Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rumples riot
Incidently, only people who don't own TV EP's give them a less than perfect rap. Funny that. Wannabees.
|
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