Time to take the plunge on some more EPs .... you may all recall the Thread "Eyepiece Performance Ratings" started by Ausastronomer on 20/05/05. Just want to create some feedback following that regarding John Bambury's ratings, and how they might apply to my 10" SCT, and some purchases I am considering.
John rated the Pentax XWs at 9.5/10, Radians and Panoptics at 9/10 and the 4000 series UWA Meades at 8/10.
Do you agree, and where do you think the 5000 series UWA Meades rate? Better than the 4000 series? As good as the Radian and Panoptics?
I am happy with my 30mm EP at the moment, but am thinking of supplementing my mid-range mag range.
I am thinking about making the following purchases:
1. 14mm 5000 series UWA Meade: $285
(cf 14mm Pentax XW $479, 14mm Radian $385, 15mm Panoptic $350)
Has anyone used the UO Konigs in their SCT? If so, how did you find it? BTW, John Bambury rated these only 6 out of 10.....how would people who have used both the Konigs and the higher end EPs compare them? For me, whilst price is AN issue, it is certainly not more important than performance. I'd rather get one or two fantastic EPs than half a dozen OK ones.
Thanks Dave. My budget could stretch to the 22mm Panoptic. Just out of interest, did you ever try the UO Konigs? If so, how were they?
I have only tried this one(see below) worked well it the sct. Big big glass.
Some seagulling at the edge but not to bad. Have not tested the smaller focal length ones.
Your suggestions look pretty good already Rod, the UWA s5000's are getting some pretty good reviews lately.
The 14mm will be great for the moon and planets, and for $285 looks a pretty good buy.
For the 18mm, is there a reason you'd go with the Radian here, instead of another s5000 UWA? (just thinking of forming a collection, rather than chopping and changing for each focal length). The price is almost the same. I imagine the Radian will have much more ER - will you be viewing with glasses on?
The 27 Pan might be a better choice for the longer focal length, though it may be too close to your 30mm SV.
Just some thoughts anyway, have not used the s5000's so can't comment on their performance.
Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines too Ken. Is it that simple though... No doubt someone will 'drop in' & tell us the answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asimov
Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines too Ken. Is it that simple though... No doubt someone will 'drop in' & tell us the answer?
Yup! I used to barlow x2 my UO/HD 12mm to give me an equivilent 6mm giving me 200x. But I always found the 7mm HD would perform better, just a more pleasent view. I used to barlow x2 the 7mm for an equivilent 3.5mm 350x in my scope. And it never looked the best. In steps the Pentax 3.5 XW
which has given me at times unbeliveable planetary observations in comparison. Not to mention dble stars, the cores of glob's or the fainter more distance one. Even great on edge on galaxy cores M101 especially. I cant wait for a decent night to peer into the trapz in Orion. Albereo you could drive a car through I have the 10mm & 14mm XW's also the 14mm is a lovely dso ep very nice and contrasty. I had the chance to compare it along beside a Nagler 13mm t6 and felt although the view in both of N253 was spectacular. But in the XW I could see more mottling or knots in the dust disc itself. Also the background sky appears slightly darker in the XW yet the odjects were as bright in both. The 10mm I rate even better ery flate FOV tack sharp even half in and out of the FOV. I'm looking forward to one day filling in with the 5mm & 7mm but for now I'm using a meade x2 #140 barlow.
So in the end I personally prefer having to do away with the barlow and let the ep do the work. However they are invaluble when it comes to planetary imaging.
If you buy XW's you probably wont find yourself selling them anytime soon. It's a pitty they dont make a 2" version of the 20mm. I'll be swapping that choice for a 20mm t5. Either way I find the XW's fastastic!! couldn't be happier... thanks to John B
As you have noted the 14mm Pentax XW has a little bit of field curvature in faster scopes. This is evident when comparing to the 13mm T6 Nagler, the upside is the Pentax is sharper on axis and has higher light transmission. The 20mm Pentax XW has slightly worse field curvature than the 14mm Pentax XW and realistically I think if you don't need the 20mm of eye-relief for use with glasses, the 22mm and 24mm Panoptics are better eyepieces in the 1.25" versions and the 20mm Nagler T5 is the best choice in 2" version. The 20mm Nagler T5 is an absolutley outstanding eyepiece, unfortunately the eye-relief is a fraction short for me to use with glasses on. As you correctly point out the shorter focal length Pentax XW's (5mm,7mm and 10mm) exhibit a perfectly flat field. This is a common occurence that not all focal lengths in an eyepiece series perform at the same level. For instance in the Series 4000 Meade Ultrawides, the 8.8mm and the 14mm are the shining lights and clearly better performers than some other focal lengths in the series. Likewise with the TV Panoptics, the focal lengths from 22mm and above seem to perform slightly better than the 15mm and the 19mm.
Of the Pentax XW's I own and have used I would rate them as follows:-
It was for this reason that I gave the line an overall rating of 9.5/10 when I posted that comparison in May.
Mike, Louie and myself are currently doing some evaluation comparing the 13mm NT6, 14mm Pentax XW and the 14mm Meade Series 4000 UWA. Mike will post a detailed review when its all finished. In short all the eyepieces are very very good and you won't go wrong with whichever of the 3 you chose. My initial thoughts are that if I didn't need glasses I would buy the Nagler due to its sharper stars at the EOF, needing glasses I am very happy to stick with the Pentax, which IMO outperformed the other 2 in terms of on axis sharpness and light transmission.
I am keen to compare the 10mm Pentax XW against either the 9mm or 11mm Nagler T6 for the simple reason I think the Pentax will beat the Nagler at this focal length, due to the fact the 10mm Pentax XW has a flatter field than the 14mm Pentax XW.
XWs may be great, But but but but but... 82 degrees vs 70 degrees.. Come on, convince me! (I am too thinking of buying one or two UWAs, 14 & 8.8mm.)
Actually to me there wasn't an overwelming difference in the FOV. The T6's didn't give me more of a spacewalk feeling then my XW's. Something I was waiting to see. Certainly not the difference going from 45-50 in the Ortho's to 70 anyways. But then again I like using the Ortho's too they have their uses. So the FOV difference certainly wouldn't come into the equation for me.
It's the over all performance, comfort, classy look, and other features. The smooth adjustable eyeguard stays where ever you leave it. You can remove the upper section, which reveals an outer thread on the element housing. Which fits a pentax camera adator directly to the ep. nice for luna and sol photography and birding if your into it.
btw, anyone here tried either the 30mm or 40mm XW's, in a scope f/4.5-f/6?
Yes, took a trip to Bintel, with the intention of only looking, and I walked away with a 22mm Panoptic and a 13mm Nagler. I am in astro-heaven. As for my wife's reaction......next topic? Let's just say I am putting the crayford focuser on hold for a while.
John Bambury (Ausastronomer) was fantastic giving me some input over the weekend. John - much appreciated mate. I would be very happy to let you play with my new EPs anytime.
Can't wait for next full moon...and Ilford in March 06!
.... you may all recall the Thread "Eyepiece Performance Ratings" started by Ausastronomer on 20/05/05. Just want to create some feedback following that regarding John Bambury's ratings, and how they might apply to my 10" SCT, and some purchases I am considering.
No doubt someone will 'drop in' & tell us the answer? 
Would need a thread on its own as its of topic here. 
Come on, convince me! 
