[Suzy]

Originally Posted by bobson

Suzy,

Really?

What about our own Mike Salway review of 13mm Nagler, 14mm Pentax XW here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/42-245-0-0-1-0.html

What about his conclusion:


Or, maybe you should try google then
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sour...ec9fdc6b40133e

I do read what other people write in reviews about eyepieces. But at the end of the day I make decision based on my own opinion. As I said I have both 17mm Nagler and 10 mm Pentax XW so I can compare them on the spot.

People say Pentax XW doesn't dew, well guess what my does and its brand new!
Some people say Pentax XW is better than Nagler, well for me that is not the case. Actually 10mm Pentax XW gives a bit of fringe on Moon and Jupiter and Nagler is clear.

So, I might not see as many colours as a woman do but I didnt buy eyepieces for that reason When it comes to choose nice T shirt that goes with my shoes I leave it to my wife

cheers

I've read those links which were on the 14mm range, so obviously we're moving on from the XW10 (which the original posting was on) and comparing XW's in general... And let me clarify this, my argument is all about light transmission and contrast.

Both links were actually in favour of the XW's regarding light transmission...

Regarding Mike Salway’s review of the XW14 against the Nagler 13, he himself said:

The 14mm Pentax is very sharp on axis, giving beautiful pinpoint stars right to the core of 47 Tuc. Contrast is very good. Light transmission also very good and it was easier to resolve the D star in HN40 with this eyepiece. Colour reproduction is very cool and neutral.
The 13mm Nagler Type 6, like the other 2 is very sharp on axis, with excellent contrast for such a wide FOV. Colour reproduction is slightly warmer than the Pentax with slightly dampened colour tones.

The one thing that went against the XW14 in this test is the field curvature it shows in a fast scope. A paracorr I’ve heard will fix this problem though.

Mike even goes on to say in his review that he recommended the XW over the Nagler for planetary.

And the other link you gave me:

All of us came to the conclusion that the naglers held up well to further out,but the pentax were sharper and more contrasty in the centre.

That one was tested on the XW20 which (along with the XW14) obviously doesn't perform so well on the edge in a fast scope, but note what he said about contrast. The top few people in that thread actually whinged about the 85 deg of the Nagler. By the way, that link is to a listing of google search results, so I just clicked on the first one on the top of the page.

And now, I'll throw a couple in...

Quote from CN forum:

If you want to pull in galaxies at the verge of visibility, get the Pentax XW's. Their light transmission is a "TAD" better then the Naglers.

And here is an interesting table of comparisons (from Cloudy Nights Forum) lining up the Denkenmeir, XW and Nagler against each other in the 13/14mm focal length. Denkenmeir won with the Nagler actually coming in last.
www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2087

I have in the past read favourable reviews regarding the 17mm Nagler. Eye relief too is very good. And I did come close to considering it before I bought the Denkenmier 14mm. One thing stopped me from going ahead with it. Again, light transmission. From highly favourable reviews, the Denkenmeir won out over the Nagler in this respect too.

Pentax by the way, claim the XWs have approx. 98% light transmission. See for yourself here www.telescope-service.com/pentax/start/pentaxstart.html

And now just to get back to the 10mm length, here's what our John B (Ausastronomer) had to say (quote from here, not sure of site as doesn't say) about comparing an XW10 with a Nagler T6 9mm...

ausastronomer
28-09-2006, 09:15 AM


Physically the Pentax is a lot bigger with much longer eye-relief and a larger eye-lens providing a lot more comfort and a more submersive view despite the narrower AFOV. Optically, the differences between the 10mm Pentax XW and the 9mm Nagler T6 are not great but detectable to my eye, after allowing for the difference in focal length. IMO the 10mm Pentax XW has superior sharpness, contrast and light throughput. It definately goes deeper in resolving stars in globular clusters on the verge of visibility. It also offers a cooler tone (whiter) on the moon and planetary features. The 9mm Nagler T6 also shows a little distortion towards the EOF which is non existent in the Pentax XW. If you put a target like Jupiter at the EOF in the Nagler it goes "egg shaped", it stays perfectly round in the Pentax. PS: Don't try this on Saturn because it is egg shaped .

In favour of the 9mm Nagler is the fact that it has a slightly wider AFOV, which to me is not a consideration as I don't use that extra FOV anyway and the fact that it is much smaller and lighter making it suitable for use in a binoviewer.

In conclusion I would say that if you don't own a binoviewer and don't need that little bit extra AFOV, you take the 10mm Pentax XW every time. Keeping in mind of course that the 9mm Nagler T6 is also an outstanding eyepiece and if the Pentax was not born, I could live happily with the Nagler forever. If you want the best the 10mm Pentax XW is it IMO.

CS-John B

As John went on to say further into that quote and I agree, it all comes down to personal preferences at the end of the day.

I've barely begun finding links, I can give you a ton more if you like. Unlike your link which just gave me a page of google search results. (ooh that was cheeky I admit )

Originally Posted by bobson

I dont have 10 mm Nagler, actually there is 9 and 11 mm, but I have 17 mm Nagler.

Typo (apologies). Obviously “10” should have sat next to the XW on that line instead of the Nagler. We all know that f/L doesen't exist in Nagler.

I have to admit, it's the first time I've ever heard anyone putting a Nagler in front of an XW, but each to his own hey?!

After seeing this line the next day, I have to admit it does sound rather cocky doesn’t it, and I do apologise if I offended any Nagler owners. I am in fact referring to the contrast and light transmission which the XW's are famous for, and I should have made myself clearer by elaborating better. I hope you'll aren't mad at me.

I am not an expert on eyepieces and therefore don't even come close to those "in the know". I only draw my knowledge from huge amounts of research, along with the advice given to me from people "that really know” about eyepieces here on the forum. I'm merely throwing all this information in to add some balance with the Naglers.