View Full Version here: : Ethos vs Nagler type 4
21-02-2011, 10:20 AM
I'm looking to get the best 'amateur' eyepieces available for both DSO and planetary visuals. I have dark skies and getting a CGEM C1100 edge HD. I suppose if you can afford it, may as well get the best to have the best experience right away? I dont have astigmatism but do use glasses for close in reading.
I have read plenty that suggests the naglers are the way to go but havnt seen much comment on the Ethos vs Nagler.
My plan is to get:
-2 x 2" powermate
-13mm, 17mm, 21 or 22 mm (ethos or nagler 4), and 31mm nagler type V.
1) Is the Ethos worth the extra money (i.e ethos 17mm = $751 vs nagler type 4 17mm at $351).
2) Does my proposed range of EP's sound OK ( C11 x say 30 factor = max 300 to 400 magnification under great skies). Am I missing anything or doubling up?
Appreciate your comments or direction to prior threads.
21-02-2011, 11:11 AM
Actually looking into it a bit more I think a 10mm, 17mm and 41mm panoptic and a power mate 2" x 2 might be a good way to start.
Telescope will be pier mounted.
21-02-2011, 12:06 PM
Hi Mike, it's not easy to advise someone which eyepiece they'll like best when choosing between type 4 Naglers and Ethos. The Ethos has better optical performance but the type 4's have longer eye relief - you won't know what you like best until you try them.
The 41 Pan and 31 Nagler are pretty safe bets - most observers would be satisfied with these two - wide, sharp views with good eye relief.
I'd suggest Pan 41mm, Nagler 31mm, 21mm Ethos, 13mm Ethos.(assuming you don't need to eat for a while :) ). Type 4 Naglers would be fine instead of the Ethos if you want to spend a bit less.
You may find that you'll only be able to use the 13mm occasionally due to turbulence in the air above your observing location.
Also note that the real magnifications will be around 10% higher than calculated when using a 2" diagonal on the C11.
21-02-2011, 12:56 PM
Although the Powermate is an exceptional piece of glass it makes for one heavy eyepiece when combined with a large Nagler or Ethos. May I suggest a smaller focal length eyepiece in lieu of the Powermate for your higher powers.
The torque from the long and heavy eyepiece/Powermate combination can rotate (unscrew) your 2" visual back. Not sure if a SCT crayford would have similar problems.
The Type 4 Naglers are certainly more comfortable with the longer eye relief but of course they don't have the 100 degree field of the Ethos. You will have to look around to see the entire field with the Ethos which may or may not be to your liking.
21-02-2011, 06:03 PM
out of all I have looded through I find the neg's to be fine. I do have an ethos and a pan but I use my negs more then any. my two cents
21-02-2011, 09:23 PM
Thanks for the advice folks,
I'll go into Bintel in the next few days and check them out. Am leaning towards the naglers for eye relief and price (allows me to buy more EP's and minimise use of the powermate). May also start with the 31 Nagler for low magnification wide FOV. I read on a review that the standard TV plossl is actually better for planetary observation than a wide FOV so i might get a couple of them as well.
22-02-2011, 12:03 AM
I've got 2 nags, and I love them!
I've never tried the Ethos though!
22-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Might I suggest the 11 & 16mm Naglers for med/high power and the 27 a/o the 35 Pan (at least to start) for low power.
I found the 41 to be a bit too wide at f10 but then, horses for courses as I don't do a whole lot of wide field viewing.
The 16 Nagler is smaller & lighter than the 17, and, IMO gives nothing away in image quality.
The 11mm for lunar exploration is a corker.
Mind you, if your corner of Gippsland is as cloudy as mine at the moment, you might as well buy a whole bunch of Bintel cheapies, find out which focal lengths you like best and then upgrade.
Actually, thats a brilliant idea anyway!
Don't know why it never occured to me before.:shrug:
Probably the pills!:lol:
23-02-2011, 07:40 AM
I have the 11mm, 16mm Naglers and the 27mm panoptic for my C11 which I only just upgraded from Baader Hyperions. The 16mm is nice and light and doesn't cause any balancing issues. Eye relief is a bit tight but its much lighter than the 17mm.
23-02-2011, 05:04 PM
I bought the 8mm and 13mm Ethos (including a 2.00 Dioptrx for my astigmatism and wearing eye glasses) eyepieces when they were first released here in Australia and found them to be extremely sharp however trying to look around the 100 degree AFOV was off putting. I eventually replaced them with the a set of Type IV's with focal lengths of 12mm, 17mm, 22mm and 26mm and have found them much more suited.
If you can, try out out the many and varied eyepieces before you buy at star nights if possible, it is certainly a cheaper option.
The 31mm Nagler is a great eyepiece for wide field viewing in my opinion.
24-02-2011, 08:30 PM
Well folks I bit the bullet. I went to Bintel and bought a Nagler 31mm, Nagler 22mm, Nagler 17mm, Nagler 13mm, powermate x 2. Now for some clear weather.
Thanks to you all for your input.
25-02-2011, 10:10 PM
Great read, thanks!
27-02-2011, 09:19 AM
You got a fabulous collection of eyepieces there. I am sure you will be ecstatic.
Ethos is also a fabulous eyepiece. I have one but have not used it much as I mainly image.
The reminds me to do a night of viewing.
There's just been such a scarcity of clear nights. This hobby makes you realise just how often there
is cloud around.
27-02-2011, 10:50 PM
My old Celestron 7.5mm silver-top plossl used to beat a 7mm Nagler on planets. However IMHO the best choice for planets is an ortho (unless perhaps you can find a TMB super-mono). I have UO HDs and I'm stoked (and the plossl is in retirement). You just can't beat less glass (and good coatings) for reducing scatter and so increasing sharpness and contrast. Also, when you look at a bright object with a plossl you will get a ghost image diagonally opposite the object which can be quite distracting. That is from light bouncing off the front of you eye and off the front surface of the eye lens and back into your eye. Because the front surface of the ortho is a different shape you don't see this artifact. That in itself is a huge improvement.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.