Rating Eyepieces: what to buy?

[Rodstar]

Time to take the plunge on some more EPs :D .... you may all recall the Thread "Eyepiece Performance Ratings" started by Ausastronomer on 20/05/05. Just want to create some feedback following that regarding John Bambury's ratings, and how they might apply to my 10" SCT, and some purchases I am considering.

John rated the Pentax XWs at 9.5/10, Radians and Panoptics at 9/10 and the 4000 series UWA Meades at 8/10.

Do you agree, and where do you think the 5000 series UWA Meades rate? Better than the 4000 series? As good as the Radian and Panoptics?

I am happy with my 30mm EP at the moment, but am thinking of supplementing my mid-range mag range.

I am thinking about making the following purchases:

1. 14mm 5000 series UWA Meade: $285
(cf 14mm Pentax XW $479, 14mm Radian $385, 15mm Panoptic $350)

2. 18mm Radian: $385
(cf 18mm 5000 UWA Meade $393, 19mm Panoptic $399, 20mm VW Pentax $479)

3. 24mm Panoptic: $485
(cf 24mm UWA 5000 Meade $555)

NB:I'm not ready yet for the price tag of Naglers in these ranges, so I have left those out of this discussion...

I'd appreciate your thoughts, esp. John, and anyone who has used these EPs on a 10" SCT like mine.
:help:

[asimov]

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1036&pr=99

[Starkler]

The UO Konigs are recommended by many for slow scopes like SCT's

http://www.frontieroptics.com/Accessories.html

[asimov]

You lucky long FL devils don't need high-end naglers & pentax's like us poor F5 & under guys!:)

[ballaratdragons]

If a Barlow doubles our f5 into f10 we shouldn't need Naglers and Pentax's. Just use a Barlow all the time :D

[asimov]

:) Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines too Ken. Is it that simple though...:confuse3: No doubt someone will 'drop in' & tell us the answer? ;)

[Rodstar]

Has anyone used the UO Konigs in their SCT? If so, how did you find it? BTW, John Bambury rated these only 6 out of 10.....how would people who have used both the Konigs and the higher end EPs compare them? For me, whilst price is AN issue, it is certainly not more important than performance. I'd rather get one or two fantastic EPs than half a dozen OK ones.

[Dave47tuc]

Hi Rod,
When I had my LX200 10" now its gone :rolleyes:

I tried so many EP's in her. One that really stood out was the Tele Vue 22 mm Panoptic. Gave 115x with field at 0.59 deg. 2.2mm exit pupil. :thumbsup:
Perfect.

Good luck with your choice. :D

[Rodstar]

Thanks Dave. My budget could stretch to the 22mm Panoptic. Just out of interest, did you ever try the UO Konigs? If so, how were they?

[Dave47tuc]

I have only tried this one(see below) worked well it the sct. Big big glass.
Some seagulling at the edge but not to bad. Have not tested the smaller focal length ones.

:D

[Dave47tuc]

Not that simple :whistle: Would need a thread on its own as its of topic here. :D

[asimov]

I have no doubt at all about that Dave47!

[iceman]

Your suggestions look pretty good already Rod, the UWA s5000's are getting some pretty good reviews lately.

The 14mm will be great for the moon and planets, and for $285 looks a pretty good buy.

For the 18mm, is there a reason you'd go with the Radian here, instead of another s5000 UWA? (just thinking of forming a collection, rather than chopping and changing for each focal length). The price is almost the same. I imagine the Radian will have much more ER - will you be viewing with glasses on?

The 27 Pan might be a better choice for the longer focal length, though it may be too close to your 30mm SV.

Just some thoughts anyway, have not used the s5000's so can't comment on their performance.

[xrekcor]

Yup! I used to barlow x2 my UO/HD 12mm to give me an equivilent 6mm giving me 200x. But I always found the 7mm HD would perform better, just a more pleasent view. I used to barlow x2 the 7mm for an equivilent 3.5mm 350x in my scope. And it never looked the best. In steps the Pentax 3.5 XW
which has given me at times unbeliveable planetary observations in comparison. Not to mention dble stars, the cores of glob's or the fainter more distance one. Even great on edge on galaxy cores M101 especially. I cant wait for a decent night to peer into the trapz in Orion. Albereo you could drive a car through :) I have the 10mm & 14mm XW's also the 14mm is a lovely dso ep very nice and contrasty. I had the chance to compare it along beside a Nagler 13mm t6 and felt although the view in both of N253 was spectacular. But in the XW I could see more mottling or knots in the dust disc itself. Also the background sky appears slightly darker in the XW yet the odjects were as bright in both. The 10mm I rate even better ery flate FOV tack sharp even half in and out of the FOV. I'm looking forward to one day filling in with the 5mm & 7mm but for now I'm using a meade x2 #140 barlow.

So in the end I personally prefer having to do away with the barlow and let the ep do the work. However they are invaluble when it comes to planetary imaging.

If you buy XW's you probably wont find yourself selling them anytime soon. It's a pitty they dont make a 2" version of the 20mm. I'll be swapping that choice for a 20mm t5. Either way I find the XW's fastastic!! couldn't be happier... thanks to John B :thumbsup:

my 2 cents worth

Regards,CS

[janoskiss]

XWs may be great, But but but but but... 82 degrees vs 70 degrees.. :P Come on, convince me! :D (I am too thinking of buying one or two UWAs, 14 & 8.8mm.)

[ausastronomer]

Rob,

As you have noted the 14mm Pentax XW has a little bit of field curvature in faster scopes. This is evident when comparing to the 13mm T6 Nagler, the upside is the Pentax is sharper on axis and has higher light transmission. The 20mm Pentax XW has slightly worse field curvature than the 14mm Pentax XW and realistically I think if you don't need the 20mm of eye-relief for use with glasses, the 22mm and 24mm Panoptics are better eyepieces in the 1.25" versions and the 20mm Nagler T5 is the best choice in 2" version. The 20mm Nagler T5 is an absolutley outstanding eyepiece, unfortunately the eye-relief is a fraction short for me to use with glasses on. As you correctly point out the shorter focal length Pentax XW's (5mm,7mm and 10mm) exhibit a perfectly flat field. This is a common occurence that not all focal lengths in an eyepiece series perform at the same level. For instance in the Series 4000 Meade Ultrawides, the 8.8mm and the 14mm are the shining lights and clearly better performers than some other focal lengths in the series. Likewise with the TV Panoptics, the focal lengths from 22mm and above seem to perform slightly better than the 15mm and the 19mm.

Of the Pentax XW's I own and have used I would rate them as follows:-

5mm = 9.7/10
7mm = 9.7/10
10mm = 9.7/10
14mm = 9.2/10
20mm = 9.0/10

It was for this reason that I gave the line an overall rating of 9.5/10 when I posted that comparison in May.

Mike, Louie and myself are currently doing some evaluation comparing the 13mm NT6, 14mm Pentax XW and the 14mm Meade Series 4000 UWA. Mike will post a detailed review when its all finished. In short all the eyepieces are very very good and you won't go wrong with whichever of the 3 you chose. My initial thoughts are that if I didn't need glasses I would buy the Nagler due to its sharper stars at the EOF, needing glasses I am very happy to stick with the Pentax, which IMO outperformed the other 2 in terms of on axis sharpness and light transmission.

I am keen to compare the 10mm Pentax XW against either the 9mm or 11mm Nagler T6 for the simple reason I think the Pentax will beat the Nagler at this focal length, due to the fact the 10mm Pentax XW has a flatter field than the 14mm Pentax XW.

Clear Skies
John B

[xrekcor]

Actually to me there wasn't an overwelming difference in the FOV. The T6's didn't give me more of a spacewalk feeling then my XW's. Something I was waiting to see. Certainly not the difference going from 45-50 in the Ortho's to 70 anyways. But then again I like using the Ortho's too they have their uses. So the FOV difference certainly wouldn't come into the equation for me.
It's the over all performance, comfort, classy look, and other features. The smooth adjustable eyeguard stays where ever you leave it. You can remove the upper section, which reveals an outer thread on the element housing. Which fits a pentax camera adator directly to the ep. nice for luna and sol photography and birding if your into it.

btw, anyone here tried either the 30mm or 40mm XW's, in a scope f/4.5-f/6?

regards

[iceman]

Rod was a happy man yesterday afternoon when I spoke to him.. he's spent some money. I won't spill the beans, i'll let him do it.

Whether he was still happy after telling his lovely wife how much he spent, is yet to be seen :D

[Rodstar]

Yes, took a trip to Bintel, with the intention of only looking, and I walked away with a 22mm Panoptic and a 13mm Nagler. I am in astro-heaven. As for my wife's reaction......next topic? Let's just say I am putting the crayford focuser on hold for a while.

John Bambury (Ausastronomer) was fantastic giving me some input over the weekend. John - much appreciated mate. I would be very happy to let you play with my new EPs anytime.

Can't wait for next full moon...and Ilford in March 06!

[janoskiss]

Geez, those Bintel folk must have twisted your arm pretty hard. :P Hope you enjoy them!

[iceman]

doh, sorry to hear it Rod :)

But you'll love those EP's.

[Rodstar]

My arm didn't need much twisting! :D

[dugnsuz]

Sorry Dude,
I can't give the same amount of exp' that the rest of this forum can.
I can only give the perspective of someone who has jumped from standard EP's to premium - ie TV plossls to 13mm Nagler.
I found it awesome, but!!!! - looking up and down into an EP is strange!
Call me an Astro-philistine but I enjoyed the straight ahead - centre FOV and beautiful colour correction with this eyepiece, but the looking up, down , sideways etc left me cold.
That "spacewalk" experience can be a bit too much - 80 degrees sounds great but for me the panoptic 68 degree field is much friendlier . With the Nagler i felt like i was trying to look around corners!!
I work with quality optics everyday - I'm a cytology scientist - I look down an Olympus binocular microscope (well sorted for CA and SA) and the most comfortable views don't require moving your head.
Does anyone else feel this or am I the Anti-Nagler?

Cheers
(ps I.M.H.O)

Doug :scared2:
(pps - maybe feeling a bit inflammatory too!!!)

[RAJAH235]

Nice choice Rod. Should be fine in the SCT. A few of our SCT owners have the whole NAGLER range, but personally I find the views a bit hard to adjust to. :shrug:
I'll put my hand up too, Doug. I don't like having to move around to 'line everything up'. I'll stick with my 1 1/4" thanks. Filters etc etc are/were, just so much cheaper to buy... :D L.
ps. When I do want a 'walk', I use the S4000, UWA 14 mm. :P

[dugnsuz]

Thanks RAJAH235 for your support but...
I looked back on my own post and thought jeez, what a prat!
I'm putting down Naglers - goddam!
Please God forgive me - I know not what I do

Sorry Al

Cheers
Doug

(Al- "Doug Who?") :doh:

[RAJAH235]

Doug, that's the good thing about having, personal/free, choice/speech.:P I just state the facts. I will say it again, I do not like the views thru any 2" E/Pc. :cheers: :D L.

[ausastronomer]

Rod,

I hope you end up happy with them and they fullfill your expectations.

I would hate for you to have dropped all that coin on my recommendations and not be happy, if however you are like 95% of observers, particularly those that don't wear eyeglasses, I think you have done about as well as you can do within the budget and other constraining parameters. That 20mm Nagler T5 would have been lovely but unfortunately at $720 as opposed to $465 for the 22mm Panoptic it wasn't within the budget constraints.

Doug/Steve,

I actually recommended the 13mm T6 Nagler to Rod even though I own the 14mm Pentax XW myself, because I need the extra eye-relief of the Pentax to use with my glasses on. The Pentax has higher light transmission and is sharper on axis, the Nagler offers a sharper view at the EOF. I really don't notice much difference in the TFOV between the 13mm Nagler T6 (82 deg), the 14mm Pentax XW (70 deg) and the 14mm Meade UWA series 4000 (84 deg) they all provide a very engrossing view and are all outstanding eyepieces. They all outperform each other by very small margins in different areas and overall there is not a lot between them and whichever you purchase you have a dayyam good eyepiece. Personally I like the 70 deg AFOV of the Pentax's and it suits me just right, not to wide, not too narrow.

CS-John B

[Rodstar]

Rajah235, the 13mm Nag is a 1.25" EP! The 22mm Panoptic has both 1.25" and 2" ends, so I can screw on my 1.25" OIII filter to both of my new EPs!!!

John, don't worry about me relying too much on your advice.....with these things ultimately it is the purchaser who must take responsibility for what they buy. Before buying I had a long chat with Don Whiteman at Bintel, and he agreed that what I was proposing was absolutely spot on.

Now....to start saving for a 31mm Nag......

[Dave47tuc]

Good choice Rod :thumbsup:
Glad you went the 22 Pano, road there very nice Ep. :thumbsup:

The 13 also :D

The 31 can pay for a lot of dinners :P

[janoskiss]

John, You say the S4000 UWA 14mm is up there with the Naglers and Pentax XWs. How about the newer S5000? They are so much cheaper than the other two...

[RAJAH235]

Just relaying the facts, Rod. About 5 or 6 years ago, some members were purchasing 2" E/Pcs, (Nagler/Panoptics), which required a full 2" filter. These at the time, were costing $499.00 Aus. The 1 1/4" were only $150.00. I could not believe the difference in prices. I know of one or two who bought 2 or 3 filters.
I was lucky when I purchased the 14 mm UWA, it too has both sleeves. :D L.

[ausastronomer]

Steve,

I haven't used the 5000 series meade eyepieces. Its worth noting that of the Series 4000 Meade UWA the 14mm and the 8.8mm seem to perform a little better than the other focal lengths in the series. The 14mm and the 8.8mm are not quite as good as the Nagler T6 but they are 95% as good and cost a lot less money if you can find them 2nd hand. Stars are sharp to the EOF in scopes as fast as F5 in them. Note that the eye-relief is too short for use with glasses on.

CS-John B

[Rodstar]

Guys, regarding the 5000 series Meade ultrawides, the reviews that I have read are that the 14mm is very disappointing.....not a shadow on the 4000 series UW 14mm EP.

I had a chance to try the new EPs last night......most satisfactory! :) From my backyard, with medium level suburban light, I was able to see things that I have previously only been able to see under dark skies. Some of the globs in and around Sagittarius were beautifully resolved in the 13mm Nagler. Uranus and Neptune gave clear disks and distinct green-blue hues.

One thing that I particularly noticed was that the background is darker in the 22 Pan and 13 Nag when compared with the 30mmGSO. I used to think that the GSO gave a good dark background, but when compared with the other two, I could only now describe the background in the GSO as mid-grey.

I am glad to report that I did not experience any of the discomfort that some have expressed with the wife field of view. In fact, one thing that I really loved about the 22 Pan was that I could look around the corner and take more information without having to adjust where the OTA was pointed.

The 22 Pan and 13 Nag are a nice difference in magnification - they give quite different APOV without being so different as to make the two views totally disjointed when skipping from one to another. I will get a great deal of use out of both of them. I still used the 30mm GSO as well, especially to look at the larger open clusters. I can see the benefit of saving for a good EP around the 30mm - 35mm range in the future. It will be a toss up between the 31 Nag and 35 Panoptic. I wonder....does anyone who comes to Kulnura have a 35mm Panoptic?

The effect of the new EPs is to open up a world of viewing in my backyard. I would conservatively assess these EPs as quadrupling what my scope can do in the backyard. Money well spent? You had better believe it! :D

[xstream]

Rod, Does that mean you ducked when you saw her coming? :rofl:

[astro_south]

That is quite a typo there Rod :D

The 13mm T6 is one of my favourites as well Rod. I also have the 31mm T5 Nagler and if you end up going that way you won't be disappointed :thumbsup:

[xrekcor]

Aint that the truth! works the same out here in the bush. Not sure what you had first but for me going from the cheap plossls that came with the scope to UO/HD's was a real eye opener, then not long after going to XW's. Good ep's pop the detail out. Sounds like your made a worthwhile choice, happy observing :thumbsup:

I have one of them GSO 30mm SV too, I still use it regularly. I think they are pretty good for what they are, cant complain for a $99.00. Still I think you will like the 31mm t5, they're certainly in another league of their own.

John B,
When I first tried the 14mm XW I was really disappointed with it. I couldn't believe the EFOV performance. But I found as I have with the other XW's it's all about eye placement. After playing with it for about five minutes I found the sweat spot. Something surprisingly that doesn't take long to get used to. Still not as perfect as the 10mm.

regards,CS

[Rodstar]

Very good John :rofl:

All water under the bridge with SWMBO....She has even said she might come out to an observing session at Kulnura. I wonder if EPs ever suffer from performance anxiety? I tell you what, I'll be wanting the 13 Nagler to "unleash the power" when my wife takes a look. :P

[iceman]

She does realise there's dirt and dust there, doesn't she? You haven't told her, have you! :D


Just make sure the seeing is good Rod, otherwise it'll be all blurry and stuff and she'll say "you paid HOW MUCH for this?" :D

[Rodstar]

Mike, the first date I took Nina on was a two day hike off Mount Victoria. She can cope with a bit of dust. Although, one must wonder, will she be able to cope with the company? :P

[square_peg114GT]

I think the only disadvantage to the 4K UWAs is weight. The view absolutely rivals the T6's and is perfectly flat! Many including myself prefer them to the Naglers, though this seems to be a personal thing. I can say that the 14mm is the most comfortable EP I've ever viewed thru. I can keep my eye in it forever. The 8.8mm is fantastic, too.

Also, though I don't own one yet, I understand that the 6.7mm 4K UWA is every bit as good as the 8.8mm & 14mm.

[ausastronomer]

Peg,

Mike (Iceman), Louie (Atalas) and myself spent a couple of hours last Kulnurra observing session, comparing the 13mm Nagler T6, the 14mm Series 4000 Meade UWA and the 14mm Pentax XW. Mike and I also plan to spend another couple of hours this week comparing them on the moon and then the three of us will do another dark sky session on them next last quarter. I don't wish to say too much at this time as Mike will write a detailed review when all the work is completed.

The 3 of them are all outstanding eyepieces and you would be happy if any of them fell out of a tree and found its way into your eyepiece collection. Leave the eye-relief factor out because I can't use either the Meade or the Nagler with my glasses on and have to review both with glasses off. The Meade and the Nagler have a flatter field and sharper stars at the edge of field than the 14mm Pentax XW, due to minor field curvature in the Pentax XW. The Meade and the Nagler T6 are about even in this regard. The Nagler is marginally sharper on axis than the Meade, has higher light transmission and better contrast. The differences between them are very minimal but in repeated A/B comparisons were detectable. The Pentax was sharper on axis than both of them and had higher light transmission, but loses out because of its field curvature. We used the "d" star in HN40, which is a multiple star in M20 (Trifid Nebula)to test this. M20 and HN40 were both Monthly observing challenge objects for July.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/index.php?id=69,217,0,0,1,0

We hope to review the Meade 8.8mm UWA, the 9mm Nagler T6 and the 10mm Pentax XW at a later time as the 10mm Pentax XW is a superior eyepiece to the 14mm Pentax XW as it has a perfectly flat field in an F5 scope, whereas the 14mm Pentax XW (and the 20mm Pentax XW) suffer from a little field curvature, which I think is an artifact of preserving 20mm of eye-relief in all focal lengths of the series.

The above having been said, in terms of value for money I think the 14mm Meade UWA for between $200 to $300 on the used market, is clearly the best value going around as it is an outstanding eyepiece.

CS-John B

[square_peg114GT]

Very good info, John. I look forward to Mike's report. Best thing about testing EPs is that you get to spend time under the stars doing it. I'll bet you guys had a blast.
:)