16NagT5 vs 17NagT4? Then the 24Pan?

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Ok, I call upon the accumulated wisdom of the sage uranologists of spatial ice. Thou lowly servant craves advice.

Alphaly, apart from the 1.25" v 2" form factor, how do these two lustrous gems from Sir Al's nagler kingdom compare, one t'other?

Betaly, how comparest thou these to the perfection of the noble Pan?

Bintel prices: $530 vs $625 vs $485.

Cheers,

Brian.

PSST Anyone thinking of parting with any of these particularly EPs?????

[iceman (Mike)]

I tried Joe's 17mmNagT4 in my scope on the weekend, and it was a beautiful eyepiece. Sharp all the way to the edge, virtually no FC, generous eye relief and easy to use.

It's a winner if you're looking for something in that focal length.

However as I said in another thread, the 24mm panoptic is also a wonderful (small and light) 1.25" eyepiece, very sharp.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

The 24mm Pan will give you considerably more usable FOV than the other two. The 17mm T4 is more comparable to the 19mm Pan than the 24mm ito true fov. In the T4, it's a difficult to see the last 5 degrees or so without some blackout beginning to show (at f5 & f6). The T4 is a very impressive piece, but I may sell mine one day. But not yet. I think the 24mm Pan is a much more user friendly EP, but you need to try and see if that's true for you.

Don't know about the 16mm T5, but since its the shortest FL of a scaled lineup, I'd expect eye relief to be fairly short.

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

I have a 24 pan and a 16 mm T5...I have not tried any of the T4's so I can not compare the two (or three)...

I like both the 24 pan and the 16 T5...a lot

I am not particularly experienced in using enough different eyepieces nor technical enough to write up a comparison or review...I don't pay a lot of attention to the technical stuff...but, I have learned a bit about what I like and these two I do like.

I use my 24 Pan as my low power workhorse...I am too lazy to change back and forth from 2 inch to 1.25 inch so it is my "finder"...big ole FOV and a nice magnification for me...

16T5 is nice but the eye relief is tight...it feels very "Immersive" to me (probably at least in part because of the tight eye relief)...I find myself getting lost in the view...

Both eyepieces are physically small and light (could be used for Bino work if someone was of that persuasion)...compared to some of the monsters available...they both fit my likes...

[Starkler (Geoff)]

There was a recent thread on CN comparing the 16t5 and the 17t4 but I'll summarise here.

The t4 series is designed for generous eye relief but appears to suffer soft focus. I have seen this for myself with the 12mmt4.
The 16mm type5 is apparently much sharper but the tradeoff is tight eye relief.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

The type 4 Nagler's have longer eye-relief than the type 5's so if you need comfort the T4's are the best option.

Optically the T5 Nagler's are superior to the T4's, although the differences are subtle and may not be apparent to inexperienced eyes. They have higher light transmission are slightly sharper and have better colour reproduction. This is to be expected because the T5 is a newer design. That having been said the T4 Naglers are an outstanding eyepiece and you won't go wrong with either the T4's or T5's, it depends on the things that are important to you.

CS-John B

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Thanks, guys, I appreciate all your comments.

Mmmmm, well, I do have the T4 12mm, and I know what you mean, Geoff, about the softer focus. That's why I indulged in the luxury of the 10mm Pentax, especially for planetary stuff. Still, I resented losing the field when I used the Pentax in the Megrez and that's why I opted NOT to sell the Nagler. (The problem of matching EPs to telescopes.) Although I don't observe with glasses, I appreciate decent eye relief, and on this alone I will probably avoid the 16mm - I don't need 20mm of ER, but I get uncomfortable when it's much under 15mm. The ETX only accepts 1.25" EPs, so that is partly why I was asking. I did have a look through Tom's (Vermin) 17mm during the daytime once, and I was impressed by the absence of kidney beaning then.

Steve is right, the FOV of the naglers is closer than I credited to the 19mm Panoptic. The 24 seems to get the rave reviews, though, and is closer to the sensible gap in my collection.

Scott, I'll die a poor man (and lonely) if I start loading up my binoviewers with naglers and the like.

Is back focus as much a deal with the Panoptics (i.e compared to the Naglers)?

Thanks again,

Brian.

[square_peg114GT]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

The 24mm Pan will give you considerably more usable FOV than the other two. The 17mm T4 is more comparable to the 19mm Pan than the 24mm ito true fov.

Yep. The 24 Pan has almost exactly the same true field as the 20mm T5. I think the Pan is just a tiny bit narrower.

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

[QUOTE=Miaplacidus]
Scott, I'll die a poor man (and lonely) if I start loading up my binoviewers with naglers and the like.
QUOTE]

But if you gotta go, you might as well go in style...

With respect to back focus, I can't say that I've noticed...sorry

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Is back focus as much a deal with the Panoptics (i.e compared to the Naglers)?

Televue publish the focus heights of their eyepieces here .
Check dimension F on the table.