View Full Version here: : We have $400 to spend.
05-05-2011, 05:14 PM
I know this question is always asked but last weekend we looked through a NAGLER 15mm???? using a 12 inch skywatcher dob and yes the difference between clarityand our own eyepieces that came with the scope was amazing. We also have a 2.5xteleview barlow. Any suggestions. We looked at Omega C and ir was amazing. We would probably use it to observe deep sky objects but also love showing the school kids the moon and planets.
05-05-2011, 05:20 PM
The Nagler 13mm Type 6 would be a good versatile focal length, and you'd have $100 left over for lollies!
05-05-2011, 06:58 PM
16mm type II Mark. Its an oldy but still a goodie. You know the amount of viewing I do, :P but I've heard that the Radian 6mm is great for planetary viewing. Check with Ron ;)
I've got 2nd hand 13mm Type 6 and a 6mm Radian and yes both are great. The cool thing with a decent mid-focal length like the 13mm is that with a good barlow (like you have) you still get 82 degree FOV and good eye relief. I rarely use the radian as a barlow on the nagler is VERY civilised.
Disclaimer: Robert is now a certified camera nut who hasn't used his eyepieces all year :P
05-05-2011, 07:42 PM
I have to stop coming to your place Paul because I always seem to be dreaming or spending after visiting. Adam and I just raved about the views with your eyepiece.
05-05-2011, 08:31 PM
I would recommend a 13mm T6 Nagler, but assuming the focal length of your scope is over 1200mm, perhaps the 17mm Nagler would be better.
The 13mm and 17mm have probably the reputation as the best televue eyepieces ever.
The reason I mention the focal length is that the 13mm gives near 1 degree FOv at 100mm FL, and the 17mm gives a similar FOV at 1370mm
(your scope a 12" F4.5?)
05-05-2011, 08:34 PM
Take your mum out to a nice restaurant this week-end. :thumbsup:
05-05-2011, 09:28 PM
I'd get a william optics 16mm uwan 82 degree eyepiece.Its performance is close to a 16mm t5 televue nagler
05-05-2011, 11:36 PM
I have the 13mm T6 Nag, its a beautiful bit of kit, great value for $$$.
07-05-2011, 02:53 PM
I have 17mm Nagler and can say its great eyepiece in my Bintel 12" Dob! It Barlows very well and give me great views of the Moon and planets as well. I even prefer it over my 10 mm Pentax XW when Barlowed for planets.
08-05-2011, 01:14 AM
I am somewhat confused as to how you could perceive this.
I own both of those eyepieces (10mm Pentax XW and 17mm Nagler T4), have done for many years; and have used both of them in many different telescopes. They are individually both excellent eyepieces. The 17mm Nagler excels as a low/medium power "ultra" widefield for DSO's. The 10mm Pentax XW excels as a medium/high power widefield for both DSO's and Lunar/Planetary targets. In terms of the important criteria for lunar/planetary performance IMO the 17mm Nagler T4 falls well short of the 10mm Pentax XW. Namely, light throughput, on axis sharpness, neutral colour fidelity and contrast. The only reason I can think of as to why you prefer the 17mm Nagler T4 barlowed over the 10mm Pentax XW as a lunar/planetary eyepiece, is that it gives noticeably higher magnification than the 10mm Pentax XW. What barlow are you barlowing the 17mm Nagler in?
FWIW also, the 17mm Nagler T4 is a 2" only eyepiece and not suitable for use in his TV 2.5X powermate, so whatever he buys he should stick with a 1.25" barrel IMO so he can at least use the eyepiece in his barlow and get double duty from it.
08-05-2011, 01:46 AM
I would consider the following in no particular order. They are all excellent eyepieces which will cost you just under $400. You should base your decision on performance criteria that are most important to you like eye relief and FOV. You also need to consider what power the eyepiece will give you barlowed having regard to your prevailing "common" seeing conditions. A 13mm eyepiece is not much good to you if your seeing usually runs out at 180X. Your 2.5X TV Powermate would then be superfluos combined with your new eyepiece.
Best eye relief with generous FOV
17mm Vixen LVW
13mm Vixen LVW
Best FOV with shorter eye relief
13mm Nagler T6
16mm Nagler T5
Of all the eyepieces I have listed I rate the 14mm Denkmeier as the best performer in terms of "optical" performance. It has excellent eye relief at 20mm but the FOV is only 65 degrees. It is sharper than the others with better contrast and light throughput. In your 2.5X TV Powermate it would give 267X which "may" be a bit much for regular use barlowed. If long eye relief is not important to you and you wish to maximise the FOV I would go for the 16mm Nagler T5. Combined with your 2.5X Powermate this will give you 234X which is a useful high power magnification. The 13mm Nagler is also a very good eyepiece but combined with your 2.5X powermate it will give 288X which is a power you might rarely get to use because of seeing conditions.
You might want to consider the 17mm Vixen LVW which would give you 220X in your 2.5X TV Powermate.
It just depends what criteria are most important to you and you're the only one who knows that.
08-05-2011, 05:06 AM
This is good advice!
08-05-2011, 06:12 PM
I am aware that 17 mm Nagler Barlowed gives me 8.5 mm. Dont know mate, its not about slightly bigger magnification with Barlowed Nagler over 10 mm Pentax XW. I am very happy with Pentax but I am happier with Barlowed Nagler. Thats all I am saying.
I have 2" Japan made Barlow, dont know the brand but its excellent quality.
I have to admit, it's the first time I've ever heard anyone putting a Nagler in front of an XW, but each to his own hey?! :)
I wonder if it's because the Naglers have a warm colour tone to them (as opposed to neutral in the XW) that you prefer them for planetary. :question:
Personally, the coffee tone colour of the Naglers was one of the reasons I steered clear of them. I've also heard that it can put a false tone over star colours as well. :question: It seems though that some people can't make out the differences on colour tone in eyepieces (i.e. cool, neutral, warm). Meade 5000 SWA for example (I own one) has got a cool tone (I don't find cool tones for planetary viewing beneficial at all). Explore Scientific, Naglers, Radians have got warm tones. XW's are neutral.
From Cloudy Nights Forum...
Mark, John B has given you fantastic advice- he really knows his eyepieces.
The best advice I can give to you is to hold off on this purchase until you feel confident what it is you want (what's important to you in an eyepiece). This in time, will come quite naturally once you've had a peek through some eyepieces.
Personally for me, I choose my eyepieces on the following criteria:
1) 20mm long eye relief. I find it more comfortable- my head isn't jammed up onto the glass, and if I ever do end up wearing glasses to observe (currently slowly going a wee bit long sighted with a bit of astigmatism) I can wear my glasses with them. Naglers don't have long eye relief (many aren't bothered by this, others are annoyed by it). From memory I think the 2 inch Naglers have a bit more comfy ER though.
2) Long eye relief eyepieces will also protect the ep from dewing up. If it's got a long eye cup it enables the transfer of air to circulate between the eye and glass. The only downside to my Denkenmier (and I love this ep) is that it doesn't have a cup and it suffers the dew problem. My LVW and XW are troopers and don't get affected. XW by the way have got JIS Class 4 weather protection.
2) Fov. 85deg is waay too much work for me. I have a tendency to constantly scour the middle to the edge looking for different star spectra, star patterns and finding dso's- it wears my eyeballs out on my 30mm 85deg ep. Nice to enjoy such a large fov sometimes I admit, but I couldn't do it all the time.
To some, a large 85 deg fov is important- over riding edge performance and light transmission- it's a call you will have to make. This is where orthos are winners- less glass/groups, less fov = max. contrast and light transmission. But not all of us can put up with orthos, especially with dobs. Widefield ep's bring about their own problems and the money is spent in correcting these problems. To what degree the correction is made, depends on your wallet.
3) The weight of an eyepiece needs to be a consideration. A 2inch Explore Scientific eyepiece for example weighs 900g. You would have troubles putting this on say, an 8" dob (or even a 10" dob I'm told).
4) The best possible light transmission to allow me to get the best contrast possible when studying dso's.
5) Fov edge performance. I spend much of my time on the edges of eyepieces- I want them to be as good as the middle, without the use of a Parracor. So far, with a 10" dob at f/4.7 my eyepiece choices have been excellent performers to the edge.
6) I prefer most of my eyepieces to have the 1 1/4 inch barrel- so I don't have to spend even more money on 2 inch filters.
John mentioned the Denkenmeir eyepiece- it is a truly beautiful eyepiece- it gives a jet black sky & incredible contrast. They advertise 65 deg fov in the specs, but I find it bigger- more like 68 deg. At the 14mm focal length it is perfect for many objects (for example, the colour blue in the Ghost of Jupiter PN was outstanding in this ep). As for the Sombrero- Wow! It made it jump out with a bright core and the long dust lane was striking. Even hubby was impressed with it's performance- and he doesn't get impressed easily. Also, Terry L (CometGuy) bought this ep the same time as I did and he said it was going be his most used ep as he loves it so much.
From what I've been reading so far by trawling through the C.N. Forum, Denkenmeir fans are Pentax XW followers (that would also apply to John B and myself).
Just went looking to see if someone carried out measurements on the AFOV of the Denkenmeir and found this on Cloudy Nights Forum..
And a word of advice...
Don't think that a complete set of eyepieces of the same brand will perform equally well across all the focal lengths. Each focal length has their strengths and weaknesses. As I have a fast scope, this is the reason my XW's cover the high mag. range and my LVW & Denkenmeir cover the med/low power range. Unforuntately the XW's suffer field curviture in the 14mm and 20mm in a fast scope. I'm not sure how the Naglers go across all the focal lengths.
I did a thread recently asking for help choosing a premium 15mm eyepiece. It's a very educational thread and I highly recommend you have a read of it. John B's comments in particular are an eye opener.
I Hope the information I have provided is of benefit to you and the many people out there in the same situation as yourself. :)
P.S. My comments in no way are meant to put down the Naglers. Many experienced observers use them and love them.
09-05-2011, 08:04 PM
What about our own Mike Salway review of 13mm Nagler, 14mm Pentax XW here:
What about his conclusion:
Or, maybe you should try google then :)
I do read what other people write in reviews about eyepieces. But at the end of the day I make decision based on my own opinion. As I said I have both 17mm Nagler and 10 mm Pentax XW so I can compare them on the spot.
People say Pentax XW doesn't dew, well guess what my does :( and its brand new!
Some people say Pentax XW is better than Nagler, well for me that is not the case. Actually 10mm Pentax XW gives a bit of fringe on Moon and Jupiter and Nagler is clear.
So, I might not see as many colours as a woman do but I didnt buy eyepieces for that reason ;) When it comes to choose nice T shirt that goes with my shoes I leave it to my wife :D
Just a few points to clarify things:
Your quote box at the top of your thread has my quote taken out of context. Please read point no.1. It makes me look like I'm against Naglers in general when in fact ....
1) My comments to you on the Nagler over the XW was in the 10mm focal length - I originally quoted you in the quote box and responded accordingly regarding the 10mm. I researched the reviews on a grand scale for months before I outlayed the money for one. Your preference view regarding the 10mm Nagler over the XW was actually the first I'd ever heard, honest, I wasn't being factitious, but more surprised. But what do I know, I'm just a girl who likes pretty colours. :rolleyes:;)
2) The links you supplied are unfortunately a waste of time for me because I already know that the 14mm XW's aren't good performers in a fast scope at the 14mm focal length, which is why I own and recommend the Denkenmeir in the 14mm and have made those recommendations in this thread. At no point did I recommend an XW14mm. I also go on to say (at the bottom of my post) that different focal lengths perform differently.
3) When I said each to his own, I meant that in a sincere way- we all have our likes and dislikes and I respect that. Instead, it seems to have fired you up.
10-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Maybe you should hunt down a 16mm type II Mark.
Somone might have one gathering dust they might want to move on;)
10-05-2011, 09:07 PM
Thank you all for the advice. I have gone the 16mm Type V Nagler 82 degreee field of view. I hope all goes well. Thanks again to every one.
10-05-2011, 09:13 PM
I think you made a good choice mate!
And sorry for hacking your post.
I dont have 10 mm Nagler, actually there is 9 and 11 mm, but I have 17 mm Nagler.
According to many 17 mm Nagler is one of the best Naglers if not the best. Also 10 mm Pentax XW is again one of the best and many think the best from all XW's.
I am not angry, why would I be :D I got two of the best eyepieces according to many people and I agree. But for me like I said on some objects like Jupiter and Moon I prefer Barlowed Nagler thats all. If I am first in saying so, well there is first for everything :D
11-05-2011, 04:55 AM
I hope you enjoy it, I do enjoy the one I have. The view just looks so sharp to me. Some say the eye relief is a bit tight but I've enjoyed every minute of use under the stars.
11-05-2011, 08:20 AM
Hi Mark, congratulations on your purchase:thumbsup:
I have not long ago bought a 17mm type 4 Nagler and love it:D
11-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Thanks guys. I looked through one at Pauls at Omega Centauri and was just blown away by the difference. How good is the weather at the moment Ron? Enjoy it while it lasts.
I've read those links which were on the 14mm range, so obviously we're moving on from the XW10 (which the original posting was on) and comparing XW's in general... And let me clarify this, my argument is all about light transmission and contrast.
Both links were actually in favour of the XW's regarding light transmission...
Regarding Mike Salway’s review of the XW14 against the Nagler 13, he himself said:
The one thing that went against the XW14 in this test is the field curvature it shows in a fast scope. A paracorr I’ve heard will fix this problem though.:D
Mike even goes on to say in his review that he recommended the XW over the Nagler for planetary. :P
And the other link you gave me:
That one was tested on the XW20 which (along with the XW14) obviously doesn't perform so well on the edge in a fast scope, but note what he said about contrast. The top few people in that thread actually whinged about the 85 deg of the Nagler.:P:lol: By the way, that link is to a listing of google search results, so I just clicked on the first one on the top of the page.
And now, I'll throw a couple in...
Quote from CN forum:
And here is an interesting table of comparisons (from Cloudy Nights Forum) lining up the Denkenmeir, XW and Nagler against each other in the 13/14mm focal length. Denkenmeir won with the Nagler actually coming in last.
I have in the past read favourable reviews regarding the 17mm Nagler. Eye relief too is very good. And I did come close to considering it before I bought the Denkenmier 14mm. One thing stopped me from going ahead with it. Again, light transmission. From highly favourable reviews, the Denkenmeir won out over the Nagler in this respect too. :D
Pentax by the way, claim the XWs have approx. 98% light transmission. See for yourself here www.telescope-service.com/pentax/start/pentaxstart.html (http://www.telescope-service.com/pentax/start/pentaxstart.html)
And now just to get back to the 10mm length, here's what our John B (Ausastronomer) had to say (quote from here (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/archive/index.php/t-13559.html), not sure of site as doesn't say) about comparing an XW10 with a Nagler T6 9mm...
As John went on to say further into that quote and I agree, it all comes down to personal preferences at the end of the day.
I've barely begun finding links,:P I can give you a ton more if you like.:question: Unlike your link which just gave me a page of google search results. :P (ooh that was cheeky I admit :lol:)
Typo (apologies). Obviously “10” should have sat next to the XW on that line instead of the Nagler. We all know that f/L doesen't exist in Nagler.:screwy:
After seeing this line the next day, I have to admit it does sound rather cocky doesn’t it, and I do apologise if I offended any Nagler owners. I am in fact referring to the contrast and light transmission which the XW's are famous for, and I should have made myself clearer by elaborating better. I hope you'll aren't mad at me. :(
I am not an expert on eyepieces and therefore don't even come close to those "in the know". I only draw my knowledge from huge amounts of research, along with the advice given to me from people "that really know” about eyepieces here on the forum. I'm merely throwing all this information in to add some balance with the Naglers. :)
12-05-2011, 06:10 PM
I had a lot more than a little bit to do with that review. I actually guided Mike in all the field testing for it :)
The Naglers are not scaled designs hence they are not comparable across focal lengths. Similarly the Pentax XW's are not scaled designs and are not comparable across focal lengths. The 13mm Nagler and 14mm Pentax XW have ZERO comparison attributes with the 10mm Pentax XW and the barlowed 17mm Nagler T4.
What you need to understand is that a 2X barlow more often than not gives an amplification factor greater than 2X which is dependent on the barlow itself and the eyepiece design. Usually the amplification of a 2X barlow is about 2.2X . This means your 17mm Nagler T4 barlowed is working like a 7.7mm eyepiece. Essentially you are comparing a 10mm eyepiece with a 7.7mm eyepiece which you simply cannot do, particularly at the short end of the scale. All you are really saying is you prefer the higher power view. I have absolutely no doubt any "PERCEIVED" advantages you see with the barlowed 17mm Nagler T4 over the 10mm Pentax XW (as a lunar/planetary eyepiece combination) arise because of the "SIGNIFICANT" magnification difference between the two.
Also Bob when reading internet reviews and comments you need to learn how to sort "the wheat from the chaff".
12-05-2011, 07:04 PM
I certainly don't dispute your knowledge in the field, but personally I'm not a fan of the LVW range. I have had a 5mm & a 17mm for about 6yrs. I just can't seem to acheive good viewing. False colour, aberration etc.
Having said that, I've only ever used them in the AT80 refractor & the C8. I've not tried them in the 12" or the 20".
Anyway, not disputing your recomendation, just adding my experience.
13-05-2011, 12:47 AM
Exactly! Personal preferences. Like everything in life. Some think blonds are better than brunets.
13-05-2011, 04:19 PM
Ahh you guys seem to be getting all worked up. As they say on cloudy nights. "Play it safe, buy Televue!". To paraphrase myself, I say "Play it safe buy Majesty factor!
Here's a fun fact! According to Televue an Ethos eyepiece has 10 TIMES the majesty factor of a plossl!!! Who knew?
Have a great evening everyone :)
13-05-2011, 05:32 PM
Just for future reference!
blonds = blondes
brunets = brunettes
It makes me wonder why I even bothered trying to help you?
Also Bob this was what you originally posted before you edited it.
Also number of posts doesn't mean you know something better
Your dead right it doesn't. But about 38 years more experience under the stars might :)
13-05-2011, 06:35 PM
False colour bothers some more than others. The LVW's do have some false colour on bright targets towards the EOF. Just about all premium widefields share the same problem, to varying degrees, including the Nagler T6's and Pentax XW's. However, I always try to keep my targets "towards" the centre of the FOV.
What's also worth noting is that the two telescopes you have used the LVW's in, have been known in many cases to have "optical issues". The 80mm Short tube introduces a whole host of aberrations (spherical aberration and false colour), which is to be expected from an F5 achromatic refractor; and some SCT's can have their own share of problems. Some SCT's are good but I have seen a few that were downright ordinary (from both manufacturers). I can only suggest before you form a conclusive opinion on the LVW's you try the 17mm LVW in the 20" SDM, which is a scope of known optical quality. Try the 17mm LVW on some targets like Eta Carina, Omega Centauri, Jewel Box, NGC 2808, Gem Cluster, Tarantula Nebula etc. I think you will be pleasantly surprised how well it performs, in the right scope on suitable targets.
13-05-2011, 06:53 PM
And obviously I was right. What? I hurt your "professional" feelings? You are an amateur and write and behave like one. Age and number of years under the stars doesnt give you right to write to me like this. Its your opinion what you and Suzy wrote here and I still stick with my regardless what you or her think about it.
What do you think? Everyone should buy Pentax just because you and Suzy say so? I will buy what ever I want to buy OK! I left my country of origin because of communist people like you who wanted everyone to think like them.
Long posts bla-bla-bla, I have experience bla-bla-bla, good for you OK.
Being a resident of Perth also, and not knowing as much as most do on the subject of E.P's, this discussion was interesting then somehow turned sour.:shrug:
It's the one's who are trying to filter in some information and good advice who eventually suffer in instances like this as in the end, they are no wiser.:sadeyes:
Each person has their own ideas on what is best for them, whether that be a review or experience in the field. Either way, it's still that.........their own preferences.
I have a 12 inch SCT and three E.P''s..........all 70 degree, 150 buck Skywatchers that are generic and sometimes re-badged chinese el - cheapos.
Of these E.P.'s only the 8mm shows superb planetary deatil........the other two are only good for paper weights.:mad2:
I'm sure that the posts here were not meant to challenge you or your opinion in the way I see it so far.
You obviously have the knowledge that most don't..........but you also have a preference as we all do, and that's fine.:)
Not worth getting upset over it mate...........I've been in similar situations on other non related forums, and it allways ends badly in the end.:rolleyes:
01-01-2013, 12:15 AM
Bobson. No need to get all huffy over some excellent advice. I myself have also tried a 17mm Nagler Type 4 and owned the 12mm Nagler Type 4. The 17mm Nagler T4 is excellent in a short focus telescope if you own a Paracorr. I viewed through the 17mm T4 without a Paracorr and the edges were not corrected or as sharp as the center, so I passed on that one completely.
TeleVue Naglers are indeed excellent eyepieces, but so are Pentax XW's in the 3.5mm, 5mm, 7mm & 10mm focal lengths in a short focal ratio telescope w/o a Paracorr. The 14mm XW shows some field curvature in short focal length scopes for "some" who cannot accommodate for FC. The 12mm Nag Type 4 I owned was also an awesome eyepiece which I used w/o a Paracorr in my 10" F/4.7 reflector, but I sold it and picked up a 10mm Pentax XW because it has higher transmission, is flat right to the edge in my 10" scope and has less problems holding the view.
I have also done extensive reviews on thousands of eyepieces here and on CN.....and it was here and there, (plus trying hundreds of eyepieces in the field), that led me to obtain the very best eyepieces I can afford on the used market to this date.
John & Suzy were only trying to help....I took their advice, (mainly John's and others), and I now own the 10mm XW, 7mm XW, 14mm Denk, 22mm Vixen LVW and I have a 34mm ES 68 degree on the way. I have tried tons of eyepieces in these focal lengths and this is right where I am at NOW because they all perform excellent on and off axis w/o a Paracorr and I really appreciate the info I gathered from them, and others, to have arrived at these excellent observing choices.
PS: HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!!! :cool: AND TRY NOT TO GET TOO ANGRY. LOL.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.