Is there a point at which an eyepiece doesn't benefit from any more polish? It is "well-known" that Zeiss polished their ZAOs more than most other eyepieces, also Brandon and Clave, and that these eyepieces have lower scatter because of their high polish.
Could Zeiss continue to polish even more for an even better eyepiece and would anyone notice the difference? I read in one thread about Zeiss monocentrics made for professional observatories that were polished twice that of the already highly polished monocentrics made for amateurs. See post #32 in this thread https://www.cloudyni...s-monocentrics/
If polish is so important for the quality of an eyepiece why don't more manufacturers polish more? Time consuming I know but wouldn't this be done by a machine? I guess even then that means fewer eyepieces are made. How long does it take to polish an eyepiece to Zeiss standards?
I have seen Roland Christen's post on the subject.
"1. Polish for twice as long, minimum, as it takes to get the grey out, that is the rule of thumb in the industry for a good deep polish. This is the Zeiss standard, and they don't deviate from it. Take twice as long, costs twice as much. You can see where it is possible to shave off some cost. A
manufacturer will say, lessee if they'll notice if we only go 50% longer? NA! They'll never know the difference. Lessee if they will notice if we only go 25% as long? NA! they'll never see the difference. Lessee if ... etc. No, they'll never see the difference, BUT you will be celebrated all day long and praised for offering the eyepiece for LESS MONEY, right?
Is it necessary to polish for twice as long? The answer is yes, since below the fine ground surface is a thin layer of subsurface damage that cannot be seen, but shows up later after the glass undergoes the coating process where it gets heated to 600 DegF. It puts ever so slight haze into the optical path."