I believe the importer is making a claim that the EDL is figured to a higher standard than his less expensive imported products, and justifying the higher price based, in part, on a higher figure. If in fact the EDL is figured to a higher standard, I think it’s reasonable to expect it to cost the manufacturer more, so I would expect to pay more to obtain it.
As evidence of higher figure, I believe the importer is relying on his own considerable experience as well citing the results of formal test protocols, none of which can be perfect, but each can be useful. Whether the incremental improvement is worth the incremental cost is a question the buyer must decide for himself.
Astronomics made no claim as to the higher figure of the EDL. They simply guaranteed a minimum strehl of 0.95, a worthy accomplishment and if i were in the market for a relatively fast 4" APO, this would be the one I would buy as it represents an excellent value in a visual and AP scope.
However, you seem to be missing the point here. I repeat my earlier post: The higher cost is due to the better glass, better cell better focuser, not necessarily better figure. Why would KUO not figure the ED to the same precision as the EDL? The figuring process is the same for both lenses and I believe KUO and Astronomics would insist on the best figure the manufacturer could deliver. The lower strehl of the ED (which was not advertised) is due to the higher dispersion glass, not to poorer figure. Or to put it another way, the higher strehl of the EDL is due to the lower dispersion glass, not to better figure. I'm done.