Thanks MontyF,
Always good to know what works or OR doesn't!
Being an Ol'burnt out professional photographer, I still retain a thing about lens SHARPNESS!
That Trashco I mentioned wasn't!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what is strange as currently I am told that because of manufacturing advancements and computer design, many of our current camera lenses are as good or better then the pricey ones I bought years back.
It is to my way of thinking, sad that some lenses are now made of plastic, but as per color/sharpness/resolution current production CAN BE very good, even at lower prices.
Soooooo, all that to say this, there is really no excuse considering current manufacturing, for any company to produce scopes, camera lenses, etc. with less then high quality optics! If they are doing so, it is totally because they are trying to ring the last available nickle from the buying public.
BUT, AND HERE IS WERE THE TIRE REALLY MEETS THE ROAD!, what about the mechinics of the item.
You may be able to buy or produce quality lenses for a dime a dozen, but if the assembly and the mechinics along with optical design are not first rate you end up with junk that happens to have good lens quality, but it is still junk in the field or on the bench.
So, if we come back to the Trashco scope, were the problems due to poor lens quality, poor lense design or poor mechanics or all of the above. I'll never know, as I didn't wait around to find out. I'd already wasted enough time and money.
The machanics/design of a lower priced scope, may or may not be good - LONG LASTING -, but there is zero reason but excessive greed to not have good lens quality.
Keep em coming!
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot