We have $400 to spend.

[batema (Mark)]

Hi,

I know this question is always asked but last weekend we looked through a NAGLER 15mm???? using a 12 inch skywatcher dob and yes the difference between clarityand our own eyepieces that came with the scope was amazing. We also have a 2.5xteleview barlow. Any suggestions. We looked at Omega C and ir was amazing. We would probably use it to observe deep sky objects but also love showing the school kids the moon and planets.

Mark

[koputai (Jason)]

The Nagler 13mm Type 6 would be a good versatile focal length, and you'd have $100 left over for lollies!

Cheers,
Jason.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

16mm type II Mark. Its an oldy but still a goodie. You know the amount of viewing I do, but I've heard that the Radian 6mm is great for planetary viewing. Check with Ron

[RobF (Rob)]

I've got 2nd hand 13mm Type 6 and a 6mm Radian and yes both are great. The cool thing with a decent mid-focal length like the 13mm is that with a good barlow (like you have) you still get 82 degree FOV and good eye relief. I rarely use the radian as a barlow on the nagler is VERY civilised.

Disclaimer: Robert is now a certified camera nut who hasn't used his eyepieces all year

[batema (Mark)]

I have to stop coming to your place Paul because I always seem to be dreaming or spending after visiting. Adam and I just raved about the views with your eyepiece.

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

I would recommend a 13mm T6 Nagler, but assuming the focal length of your scope is over 1200mm, perhaps the 17mm Nagler would be better.
The 13mm and 17mm have probably the reputation as the best televue eyepieces ever.

The reason I mention the focal length is that the 13mm gives near 1 degree FOv at 100mm FL, and the 17mm gives a similar FOV at 1370mm
(your scope a 12" F4.5?)

[multiweb (Marc)]

Take your mum out to a nice restaurant this week-end.

[mr bruess]

I'd get a william optics 16mm uwan 82 degree eyepiece.Its performance is close to a 16mm t5 televue nagler

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

I have the 13mm T6 Nag, its a beautiful bit of kit, great value for $$$.

Malcolm

[bobson (Bob)]

I have 17mm Nagler and can say its great eyepiece in my Bintel 12" Dob! It Barlows very well and give me great views of the Moon and planets as well. I even prefer it over my 10 mm Pentax XW when Barlowed for planets.

cheers

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by bobson

I have 17mm Nagler and can say its great eyepiece in my Bintel 12" Dob! It Barlows very well and give me great views of the Moon and planets as well. I even prefer it over my 10 mm Pentax XW when Barlowed for planets.

cheers

Hi Bob,

I am somewhat confused as to how you could perceive this.

I own both of those eyepieces (10mm Pentax XW and 17mm Nagler T4), have done for many years; and have used both of them in many different telescopes. They are individually both excellent eyepieces. The 17mm Nagler excels as a low/medium power "ultra" widefield for DSO's. The 10mm Pentax XW excels as a medium/high power widefield for both DSO's and Lunar/Planetary targets. In terms of the important criteria for lunar/planetary performance IMO the 17mm Nagler T4 falls well short of the 10mm Pentax XW. Namely, light throughput, on axis sharpness, neutral colour fidelity and contrast. The only reason I can think of as to why you prefer the 17mm Nagler T4 barlowed over the 10mm Pentax XW as a lunar/planetary eyepiece, is that it gives noticeably higher magnification than the 10mm Pentax XW. What barlow are you barlowing the 17mm Nagler in?

FWIW also, the 17mm Nagler T4 is a 2" only eyepiece and not suitable for use in his TV 2.5X powermate, so whatever he buys he should stick with a 1.25" barrel IMO so he can at least use the eyepiece in his barlow and get double duty from it.

Cheers,
John B

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by batema

Hi,

I know this question is always asked but last weekend we looked through a NAGLER 15mm???? using a 12 inch skywatcher dob and yes the difference between clarityand our own eyepieces that came with the scope was amazing. We also have a 2.5xteleview barlow. Any suggestions. We looked at Omega C and ir was amazing. We would probably use it to observe deep sky objects but also love showing the school kids the moon and planets.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I would consider the following in no particular order. They are all excellent eyepieces which will cost you just under $400. You should base your decision on performance criteria that are most important to you like eye relief and FOV. You also need to consider what power the eyepiece will give you barlowed having regard to your prevailing "common" seeing conditions. A 13mm eyepiece is not much good to you if your seeing usually runs out at 180X. Your 2.5X TV Powermate would then be superfluos combined with your new eyepiece.

Best eye relief with generous FOV
14mm Denkmeier
17mm Vixen LVW
13mm Vixen LVW

Best FOV with shorter eye relief
13mm Nagler T6
16mm Nagler T5

Of all the eyepieces I have listed I rate the 14mm Denkmeier as the best performer in terms of "optical" performance. It has excellent eye relief at 20mm but the FOV is only 65 degrees. It is sharper than the others with better contrast and light throughput. In your 2.5X TV Powermate it would give 267X which "may" be a bit much for regular use barlowed. If long eye relief is not important to you and you wish to maximise the FOV I would go for the 16mm Nagler T5. Combined with your 2.5X Powermate this will give you 234X which is a useful high power magnification. The 13mm Nagler is also a very good eyepiece but combined with your 2.5X powermate it will give 288X which is a power you might rarely get to use because of seeing conditions.

You might want to consider the 17mm Vixen LVW which would give you 220X in your 2.5X TV Powermate.

It just depends what criteria are most important to you and you're the only one who knows that.

Cheers,
John B

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Hi Mar

Of all the eyepieces I have listed I rate the 14mm Denkmeier as the best performer in terms of "optical" performance. It has excellent eye relief at 20mm but the FOV is only 65 degrees. It is sharper than the others with better contrast and light throughput. In your 2.5X TV Powermate it would give 267X which "may" be a bit much for regular use barlowed. If long eye relief is not important to you and you wish to maximise the FOV I would go for the 16mm Nagler T5. Combined with your 2.5X Powermate this will give you 234X which is a useful high power
It just depends what criteria are most important to you and you're the only one who knows that.
Cheers,
John B

This is good advice!

[bobson (Bob)]

John,

I am aware that 17 mm Nagler Barlowed gives me 8.5 mm. Dont know mate, its not about slightly bigger magnification with Barlowed Nagler over 10 mm Pentax XW. I am very happy with Pentax but I am happier with Barlowed Nagler. Thats all I am saying.

I have 2" Japan made Barlow, dont know the brand but its excellent quality.


cheers

bob

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by bobson

John,

I am aware that 17 mm Nagler Barlowed gives me 8.5 mm. Dont know mate, its not about slightly bigger magnification with Barlowed Nagler over 10 mm Pentax XW. I am very happy with Pentax but I am happier with Barlowed Nagler. Thats all I am saying.

I have 2" Japan made Barlow, dont know the brand but its excellent quality.


cheers

bob

Hi Bob,
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?!

I wonder if it's because the Naglers have a warm colour tone to them (as opposed to neutral in the XW) that you prefer them for planetary.

Personally, the coffee tone colour of the Naglers was one of the reasons I steered clear of them. I've also heard that it can put a false tone over star colours as well. It seems though that some people can't make out the differences on colour tone in eyepieces (i.e. cool, neutral, warm). Meade 5000 SWA for example (I own one) has got a cool tone (I don't find cool tones for planetary viewing beneficial at all). Explore Scientific, Naglers, Radians have got warm tones. XW's are neutral.


From Cloudy Nights Forum...

There's one particular area where i strongly believe the differences in tone make a very noticeable difference, even to a novice in fact I just conducted the same test last week with several inexperienced students from Cal Arts for an astronomy teacher named john hawk. I believe the neutral tone to be the primary cause why I have always found Pentax XWs to surpass any other wide field on the market specifically on galaxies. To conduct the test I used a 20XW and took a popular competing wide field which was 1mm shorter and 2mm's longer in focal length to the 20XW and aimed my 3000mm DK at M82. I simply exchanged the eyepieces and asked two of the students to simply comment on which eyepiece made the galaxy pop out more. The students were surprised at how noticeable the differences were. This test has never failed and continually astonishes me.

Mark, John B has given you fantastic advice- he really knows his eyepieces.

The best advice I can give to you is to hold off on this purchase until you feel confident what it is you want (what's important to you in an eyepiece). This in time, will come quite naturally once you've had a peek through some eyepieces.

Personally for me, I choose my eyepieces on the following criteria:

1) 20mm long eye relief. I find it more comfortable- my head isn't jammed up onto the glass, and if I ever do end up wearing glasses to observe (currently slowly going a wee bit long sighted with a bit of astigmatism) I can wear my glasses with them. Naglers don't have long eye relief (many aren't bothered by this, others are annoyed by it). From memory I think the 2 inch Naglers have a bit more comfy ER though.

2) Long eye relief eyepieces will also protect the ep from dewing up. If it's got a long eye cup it enables the transfer of air to circulate between the eye and glass. The only downside to my Denkenmier (and I love this ep) is that it doesn't have a cup and it suffers the dew problem. My LVW and XW are troopers and don't get affected. XW by the way have got JIS Class 4 weather protection.

2) Fov. 85deg is waay too much work for me. I have a tendency to constantly scour the middle to the edge looking for different star spectra, star patterns and finding dso's- it wears my eyeballs out on my 30mm 85deg ep. Nice to enjoy such a large fov sometimes I admit, but I couldn't do it all the time.
To some, a large 85 deg fov is important- over riding edge performance and light transmission- it's a call you will have to make. This is where orthos are winners- less glass/groups, less fov = max. contrast and light transmission. But not all of us can put up with orthos, especially with dobs. Widefield ep's bring about their own problems and the money is spent in correcting these problems. To what degree the correction is made, depends on your wallet.

3) The weight of an eyepiece needs to be a consideration. A 2inch Explore Scientific eyepiece for example weighs 900g. You would have troubles putting this on say, an 8" dob (or even a 10" dob I'm told).

4) The best possible light transmission to allow me to get the best contrast possible when studying dso's.

5) Fov edge performance. I spend much of my time on the edges of eyepieces- I want them to be as good as the middle, without the use of a Parracor. So far, with a 10" dob at f/4.7 my eyepiece choices have been excellent performers to the edge.

6) I prefer most of my eyepieces to have the 1 1/4 inch barrel- so I don't have to spend even more money on 2 inch filters.

John mentioned the Denkenmeir eyepiece- it is a truly beautiful eyepiece- it gives a jet black sky & incredible contrast. They advertise 65 deg fov in the specs, but I find it bigger- more like 68 deg. At the 14mm focal length it is perfect for many objects (for example, the colour blue in the Ghost of Jupiter PN was outstanding in this ep). As for the Sombrero- Wow! It made it jump out with a bright core and the long dust lane was striking. Even hubby was impressed with it's performance- and he doesn't get impressed easily. Also, Terry L (CometGuy) bought this ep the same time as I did and he said it was going be his most used ep as he loves it so much.
From what I've been reading so far by trawling through the C.N. Forum, Denkenmeir fans are Pentax XW followers (that would also apply to John B and myself).

Just went looking to see if someone carried out measurements on the AFOV of the Denkenmeir and found this on Cloudy Nights Forum..

Field stop 17.8mm AFoV 70.2 Denk 14
Field stop 23.9mm AFov 68.7 XW 20
Field stop 24.4mm AFoV 66.7 Denk 21

And a word of advice...
Don't think that a complete set of eyepieces of the same brand will perform equally well across all the focal lengths. Each focal length has their strengths and weaknesses. As I have a fast scope, this is the reason my XW's cover the high mag. range and my LVW & Denkenmeir cover the med/low power range. Unforuntately the XW's suffer field curviture in the 14mm and 20mm in a fast scope. I'm not sure how the Naglers go across all the focal lengths.

I did a thread recently asking for help choosing a premium 15mm eyepiece. It's a very educational thread and I highly recommend you have a read of it. John B's comments in particular are an eye opener.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=71653

I Hope the information I have provided is of benefit to you and the many people out there in the same situation as yourself.

P.S. My comments in no way are meant to put down the Naglers. Many experienced observers use them and love them.

[bobson (Bob)]

Suzy,

Hi Bob,
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?!

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:

Who's the winner then? When comparing all 4 eyepieces for performance and value for money, the 13mm Nagler Type 6 comes out on top. It's a beautiful eyepiece, a consistently high performer in every aspect and if you can afford to own one, they're worth it. They're a great medium power eyepiece for viewing DSO's in a fast dob/newt, and would make a great high power eyepiece in an SCT. The 14mm Pentax XW would also be an excellent choice in longer focal length scopes if a reasonable percentage of your time is spent on high power work such as lunar, planetary and doubles - especially if you wear glasses to observe.

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

[Suzy]

Bob,

Just a few points to clarify things:

Your quote box at the top of your thread has my quote taken out of context. Please read point no.1. It makes me look like I'm against Naglers in general when in fact ....

1) My comments to you on the Nagler over the XW was in the 10mm focal length - I originally quoted you in the quote box and responded accordingly regarding the 10mm. I researched the reviews on a grand scale for months before I outlayed the money for one. Your preference view regarding the 10mm Nagler over the XW was actually the first I'd ever heard, honest, I wasn't being factitious, but more surprised. But what do I know, I'm just a girl who likes pretty colours.

2) The links you supplied are unfortunately a waste of time for me because I already know that the 14mm XW's aren't good performers in a fast scope at the 14mm focal length, which is why I own and recommend the Denkenmeir in the 14mm and have made those recommendations in this thread. At no point did I recommend an XW14mm. I also go on to say (at the bottom of my post) that different focal lengths perform differently.

3) When I said each to his own, I meant that in a sincere way- we all have our likes and dislikes and I respect that. Instead, it seems to have fired you up.

[GrahamL]

Maybe you should hunt down a 16mm type II Mark.
Somone might have one gathering dust they might want to move on

[batema (Mark)]

Thank you all for the advice. I have gone the 16mm Type V Nagler 82 degreee field of view. I hope all goes well. Thanks again to every one.

Mark

[bobson (Bob)]

Mark,

I think you made a good choice mate!
And sorry for hacking your post.

Suzy,

Your preference view regarding the 10mm Nagler over the XW was actually the first I'd ever heard

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

According to many 17 mm Nagler is one of the best Naglers if not the best. Also 10 mm Pentax XW is again one of the best and many think the best from all XW's.

I am not angry, why would I be I got two of the best eyepieces according to many people and I agree. But for me like I said on some objects like Jupiter and Moon I prefer Barlowed Nagler thats all. If I am first in saying so, well there is first for everything

cheers

bob