Steve's 13mm T6 Nagler

[davidpretorius]

Hey, mate

just starting a new thread so i don't spam your buy / sell.

I loved saturn thru my 10" at star camp with this eyepiece. Lovely contrast etc etc

You seemed to say then that it was finally working. Was it the dark skies????

Are your skies too light polluted????

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Just typed a response and IE chewed it up. Why I don't normally use this MS junk!
ANyhoo..

THanks Dave for the split.

I got really used to eye placement after half a night of viewing at SV camp. For me the initial problem was too much eye relief / too short an eyeguard. (But that's normal for me, and most poeple tend to complain about too little eye relief if anything.) During daytime with a smaller pupil the EP is a bit difficult to use though.

And, yes, you truely appreciate the spectacular ultra-wide views at a dark site. In the burbs you tend to just get a bigger field of skyglow. Still very nice on the brighter objects like Orion neb, Tarantula, LMC.

[davidpretorius]

so at the end of the day, no wow factor????

I am looking for a 12mm or 13mm, tv radian or plossl, but will think about yours. It is a bit early in hobby in terms of big money, but I will have a good think on it!

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

There is wow factor x 2. First when you find out how much it costs, and then again when you look through it.

[davidpretorius]

so why do you want to sell???

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Because I only like the second wow factor.

My Stratus do a very good job. Not quite Naglers in terms of FOV and sharpness, (more aberrations too), but still very good at less than 1/2 the cost. And my credit card has nearly reached its limit. Gotta start putting some money back in before I take more out.

[davidpretorius]

cool,

It fun but costly being an amateur astronomer!!!

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

It need not be costly. This is all luxury stuff really; even the "cheap" Stratus wide fields at $AU170 a pop. Three good Plossls + Barlow go a long way. But we are so spoiled! We have everything but we still want more.

But don't let that stop anyone buying my Nagler. I think I'm offering it for a great price that should be equivalent to years of free rental because it will resell. (If you disagree this is the thread to voice your opinion on. )

Try an XW they slightly more contrasty by nature which can help deaden sky glow and
still keeps star brightness at max

Now you'd be foolish to think I wasn't going to say something

regards,CS

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Rob, if what you're saying is correct about XW having better contrast than the Nag, why would respectable and experienced people Mike and John, and cloudynights reviews not say so, and why would they all put the Nagler on top. Or are you saying you are better than all these people with many more years of experience than yourself (at least between them).

... :joke: ... :satire: ... PentaxPeople ... :dontdoanythingsillynow: ...

Psst Rob over ere, just between you and me, I think the 13mm Nagler puts too much scattered light in the centre of the field of view on planets. Eg: in my 8" Dob, Mars is surrounded by a disk of light spanning about half the field of view. I would not recommend this EP for planetary viewing. But, then again, if you want an 82 degree FOV EP for planets, what else will work as well as a Nagler? ... I ordered the very-narrow field 12mm UO HD ortho for less than 1/3 of the price of the Nagler. I'm just curious to see how good the other end of the design philosophy scale is.

[davidpretorius]

steve, i had to look up to see if rumples had jumped in!!!!

don't do that, my heart can't take it.

This is sort of making my mind up even more. I do not need a nagler for planetary or even medium power at this stage. Now to try and sort out these pentax's

[iceman (Mike)]

Janos, I wouldn't recommend the 13mm Nagler for planetary viewing either. It's just not made for that.. when I tested all 4 eyepieces on Venus they *all* performed horribly.

The UO HD Orthos are made for planetary.. small FOV but less glass, less light scatter, better contrast.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by davidpretorius

steve, i had to look up to see if rumples had jumped in!!!!

don't do that, my heart can't take it.

Eyepiece wars, ... err I mean discussions ..., are not for the faint hearted.

David,

Originally Posted by janoskiss

Rob, if what you're saying is correct about XW having better contrast than the Nag, why would respectable and experienced people Mike and John, and cloudynights reviews not say so, and why would they all put the Nagler on top. Or are you saying you are better than all these people with many more years of experience than yourself (at least between them).

Good point how would me with a only 3 heading on 4 yrs experience in this
hobby know enough about optics to put a case across, really this is a
specialised field if you want to get down to the nitty gritty. I dont have
that experience. But on the other hand what makes you think that all
the reviews you read are by experienced, respectable (in their field) folk?
you might be surprised. There was one particular expert on a well know
Yahoo group who posted a rather long report on the 10mm XW in it quoting
the 10mm had field curverture in the outer 20%. Anyone who owns one
would be giggling right now. But folks took it as truth. When I pushed this
respectable reviewer I found he had only looked through one for about 10
seconds at a star party 2 months previous and came to the conclussion
he didn't like it. He also said he own 200+ ep's, why you would need or
want that many beats me.

However I will say this, there are enough folks with XW's and knowledgable
folk within this forum that have never tried to refute any remarks or
statements I have said in regards to the XW. If I was lying or trying to
gloss up the XW I would think they would of stepped in long before now.

Originally Posted by janoskiss

... :joke: ... :satire: ... PentaxPeople ... :dontdoanythingsillynow: ...

Psst Rob over ere, just between you and me, I think the 13mm Nagler puts too much scattered light in the centre of the field of view on planets. Eg: in my 8" Dob, Mars is surrounded by a disk of light spanning about half the field of view. I would not recommend this EP for planetary viewing. But, then again, if you want an 82 degree FOV EP for planets, what else will work as well as a Nagler? ... I ordered the very-narrow field 12mm UO HD ortho for less than 1/3 of the price of the Nagler. I'm just curious to see how good the other end of the design philosophy scale is.

I think you will like how the UO HD performs, I think they are one of the most
underated ep's out there. People tend to shy away from the 40-45 degree
FOV. Why? I'm not sure I guess most folk may think that an ep isn't any good
unless it has a 82 degree FOV (and has Nagler written on it ). I'm
glad I never did get to sell mine.


regards,CS

Originally Posted by janoskiss

Eyepiece wars, ... err I mean discussions ..., are not for the faint hearted.

If I were the designer of either of these two ep brands I think I would
be humbled and honored to see such depth and passion my creation
has created.

regards,CS

[davidpretorius]

Originally Posted by xrekcor

David,



Good point how would me with a only 3 heading on 4 yrs experience in this
hobby know enough about optics t.......................

look steve, you have just gone and got me in trouble with ROb.

heres me trying to smooze him about his pentax's and now he hates me...............................


just kidding.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Hehehe..

Rob, I was just being silly before for the fun of getting in the usual heated tone of EP arguments. I know that many people prefer XWs over anything else. Mike's preference for the Nagler in no way discredits other people's preference for the XW (or God forbid something else). Also, Mike is still a relative newbie, and I myself did not know a plossl from a fossil 12 months ago. I personally don't trust reviews, in large part because personal preferences play such an important role with these top end EPs. Not many people buy shoes on the basis of written reviews...

Unfortunately, I find that a quick look through other people's EPs is not enough (other than with the obvious duds). I really need to spend a number of hours, over several nights, getting to know an EP before I get a fair idea of what I like and what I dislike about it. Generally speaking, I find that good EPs get better with time as I learn how to use them, while bad EPs just get worse as the flaws become more obvious and annoying.

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

Hehehe..
Unfortunately, I find that a quick look through other people's EPs is not enough (other than with the obvious duds). I really need to spend a number of hours, over several nights, getting to know an EP before I get a fair idea of what I like and what I dislike about it. Generally speaking, I find that good EPs get better with time as I learn how to use them, while bad EPs just get worse as the flaws become more obvious and annoying.

I agree with this statement 100%...there is nothing that can substitute spending some time with an eyepiece in your scope to get a feel for it...Yes, experts can quantify and qualify all kinds of things about an eyepiece but to me it is when I subjectively get a chance to use it that I rationalize to myself the expenditure...

[xstream (John)]

I rationalize to myself the expenditure...

Never a truer word spoken.

Please dont think you have upset me, I have a unique ability to be able to
type with fire on the keys (passion). Appologises if my reply came out like
that. When I stated...

Good point how would me with a only 3 heading on 4 yrs experience in this
hobby know enough about optics to put a case across, really this is a specialised
field if you want to get down to the nitty gritty.

I wasn't intending a retort, I was trying to imply (if anything) my eyes now
are only starting to train in to a level where I can start see defects in an ep
or detail in faint fuzzies. I spend prolly more time than most at the ep due to
the time I can (currently) allocate to it. You will notice this too, next year
you'll find something you had major prob's trying to locate this year, and then
wonder how the hell you missed it. I'm noticing dust knots in galaxies I
couldn't see last time, yet I'm using the same gear.

I didn't really give a rap on the XW as I think most prolly know where I think
it excels. And I think most XW owners will agree with me or have supported
what I have said. I think really people need to see for them selves and thats
why I have never had a problem or made a point in saying "Try one before
you buy" the proof is in the pudding.

btw, I am certainly not anti Nagler, just the only one willing to stand up for
the XW. And I guess my passion for the XW shows. But I do feel that doesn't
bias my point of view, because I have never made any outlandish statements
about it. I'm the same with the LPI you may of noticed, yet I dont particularly
like most Meade products.

I should include this, on the whole I will pick my XW over my UO HD for
planetary observations. Because I like the cool crisp views with neutral
colours. The contrasty nature of the XW works very well on low contrast
bright planets.

Edit Insert: Where the UO HD tend to make the central area in the planet disc
look slightly over exposed, Abit like some planetary images you see.

Another thing I notice about the XW over the T6 was the slightly nicer or
pleasing star colour, there seem to me slightly more variation than was in
the T6. Try looking at carbon stars for intance. This is just my subjective
opinion.

As I mention to a friend of mine a couple of days back, show most Nagler
owners a 10mm XW and then see what the next thing is on their wish list.

regards,CS