quality". The 90mm is made to be as light as possible, to be used with EQ3.2 class mounts. The 102mm is the one with better mechanics (expecially the focuser), but you need a sturdier mounts (BARELY an EQ5). Just look at the weights: 2.8kg vs 5.3kg. The 102mm weights almost twice the 90mm!

Those are wise choices by Bresser because they differentiate the two scopes and they allow also people with cheap mount to use a long fl refractors. With metal clamps, hexafoc focuser and metal cell no way you could have used the 90mm on your mount. You would have ended up with a scope with a cost and a weight very similar to the 102, thus no reasons to buy it.

I also do not worry too much for the plastic lens cell: such long fl tollerates very well slightly miscollimation.

Then, it's up to you. Buy a new Exos 2 GOTO with the 102/1350 and you will definitely improve a lot. OR stick with the 90mm and save a lot of money!

Edited April 13, 2017 by Rick_It

[Chris]

9 minutes ago, Rick_It said:

Hi, I had the opportunity to see both refractors in Paris last november.

There's a logic behind those scopes and I do not agree that Bresser has "compromised on quality". The 90mm is made to be as light as possible, to be used with EQ3.2 class mounts. The 102mm is the one with better mechanics (expecially the focuser), but you need a sturdier mounts (BARELY an EQ5). Just look at the weights: 2.8kg vs 5.3kg. The 102mm weights almost twice the 90mm!

Those are wise choices by Bresser because they differentiate the two scopes and they allow also people with cheap mount to use a long fl refractors. With metal clamps, hexafoc focuser and metal cell no way you could have used the 90mm on your mount. You would have ended up with a scope with a cost and a weight very similar to the 102, thus no reasons to buy it.

I also do not worry too much for the plastic lens cell: such long fl tollerates very well slightly miscollimation.

Then, it's up to you. Buy a new Exos 2 GOTO with the 102/1350 and you will definitely improve a lot. OR stick with the 90mm and save a lot of money!

I see what you're saying, but if this is the case should Bresser mention somewhere that the scope is designed with light weight plastic materials so it can be used with light weight mounts?

 I don't really get that though? isn't it more length than weight which would make a scope unsuitable for light a mount? I don't think putting metal rings on this long scope would have made that much difference to the weight? so it still would have come in at 3 something kg right?, and it would have been more sturdy with less wobble!

I've had this scope on an EQ3 class mount as a 'make do' situation, but I'm not sure I would design a scope this long purposefully for an EQ3 class mount myself, it's interesting if you are right though? 

Why Exos 2 goto, as apposed to Exos 2, wouldn't that be cheaper? 

The scope feels like a toy to me unfortunately so it might take a bit of getting used too, I'm not happy with it, is this not a good reason to exchange it for something I'm happy with? Bresser need to put more info about these 'weight saving' features so buyers can be informed.

I've bought many Bresser/ES products and have always been very very pleased until now, maybe I just set the bar too high in which case I'll learn from it and not expect as much in future  

[John]

51 minutes ago, Rick_It said:

Hi, I had the opportunity to see both refractors in Paris last november.

There's a logic behind those scopes and I do not agree that Bresser has "compromised on quality". The 90mm is made to be as light as possible, to be used with EQ3.2 class mounts. The 102mm is the one with better mechanics (expecially the focuser), but you need a sturdier mounts (BARELY an EQ5). Just look at the weights: 2.8kg vs 5.3kg. The 102mm weights almost twice the 90mm!

Those are wise choices by Bresser because they differentiate the two scopes and they allow also people with cheap mount to use a long fl refractors. With metal clamps, hexafoc focuser and metal cell no way you could have used the 90mm on your mount. You would have ended up with a scope with a cost and a weight very similar to the 102, thus no reasons to buy it.

I also do not worry too much for the plastic lens cell: such long fl tollerates very well slightly miscollimation.

Then, it's up to you. Buy a new Exos 2 GOTO with the 102/1350 and you will definitely improve a lot. OR stick with the 90mm and save a lot of money!

It's not the weight but the tube length that determines the mounting requirements with these long refractors. Both are lightweight scopes but the tube length puts them both in a much higher mount bracket than a short tube design of the same weight.

A single plastic tube clamp is simply inadequate for a tube of the length of the 90mm / F/13.3 regardless of it's weight because of the moment arm forces that will be working on that clamp and through it to the mount and tripod head.

Saving money is one thing but if the mounting arrangements are inadequate for the scope design then it's going to lead to nothing but frustration or additional outlay. It's a poor choice by Bresser if the scopes will be returned by dissatisfied buyers (as they are entitled to do).

I have also seen both scopes at a show in the UK last October.

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by John

[Chris]

2 hours ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

Chris thanks for the very honest and detailed report on this scope . It would be interesting if a staff member of Telescope House read your review especially as they are owned (I believe) by Bresser. They could report back with your suggestions which makes very good sense because I would not be recommending this scope based on its current position.

Hi Mark, thanks, I think that's a good suggestion, so I will pass on the link to this thread with a message to Telescope House. I really rate Bresser in general so I hope they take my feedback in the right way  

I've emailed to ask about returning my scope, so just awaiting a reply.

[Chris]

2 hours ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

Chris thanks for the very honest and detailed report on this scope . It would be interesting if a staff member of Telescope House read your review especially as they are owned (I believe) by Bresser. They could report back with your suggestions which makes very good sense because I would not be recommending this scope based on its current position.

It is done, lets see what is said  

[Rick_It]

Payload for a mount is a combination of weight, diameter and lenght.

Just to make an extreme case, a 2mt thin stick could easily be carried by an EQ3.2; a C11, even if it is super-short, can't.

You can't compromise on lenght in a long focal fl refractor, but you can save on weight, and that's what Bresser has done.

As for the clamps, I do agree, they could be metal made. It does not change a lot for costs and weight. But, I guess, the general idea of Bresser is the one I said: make the 90mm as light and as inexpensive as possible to appeal also to beginner and small mount owner; differentiate instead the 102 making it as best as possible for long fl refractor lovers.

To answer a previous question: I would prefer a goto mount with a long focal fl refractor, because the hand knobs tend to get in tricky positions. I know what I'm talking about because I used a lot a TAL100 on a manual EQ3.2

Edited April 13, 2017 by Rick_It

[Chris]

5 hours ago, FenlandPaul said:

Very interesting report, Chris. That's too bad that Bresser have compromised quality (though not on optics by the sound of it) to get this into a certain price bracket. The AR127L restored my faith in companies' willingness to produce a genuinely well-built and desireable product on a budget, and like you I'd assumed that USP would exist throughout the range. Plastic on a clamshell? Come on Bresser that's a poor show.

i think your decision to send it back is the right one. And your knowledgeable and specific feedback should be very valuable to them. It's disappointing but the alternative is to constantly wonder when those plastic bits will perish!

On the plus side, it does look like a lovely scope in those pictures! I can see why you'd need two Little Tikes cars to carry it around!

Paul

Thanks Paul, yes the Bresser's AR127L is quite some scope for the money, and I think Bresser have some great products, but this 90/1200 isn't up there in my opinion. I totally agree the plastic clam shell is a bad move on a 1200mm scope, others may disagree and they are entitled to their opinion.  

I hope Bresser answer their emails so I can start the process of sending it back, nothing yet. Their super light weight plastic scope just isn't for me, they should really put this in their marketing specs so folks know! I think I'll change it for a conventionally made scope where the plastic doesn't perish and flex and the scope doesn't come crashing to the ground one day, these are my thoughts too!

The Bresser fracs are lovely in their clean white tubes, but the little tikes cars match this particular one in term of plastic    

[Chris]

Well I've got a response of sorts...I'll try another route!

Dear valued customer,
I am out of office from April 14th until April 17th 2017. 

This email will not be forwarded. 

Thank you for your attention.
Best regards

 

[John]

"Dear Valued Customer"

"This email will not be forwarded"

A bit contradictory ?

Not unusual though, sadly.

[Chris]

5 minutes ago, John said:

"Dear Valued Customer"

"This email will not be forwarded"

A bit contradictory ?

Not unusual though, sadly.

Yep! Also they are out the office from the 14th...but it's the 13th now so why not answer my question before the 14th?

I'm trying a few different people at Bresser email wise, hopefully one will help  

[John]

1 hour ago, Rick_It said:

 

Just to make an extreme case, a 2mt thin stick could easily be carried by an EQ3.2; a C11, even if it is super-short, can't.

 

Actually I don't think a 2 meter long scope could be at all stable on an EQ3-2 no matter how thin or light it is. The mount could carry the tube of course (ie: it would not collapse) but the scope would be virtually unseable because any movement in the tube is amplified by the length of the tube so the image through the eyepiece would shake and vibrate virtually all the time.

I owned this scope for a while. It was well within the weight limit of the EQ6 mount and the tripod had 3" steel tubed legs but even so the long tube (around 2 metres) created too much vibration at the eyepiece:

 

Anyway, I hope Chris sorts out an exchange or refund with Bresser quickly 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by John