Calling all nagler owners!

[asimov]

Have I got your attention? lol

Guys, I've been asking myself this question for a long time now...now it's time to ask the people that actually have one, & therefore know more than me about them.

1 What's so good about a Nagler? If I bought one, is it going to double my viewing pleasure? Are they a wide view EP only? I've never seen a 5mm nagler, for instance. Is it a 'status' thing to own one. Or do they just produce an 'out of this world' view over a standard EP that to own one is a must?

2 It seems to be common knowledge that their the best EP that money can buy. Now I wanna know WHY....is it the glass the elements are made of? The design? The # of elements?

I do hope you take the time to answer some of these questions, thanks so much! :D

[davidpretorius]

this will sort them out!!! - good question!!

[Argonavis]

I only own 1 Nagler eyepeice - the 12mm, so my experience is limited. They offer very wide fields of view which is very useful for owners of altaz push-to scopes as following an object at high (anything over about x250) power can be very tedious if all you have is a narrow field of view. Although scopes with dobsonain type bearings can be moved very smoothly, it is still tedious, and I find that I spend more time concentrating on keeping the object in the field of view rather than taking in the view. So if you use a scope without a drive you will find them very convenient.
They are also optimised to minimise coma, which is evident in telescopes with a "fast" focal ratio of f6 or below. As you are probably aware, the focal ratio is the focal length (mm) divided by the aperature (mm). The view through an f4 or f5 scope with a cheap wide field eyepeice reveals that a significant portion of the edge has stars that look like comets. Not nice. But if you own a slow f ratio scope, like an SCT at f10, then all eyepeices will provide a flat field of view with almost pinpoint stars across it. I use a WideScan 30mm 84degree FOV eyepeice with my Mease SCT and it is super. It costs a fraction of the $1000 asking price of a Nagler 31mm, and does an excellent job with these telescopes.
Another problem with the naglers is that there is a lot of glasss in there, so light transmission is not as good as some simpler eyepeices. A good planetary eyepeice is a simple plossel, of which I find the Televue Plossels the best.
The best advise is to try and borrow various eyepeices (if you can get someone to part with a Nagler, good luck) and try them in your scope.

[jackenau]

own only 2 (thanks Dave) and a Panoptic 35mm, apart from your standard plossels and a 30mm sv from Bintel.

The view in the 35mm Panoptic as opposed to the 30mm sv is a lot clearer and no distortion or seagull effects towards the outer edge, I would use and recommend the 35 mm panoptic more than any other ep (but that is just me). The 30mm sv still gives out good views though, although not as crisp.

The 9mm plossel as opposed to the 9mm Nagler is like chalk and cheese.

The 16mm is a little different and I sometimes struggle to come to come to terms with it. Don't always get the views I would have expected.

Just my 2 cents worth. I have a 12" f5 dob, and don't wear glasses, if that has anything to do with it.

Ken M

[Starkler]

Putting it briefly.

Yes they are good for well corrected wide field viewing, especially in fast scopes where others do not perform. Some naglers are better than others so all are not equal.

As for whether they are worth the high price tag, nobody can answer that for you as the value proposition is a personal thing. The only way to answer this is to look for yourself.

[ving]

I dont have a nagler myself but I have used louies 16mm and compared it directly to my GSO SV 15mm. I was viewing the helix neb unfiltered at linden. the naglers FOV was larger and good to the edge, the view in the center of the FOV was a little more contrasty but I couldnt justify several hundred dollars more to buy one. the GSOs FOV was lighter in colour and just at the outer edge (about 3%) there was seagulling. both could be focused to a crisp image. so the nagler is better for sure but in my mind not hundreds of dollars better. do take into account that i am very tight with my money tho....

that said, i am considering a wide FOV 9mm or 7mm ATM :)

oh and the above "review" is in my f6 8" dob

[Dave47tuc]

I have a 31 Nagler and 12 Nagler. :thumbsup:

I find it hard to explain how good high end EP's are. I rate Pentax's, Tele Vue,
Great wide field EP's. There others that do a good to very good job as well. :confuse3:

So why do people say "oh get a Nagler" there the best. There probably more Tele Vue EP's owned around the world than any other high end EP.
So you will get more saying by a Nagler etc. :poke:

I used my 31 ( see below) to do a Open Cluster tour last night and at a 2 Deg, field of view it was great. Geoff used a 31 in his scope some time ago and now owns one :thumbsup: I too finally have one and love it :D

When the Star Camp in Victoria is on I will be there. For those who have never had a Nagler in there scope, You can use mine and see for yourself what its like to own a Nagler. Then you will buy one :poke:

Yes I'm the first to say Naglers are not the be all to end all, but there very good. There not cheap and a Panoptic is in my opinion is just as good. :D

[Starkler]

This is another variable to throw into the equation. Different peoples eyes seem to have varying sensitivity to coma and abberations. I could see abberations toward the edge of field in Daves 12mm nagler that he could not. :confused:

For me the GSO SV was horrible, with any of the field greater than that of a standard plossl showing objectionable abberations, even at f7.5 in my ED80.
Vings comment above about the GSO having a lighter background indicates lesser contrast, even at a slightly higher mag.

The moral is that a cheaper eyepiece may be good enough for you, but not for the next man.

P.S. Yes the panoptics are also very good :thumbsup:

[mch62]

The best answer to this would be to try them for your self.

I own a 31mm 17mm and 12mm and am amazed at the reactions at star parties to peoples first view through a Nagler , especially the big 31.

You have to be there to understand and hear the sound effects.

I can still remember my first look .

I have owned Meade , Celestron , a Pentax ,GSO's and the 30mm Andrews plus plossels and Orthoscopics and also have Radians , and while some of the cheaper brands work very well in slower focal ratios the Televue's Naglers excel in all focal ratios down to f4 or lower and the whole FOV is virtual usable.
There not 100% perfect with some better than others but there is nothing that matches the usuable 82deg field.

As to weather there worth up to several times the price of a cheaper brand , that will depend on *** you *** and your expectations and what scope your putting it in.

A total beginner won't be forking out more for one eyepiece than what there scope is worth but if your scope is in the many thousand $ bracket it is more appropriate.

Remember that the eyepiece is half the optical train.

One thing for sure these are more of an investment in optical quality rather than just another eyepiece.
There not one that you will sell in a few months looking for better.
Stricker excepted here.LOL :D

I still have a GSO but it is used in an F7.5 refractor and as a finder eyepiece and works well for that scope.

Love me Naglers and Radians. :thumbsup:

P.S. from a very good optician friend of mine it would supprise you how many people have some form of astigmatisim even thou they don't wear or need glasses and didn't even know it.
At high power and a small exit pupil astigmatism is generaly not a problem but low power large exit pupil , wide field star points will suffer from little spikes or ill formed stars.
This could account for one viewer seeing an abberation that some one else doesn't and some mistake for coma or eyepiece aberations.
I have just had contacts made with astigmatism correction for my dominant eye and find viwing even more enjoyable.

TV now make a lens to fit the top there long eye relief eyepieces just for this very same problem

[ving]

yup like said above. naglers are better. if I could buy one I would, but I just cant justify the expense and theres too many other things i want to buy... I'll probably get one eventually tho.
the GSO SV have little eye relief BTW.

[ving]

oh, and i have heard very good reviews on speers-waller wide angle EP. they are cheaper than TVs

[mch62]

With the GSO's I used a GSO 2x barlow with the 2"30 and 40SV's to retain the good eyerelief of those eyepieces but giving the mag of the 15 or 20.
Bit like A Nagler does :D

[ving]

I think the GSO SVs have 68 degree FOV too, not the 82 of nagler. something else to take into consideration

[ving]

heres a review on cloudy nights... 10mm speers-waler vs 9mmt1 nagler
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=276

[mch62]

Ever noticed how many reviews are done with a Televue eyepiece for comparison :whistle: ??

[ving]

yeah, they are certainly more popular hey? ;)

[dhumpie]

Well corrected, super contrasty ultra wide field views in super fast scopes. That sums up the Naglers. Just wish I had the money (and approval from the boss) to get some. But for now I will continue to enjoy Andrew's (astro_south's)...

Darren

[asimov]

Thank you gentlemen! I think I get the picture. Their the best widefield EP out there for F5 & under. Yell out when they have a price drop of 50% will ya?

The reason they work so well is obvious...almost perfect correction to counter- act coma. (at F5 and faster)

Sounds like TV pan's run a close second...Is a pan cheaper than a nagler?

[rumples riot]

All Televue Eyepieces are very good, Yes they are better than any EP I have looked through include Pentax and Meade 5000 series. They are not a status symbol, they actually are the best. I own a good range of TV Eps and they are way above all the other EP's I own.

Pans are more expensive than Naglers BTW.

Incidently, only people who don't own TV EP's give them a less than perfect rap. Funny that. Wannabees.

[asimov]

Not sure how to phrase my next question....I can not afford any high end EPs such as nagler's..or should I say, I can't justify spending that much money on 1 EP...Is there such a thing as a 'mid-range' of EPs that work great at F5? You just mentioned Pentax & meade 5000 series Paul, would you put those 2 into the mid-range category? To put it bluntly, any suggestions on a particular brand of EP that work nearly as good as a nagler (@ F/5)...but costing way less? :doh:

[Starkler]

There are many who prefer the Pentax XL/XW's to the Televue radians. Not all Televues are top of the tree in all aspects but pretty close to it.

[cahullian]

Those with expensive ep's could do a review on them for us lesser mortals.Those with not so expensive could also review theirs and so on and so forth.

Gazz

[asimov]

Well, there's actually plenty of EP reviews out there on the internet, but some are hard to track down for some. IE: the ED2 EPs that AOE have on special & the 7.5 ED baader that I've got for sale.

[Miaplacidus]

I have the 12 mm Type 4 Nagler, and if I didn't own it and hadn't paid for it I might actually be honest enough to say I'm a tad disappointed in it. On some scopes at least, the kidney beaning is insufferable (I don't have the pupil guide). I suspect the eyepiece really needs quite a lot of aperture to overcome the dulling effect caused by all those layers of glass.

Apparently the cognoscenti don't feel it's one of Al's best, although interestingly the 12 mm remains a popular eyepiece, probably because it is a focal length a lot of people find handy to have. (I've read that the T4s aren't a scalable design, so there is potentially more variation between different focal lengths than with other Nagler series eyepieces. Ed Ting particularly likes the T4 17 mm.)

Still, I bought mine second hand, and I know whenever I decide to sell it, I won't have much difficulty finding a buyer and I'll get pretty much what I paid for it. So in that sense, you'll never lose if you buy a Nagler.



Well, er, with all due recognition that I'm potentially exposing myself to public ridicule here, Andrews 2" UWA 30 mm eyepiece is an amazing eyepiece for the price: great even for daytime use, and no kidney beaning effects. (Shame about the flecks of blacking inside the barrel which seem to have found their way onto the inside of the lens! I might send it back to Lee and ask him to disassemble it and clean it for me. Do you think he will?)

As always, it's best to try before you buy (but it's not always possible when you live in Tasmania).

Interesting discussion!

Brian.

[p medcraft]

Wow, talk about a hot topic!
I own a type 6 Nagler 13mm, a type 6 Nagler 7mm, a type 4 Nagler 22mm, a 27mm Panoptic and a 35mm Panoptic
I built that collection up over a period of years, sometimes buying and selling other eyepieces to get the right combination. I figure it is just about the most perfect eyepiece box you will ever see, I also have an apo barlow to round it off. It is hard to describe the difference other than to agree with a previous comment that the noise made by observers when looking through these eyepieces is probably the best measure. The porthole effect is as applicable when viewing low power as it is when using the 7mm. I guess if I had to choose between a good scope and an average scope or good eyepieces and average eyepieces the eyepieces would stay. Over the years I have had the opportunity to look through many different eyepieces including Pentax and I have necer seen an eyepiece that I would swap for one of mine.
For me that says it all.

Paul Medcraft

[Argonavis]

The TeleVue Plossel is a much neglected high quality affordable (relatively) eyepeice. The first time I looked through one I knew that this was so much better than anything else I had used, and this was in the early days when TV was just starting out. Very good on planets. Highly recommended

[rumples riot]

The series 5000 EPs are definitely mid range quality and really good value for money. Only going to generally cost you around 200 for most of them and not many over 400. The Pentax are a little further up the list and cost a lot more. Got to say Televue is top of the list and nothing competes with them. Don't let anyone tell you that x brand makes EP's for Televue, that is a trick to sell you a lesser EP. So from what I have seen, an affordable EP with some value is the Meade 5000 series. Just watch the Grease though on the UWA EP's.

[asimov]

I have an ED-2 9.5mm on it's way. Most user reviews on this particular EP are not all that favorable. IE: 6 elements = a rather 'soft' look. I have the option of sending it back if it's not up to my standards though.

I'll take the recommendation on board re: meade 5000 & TV plossl's..Thanks.

[Starkler]

I'll have to disagree there.
The Pentax cedes nothing to Televue in contrast or sharpness. Whilst a nagler has a wider FOV 82 degrees versus 65, what the pentax does give is eye relief of 20mm with unsurpassed viewing comfort.
Sadly the XL series is no longer available, replaced by the XW series with a much bigger price tag.
I purchased my XL's for $229US brand new and at that price were a genuine bargain in a premium eyepiece.

[robin]

I own 2 naglers,9mm & 17mm, a 6mm radian & a 35 mm panoptic.Love them all, they are fantastic & I know that if i ever want to sell them, I'll get a good resale price.Sure,they cost a bit but they enhance my viewing experience & I intend to have them a long time.If i ever upgrade the LX200, the TV's will serve the next scope well too.I consider my TV's a long term investment & I intend to get a couple more.
They are, simply stated, excellent.

[asimov]

:confuse3: I just went & checked out bintels price's on meade series 5000 & Naglers. Not that badly priced, considering..

I'm actually thinking of biting several bullets & getting a Nagler! :confuse3:

I look at it this way...& I'm sure I was not the only newbie to do this?..I own 20 plus EPs, I estimate roughly $4000 worth. None of the low power EPs much chop in an F/5 scope. My high power ones are ok for planetary work...I could sell all those EPs off, (keeping a couple of the best) and get a couple of naglers, & I'd be set! In hind-sight, I should of just started buying Naglers & other high end EPs when I first got into astronomy....I'm KICKING myself! very foolish! :scared2:

My next dilemma is with me moving to America soon, my aim was to sell the 12.5" reflector, & eventually land myself a 14"-16" SCT or something similar, which means most of my EPs would be quite good in an F/10-F/12 SCT.....decisions decisions!

[ausastronomer]

I have used losts of eyepieces over a long period of time. Simple fact is you usually get what you pay for. Its worth noting that some Naglers are better than others. As they incorporate different optical designs and parameters over different focal lengths. For instance, some of the earlier Naglers were not comfortable to use and also suffered from Kidney beaning and blackout, this manifests more in some observers than others and generally is more apparent to less experienced observers. Its also worth noting that a lot of Naglers have fairly short eye-relief and may not be all that suitable for people that wear eyeglasses. For instance the 24mm Panoptic is optically the best eyepiece available in that focal length but eye-relief is tight, hence for me the 20mm Pentax is a better option having 20mm of eye-relief. Some other Naglers namely the 12mm, 17mm and 22mm T4's have more comfortable eye-relief but the compromise here is that they sacrifice a little in edge performance (compared to the t5's) to obtain the extra eye-relief.

In the shorter focal lengths (under 14mm) which are mainly used for higher power observations the Pentax XW's are just as good as anything Televue produces. Actually to me they are better because they are a "lot" more comfortable to use than the NT6's for an eyeglass wearer and optically they are just as good, fractionally smaller FOV which you don't really notice, offset by marginally sharper on axis images with higher light transmission. But we are splitting hairs here, both the Pentax XW's and the Nagler T6's are absolutely outstanding eyepieces.

CS-John B

[asimov]

John B. Who actually sells pentax's here in AU? I don't think I have come across any in my browsing as yet.

[ausastronomer]

I agree Geoff,

I think Paul and a few others BTW, either need to visit their optometrist or take the rose coloured glasses off. I have used lots of both and I can tell you there is barely a struck match between the Pentax XW's and the Nagler T6's optically, with the Pentax winning on comfort and losing marginally on FOV.

CS-John B

[rumples riot]

No need to get personal. I am entitled to an opinion, your not entitled to berate me publically.

[ausastronomer]

John,

Here are 2 companies that I have dealt with and both offer excellent service.

http://centre.net.au/Pentax_0008BH.html

http://www.staroptics.com.au/index.php?a=accessories

I have actually bought a lot of goods from Centre.net and their service is superb. They will go out of their way to order a product into stock and add it to their inventory if they don't carry it. I was the reason they now sell the Pentax XW eyepieces, I phoned and asked them if they could get them for me and what the price would be and they phoned back an hour later and said they could get them and the eyepieces turned up 2 days later superbly packaged. I have also bought camera gear, binos and filters from them.

CS-John B

[asimov]

Thanks John B. At least all The XWs I would consider purchasing are in the $479 bracket.(from star Optical)

This I believe, will take some considerable thought. Naglers versus Pentax's :confuse3:

[Exfso]

I agree with Paul, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and I dont believe it is acceptable here. If one has something to say to another member, do it via email otherwise shutup.

:mad2:

[janoskiss]

How about using a coma corrector? Could one use a corrector to sharpen up the seagulls of simpler design wide FOV EPs in fast scope? Paying big bucks for built-in optics for dealing with coma, with each EP (like Naglers) seems a bit silly, if one correcting lens could do the job for every EP. Well, can it?

[beren]

Thats one way Steve , always wondered how a Televue Parracor would perform on a Newt?

I have 2 naglers , 22mmt4 and a 9mmt6 , must admit i had to take a deep breath before taking the plunge but i havent regreted the decision , they have proved to be simply excellent tools .

[asimov]

Apparently they perform ok on a newt (F/3.5-F/8)..My concern would be what EPs are they compatible with, if their not naglers/pans/pentax etc etc. Will it get rid of the coma seen in a GS SV 30mm 2" for instance..In a few websites, they tell me this device was basically designed for nagler's & other high end EPs....but, and I quote 'the teleview paracorr works with other brands of EPs too' unquote. I have emailed certain companies requesting a LIST of the other brands of EPs the paracorr is supposedly 'compatible' with..

[Starkler]

A coma corrector such as a paracorr will not help an eyepiece which doesnt have proper field correction for a fast scope. Coma is inherent is fast newtonians and has nothing to do with the eyepiece itself. There are many who describe a poorly corrected eyepiece as suffering "coma", this is incorrect.

[asimov]

Thanks for that tid-bit Geoff..To put it in laymans terms...Your saying not all eyepieces are 'corrected' to work in fast telescopes, their really designed for slow instruments. It's only since they've been producing fast scopes...mainly for amateur astronomers...that they realized they had to produce some 'corrected' EPs to overcome the coma created in a fast scope.(hence the invention of naglers/pentax & the like) So therefore, a paracorr would only work with EPs that have been specifically designed (corrected) to work in a fast scope.

I know this is the long version of what you just said, sorry about that.

One question: Are the meade 5000 series 'corrected' specifically for use in fast scopes?

[ausastronomer]

That statement is about as vain as you can get, affording them isn't my problem, handling their short eye-relief with my glasses on is. Actually my wife's monthly credit card bill easily covers several of Uncle Al's finest. Several thousand observers throughout the Western World face the problem of needing eyepieces with longer eye-relief because of astigmatism.

I actually own a 27mm Pan and 2.5X powermate which I like a lot. The powermate is easily the best barlow I have used and I have used lots over many years. I previously owned a 16mm Nagler t2 and a 1.25" 1.8X TV barlow and they were both great products. The 26mm Nagler T5 is easily the best low power widefield eyepiece I have used, I prefer it over the 31mm because of the smaller exit pupil it creates in fast scopes. In the shorter focal lengths the Pentax XW's which are slighly superior to the older XL's are at least as good as anything Televue produces. They are both superb products, but I use the Pentax because of their longer eye-relief. Its a pity we all can't evaluate the performance of our equipment objectively instead of with a 1 sided approach and importantly consider all the factors that need to be considered when purchasing a $500 or more eyepiece.

In addition I suggest you take a look through a Zeiss orthoscopic if you want to see a sharp high light transmittance planetary eyepiece, somewhat superior to anything Televue has produced with a lot more neutral colour reproduction than some of Televues planetary eyepieces. But realistically they are at their best on a driven scope not a dob due to the narrow FOV. Come to think of it the 7mm Nikon ortho is almost as good as the Zeiss and somewhat superior to the TV offerings IMO.

CS-John B

[asimov]

I keep getting drawn to these Meade series 5000 EPs...:confuse3: Just read a specific shoot-out...a nagler 5mm against the meade 5000 SWA 4.5mm. The nagler won out over-all....but not by much! The meade could by a very good option!

[mch62]

Just like to say that my choice of Naglers include all the long eye relief versions so I can use glasses or the dioptix corrector.
These are the 31mm Nag the 17mm Nag and the 12 mm Nag as well as 2 Radians for higher power which are all more than 17mm exit pupil distance.

You might have to choose these particular models if you whear specticals and the specifications are on the T.V. site .
I have still have orthoscopics and yes find them slightly better for planetary use but as you said eye relief is not user friendly.

The 31mm nagler will only give a 6.2mm exit pupil , in an f5 so is with-in the 5-7mm for a dark adapted eye, but this will depend on your particular pupil size .

[asimov]

All the information I have obtained thus far from you guys has been great, & very informative. Apart from the odd over-looked question from yours truly, & some...shall we call them....un-called for comments. :thumbsup:

[Starkler]

This is what we like to see at IceInSpace



And this isnt what we like to see.

Some topics do have the potential to create heated arguments, but please do always keep differences in opinion civil and refrain from personal attacks.

For future reference, posts containing personal attacks are liable to be deleted.

[Starkler]

Im not 100% sure from what you said that you understood what I was trying to say, so I'll rephrase.

Coma is a function of focal length only. As you get further away from the optical axis taking in a wide field view in a fast scope, coma can become an issue. Away from the optical axis, a parabolic mirror cannot focus to a perfect point and coma is the result. A coma corrector reduces this effect.

As for eyepieces, simple and cheap designs cannot handle the steep light cone from a fast scope and produce a sharp image across the field, resulting in abberations. This is not the same as coma.

So , a coma corrector wont make up for deficiencies in eyepieces.
I hope that helps.

[ausastronomer]

John,

I will also try to re phrase what Geoff is correctly pointing out.

In newtonians Coma is an aberration caused directly by the parabolic mirror. It has nothing to do with the eyepiece and the eyepiece does not correct for it. Geoff correctly explains by saying it is caused by the angle of incidence becoming steeper as you go further from the central axis of the mirror, this causes a change in the lateral magnification at different points on the mirror. A good way to experience this is to focus the suns rays on concrete with a magnifying glass. When the magnifying glass is at 90% to the suns rays the light focuses to a point, angle the magnifying glass and the light focuses to a point with a fan-like tail, this is coma and what a paraccor is designed to correct.

A cheap eyepiece in a fast scope will suffer from numerous aberrations because the eyepiece is not properly corrected to work with such a steep light cone. These aberrations will mainly be astigmatism, field curvature and barrel and pincushion distortion. These aberrations will generally mask any actual coma that you would normally notice eminating from the fast parabolic mirror itself, as these eyepiece aberrations also get worse as you go off axis. A paraccor will not correct for these aberrations but it "may" clean them up a little, partially because the paraccor effectively increases the focal ratio of the scope by 15%. Another way to "clean up" the images when using cheap eyepieces in a fast scope is to use a longer focal length eyepiece with a decent barlow. ie a 30mm eyepiece with a 2X barlow will give a nicer image than a 15mm native eyepiece. This occurs because a normal barlow (2X) works by effectively doubling the focal length of the scope hence the focal ratio of the scope is also doubled. ie an f5 scope becomes an F10 scope when a 2X barlow is used.

A paraccor is not the answer with cheap eyepieces IMO, its expensive in its own right. If your going to use a paraccor you would generally do so with scopes faster than F4.7 or so and using good eyepieces so the paraccor is only correcting what its designed to correct and thats coma. Thats a personal thing however, as some use a paraccor even in an F5 or slower scopes, its up to the individual. I have no issues with coma in F5 scopes. I actually used an F3.8 scope (GOTH was his name) at SPSP without a paraccor and didn't find the coma intollerable.

I hope this explains it a little better for you.

CS-John B

[Exfso]

I think he is trying to point this out as well.

[asimov]

Geoff & John B. Your lengthy, detailed explanations have certainly enlightened me a great deal, & I appreciate your time & efforts involved in responding to my questions. Even I find it hard to believe I've been into astronomy most of my life & yet know next to nothing about the technical side of it like you guys. But there is a reason for that, which I wont get into here.

I guess the moral of the story could perhaps be summed up as: For fast scopes, if you require optimum views you would be well advised to purchase 'up market' oculars rather than waste money on low budget ones..Would you agree with this statement?

[ballaratdragons]

So, going by the above info, My f5 Dobbie actually becomes an f10 with my GS 2" 2x Barlow.

Interesting. I thought it just 2x magnified the image.

[janoskiss]

Tell me if I got this right now:

1. Parallel rays that are not parallel with the optical axis of the mirror are not focused to a single point. That kind of off-axis aberration is referred to as coma.

2. The other type of off-axis aberration associated with parabolic mirrors is that the image plane is not really a plane but a curved surface. The faster the scope the greater the curvature. That's the fast light-cone business, right?

3. Coma corrector like paracorr corrects #1, and top dollar eyepieces look after #2.

Am I even close? :confuse2:

BTW. It would be much easier to convey these things in diagrams. I myself was too lazy to produce any. :ashamed:

PS. do a google search for "light cone"! :wink2:

[asimov]

Ok. Although I would DEARLY love to own a nagler...My bank balance says 'please don't do it!?' So to keep the peace, I'm looking for definite opinions on these two oculars please.

1 televue plossl 11mm

2 meade series 5000 plossl 14mm

I would like to know A: How do these plossls rate, up against a nagler? According to reviews, the 5000 gives a nagler a run for it's money, & so does a TV plossl. (dont forget I run an F/5 newt) ;)

B: If you were in my position & could not afford a nagler, would you purchase one of these 2 as a 'substitute' for a nagler?

C: If you had to choose just one of these out of the 2 mentioned, which one would you buy...& why? Their Both $145 each, just for the record.

Thankyou All for helping me out with excellent advise! Answer these 3 & I will be done, I promise! :D :innocent:

[ausastronomer]

John,

There are a number of eyepieces that work very well in fast scopes (down to F4) and provide superb image quality across the entire FOV that are reasonably priced. These eyepieces include Televue Plossls, University Optics High Definition orthoscopics and the Masuyama designs (5 element plossl) which include the Celestron Ultimas, Orion Ultrascopic, Antares Elite and Parks Gold Series. These are all the same eyepiece manufactured in the same factory in Japan with a different label on them.

I haven't used the Meade 5000 series so can't comment on it, but have used the Meade 4000 series and can only say that Meade don't exhibit the same quality control as the other manufacturers with their eyepieces. The early Meade 4000 plossls were made in Japan and were very good, the later Meade 4000 plossls were made in China and left something to be desired IMO. All of these eyepieces have 2 negatives, they have short eye-relief in the shorter focal lengths and they have a narrow AFOV, about 50 deg for the plossls and 45 deg for the HD orthos, the orthos have slightly longer eye relief than the plossls but its still tight, usually about 80% of the eyepieces focal length against 70 to 75% in the plossls. The image quality in these eyepieces is superb, as good as any premium eyepiece and clearly superior to what you would get in the cheaper eyepieces produced in China and Taiwan.

If you are working to a budget and don't wear glasses to observe these eyepieces are the best alternatives IMO, I think a 1st rate image across a narrower FOV is a lot better option than a poor image across a larger FOV.
The only thing you lose with these eyepieces compared to premiums like Naglers, Panoptics, Pentax and Vixen Lanthanum wides is the wider FOV and in the case of the Pentax and Vixen the comfort of 20mm of eye relief. Some Naglers and Panoptics have long eye-relief but only in the longer focal lengths and the Type 4's. In some cases the simple designs can provide a marginally superior planetary/lunar image compared to the premiums due to higher light transmission and more neutral colour reproduction due to them having less lens elements, although it usually takes an experienced observer to detect this. They are also usually smaller and lighter than the premiums hence their popularity for binoviewing.

If I was you, working to a budget using a tracking scope and also assuming you don't wear glasses ? I would buy either the Televue Plossls or the University Optics HD orthoscopics, or import the Antares Elite in from Canada. FWIW the HD orthos would probably cost you about $130, but they do have a marginally narrower FOV compared to a plossl. I prefer the orthos because of the high contrast and accurate neutral colour reproduction, but thats a very personal thing to suit my observing tastes.

CS-John B

[ving]

I know its not a 11mm but I did a compario between a TV 10.5mm plossl and a 9.5mm GSO... yeah its not exactly a professional write up but feel free to read it anyhow :)
:poke:

[asimov]

I'd love to read it David...where can I find it?

[ving]

er... BRB...

[ving]

'ere ya go matey!
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=1156&highlight=10.5mm+televue
:)

[asimov]

Ta David.

[asimov]

Ok. Just finished reading your review David. Thanks for that. Any opinion up-dates to you review after having owned the TV for awhile?

Hopefully, someone that owns one of those Meade 5000 plossl's will step in here as well & tell us what they think of it..Perhaps I'll just have to buy one of each lol

[ving]

i exagerated when i said it had to be pulled out bt 5mm. its more like 2 mm. anyhow its a good EP.... anything else you wish to know?
its crisp as! :D

[asimov]

Nope! that will do for now mate, thanks. Just biding my time now till a meade 5000 owner steps in.:whistle::prey2:

[asimov]

Well. There's obviously no meade 5000 owners here. ;) I'm opting out on the meade 5000 series plossl....Just read about 50 reviews on em' & I'm not all that keen on taking the risk to see if their ok or not. The occasional coating sleek, the grease, the field stop reflection/illumination problem.....QC problems in general is enough to put me off.

I'm going with a 20mm TV plossl, for several reasons. 20mm will give me decent views of nebulae, globs & general low-mid range observing. Not a great wide view EP at 50o but that's what I'm used to anyway. 11mm of eye relief is ok too.

This EP barlowed will be good for mid range planetary views & the likes as well. originally I was going for the 11mm Plossl...but this barlowed 290X would not be obtainable very often. The 20mm will be used more often by me, barlowed & not. 10mm FL giving me a mag of 160X is my optimum for planets such as jupiter & saturn. Good for detailed work on globs etc as well.

I know it's not a premium ocular, especially for an F/5 scope. But it's about the closest I can come to one at this stage.

What do you think guys? A good decision, or not? :confuse3:

Opinions/comments on my choice highly appreciated.

[Starkler]

Antares Elite plossls are a quality 5 element design the same as the Celestron Ultima, Orion Ultrascopics and are just as good as TV plossls according to some.

http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca/antares.htm

Joe is a great bloke to deal with and I have no hesitation to recommend him.

[asimov]

Yes, I've read their fairly similar in quality. Slightly cheaper than a TV as well. I have a 24mm ultima that I really like, & would not part with. My 15mm parks gold series is a keeper too. I just figured it was about time I found out what's so good about a televue EP :confuse3:

TY for the link.

[rumples riot]

John, I have a series 5000 UWA 6.7mm. Good EP. Just dont want you to think that there are no owners of 5000 series EP's.

[rumples riot]

BTW, TV is a good choice and the focal length will serve you well, for many years. Great choice.

[mch62]

Last time I saw Striker he had a couple of the new Meade Plossels but that was a month ago and he may be on his next set of eyepiece by now :rofl: :D :poke:

[asimov]

A month ago? Yep...they would have been sold 3 weeks ago surely!? :lol: ;)

[tornado33]

My thoughts.....
When I got my Meade 6 inch F3.6 Cometracker it was "ok" but nothing brilliand using the supplied 25 mm MA eyepiece. The Type 2 Naglers were not long out and I had the money for a 16mm one. Upon putting that on the Cometracker, it became something else entirely, a true rich field scope, and not just for night use. Scanning along the beaches of a day, it is just incredible with the Nagler, sharp across a good part of the field little bit of fall off at the edfges but not too bad. The Nagler does a great job on my 10 inch as well.
With a Meade air spaced triplet 2.8x barlow and the 16 Nagler on the Cometracker it gives surprisingly good views of the planets too, tack sharp resoloution.
Thats my 2 cents worth :)
Scott

[asimov]

I ordered the 20mm TV plossl today, should be here in a few days. I nearly went a meade plossl as well, but I talked myself out of that. Also very nearly went the nagler 4.8mm for $ 260....Couldn't work out why that particular nagler was half the price of most of the other naglers, but after reading plenty of reviews, I think I've worked it out.;) I won't be going near that one either..

A full review on the TV plossl will be done & submitted to Mike. Thanks to all the guys for their advise.:thumbsup:

[ving]

np :)

[rumples riot]

More than happy to help.

[xrekcor]

Not to rub salt into any cuts or sores, But I think with the above statement(s) will open you up to some personal attacks :confuse3: personally I think they are a tad well opinionated, and not necessarily correct as a whole. But that's ok you have the right to one. But as you say “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”

This last weekend I managed to test/try/compare the Naglers and Meades SWA series you guys are talking about against my Pentax XW's. Generally they are all excellent ep's but I do find my XW's allot more contrasty in comparison and tend to bring out the finer detail in objects a lil better. None of the Naglers gave me more of the so called "space walk" than I get from the XW's. So the different between 70 to 82 was very marginal. I tend to find the coatings on the XW superior giving me an overall darker background with a more neutral look to star fields. Astro_souths 31mm t5 quite an outstanding ep by the way, as long as you kept the field static. The pincushion effect really disappointed me and did my head in more than a lil. I have to say it is no longer on my wishlist. Houghy 20mm t5 did have me looking for the green texter and my 30mm SV :D still not as contrasty as the XW's. Houghy's new SWA's are incredibly BIG but I have to say I wasn't happy with the off axis look, but on axis there were spectacular. Scope used 8" f/6 newt.

Later me and Astro_south compared his 13mm t6 with my 14mm XW through his 12.5" dob the difference was marginal if at all, personally I felt the contrasty XW brought the detail out in NGC253 dust lanes a tad more. But he would probably say the same about the t6.

Btw, this is only my opinion but seems to be resonate with all XW owners most of which who I have spoken to were and are still Nagler owners. I think Nagler may have been at the top of the range at one stage but they are no longer the only ones there :D

Think of this, When you buy Pentax they are made by and coated by Pentax opticians. When you buy Nagler today they are not grinded by Al Nagler anymore they are tested to a set of variables set by Al Nagler and coated by TV. Essentially your paying to have Al Nagler approve someone out sourced work and have him then put his name on it. If I were paying AUS$995.00 for say a 31mm t5 I would want Al to personally grind it.

Here’s another take completely off-topic. Some years back I was working a for a promoter called Micheal Edgely. I along with his accountant we were giving the job of driving his sexy red Ferrari from Sydney to Brisbane so he would have it to drive around up there, it was one of those performance types the name I forget. I was so excited to get the chance to drive one of these beasts I found it hard to get any sleep the night prior. Anyways this thing stuck to the road like glue and if anyone got in the way, hell! down went the foot and see you later. Nothing like pulling up next to chicky babes in this thing : ) and boy did we get some looks. The day after we arrived I noticed my back was a lil sore and I happened to mention this to him. His reply was “That’s why you guys drove it up, the damn suspension does really kick in until your doing 150mph plus” so the ride was a lil firm. He also had a Merc 500 up in Brisbane which he drove personally all the way to Melbourne. While down there I had the chance to drive it out to the airport to pick up an entertainer. The noticeable difference was the smooth comfortable ride it was it was luxury with a capital “L” both cars were top notch

I find the difference between Nagler t’s and Pentax XW’s the same. I am pleased I ended up going with the XW’s they are the creams of creams when it comes to comfort an long periods of observing, personally I think the Nagler is way over rated

kindest regards, CS

[Starkler]

Rob I own 10.5mm and 14mm Pentax XL's and can relate to your experiences re contrast vs the naglers. A good few months ago when Saturn was still around I had the opportunity to compare my Pentaxs with a large selection of naglers.

I was finding my XL's barlowed were bettering the equivalent type 6 naglers unbarlowed in terms of scattered light, and equalling them in sharpness given that both were limited by the seeing, which was better than average on the night.

I do own a 31 nagler and know what you mean about the field curvature, still I love it :love:

Conclusion: Televue isnt the only show in town at the top end of eyepieces.

[asimov]

My opinion doesn't count here no doubt, not owning either a nagler or a pentax. But judging by the numerous reviews I've been reading over the past week, WHEN my budget allows, my first premium EP will be a pentax & not a nagler.

[xrekcor]

My 10mm & 14mm XW's barlowed x2 are spectacular planetary ep's I'm looking forward to accqiring the 7mm and 5mm XW's so I can toss the barlow lol

I was going to drop the 20mm XW and get the 20mm t5 but I'm also now having second thought about that too. I like the sound of similar look with different focal length... something that is lacking in the Naglers.

Dont get me too wrong I liked the 31mm t5 but it is an ep size I would use to scan the sky with. But as I mentioned scanning the sky with it made me feel as Astro_South say's "Sea Sick"

It all boils down to personal preference, I try to avoid bad mouthing ep's at the top of the range. As John B say's we're splitting hairs what one lacks the other gains or excels

regards, CS

[Starkler]

If only they came in 6mm I would already have one :(
Im thinking maybe a 6mm radian might be the go , but I would have to try and compare first.

[asimov]

I'm on the verge of having to wear glasses at the EP....within the next few years I would imagine, my main reason for choosing a pentax over a nagler.

[xrekcor]

May I also add my 3.5 XW on a reasonable night/morning is Mars Madness.... I was hoping to show Astro_South this but the weather or maybe it was the sky glow at AstroFest 2005 that limited it's use.

But hey I think he maybe investing in the 10mm hehehe

regards, Clear "friggin cold" Skies

[xrekcor]

You will definitely enjoy the ER then, I like the way they are build with an adjustable & removable eye cup for ease of cleaning is great too.

regards, CS

[ausastronomer]

Geoff,

I barlow the 14mm Pentax XW in my 2.5X TV Powermate for the equivalent of a 5.6mm Eyepiece and 220X in my 10"/F5 scope. I find this combination performs superbly and is somewhat more forgiving on the seeing than a Native 5mm eyepiece at 250X. A perfect planetary combo IMO.

CS-John B

[h0ughy]

Yes it true, Dave doesn't deserve his nagler :poke: i went and bought two eyepieces recently a 24mm ultrawide meade and a 34mm super wide meade. I was extremely happy with the performance and the price (both for the price of a 31mm nagler). They were very sharp and contrasty at f5, f6.3 and f10. and very comfortable to use Used in a 30" they were supurb, and the scopes owner even commented that they are just a good as a nagler, and in a 10" they offered great views as well. The 18mm 1.25" meade ultra wide was also great. The 20mm Nagler I have when viewed on the same objects, (tuc47 and M57, ngc1355) in comparison was a very good eyepiece. I am still waiting for my nagler 9mm. (all 2")

[xrekcor]

John,

Do you have the 7mm & 5mm XW's. If so any thoughts on them? I'll sit here and drawl at your reply ;)

I like the sound of what the 2.5x powermate does, it the lil diffence in powers sometimes that makes all the difference.

Do you still have the 20mm Xw for sale?

regards

[ausastronomer]

Rob,

I have the 7mm,10mm,14mm and 20mm Pentax XW's
5mm,6mm,7mm,9mm,12mm and 18mm UO HD orthos, a 27mm TV Panoptic and a 30mm GSO Superview (for the kids to put their chocolate coated fingers on). I also have a 2" 1.6X Antares APO Barlow, a 1.25" 2X Orion Shorty Plus and the 1.25" 2.5X TV Powermate. I have most bases covered.

The 7mm and 10mm Pentax XW's are outstanding, only complaint is a tad of chromatic aberration right at the EOF on very bright objects. You will get this on any widefield eyepiece. The 14mm Pentax I rate as almost as good as the shorter focal lengths. The 20mm exhibits minor field curvature in both fast and slow scopes and is not quite as good as the shorter focal length XW's IMO. Its also worth noting that it uses a different lens configuration (6 elements in 4 groups) as opposed to the shorter focal lengths which are 7 elements in 5 groups. That having been said its about as good as you will get in this focal length while retaining 20mm of eye-relief. The 20mm Nagler T5 and the 24mm Panoptic are both slightly superior optically but have shorter eye-relief and I cannot use them with glasses on. The 22mm NT4 has sufficient eye-relief but is inferior optically to the other 2 Televue products. The 22mm Vixen Lanthanum wide performs similar to the Pentax XW and 22mm NT4 IMO, so basically if you want to retain long eye relief at this focal length in a 1.25" barrel you sacrifice a little edge performance. Bear in mind I am talking about very minor issues in a premium eyepiece, Louie (Atalas) when I stuck it in his TAK FS102 couldn't detect it, but I was still able to see it, because I know its there. If you need to wear glasses when using a 20mm eyepiece then the 20mm Pentax XW is probably your best option in a 1.25" barrel. If you don't need glasses at this focal length the 24mm Panoptic is a slightly better choice IMO. I had sold the 20mm Pentax XW but my wife told me I couldn't sell it because it was given to me as I gift and had sentimental value, so I reluctantly withdrew it from sale. I wasn't going to have my wife with the "tom tits" at me over a $500 eyepiece. When I crapp her off its going to be over a 100k Lexus or Bima or something similar :)

The 1.25" TV powermate is the best barlow I have used. Its a cracker and I have used a lot of barlows in the past, including a 2" 1.75X Parks barlow (1960's vintage) about the size of a longneck, which was crapp BTW. Powermate is highly recommeded.

CS-John B

[xrekcor]

John,

I have the 3.5mm, 10mm, 14mm XW's I haven't noticed chromatic aberration in any of them, but then again it maybe my in-experience, if it were pointed out to me that maybe different. I do find with the XW's if there is a fault with them it is eyeplacement. When I first slotted the 14mm I must say at first I was a lil disappointed. It appeared a tad out of focus towards the edges. However after playing with the eyeplacement and adjusting the eyeguard this disappeared. All three are tack sharp to the EOF in my f/6 newt.

Have you been able to try the 2" 30mm XW?

And what about the nagler 26mm t5? does it suffer the same field curverture like the 31mm t5? I did like the 20mm t5 of Houghy's so maybe they might be a better option for wide FOV views.

regards

[ausastronomer]

Trust me its there on all of them. Minimal, but if you get Jupiter/Venus/Moon right on the field stop at high power you can see it at the edge, adjacent to the field stop. You will get this on any widefield and it does not affect viewing performance at all.



This is experience. Once you get used to using eyepieces that are a little more critical of eye placement you get used to putting your eye in the right place. The early Naglers are even more critical than the Pentax XW's are for eye placement and blackouts.



No, but I would like to.



Not IMO, I rate the 26mm NT5 as the best 2" long focal length widefield eyepiece I have used period. The 20mm NT5 is also up there as one of the best ever, excepting its eye-relief is now too short for my worsening eyes as I now need glasses when using eyepieces of 20mm focal length in fast scopes. If you don't need glasses at the eyepiece the 20mm NT5 is an absolute cracker.

CS-John B

[xrekcor]

No, dont wear glasses, actually I found and still find my 7mm HD has comfortable eyerelief... just that me darn eyelashes are a tad long. However this is never a problem with the XW's ;) another thing I find with the XW's is I can swap eyeballs with no adjustment period like I do with the U/O HD's. and I love the way the eyeguard on the XW encaptures your eyeball. Kinda wish they made the 20mm in a 2" version

Dont get me wrong, eyeplacement was only a five minute prob, and I shouldn't really call it a fault, as I quickly got used to it. With the 3.5 you have to use the 20mm eyerelief any closer and it will black out. Still spectacular in reasonable to good conditions. It did surprise me how usable that power has been in condition I would of thought it would breakdown. However at that power it is effected by sky glow and zodiacal light. But then every ep at that focal length would breakdown. I've had the best views of Mars _period_ with that ep

regards

[xrekcor]

Here's a post from another forum by a new Nagler owner




regards,CS

[iceman]

He's describing CA (chromatic abberation). I found that all of the 14mm widefield eyepieces I tested (including the 13mm nagler t6) on Venus had CA when placed near the edge.

I guess they're not really designed to be planetary eyepieces and don't work particularly well on very bright objects.

[bytor666]

Nobody has mentioned the meade 14mm UWA series 4000 :whistle:
This is one that I myself own and it is a KILLER eyepiece!!!!...super, ultra-flat view from edge to edge in my 12"F/5 GSO telescope!!!, Blows the 12mm Nagler Type 4 away on sharpness too !!!

I would have to disagree that the Naglers are "better" then the Pentaxes. I love the naglers, don't get me wrong, they have a nice 82 degree FOV, but the Pentax XW's from 10mm up are super-sharp and the edge performance on these babies are far superior to the Naglers!!!

I just got my 10mm Pentax XW in the mail yesterday and alreay had it trained on Venus this week for a quick view!!! :prey2:
I also think that the 9mm nagler Type 1 has better eye relief then the newer 9mm Nag type 6.
All in all, the naglers are great workhorse eyepieces, but there are also others to pick from besides just them.
I would LOVE to have a look through that 31mm nagler, I'll tell you that for sure!!!! :scared: :prey2: :prey2: :prey2:
-----------------------
Mark
12" F/5 GSO Telescope
30mm 1rpd (coming soon)
14mm meade series 4000 UWA
10mm Pentax XW
2" GSO Barlow

[iceman]

I had my first look through a 31mm Nagler in a 10" GSO dob (same as mine, using Dave47Tuc's and Starklers nagler + scopes) at the recent Snake Valley star camp a few weeks ago.

They are a beautiful eyepiece.. Magnificent wide FOV and very very sharp. It only took me a second to work out the best place for my eye, and after that there was no problem with kidney beaning or blackouts.

The view of Andromeda (also my first view!) was stunning, even so low on the horizon. It's a beautiful eyepiece, that's for sure. But it's also $1000 :)

[rochler]

amateur astronomer, then you must pluck out your eyelashes so as not to have them interfere with your eyepieces. This will avoid all those nasty oily smears on your $400+ eyepieces. Eyelashes don't seem to support any useful function anyhow...

I don't recommend that you use scissors unless you have very steady hands - you could jab them in your eye unintentionally. The use of hair removal cream is also not advisable, since they are caustic. If you mainly use eyepieces with small exit pupils you may get away with just removing the lashes in the centre portion of your eye(s) - dunno what style you would call this, but it's like the opposite of a 'Brazilian'.

Unless you are really making a statement, you might wish to apply this treatment to both eyes equally, since otherwise you may scare small children or less enlightened astronomers. You will still look weird, but it's a small price to pay for the warm glow you will get for taking this hobby seriously....

:P :nerd:

[janoskiss]

I have become a Nagler owner since this thread started...

The 13mm is not a bad little EP but there is plenty of things I can pick on (and no, lack of eye relief is not one of them; but I'm a picky ******* maybe my title should say that...)

[xrekcor]

Ok I'm gonna stir the pot again in XW's favour

edit: If Nagler are meant to be sooooo good!!!

How come I see more Naglers being resold than XW's :) I understand
there are allot of Nagler owners out there compared to possibly XW owners.

Still you very rarely see XW's being offered, interesting...


regards,CS

[bytor666]

Hi, I just came in from a small stint out in my yard. I was testing out my new Pentax 10mm XW. I know exactly why you don't see these being sold as much as the Naglers: They are far better in my opinion!!!
Tack-Sharp views in my 12" F/5 Telescope, without any warping or coma on the extreme edge of the fieldstop!!! :prey2:

It's quite cold out here :cold: , but I am enjoying it nevertheless!!!!!...Pentax eyepieces are the Best !!!!...The 10mm XW won't be leaving my possession any time soon !!!!! ;)
----------------------------
Mark
12" F/5 reflector
30mm 1 rpd (finder EP)
21mm TeleVue plossl(on the way)
14mm Meade series 4000 UWA
10mm Pentax XW
2" GSO Barlow

[xrekcor]

And by the look of it, possibly a dis-owner before it ends :P

regards,CS

[xrekcor]

Hey Mark,



Yeah the 10mm is definitely a :cool: customer :)

regards,CS

[xrekcor]

Mark,

Hmmmm.... Hamilton, Ontario, Canada eh'

I've been there, tis where I brought my Hortons coffee mug from, on the way to
Montreal. Which saddly I no longer have... wore it out lol

Your out along the 410 or 401 east of Toronto correct me if I'm wrong.

regards,CS

[ving]

that would probably be because more naglers are sold than xws. lets face it, when ever anyone talks about premium EPs the first name to be thrown around is nagler isnt it. hence more sales. ;)
thought that was obvious rob :P

[xrekcor]

David,

Yeah you could be right, still more and more folks seem to be turning to XW's
and I'm still yet to hear any regrets :P

regards,CS