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

[Roy Challen]

15 hours ago, Rick_It said:

I know what I'm talking about because I used a lot a TAL100 on a manual EQ3.2

I too used (still do) a TAL 100 on a EQ3-2 but found at high mags (anything over x125ish) that vibrations were borderline unacceptable. This was on a tripod that I made modifications in an attempt to reduce these vibrations. Eventually, I got a SkyTee 2 which was a massive improvement, then got a Takahashi 90S which is more like a HEQ5 or EQ6 in size. No more vibrations! Incidentally, my SkyLight (Prinz 660 - f16 f/l 1250) is a very light scope tube (but still 100% metal components) but wasn't happy on anything less than the SkyTee, and even on the Tak mount it still amplifies wind shake at high mags (over x150).

[Rick_It]

Roy, agree on the tripod. I made a very solid wood tripod; it made an enormous difference in terms of stability w.r.t. the alluminium one.

I was able to use it also at high mags in that way, but not with the standard tripod. Dampening time no more than 2 secs.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Rick_It

[Rusted]

Thanks for the honest and realistic review. 

Everything in life is a compromise. The dealer and wholesaler are expected to make a profit and then there's the freight and VAT. It doesn't leave much for the manufacturer to spend on making the instrument itself after they've paid their wages, taxes and heating bills.

Use this thread as an important lesson in OTA length V class of mounting. Bresser are not alone in hiding the great length of their refractors by using a ridiculously long drawtube. Vixen did it on their refractors at both ends even on their 90mm F/11. They hide a ridiculously extended lens cell inside a ridiculously stumpy dewshield. [Add dew, to taste!] And then use a ridiculous length of drawtube to reach focus even with a star diagonal. All, so they can use a much shorter main tube like it's a pretend Apo to the desperately wishful thinking.

Bottom line, for me, is to decide whether the objective lens quality of this 'scope really warrants scrapping everything except the nice lens in its cell. It really wants a longer alloy tube, proper rings and dovetail and a decent focuser. Now add in the cost of a much better commercial mounting, tripod or pier. Bresser only offers the illusion of a quality OTA to those expecting quality well above the asking price. Reality is [arguably] several hundred dead squid above the very low retail price.

Instead of buying a more expensive refractor I'd suggest using the plastic clam-shell to add a couple of plywood, altitude bearing disks. Then mount the Bresser on a Berry-style, counterbalanced, offset, plywood fork on a simple but solid wooden post pier tall enough to be really useful with a refractor. Years of fun at ridiculously low cost for what sounds like a fairly decent 90mm refractor lens. Add an ATM solar-foil filter for solar fun without the flames. Transits anybody? Add 'proper' rings and a couple of altitude bearing supports for serious support. The cast rings cost absolute peanuts whether new or secondhand! CNC really means massed produced by unskilled, bored and unhappy workers.

My generation would have given several kidneys apiece to own a half-decent 90mm achromat. The initial purchase is just the starting point of a lifetime of ATM improvement and free, manual skills training. Then there's the years of enjoyable observation brought to you by Bresser at remarkably low cost. Just think of the savings, spread over a lifetime, compared with chasing the endless, commercial rainbow of over-optimistic expectation and exploitation of those acquisitive desires!

[DRT]

On 13/04/2017 at 15:32, Chris Lock said:

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

 

That reads like an automated response, Chris, so I suspect it is simply their way of informing everyone in their email queue that they are closed for Easter. I think you'd get a similar message (perhaps with slightly friendlier wording) from most retailers at the moment.

I'm sure they will sort you out with a refund - if nothing else you have distance selling regulations on your side so you  have 14 days to return it without cause providing it is in mint condition and in the original packaging. 

 

On the subject of the clamshell v rings, I think most of the scopes from four or five decades ago that this is trying to emulate would have had a clamshell very similar in size to the one on this scope. Perhaps the choice was more to do with the retro look rather than practicality and ease of use? 

Best of luck

 

[nightfisher]

Im glad i did not give in and get the 102, i was very tempted for a day, i have been there before with very long fracs and i really do see why they are far less common nowadays, a big up to Bresser for doing these new models but a niche market

[DRT]

21 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Im glad i did not give in and get the 102, i was very tempted for a day, i have been there before with very long fracs and i really do see why they are far less common nowadays, a big up to Bresser for doing these new models but a niche market

I've just had a look on the Bresser website and the 102L seems to be a completely different animal to the 90L. No plastic bits, a decent looking 2" R&P focuser (looks better than the one they supply on the 127 and 152 AR models) and a similar cradle to the one that was on my 127L AR. 

€259 doesn't feel like a lot of money for that, particularly if the lens is as good as the one they fit to the 127L.

[John]

1 minute ago, DRT said:

I've just had a look on the Bresser website and the 102L seems to be a completely different animal to the 90L. No plastic bits, a decent looking 2" R&P focuser (looks better than the one they supply on the 127 and 152 AR models) and a similar cradle to the one that was on my 127L AR. 

€259 doesn't feel like a lot of money for that, particularly if the lens is as good as the one they fit to the 127L.

I've seen both the 90mm and the 102mm and that was my conclusion as well.

 

[nightfisher]

4 minutes ago, DRT said:

I've just had a look on the Bresser website and the 102L seems to be a completely different animal to the 90L. No plastic bits, a decent looking 2" R&P focuser (looks better than the one they supply on the 127 and 152 AR models) and a similar cradle to the one that was on my 127L AR. 

€259 doesn't feel like a lot of money for that, particularly if the lens is as good as the one they fit to the 127L.

TBH i think my scope buying days are over, had i gone for the 102 Bresser would i end up selling the 120ED? so i am sticking with what i have 

 

[ronin]

As a minor point on the coatings mentioned earlier, they should not be seen, in an ideal case. They are antireflection, so if they do their job and do not reflect any wavelength then everything goes into the lens and you see nothing.

If you see the classic purple it is because the the AR coating is designed for the green wavelength and so reflect a small amount or red and blue so appear purple. The "best" would be a sort of totally absorbtive surface so black. Only seen one even close and that was down at NPL on a lens they had. Nothing came off that lens surface - beauitiful.

In effect looking for colour and seeing any means some wavelength is being reflected, not the purpose of multilayer antireflection coatings.

[Mark at Beaufort]

4 minutes ago, DRT said:

I've just had a look on the Bresser website and the 102L seems to be a completely different animal to the 90L. No plastic bits, a decent looking 2" R&P focuser (looks better than the one they supply on the 127 and 152 AR models) and a similar cradle to the one that was on my 127L AR. 

€259 doesn't feel like a lot of money for that, particularly if the lens is as good as the one they fit to the 127L.

I agree Derek and I did fancy the 102L model simply because I currently don't have a refractor and the f13.3 frac and its price seemed a good deal. I am going to wait until the IAS in October when hopefully I will see it in the fresh. In making this decision I hope TH attend which was not the case at Astrofest.

[John]

12 minutes ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

I agree Derek and I did fancy the 102L model simply because I currently don't have a refractor and the f13.3 frac and its price seemed a good deal. I am going to wait until the IAS in October when hopefully I will see it in the fresh. In making this decision I hope TH attend which was not the case at Astrofest.

Do you recall seeing these scopes at the Stoneleigh show Mark ?

They looked from a distance like two giant white chopsticks

[Chris]

Just now, DRT said:

I've just had a look on the Bresser website and the 102L seems to be a completely different animal to the 90L. No plastic bits, a decent looking 2" R&P focuser (looks better than the one they supply on the 127 and 152 AR models) and a similar cradle to the one that was on my 127L AR. 

€259 doesn't feel like a lot of money for that, particularly if the lens is as good as the one they fit to the 127L.

Hi this is my point really, I had the AR127L for not that much more than this 90L (probably 100 quid more, think I paid 249 or something), and it was utterly great for the money - great lens, sturdy tube with solid metal rings and good metal focuser. When I looked at the 90L it looked proportional price wise, so I expected it to at least have a metal cradle, and kind of thought it would have a metal focuser too. They have basically took the plastic clamshell from their 90/500 and stuck it on their new 90/1200! Now that's just not thinking it through properly if you ask me, it just doesn't feel safe to use! If I keep it I'm going to fork out for rings and a long dovetail...all made of metal!

I should have spent the extra 85 quid and gone for the 102/1350 which is much much better made as you've noticed, Derek, same rings and handle as the AR127L and like you say at least as good focuser if not better for not much more at all.

My feedback for Bresser is to please put metal rings and a dovetail on such a looong scope, the plastic clamshell might work for the short tube version but not one nearly 3x longer! Please Bresser add the extra cost to the product, if this scope had metal rings and focuser I would happily pay more. If I do that to this scope with third party components it will cost me a fair bit more than the 102/1350 though, so now knowing how plastic this scope is i wish I'd bought the 102/1350 and (again) upgraded my mount head. I already have a steel tripod and a 16" solid pier extension (bought from you Derek  ) 

 

[DRT]

13 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

My feedback for Bresser is to please put metal rings and a dovetail on such a looong scope, the plastic clamshell might work for the short tube version but not one nearly 3x longer! Please Bresser add the extra cost to the product, if this scope had metal rings and focuser I would happily pay more. 

I think the problem with that, Chris, is that the order for many hundreds of these units would have gone to China many months ago and those plastic bits will currently be attached to OTAs in containers heading into the global supply chain. It is great to give the feedback, which is absolutely valid, but the supplier's ability to do anything about it will probably be severely limited.

I just noticed that FLO and TH are not yet listing these scopes. It might be worth drawing their attention to this thread or sending them your thoughts on the 90L as it might influence whether or not they want to stock it, or at least how they choose to market it.

A disgruntled end customer is one thing - a couple of top end retailers unwilling to stock your product is quite a different proposition

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by DRT

[DRT]

1 hour ago, DRT said:

That reads like an automated response, Chris, so I suspect it is simply their way of informing everyone in their email queue that they are closed for Easter. I think you'd get a similar message (perhaps with slightly friendlier wording) from most retailers at the moment.

I wasn't wrong...

Quote

Thank-you for contacting First Light Optics :-) 

Our office is closed for the Easter weekend. 

We will re-open Tuesday 18th April and will respond then at the earliest opportunity. 

Thank-you for your patience. 

Best wishes, 

Annette, Grant, James, Lisa, Martin, Olle, SteveB & SteveG. 

 

[John]

FLO's message is a little "warmer" though

[Chris]

6 hours ago, Rusted said:

Thanks for the honest and realistic review. 

Everything in life is a compromise. The dealer and wholesaler are expected to make a profit and then there's the freight and VAT. It doesn't leave much for the manufacturer to spend on making the instrument itself after they've paid their wages, taxes and heating bills.

I've bought a few Bresser products in recent years and have been surprised how good their kit is for the money. I know we're lucky to have such scopes so cheap so don't get me wrong, I'm only complaining within the context of their standards. If I'd purchased the scope from Toys R Us I would have definitely expected this level of finish. The fit and finish of the 90/1200 isn't up to their usual standard in my opinion, or that of similar priced Synta scopes because at least they have mainly metal components. Plastic just doesn't do it for me, it's nothing to do with the price I don't think, I would very happily pay a bit more for a metal clamshell/rings which would be fit for purpose. Bresser make good lenses, from the quick test so far this scope is no exception and put a smile on my face even though i was observing through thin cloud!  

 

6 hours ago, Rusted said:

 

Use this thread as an important lesson in OTA length V class of mounting. Bresser are not alone in hiding the great length of their refractors by using a ridiculously long drawtube. Vixen did it on their refractors at both ends even on their 90mm F/11. They hide a ridiculously extended lens cell inside a ridiculously stumpy dewshield. [Add dew, to taste!] And then use a ridiculous length of drawtube to reach focus even with a star diagonal. All, so they can use a much shorter main tube like it's a pretend Apo to the desperately wishful thinking.

 

 Interesting stuff, I don't really mind the large back focus, I see the benefit in making the tube a bit more storeable, it's no problem if there isn't any sag I guess. I just don't like the combo of plastic focuser and large back focus, it doesn't strike me as the best combo. If it was metal and strong it might be awesome, binoviewing without a glass path corrector anyone!  

 

7 hours ago, Rusted said:

 decide whether the objective lens quality of this 'scope really warrants scrapping everything except the nice lens in its cell. It really wants a longer alloy tube, proper rings and dovetail and a decent focuser. Now add in the cost of a much better commercial mounting, tripod or pier. Bresser only offers the illusion of a quality OTA to those expecting quality well above the asking price. Reality is [arguably] several hundred dead squid above the very low retail price.

I think it's a good lens, partly by virtue of it being f/13.3 where a good poly Strehl is more easily achieved. Good suggestion but I think it would be cheaper to swap for the 102/1350 where the errors of this scope seem to already be sorted. I have a good tripod from an HEQ5, and a 16" solid lump of a pier extenstion, I just grabbed the ali tripod for the quick test as it was already setup in that configuration. 

 

7 hours ago, Rusted said:

Instead of buying a more expensive refractor I'd suggest using the plastic clam-shell to add a couple of plywood, altitude bearing disks. Then mount the Bresser on a Berry-style, counterbalanced, offset, plywood fork on a simple but solid wooden post pier tall enough to be really useful with a refractor. Years of fun at ridiculously low cost for what sounds like a fairly decent 90mm refractor lens. Add an ATM solar-foil filter for solar fun without the flames. Transits anybody? Add 'proper' rings and a couple of altitude bearing supports for serious support.

This is a good idea, thanks  

 

7 hours ago, Rusted said:

The cast rings cost absolute peanuts whether new or secondhand! CNC really means massed produced by unskilled, bored and unhappy workers.

Bored = yes, unhappy = some of the time yes, unskilled = As an Ex CNC machinist I can't agree with you there  

 

8 hours ago, Rusted said:

My generation would have given several kidneys apiece to own a half-decent 90mm achromat. The initial purchase is just the starting point of a lifetime of ATM improvement and free, manual skills training. Then there's the years of enjoyable observation brought to you by Bresser at remarkably low cost. Just think of the savings, spread over a lifetime, compared with chasing the endless, commercial rainbow of over-optimistic expectation and exploitation of those acquisitive desires!

 I don't want to come across as ungrateful, I know we live in very good times when it comes to astro kit and scopes. As said, it's mainly the plastic clamshell I would love Bresser to change on these. I don't think it would be a costly change for a big difference to the finish and quality of the scope. I guess I just don't get their thinking behind it. I could ATM it, I've done some ATM over the years, but it would be cheaper to upgrade to their 102/1350, and I do have 3 young kids so my ATM time is short now days! 

[John]

I'm wondering if Bresser had a challenge with the 90mm. Produced to the same fittings and finish standard as the 102mm I reckon the production costs of the two scopes would have been very nearly the same. Bresser realised that pricing the 2 scopes close to each other would mean that most folks would go for the 102mm and the 90mm would stuggle to sell in any volume. So they had to reduce the production cost of the 90mm to get a more attractive price differential.

Celestron faced the same problem with the C5 sct. Apparently it's production costs were pretty much the same as the C8 but the retail price had to be quite a bit less otherwise it would not sell so the margin in the C5 was very slim. Celestron stuck with the same production quality / fit and finish on both scopes and lived with the C5 not being a money spinner for them.

Bresser wanted to avoid this, hence the differences between the 90mm and the 102mm.

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by John

[Chris]

38 minutes ago, DRT said:

I think the problem with that, Chris, is that the order for many hundreds of these units would have gone to China many months ago and those plastic bits will currently be attached to OTAs in containers heading into the global supply chain. It is great to give the feedback, which is absolutely valid, but the supplier's ability to do anything about it will probably be severely limited.

I just noticed that FLO and TH are not yet listing these scopes. It might be worth drawing their attention to this thread or sending them your thoughts on the 90L as it might influence whether or not they want to stock it, or at least how they choose to market it.

A disgruntled end customer is one thing - a couple of top end retailers unwilling to stock your product is quite a different proposition

 

Oh yeah, there is that, erm? probably too late then as you say 

I've emailed TH the other day, and plan on mentioning this to Steve @FLO.....there we go  

good end point, they can't ignore the retailers, that is if they agree with me on this? I guess what is acceptable is subjective, I don't think I'm that fussy am I? I would be interested to hear what Steve thinks of a plastic clamshell on a 1200mm long scope? 

 

[Chris]

1 hour ago, ronin said:

As a minor point on the coatings mentioned earlier, they should not be seen, in an ideal case. They are antireflection, so if they do their job and do not reflect any wavelength then everything goes into the lens and you see nothing.

If you see the classic purple it is because the the AR coating is designed for the green wavelength and so reflect a small amount or red and blue so appear purple. The "best" would be a sort of totally absorbtive surface so black. Only seen one even close and that was down at NPL on a lens they had. Nothing came off that lens surface - beauitiful.

In effect looking for colour and seeing any means some wavelength is being reflected, not the purpose of multilayer antireflection coatings.

I do need to read up on coatings I bit more I feel, thanks for the info  

[DRT]

38 minutes ago, John said:

FLO's message is a little "warmer" though

I said friendlier, you said warmer - tomaeto / tomato - lets call the whole thing off...

 

[Chris]

10 minutes ago, John said:

I'm wondering if Bresser had a challenge with the 90mm. Produced to the same fittings and finish standard as the 102mm I reckon the production costs of the two scopes would have been very nearly the same. Bresser realised that pricing the 2 scopes close to each other would mean that most folks would go for the 102mm and the 90mm would stuggle to sell in any volume. So they had to reduce the production cost of the 90mm to get a more attractive price differential.

Celestron faced the same problem with the C5 sct. Apparently it's production costs were pretty much the same as the C8 but the retail price had to be quite a bit less otherwise it would not sell so the margin in the C5 was very slim. Celestron stuck with the same production quality / fit and finish on both scopes and livved with the C5 not being a money spinner for them.

Bresser wanted to avoid this, hence the differences between the 90mm and the 102mm.

 

Hi John, that makes a lot of sense, it could well have been the case. If so I feel they probably just took it a bit too far. Very interesting info on the C5 verses C8 costs, I had no idea.

[DRT]

24 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

Hi John, that makes a lot of sense, it could well have been the case. If so I feel they probably just took it a bit too far. Very interesting info on the C5 verses C8 costs, I had no idea.

Me neither, and having recently bought a new C5 I am very happy to know this ?

[Stub Mandrel]

On 13/04/2017 at 14:46, Rick_It said:

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

I'd agree, my 150PL is a 1200mm Newtonian weighs 5.9 kilos and is quite happy on my EQ3-2.

[John]

16 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I'd agree, my 150PL is a 1200mm Newtonian weighs 5.9 kilos and is quite happy on my EQ3-2.

I guess we all must have different views / experiences on this. I had a Skywatcher Evostar 120 F/8.3 refractor on an EQ3-2 once, with the HEQ5 steel tube tripod, and the scope vibrated a lot when the magnfication got over 120x or so. It took ages to settle down which got in the way of observing at high power. 

A 5" SCT on the same mount was really solid.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by John

[Stub Mandrel]

9 hours ago, John said:

I guess we all must have different views / experiences on this.

I do have a steel tripod, but I image most of the time. With Jupiter on a computer screen at 2400mm focal length with x2 barlow it sits nice and steady on the screen (if the seeing is ok!) I can't say that I've found vibration an issue when using it visually though. It was poor with the original, unmodified tripod. That said I have never used a bigger scope or heavier tripod, only punier ones so perhaps I'm more tolerant?