54 replies to this topic

[MrJones]

Anybody know if this apo is Kunming? It's not a Sharpstar, I'm pretty certain.

 

http://www.teleskop-...PA-focuser.html

 

The price seems very low for an FPL-53 triplet with a 130mm aperture.

 

You can tell pretty quickly from the rings and a little from the focuser.

 

http://www.sharpstar...p?c=msg&id=134

 

Very happy with my Sharpstar as are apparently pretty much everyone that has one.

[WilRobinson]

When I ordered my APM the Customs fees were in the 6-7% range, the same as sales tax if I bought it locally.

[stevew]

 

 

It is a Kunming.  Though listed as being FPL-53, no one else selling the Kunming f/7 130mm offers a model using FPL-53.  While you might be able to substitute like glasses such as FPL-51 and KFK-61, swapping out the FPL-51 center element for an FPL-53 element does not work.  The rest of the OG would have to be modified to accommodate the change, and doing such custom design work for a single model sold by a single rebrander ought to cost much, much more than the standard model using cheaper ED glass.

 

My assumption is either (a) TS made a mistake in the listing, (b) TS' supplier mis identified the OG composition in something it sent TS, or © TS bought a handful of prototype units that were never made into official models from Kunming at a very low price, and is able to pass along the savings.

 

 

 

Jim

 

Misinformation about glass types from common re-branders does not surprise me.

when I purchased my Kunming, Orion labeled 110 ED F-7 doublet on the used market I could not find very much information about it.

I found another one labeled as a Levenhuk 110mm ED-F-7, that looked identical to my Orion Premium 110ED and started asking Levenhuk a few questions about it.

https://www.levenhuk...ed-doublet-ota/#

 

Someone else on their web site asked Levenhuk if the ED glass in their scope was FPL53, and they responded that it was FPL53.

 

I asked them if it was manufactured by Kunming and Levenhuk was a little evasive with their responses.

 

I just can`t understand how Kunming could make a 110 mm FK61 based doublet for Orion, and a 110mm FPL53 based doublet for Levenhuk both with the exact same focal length and focuser and have both scopes retail for a similar price.  

In my opinion It`s just not happening....

 

Don`t get me wrong, my Kunming 110ED is a robust little scope, and the FK61 lens is very well corrected. I use it all time, as it`s faster to set up and cools faster than my 130mm triplet. And for the price I paid for it, i`m not too concerned about dew spots or thermal shock in cold weather.

But why all the mystery...

Kunming United makes great products at a reasonable retail price, and is a wonderful alternative to the higher priced premium apochromats.

It`s a little like enjoying a nice sparkling wine, with out having to pay the price of the Dom Perignon.

 

Do your homework, ask lots of questions from other observers with similar scopes, and caveat emptor.

 

Steve

[Odin Exodus]

Some companies have higher operational costs. If the item costs them $100, what do they need to mark it up in order to cover those costs and what percentage of profit do they need to justify being in business. For some companies, they can get away with retailing that item for $300, others $600, and even more at $1000. It all depends on the bottom line - that's why prices vary wildly for similar spec items - not just telescopes. 

[JonM]

 

My guess would be Sharpstar as their components are used by Stellarvue and Telescope Service.  Not aware of any direct vendor for them available in the USA.  Stellarvue does their own grading of the objective elements for quality control.

Stellarvue also sells lots of Kunming scopes, rebranded.  More Kunming creations, probably, than Sharpstar.

 

My sense is that Kunming is larger and tends to make more lower end and mid ranged products than high end - i.e., volume lines.  Sharpstar seems more focused on upper mid range scopes using more costly materials, often targeted at imagers.

 

I wouldn't put too much credence in rebrander claims of optics testing and the like.  There are only so many hours in a year and once a rebrander is selling several thousand units a year, short of having a time machine, quaint notions of comprehensive testing of each unit seem rather improbable and uneconomic.

 

It's the manufacturer's QC that matters since they, unlike the rebrander, actually have the knowledge, skill and equipment to design and manufacture the optics - testing being an integral task of optics manufacturing.  Rebranders are like automotive dealerships.  No one believes that the dealership plays a material role in the design and engineering of the vehicles they sell.  Some dealers, though, are able to service the models they sell, in house.

 

Having owned scopes from both companies, in general I think the Sharpstars are better figured though the Kunmings have gotten quite good.  They weren't always as good though.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

Jim,

 

What evedence do you have that Stellarvue is lying about their claim to test their sourced lenses? You imply that they do not do what they say they do. That is really not fair unless you have some personal experience or PROOF. I don't think Stellarvue would go the expense of purchasing a state of the art machine for testing lenses and then not use it. The test report provided by Stellarve comes from somewhere and I don't think they would simply fake it, do you?

[AussieScopey]

A friend of mine imported from hands on optics an Astro  telescopes f11 planet killer I think made by Kunming. I was lucky enough to end up with it myself for $350 aus. I must say that its  optical performance is superb when it comes to double stars with very little colour, exceptional with Zeiss ortho  eyepieces used in it. It is also very good on everything else as well, except for DSO"S , I won't be parting with it anytime soon.

                                                               Aussie scopey

[Bobaboe]

 

 

My guess would be Sharpstar as their components are used by Stellarvue and Telescope Service.  Not aware of any direct vendor for them available in the USA.  Stellarvue does their own grading of the objective elements for quality control.

Stellarvue also sells lots of Kunming scopes, rebranded.  More Kunming creations, probably, than Sharpstar.

 

My sense is that Kunming is larger and tends to make more lower end and mid ranged products than high end - i.e., volume lines.  Sharpstar seems more focused on upper mid range scopes using more costly materials, often targeted at imagers.

 

I wouldn't put too much credence in rebrander claims of optics testing and the like.  There are only so many hours in a year and once a rebrander is selling several thousand units a year, short of having a time machine, quaint notions of comprehensive testing of each unit seem rather improbable and uneconomic.

 

It's the manufacturer's QC that matters since they, unlike the rebrander, actually have the knowledge, skill and equipment to design and manufacture the optics - testing being an integral task of optics manufacturing.  Rebranders are like automotive dealerships.  No one believes that the dealership plays a material role in the design and engineering of the vehicles they sell.  Some dealers, though, are able to service the models they sell, in house.

 

Having owned scopes from both companies, in general I think the Sharpstars are better figured though the Kunmings have gotten quite good.  They weren't always as good though.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

Jim,

 

What evedence do you have that Stellarvue is lying about their claim to test their sourced lenses? You imply that they do not do what they say they do. That is really not fair unless you have some personal experience or PROOF. I don't think Stellarvue would go the expense of purchasing a state of the art machine for testing lenses and then not use it. The test report provided by Stellarve comes from somewhere and I don't think they would simply fake it, do you?

 

 

Well.....?

Edited by Bobaboe, 17 January 2016 - 02:03 PM.

[Bobaboe]

Crickets bump in the face of the request for proof...

[jrbarnett]

Some companies have higher operational costs. If the item costs them $100, what do they need to mark it up in order to cover those costs and what percentage of profit do they need to justify being in business. For some companies, they can get away with retailing that item for $300, others $600, and even more at $1000. It all depends on the bottom line - that's why prices vary wildly for similar spec items - not just telescopes. 

However in this case, the folks selling "FPL-53" versions of scopes which from all the rest are listed as either FPL-51 or HFK-61, tend to be the tinier of the rebranders (selling dozens or hundreds of units a year as opposed to thousands).  Normally in the OEM rebrander model the guy who commits to buy the most gets the best price, and the guy who buys the least pays the highest cost.

 

On top of the "economies of scale" problem, you have the fact that FPL-53 blanks of a given quality are at least 4x more expensive than FPL-51 blanks of like quality, and sometimes even more  (higher grades and/or larger sizes have an even greater multiplier of cost), which means that even if the companies were buying on a level playing field in terms of the margin they pay to the manufacturer, it wouldn't make a lick of sense that anyone (big or little guy) could buy FPL-53 scopes of a given set of specs at a price that would allow it to profitably sell the same at the price the other guys are asking for FPL-51 scopes.

 

On the other hand, let's not forget greed.  Very clearly the guys selling the FPL-51 versions and admitting to the fact that the scope uses FPL-51 or similar rather than FPL-53, charge a wide spectrum of prices.  If you want the "most honest dealer" look at Astro-Tech.  They have the lowest pricing on these scopes, and presumably have elected to make the smallest profit margin of the bunch (Meade, TS, Stellarvue, Altair, etc.), perhaps in an effort to make up the difference by selling accessories for the scopes or perhaps in a bid to make it up on volume.  In any case I *suppose* that it is possible that the other sellers of these scopes are SOOOOOOOOOOO greedy that they have marked them up enough than an honest reseller of a thin-margin FPL-53 version might be able to sell near their price.

 

But under no alignment of the stars and planets would the least greedy FPL-51 seller and FPL-53 seller be able to sell at the same price without the FPL-53 seller losing quite a bit of money per unit.

 

It's a real puzzle.  One other data point is this.  These are all pretty clearly Kunming OTAs.  It's possible that the optics in some come from another source, but Kunming does not list nor has it ever offered to the best of my knowledge any FPL-53 designs.  FPL-53 is a lot harder to work with than FPL-51 because it's a much softer and more fragile glass.  From a design perspective, too, you can't simply swap in an FPL-53 element in place of an FPL-51 element in a given design and have a viable scope.  OGs using FPL-53 would have to be purpose designed for that glass and custom designs cost additional money compared to taking a maker's off the shelf designs.

 

I've pretty much shared my misgivings about these apparently bargain (as in sold-at-a-deep-loss) priced "FPL-53" Kunmings on this and a few other threads.  I'll leave it with the following advice - Caveat emptor.

 

- Jim 

[jrbarnett]

 

 

My guess would be Sharpstar as their components are used by Stellarvue and Telescope Service.  Not aware of any direct vendor for them available in the USA.  Stellarvue does their own grading of the objective elements for quality control.

Stellarvue also sells lots of Kunming scopes, rebranded.  More Kunming creations, probably, than Sharpstar.

 

My sense is that Kunming is larger and tends to make more lower end and mid ranged products than high end - i.e., volume lines.  Sharpstar seems more focused on upper mid range scopes using more costly materials, often targeted at imagers.

 

I wouldn't put too much credence in rebrander claims of optics testing and the like.  There are only so many hours in a year and once a rebrander is selling several thousand units a year, short of having a time machine, quaint notions of comprehensive testing of each unit seem rather improbable and uneconomic.

 

It's the manufacturer's QC that matters since they, unlike the rebrander, actually have the knowledge, skill and equipment to design and manufacture the optics - testing being an integral task of optics manufacturing.  Rebranders are like automotive dealerships.  No one believes that the dealership plays a material role in the design and engineering of the vehicles they sell.  Some dealers, though, are able to service the models they sell, in house.

 

Having owned scopes from both companies, in general I think the Sharpstars are better figured though the Kunmings have gotten quite good.  They weren't always as good though.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

Jim,

 

What evedence do you have that Stellarvue is lying about their claim to test their sourced lenses? You imply that they do not do what they say they do. That is really not fair unless you have some personal experience or PROOF. I don't think Stellarvue would go the expense of purchasing a state of the art machine for testing lenses and then not use it. The test report provided by Stellarve comes from somewhere and I don't think they would simply fake it, do you?

 

I'm not questioning claims that they and other dealers test the OEM optics they procure Jon.  I'm just pointing out that you know nothing about the testing they actually do, what criteria they use for each test, who actually performs the test and what that tester's qualifications are to do meaningful testing.

 

Short of evidence that the testing performed is credible and effective, I advise not putting too much faith in such claims.  Absent much more information about the particulars, they are in the realm not of deceit but rather marketing.  Let's not forget that Stellarvue sold a whole lot of "80mm" scopes back in the day with overly long focuser tubes causing the scopes to operate at ~63mm of clear aperture.  It is the true knowledge and capabilities of the manufacturer that really matter, not what the manufacturer says in rather vague terms about their capabilities and processes.

 

But the topic of this post is whether Sharpstar or Kuming make better scopes.  Based on independent, objective bench tests - far more credible than dealer claims IMO - the Sharpstars generally test better than the Kunmings, no matter who lovingly "triple tests" the scopes.  

 

Kunming:

 

http://astro-foren.d...61087#post61087

 

FPL-51 triplet (mistakenly listed as and LZOS optic; it's not as you can plainly see from the cell and lens coatings, though the mistake is an honest one by the tester who points to dealer message board claims suggesting it's an LZOS lens).

 

Just 1/5 wave.

 

Sharpstar:

 

http://astro-foren.d...O-fast-perfekt/

 

1/8 wave.

 

Regards,

 

Jim 

Edited by jrbarnett, 18 January 2016 - 08:18 PM.

[JonM]

"I'm not questioning claims that they and other dealers test the OEM optics they procure Jon.  I'm just pointing out that you know nothing about the testing they actually do, what criteria they use for each test, who actually performs the test and what that tester's qualifications are to do meaningful testing."

 

Well Jim, I don't know any of that information about my TEC 140 or the AP130GTs I have owned either.  I do know from people who have visited Stellarvue, that they do have a newer Zygo tester and, I would assume they actually bought it to use it. If the certification they provide for the tests were to be found in error, I would expect that fact to be widely advertised on this and other forums but, I have seen no such accusations from anyone.

 

As for relying on the original manufacturer in China to do quality control, all I can say is that from my own experience with Chinese good of all types, I would not be satisfied with relying on them alone.  As you pointed out, some dealers (Stellarvue for one) can and do perform repairs, buyback used scopes, and provide good customer support. Astro-Tech has extremely limited ability to perfrom repairs. As for buying direct from China, that is not an option I would choose under any circumstances. So, in looking for a reasonably priced apchromatic refractor and not wanting to pay for the "A" teams scopes, one would most likely choose a reseller who has a business in the U.S., provides QC on the scopes they sell, and is able to provide service after the sale without having to ship one's scopes to China.  How much more do you have to pay for this choice? I don't know but, I do not think it's much of a difference after you figure shipping and duty.

 

Regards,

 

Jon

[jrbarnett]

"I'm not questioning claims that they and other dealers test the OEM optics they procure Jon.  I'm just pointing out that you know nothing about the testing they actually do, what criteria they use for each test, who actually performs the test and what that tester's qualifications are to do meaningful testing."

 

Well Jim, I don't know any of that information about my TEC 140 or the AP130GTs I have owned either.  I do know from people who have visited Stellarvue, that they do have a newer Zygo tester and, I would assume they actually bought it to use it. If the certification they provide for the tests were to be found in error, I would expect that fact to be widely advertised on this and other forums but, I have seen no such accusations from anyone.

 

As for relying on the original manufacturer in China to do quality control, all I can say is that from my own experience with Chinese good of all types, I would not be satisfied with relying on them alone.  As you pointed out, some dealers (Stellarvue for one) can and do perform repairs, buyback used scopes, and provide good customer support. Astro-Tech has extremely limited ability to perfrom repairs. As for buying direct from China, that is not an option I would choose under any circumstances. So, in looking for a reasonably priced apchromatic refractor and not wanting to pay for the "A" teams scopes, one would most likely choose a reseller who has a business in the U.S., provides QC on the scopes they sell, and is able to provide service after the sale without having to ship one's scopes to China.  How much more do you have to pay for this choice? I don't know but, I do not think it's much of a difference after you figure shipping and duty.

 

Regards,

 

Jon

What puzzles me about the Zygo is why, if they in fact test every unit they ship on the Zygo, they don't provide a print out of the test results with each of those scopes?  The only scopes that come with the Zygo print out are the ones for which the Chinese manufacturer offers a Zygo print out with, same as other dealers selling the same scopes with the same distinctive Zygo reports (see for example Altair Astro).

 

Actual Stellarvue (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.cloudynig...-svr102t-25sv/#

 

Actual Altair Astro (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.altairast...-report-lrg.jpg

 

Note how different the report reproduced on SV's website looks compared to the one delivered with the scope:

 

http://cdn3.bigcomme...pg?t=1417913508

 

http://www.stellarvu...r-sv080st-25sv/

 

So honestly I do not know how Stellarvue uses the Zygo and where the limited number of reports they do include with scopes actually come from.  But it would seem to be a great differentiator if they were able to ship their own interferometric test results with each scope.  And if they are already running the test (one of the triple tests) on each unit, the printing step would seem to be rather trivial in terms of extra effort.  Do you know how the interferometer is used by the company?

 

Regards,

 

Jim

Edited by jrbarnett, 23 January 2016 - 04:04 PM.

[121601]

 

What puzzles me about the Zygo is why, if they in fact test every unit they ship on the Zygo, they don't provide a print out of the test results with each of those scopes?  The only scopes that come with the Zygo print out are the ones for which the Chinese manufacturer offers a Zygo print out with, same as other dealers selling the same scopes with the same distinctive Zygo reports (see for example Altair Astro).

 

 

Actual Stellarvue (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.cloudynig...-svr102t-25sv/#

 

Actual Altair Astro (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.altairast...-report-lrg.jpg

 

Note how different the report reproduced on SV's website looks compared to the one delivered with the scope:

 

http://cdn3.bigcomme...pg?t=1417913508

 

http://www.stellarvu...r-sv080st-25sv/

 

I know from an observing partner (recent SV purchase) that 2 test data are actually sometimes provided with the scope.  You can contact the owner of the
SV 4 inch scope owner you reference about this.  Also, I do not know what model of Mark XX??  Zygo interferometer Stellarvue uses and what compatible software is used to display/generate the final data.  Many of these test results can be generated from generic free software (e.g. AstroFringe ) so it may not be possible to always tell who did, or which or where the test (equipment) was actually performed.  In any case,  the real issue you are really bringing out again and once more is Vic's integrity, which is already a somewhat saturated topic in this forum for sometime now.

[William Mc]

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

[OrionSword]

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

 

Mine was plotted for my objective serial#, .981 strehl and included the accompanying surface mapping which deviated from the sample at their site.  Of course I am not qualified to interpret what these values mean.

[Beechnut]

Anyone have any idea which manufacture actually makes the new Stellarvue SV70T?

 

http://www.stellarvu...or-sv070t-25sv/

[jrbarnett]

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

 

 

 

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

 

Mine was plotted for my objective serial#, .981 strehl and included the accompanying surface mapping which deviated from the sample at their site.  Of course I am not qualified to interpret what these values mean.

 

Interesting gentlemen.  You each have the same model scope, but received two different formats of test reports.  Any way you could scan or snap a cell-phone photo of the reports and upload it to this thread so we can see the different formats?

 

Thanks!

 

- Jim

[William Mc]

Well, as I said my format is exactly like the one on  the Stellarvue site for the 80MM. and it also was tied to the objective serial #. ( the one you linked too.)

[jrbarnett]

Well, as I said my format is exactly like the one on  the Stellarvue site for the 80MM. and it also was tied to the objective serial #. ( the one you linked too.)

This one?

 

http://cdn3.bigcomme...pg?t=1417913508

 

If "yes" where on yours does the serial number appear?  The linked report doesn't appear to have a serial number field.

 

Thanks!

 

Regards,

 

Jim

Edited by jrbarnett, 24 January 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[chonum]

 

"I'm not questioning claims that they and other dealers test the OEM optics they procure Jon.  I'm just pointing out that you know nothing about the testing they actually do, what criteria they use for each test, who actually performs the test and what that tester's qualifications are to do meaningful testing."

 

Well Jim, I don't know any of that information about my TEC 140 or the AP130GTs I have owned either.  I do know from people who have visited Stellarvue, that they do have a newer Zygo tester and, I would assume they actually bought it to use it. If the certification they provide for the tests were to be found in error, I would expect that fact to be widely advertised on this and other forums but, I have seen no such accusations from anyone.

 

As for relying on the original manufacturer in China to do quality control, all I can say is that from my own experience with Chinese good of all types, I would not be satisfied with relying on them alone.  As you pointed out, some dealers (Stellarvue for one) can and do perform repairs, buyback used scopes, and provide good customer support. Astro-Tech has extremely limited ability to perfrom repairs. As for buying direct from China, that is not an option I would choose under any circumstances. So, in looking for a reasonably priced apchromatic refractor and not wanting to pay for the "A" teams scopes, one would most likely choose a reseller who has a business in the U.S., provides QC on the scopes they sell, and is able to provide service after the sale without having to ship one's scopes to China.  How much more do you have to pay for this choice? I don't know but, I do not think it's much of a difference after you figure shipping and duty.

 

Regards,

 

Jon

What puzzles me about the Zygo is why, if they in fact test every unit they ship on the Zygo, they don't provide a print out of the test results with each of those scopes?  The only scopes that come with the Zygo print out are the ones for which the Chinese manufacturer offers a Zygo print out with, same as other dealers selling the same scopes with the same distinctive Zygo reports (see for example Altair Astro).

 

Actual Stellarvue (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.cloudynig...-svr102t-25sv/#

 

Actual Altair Astro (Kunming) Zygo report:

 

http://www.altairast...-report-lrg.jpg

 

Note how different the report reproduced on SV's website looks compared to the one delivered with the scope:

 

http://cdn3.bigcomme...pg?t=1417913508

 

http://www.stellarvu...r-sv080st-25sv/

 

So honestly I do not know how Stellarvue uses the Zygo and where the limited number of reports they do include with scopes actually come from.  But it would seem to be a great differentiator if they were able to ship their own interferometric test results with each scope.  And if they are already running the test (one of the triple tests) on each unit, the printing step would seem to be rather trivial in terms of extra effort.  Do you know how the interferometer is used by the company?

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

 

The two first reports arez Atmos. Using fringe tracing interferometry, it's results are usually very optimistic and not considered as reliable when compared to Open Fringe that is much serious in FFT analysis.

 

The two last reports are real Zygo metropro reports.

[William Mc]

 

Well, as I said my format is exactly like the one on  the Stellarvue site for the 80MM. and it also was tied to the objective serial #. ( the one you linked too.)

This one?

 

http://cdn3.bigcomme...pg?t=1417913508

 

If "yes" where on yours does the serial number appear?  The linked report doesn't appear to have a serial number field.

 

Thanks!

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

 

 

Yes that's the one.  Objective group serial number is hand written at the top of the report.  (Different than the scope SN  BTW)  Additional  documents show that the scope with my SN was built using the Lens SN that's on the Zygo report.

Edited by Wmacky, 25 January 2016 - 08:06 AM.

[OrionSword]

 

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

 

 

 

My test report I just received with my SV scope was the same format as on their site.  98.4 Strelh no less

 

Mine was plotted for my objective serial#, .981 strehl and included the accompanying surface mapping which deviated from the sample at their site.  Of course I am not qualified to interpret what these values mean.

 

Interesting gentlemen.  You each have the same model scope, but received two different formats of test reports.  Any way you could scan or snap a cell-phone photo of the reports and upload it to this thread so we can see the different formats?

 

Thanks!

 

- Jim

 

 

Hi Jim,

 

When I stated it deviated from the sample at the Stellarvue site I meant the numbers readout, not the format.  The serial# of the objective is hand written on the report.

[patta]

Late addition to this thread

From browsing on Taobao and other Chinese retailers, appear that Sharpstar products are priced about 10% more than similar Sky-Rover (UO).

Can't do exact comparison as their models are not identical.

 

In China those models retail for about 70% of the price asked by TS and APM.

The 30% surcharge from european retailers seems reasonable for shipping, import charge and service.  Strangely, Sky-Watcher ED refractors cost more in Shanghai than in Europe.

I looked at 60mm - 80mm ED and Apo refractors.

 

Sharpstar advertise on almost all their models Ohara FPL-53 glass

Sky-Rover, they write "Japanese super ED"  for some models, but don't tell exactly which grade or brand.

 

Personal experience, only one eyepiece, from Sky-Rover, and is OK

 

http://www.sharpstar-optics.com

http://www.sky-rover.com

http://astroshop.cn/...category-22.htm

Edited by patta, 21 November 2018 - 12:37 PM.

[Starman1]

https://www.chinasco...gy-jiangsu-1880

[patta]

Great! Thanks! That looks much more realistic. They have even a dome!!

 

 

https://map.baidu.co...06171417420845H

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by patta, 21 November 2018 - 10:21 AM.