Quesion about a Tasco Purchase.

"Michael Wood" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:07:44 +0100, "Paul O'Neill"
dot net wrote:

Is the 'scope below worth the money?

http://www.tasco.com/telescopes/luminova_40114675.shtml

I know there's probably a million others of the same spec, but because of
my
work, I can get a 35% discount off the price of this (bringing it from
?350
down to ?230)

--
"Are you being sarcastic?"
"No, I'm being ironic. It's much more sophisticated."
http://www.lazyeyedpsycho.cjb.net

The specification of 675X is enough to tell me to stay away from it.
This scope will not achieve that magnification at least with any image
that is "discernable." 225X is the best you could coax out of this
scope under excellent seeing conditions. The eyepieces offered are
marginal to bad and the mount is most likely too wobbly to give steady
images.

Now, to be fair, the way we sell it in work says: "Theroetical Magnification
675X, practical magnification 225X"

--
"Are you being sarcastic?"
"No, I'm being ironic. It's much more sophisticated."
http://www.lazyeyedpsycho.cjb.net
--

Paul

Stay away from the tasco.. Buy you a 6" dob instead or an 8" if you
can afford it.

Rich



On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:07:44 +0100, "Paul O'Neill"
dot net wrote:

Is the 'scope below worth the money?

http://www.tasco.com/telescopes/luminova_40114675.shtml

I know there's probably a million others of the same spec, but because of my
work, I can get a 35% discount off the price of this (bringing it from ?350
down to ?230)

--
"Are you being sarcastic?"
"No, I'm being ironic. It's much more sophisticated."
http://www.lazyeyedpsycho.cjb.net

"Paul O'Neill" dot net wrote in message ...
Is the 'scope below worth the money?

http://www.tasco.com/telescopes/luminova_40114675.shtml
^^^^^
First clue. Need not look any further.

I know there's probably a million others of the same spec, but because of my
work, I can get a 35% discount off the price of this

35% off isn't nearly enough to get me in the same store as one of those.

But in the interest of not being dogmatic, suppose i did look further...
- Second clue: 675x. Never buy any telescope that advertizes
675 power.
- Third clue: SR4mm no extra charge.
- Fourth clue: 6 x 24mm finder scope.
- Fifth clue: 3x Barlow no extra charge.
- Sixth clue: Elsewhere on the site, they credit Galileo with the
invention of the refractor. If they're that sloppy with simple
history, then what else could they be sloppy with...?


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message ...
I thought Tasco was out of business.

You wish. Bushnell (ACK!) bought 'em.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

Paul O'Neill wrote:
The specification of 675X is enough to tell me to stay away from it.
This scope will not achieve that magnification at least with any image
that is "discernable." 225X is the best you could coax out of this
scope under excellent seeing conditions. The eyepieces offered are
marginal to bad and the mount is most likely too wobbly to give steady
images.

Now, to be fair, the way we sell it in work says: "Theroetical
Magnification 675X, practical magnification 225X"

Even 225x is 50x per inch, a bit optimistic IMO. Although there are probably
worse telescopes out there, I'd follow the excellent advice already given
and look elsewhere.

I once had a 114mm f8 Newtonian that performed well, but only after the
primary was refigured, the secondary replaced, the tube lengthened (to
eliminate vignetting), the focuser replaced, the finderscope replaced and
the mount beefed up... :-) A nice scope in the end, but not the same scope
it was at first.

--

-- Len Philpot --
-- http://philpot.org/ --
-- (alternate email) --

Len Philpot wrote in message ...

I once had a 114mm f8 Newtonian that performed well, but only after the
primary was refigured, the secondary replaced, the tube lengthened (to
eliminate vignetting), the focuser replaced, the finderscope replaced and
the mount beefed up... :-) A nice scope in the end, but not the same scope
it was at first.

Kind of reminds me of a story I heard about a guy who was very proud
of an axe he owned, that his great great grandfather had made.

When somebody pointed out that the axe didn't look 150 years old, he
replied "Of course, the head has been replaced twice and the shaft
six times since his days..."

Rune