Thanos avatar
Hello,
someone is selling a used redcat 51 with a mark on the internal lens for 350£. Do you guys think it’s worth it or will the mark affect the images ?
kuechlew avatar
A mark on a lens will affect the image. How bad it is you will only see after trying it out. Personally I would stay away from any damaged lens. 350 EUR is a significant rebate, so I would assume it's pretty bad …

The only damaged equipment worth buying is stuff you can fix yourself. Not much luck with a lens in this respect for most of us.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Helpful Concise
Thanos avatar
Thanks a lot for the answer.
andrea tasselli avatar
I still have a Nikkor lens (300mm f/2.8) with a small chip missing fron the front element. Can't see it affected the images in any way. Same with fungus. One of my sharpest lens is heavily covered in such in one of the internal lens. Same story. So it depends on what the defect is like.

P.S.: A scratch would have no effect at all.
kuechlew avatar
andrea tasselli:
I still have a Nikkor lens (300mm f/2.8) with a small chip missing fron the front element. Can't see it affected the images in any way. Same with fungus. One of my sharpest lens is heavily covered in such in one of the internal lens. Same story. So it depends on what the defect is like.

P.S.: A scratch would have no effect at all.

Andrea, that's what I meant with "How bad it is you will only see after trying it out".  In my understanding "a mark" is more severe than just "a scratch". You can be lucky and get away with it or it could be totally unusable. Another point in my opinion is that the mark is an indication of rough handling of the scope which may lead to all sorts of aftereffects. The seller could be an idiot who sells a perfectly usable lens for a way too low price or he could seek for an idiot who buys a unusable lens for 300 EUR. Most likely the truth is somewhere in between but I wouldn't take the chance. Obviously the risk assessment may vary.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Helpful Insightful
andrea tasselli avatar
Wolfgang,

Sometimes you have to bite the bullet. This said, it is only up to anyone willingness to risk (money). To me a "mark" is less than a "scratch". A scratch is defnitely a physical alteration (loss of material) while a "mark" could be just a plain blemish on the antireflection coatings or indelible pen mark (happened to me). Or worse, agreed.
Related discussions
Halo in my images
Hello people and happy new year. So i am suffering from a big halo in my images. I did a topic on flats recently and it was pointed out to me that i have internal reflections. So i covered the entire inside of my telescope with velour including the i...
Internal lens marks may cause halos or artifacts similar to discussed imaging issues.
Jan 1, 2024
Redcat 1.5, 2 or 3u
Hi I have a question for redcat users I am thinking of buying a Redcat and currently could pick up a used v1.5 or v2 but I’m in no immediate rush so is it worth me waiting for funds to reach getting the v3 version new which on the face of it looks be...
Redcat users discussing model comparisons and purchasing decisions for used equipment.
Mar 30, 2024
Lens Flare Artifacts in Narrowband Images
Hi everyone, I've noticed a few of my narrowband images have recently had some horrible lens flare when capturing at 300s (at least that's what I think it is). I thought it was a flats issue but after much experimentation, I've found flat...
Lens defects and marks can cause optical artifacts affecting image quality.
Dec 28, 2023