There can be only 1(?)

[absolut]

Hi,

Given unlimited budget I'd get every TV eyepiece and accessory under the sun, however as I haven't won lotto I have a painful choice.

I believe in the "buy quality only" and I've massaged my budget enough to get 1 eye piece before Bretti, however it will be the only one I can buy for a while so it needs to be my goto for most of the night sky.

I do have the 28mm Orion Deep View 2" eyepiece that came with the scope, and I have an acceptable 6mm for planetary, but for anything else inbetween it ends up being a squint into the 28mm and I feel like I miss alot.

So, the ultimate question, what should I get that will work best for your average joe nebula/glob?

I should say that I'm not a fan of the 100deg (Ethos). Although 68 and 82deg look awesome. I'm trying to keep to $500 or so.

Thanks in advance!
Rob

[BEVAN5433]

Suggest 17mm type IV NAG.TELEVUE GREAT FOR GENERAL AND DEEP SPACE
BEVAN

[barx1963]

My suggestion would be a 13mm Ethos but with budget and the fact you don't want 100deg, I would go the 13mm T6 Nag. Gives you mag ranges of 43x, 92x and 200x with your set, change from $500 and it is a really nice EP. It was my go to medium power EP for years in my 12". I alway think with a medium size dob you need an EP in the 90 to 100x range.
Eye relief is a little tight at 12mm so that could be consideration.

Malcolm

[casstony]

I'd suggest a 14mm Delos - top quality, very comfortable to use and not badly priced at the moment. You'll also have money left to buy a narrowband filter such as the DGM Optics NPB filter.

[MattT]

ES 14 100º or Denk 14mm. Had both and kept the ES.
Matt

[absolut]

Thanks for the feed back!! :thumbsup:

Looks like 13-17mm is the favoured "middle man". While I won't be buying additional eye pieces for a while, I want to make sure I can build a solid working set over time, I'm aiming for a range like: 6, 8, 12, 17, 20/22.
So I guess I should be getting either the 12 or 17mm to start the set. I might have thought that the 12mm would be too much mag for the average sky, but that is more a feeling than backed by any empirical evidence.

By that logic I guess the choice could be narrowed down to getting either the 12mm Delos (better eye relief) or the 17mm Nagler?

[AG Hybrid]

Normally I am the greatest champion for ES eyepieces on these forums. And I've looked through your scope as you know Rob. If you could only get 1 quality mid range eyepiece. Its either a Pentax 10mm XW, or a Televue Delos 10, 12, or 14mm.
The Pentax line is compromised over 10mm and with production ceased on them you may have trouble putting together a consistent set of eyepieces if it's important to you. You can take a look between my 10XW and Delos14 at our next visit to Katoomba. Appart from the magnification difference I dare anyone to spot the difference in quality of image.

[Profiler]

I will add my own experiences into the mix.

1) Firstly, Televue eyepieces are very good but IMHO they are over-rated dollar for dollar in comparison to other top tier EPs that are also available. Keep in mind the bulk of TV EPs are now made in Taiwan (there are some exceptions). Consequently, Televue in general is a good brand but there are equally good alternatives. So - simply don't go into this thinking a TV EP is the only way to go.

2) The Televue 17mmT4 is a great EP to look through and I had one for many years but it suffers from one significant hick-up - It is probably the most solid and thus heaviest eyepiece I have ever encountered relative to its size. I am not saying it is the heaviest or largest EP around but when you consider the overall size of the EP it is surprisingly weighty for its relative size. Consequently, it became a increasing annoyance to continuously rebalance the scope to use it.

3) The Televue Delos are also excellent EPs but once again are over-rated in terms of price and marketing. I am not saying the Delos are in any capacity bad or inferior eyepieces but if you are seeking an eyepiece which has virtually identical if not better attributes to a Delos then there is an obvious alternative high-end EP that is cheaper and is rapidly approaching collectors status - I am referring to the Pentax XW range which can be purchased cheaper overseas at around $300 including shipping.

4) The Televue Nagler 13mmT6 - basically hard to fault - relatively small, light and easy to use, great optics, one of the few Televue EPs that are still made in Japan. The only catch is the eye-relief which is about 11-12mm.

5) If ER isn't an issue, under $500 and you want 82' fov then Nag 13T6 is the pick of the bunch. However, if you are happy with 68 fov then Pentax XWs cant be beat in terms of price, quality etc.

6) There is one final catch - there are some concerns in the 14 and 20mm XWs when used with "some" (not all) fast scopes. I personally have not encountered these problems - however I mostly use refractors. So you need to be mindful of this contingency and test the EPs in your particular scope. However, even if your scope does have curvature with a 14 or 20XW it isn't the end of the world as the problem is rectified via the use of a Parrcor,

However, IMHO what is probably the best kept secret in the EP world at the moment in terms of a high quality amazingly cheap eyepiece are the Pentax XFs range (the little brother to the XWs) - there are only two of them a 8.5mm and 12mm. You can get them for roughly $160 including shipping from o'seas. They do only provide a 60' fov but if either of these are suitable to you they are hard to fault.

[casstony]

I agree with Adrian. If you can't look through his eyepieces before the end of the month grab a Delos as the price increases at the end of August due to a sale expiring. Make sure the focal length you buy produces a magnification that is useable on every observing night according to your conditions (ie. your atmosphere may not always be stable enough to support a 10mm at 125x)

[absolut]

Thanks for all the feedback!!
It is making the decision alot easier to make.

Thanks Adrian!, it would be nice to compare the 2 ahead of time, but I found no fault in your advice and the eyepieces you showed me! :thumbsup:
I think I will go for either the 12mm or 14mm Delos while the discount is still on!

Thanks!!
Rob

[Profiler]

Sounds like Uncle Al will be laughing all the way to the bank yet again:lol:

PS
If we are considering a quality 68 widefield design we have also embarrasingly overlooked the Vixen LVWs which are about $290 right here in Oz

[Allan_L]

Hi Rob,

I know you wanted to buy before Bretti, but while there, you can borrow from my humble list :
Name__________ mm _afov
Antares Erfle 2 inch 32 70
TV Panoptic 2 inch 27 68
William Optics SWAN 20 72
TV Nagler Type 5 16 82
TV Nagler Type 6 9 82
TV Radian 12 60
Saxon ED 5.2 55
TV Radian 3 60

(or if you are passing by beforehand, you are welcome to borrow them)
I also have a TV Paracorr that I use with them.

Sorry, the formatting was good in typing, but was lost in the post

[AG Hybrid]

This is actually a good point. But LVW's don't come with green letters or majesty factor! Although reviews indicate that the Pentax/Delos are a bit better.

[casstony]

Televue make some top notch eyepieces with superior quality control and I hope Uncle Al stays in business so we have the option of buying his world class eyepieces. Pentax and LVW compete well but Pentax QC is not as good (dust reported in eyepieces) and LVW field of view is noticeably smaller than Delos.

While I personally wouldn't buy a new Ethos because of it's high price, "laughing all the way to the bank" is an unfair comment I think.

[Allan]

G'day Rob,

It's funny you say you're not a fan of the 100degree eyepieces. When I bought my Ethos I didn't like it and considered selling it. But everyone said hang in there and see if I get used to it. Well it took me a few sessions, but now my Ethos is my favourite eyepiece and I went and bought another one. So, firstly I would say from my own experience, don't judge the 100degree eyepieces too quickly or you may end up missing out on some of the best views out there.

Al Naglers famous advice is to use the highest power eyepiece that completely frames the object you are observing. This is where the 100 degree eyepieces work really well, because you can use higher power to see more detail, yet still fit the object in the field of view.

I think the Delos are great at high magnification on smaller targets like planets, globs, galaxies, planetary neb, etc because the 72degree FOV frames the objects well. But when you are using mid to low power to view larger objects, I don't think the Delos frames the object in the same way that a wide field eyepiece does.

You definitely should pick up a Delos because they are amazing eyepieces. My only suggestion is you think carefully about which focal length to get.

The 12mm to 14mm focal length you are looking at will be one of the most used eyepieces on a range of objects, and I reckon a wider field of view at that focal length is important. They say you should spend the most money on an eyepiece that's around twice your focal ratio. So go on, give a 13 Ethos a go, they are only going to get more expensive.:D

Anyway, good luck. See you soon

[Arthur Alchin]

Robert while we are there you can try out the binocs if you like, I have them with me all the time, with a pair of 7.5 Saxons and a pair of 40mm vixens

[Profiler]

How remarkable - I heard the same thing about dust in the EPs but ironically it was about the made in Taiwan Delos!

However, given the pride both companies have in their products I suspect neither eyepiece have such issues.

One real difference between the EPs is the use of Lanthanum in the Pentax/Vixen. This is why Pentax are leaving the market because Lanthanum is becoming too expensive and thus it isn't sufficiently profitable for Pentax to continue in the astronomy market. The same fate seems destined for Vixen Lanthanum eyepieces as well. With respect to being 'noticeably smaller' (i.e. between 65 v 68 v 72) I think everyone can judge that for themselves

For my own 2 cents worth I would recommend the Delos 17.3mm and 14mm. The 17 Delos because there is no 17mm in the Pentax range and the 14 if you have concerns about potential problems from a 14mm Pentax in your particular scope. Otherwise, IMO the remainder of the Pentax range are a better choice to the Delos

[casstony]

Since we don't know what glass types Televue uses you can't make that claim.
Your premise that Lanthanum necessarily gives special performance is false - Lanthanum is just one group of optical glasses a designer can choose from.
XW's above 10mm perform very differently to Delos in the 10" dob owned by the OP.(curvature, not coma)

[Profiler]

Nonsense - of course I can make this statement - Televue do not use and have never used Lanthanum in their eyepieces.

It is obvious from a marketing perspective that if they "did" use Lanthanum they would be boldly stating this point everywhere in their advertising. :lol: This is why they go to great lengths to promote that their refractors as made in the USA and downplay that their eyepieces are mostly (a few still come from Japan) made in Taiwan.

A lack of transparency by Televue in their manufacturing/production processes isn't a positive feature - quite the opposite.

With respect to the optical properties and benefits of Lanthanum when suitably mated - I can't be bothered explaining this point. Suffice to say it costs more for a reason.

[casstony]

Televue say that they use "high index lanthanum and fluorite type glasses" on their eyepieces web page...... not that it makes any difference what glasses they use so long as the eyepiece performs well.

[absolut]

Thanks Arthur, I'm dying to try out a binoviewer!! :D

Hey Allan, I knew you'd be an Ethos spokesman!! :)
The 100deg field looks great, but I never see the edges, so it seems to me you are paying $200+ extra for the extra 18deg over the Naglers and not seeing some of it. I like the Naglers, and I have also considered getting a 12-13mm Nagler (in my price range), but the eye relief is better on the Delos, and I'd much rather be comfortable than be giving myself wicked eyestrain after only a short session. As I said in the original post, given unlimited budget I'd consider getting the Ethos, but they are a luxury I can't justify. Even building a useful set of Naglers is going to take me a while, I'll probably be considering other brands of 82deg to save some dollars along the way... I keep coming back to the same line of thinking I do with camera lenses... Canon L glass is awesome, but not worth the expense at my level of photography.

I do plan on getting a 17mm Nagler when I can afford it.

I've put off getting the eye piece until next weekend... with the week ahead I knew I wasn't going to get any time to use it this week anyway.

Rob

[FlashDrive]

Looks like Tony is correct .......:thanx:

Flash.....

[Allan]

The Nagler I have is a beauty. Very comfortable and nice wide FOV. I don't think you can go wrong with a mix of Naglers and Delos. The Naglers seem to come up more regularly in the classifieds, so you could pick them up that way if so inclined.

The Delos sale finishes Saturday. :thumbsup:

I look forward to seeing what you decided on.

[FlashDrive]

Thanks for the heads up..

Flash.....

[GrahamL]

best wishes with your purchase Rob :thumbsup: never looked through a Delos they sound great though , I bumped a 13mm t6 for a 14 mm xw because I felt the 14 gave a better view, aside the FC issues you might come across in regard to this eyepiece in a fast scope (12" f5 for me ) I still found it optically a great eyepiece .

But have now replaced it with an ethos 13, your right the field stop is hard to see, and that imo is where if your going to warm to 100* fields is what you have to let go , in that don't look for it .

[casstony]

[QUOTE=GrahamL;1009674] 14 mm xw because I felt the 14 gave a better view, aside the FC issues you might come across in regard to this eyepiece in a fast scope (12" f5 for me ) I still found it optically a great eyepiece .
QUOTE]

Just an FYI, the field curvature observed in the XW14 is directly related to the focal length of a Newtonian, not the focal ratio.
While the outer field is obviously defocused in a 10" f/5 dob (1250mm focal length), it should be much less obvious in a 16" f/4.5 dob (1800mm focal length).
The shorter focal length mirror produces more curvature (of the same sign) to interact with the curvature built into the eyepiece.

[GrahamL]

Never knew that Tony thanks:thumbsup: my experience with the 14 xw was I'd bought a new 13 t6 read the info on the 14's Fc then looked through one side by side, nothing wrong with the 13 but when the chance came up I didn't miss it .

[blink138]

[QUOTE=FlashDrive;1009081]Looks like Tony is correct .......:thanx:

Flash.....
[/QUOTE

that is interesting flash............ but it does not ACTUALLY say that is what they use, just that is what is necessary for the best optics!
pat

[FlashDrive]

[QUOTE=blink138;1009735]

True....I guess it's how you read ' into ' the article....are they saying they ' do ' or are they just informing us about the ' benefits ' of exotic glasses....but in fact don't use them in their eyepieces....:shrug:
Is it a kind of deception hoping that a person ' will buy ' because they mention exotic materials.......who knows.

Flash.....

[casstony]

Has anyone ever heard of someone buying an eyepiece because it contains a particular glass type .............. or do people buy an eyepiece based on it's performance/cost?

[brian nordstrom]

:thumbsup: Yes both Tony , every one including me who has brought ,, the lovely Vixen 'Lanthium's' .
Brian.

[Wavytone]

As one with a set of LVWs, they're very similar to Panoptics in most respects.

Unfortunately I can't make Katoomba on the 7th... darn it...

[MortonH]

Add my vote for the 14mm Delos. It's my most used eyepiece.

[absolut]

Delos are pretty good, but I've settled on Nagler as my weapon of choice for hunting the faint fuzzies! :thumbsup:

While my credit card is going to be in shock for a while, I decided I wasn't going to wait and bought both the 12mm and 17mm Naglers. I'll probably be living like a student for a while, but I think it is worth the sacrifice. :D

While it could be argued that I could have just bought 1 Ethos for the same money, I think I would have missed the flexibility - going from 12mm to 28mm is a bit too much of a jump, the 17mm fits in nicely, eventually (next year) I'll get the 22 Nagler to complete that set.

Thank you again for all your advice and assistance!! :thanx:

Rob

[GrahamL]

great stuff Robert :thumbsup:

[MortonH]

Nice. Reckon the 12mm will soon be your favourite.

[AG Hybrid]

Out of curiosity Rob have you looked through a 12mm t4 nagler?

[absolut]

Before I bought this one, I don't think so... I have looked through some Naglers with a longer focal length before, just not the 12 I don't think...

Had a play with this one in my refractor last night, very nice!! :)

[AG Hybrid]

Ok. Glad you like it. I tried one in my scope and found it unusable with its horrendous black out problems. After about 30 seconds I gave it back to Alex who also found it unusable in his scope and sold it about 2 weeks later. Never did get to try it in a refractor though.

[Don Pensack]

This might help. It's a buyer's guide to all eyepieces:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/5794211/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/vc/1

[absolut]

Just some feedback...

Both Naglers suffer from the back focus issue, needing to lock them in about 1/2 an inch out of the focuser. Once in position they gave me some amazing views!!

Very happy!

Rob

[Don Pensack]

The 12 Nagler could simply be used as a 1.25" eyepiece, requiring a lot of in-focus, and eliminating that problem.
The 17, though, is a harder issue to solve, but solvable it is: add a 2" barrel extender to the eyepiece and a 2" parfocalizing ring.
That way, the eyepiece will stop at the right point AND have sufficient barrel in the focuser to be safe.
It's a simpler solution than:
--adding a longer focuser drawtube to your focuser
or
--using an extension tube, which will require about 2" of in-focus. Since you're using 1/2" of out focus, you might not have enough travel in the focuser to reach focus, and when you can't reach focus on the inside of the focuser's travel, it's a much harder problem to solve.