We have $400 to spend.

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Originally Posted by batema

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

I hope you enjoy it, I do enjoy the one I have. The view just looks so sharp to me. Some say the eye relief is a bit tight but I've enjoyed every minute of use under the stars.

Good purchase!

[astroron (Ron)]

Hi Mark, congratulations on your purchase
I have not long ago bought a 17mm type 4 Nagler and love it
Cheers

[batema (Mark)]

Thanks guys. I looked through one at Pauls at Omega Centauri and was just blown away by the difference. How good is the weather at the moment Ron? Enjoy it while it lasts.

Mark

[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.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

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:

Bob,

I had a lot more than a little bit to do with that review. I actually guided Mike in all the field testing for it

The Naglers are not scaled designs hence they are not comparable across focal lengths. Similarly the Pentax XW's are not scaled designs and are not comparable across focal lengths. The 13mm Nagler and 14mm Pentax XW have ZERO comparison attributes with the 10mm Pentax XW and the barlowed 17mm Nagler T4.

What you need to understand is that a 2X barlow more often than not gives an amplification factor greater than 2X which is dependent on the barlow itself and the eyepiece design. Usually the amplification of a 2X barlow is about 2.2X . This means your 17mm Nagler T4 barlowed is working like a 7.7mm eyepiece. Essentially you are comparing a 10mm eyepiece with a 7.7mm eyepiece which you simply cannot do, particularly at the short end of the scale. All you are really saying is you prefer the higher power view. I have absolutely no doubt any "PERCEIVED" advantages you see with the barlowed 17mm Nagler T4 over the 10mm Pentax XW (as a lunar/planetary eyepiece combination) arise because of the "SIGNIFICANT" magnification difference between the two.

Also Bob when reading internet reviews and comments you need to learn how to sort "the wheat from the chaff".

Cheers,
John B

[Louwai (Bryan)]

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Hi Mark,


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


Cheers,
John B

John,
I certainly don't dispute your knowledge in the field, but personally I'm not a fan of the LVW range. I have had a 5mm & a 17mm for about 6yrs. I just can't seem to acheive good viewing. False colour, aberration etc.
Having said that, I've only ever used them in the AT80 refractor & the C8. I've not tried them in the 12" or the 20".

Anyway, not disputing your recomendation, just adding my experience.

[bobson (Bob)]

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.

Exactly! Personal preferences. Like everything in life. Some think blonds are better than brunets.
bob

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Ahh you guys seem to be getting all worked up. As they say on cloudy nights. "Play it safe, buy Televue!". To paraphrase myself, I say "Play it safe buy Majesty factor!

Here's a fun fact! According to Televue an Ethos eyepiece has 10 TIMES the majesty factor of a plossl!!! Who knew?

Have a great evening everyone

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by bobson

Exactly! Personal preferences. Like everything in life. Some think blonds are better than brunets.
bob

Bob,

Just for future reference!

blonds = blondes
brunets = brunettes

It makes me wonder why I even bothered trying to help you?

Also Bob this was what you originally posted before you edited it.

Also number of posts doesn't mean you know something better

Your dead right it doesn't. But about 38 years more experience under the stars might

Cheers,
John B

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Louwai

John,
I certainly don't dispute your knowledge in the field, but personally I'm not a fan of the LVW range. I have had a 5mm & a 17mm for about 6yrs. I just can't seem to acheive good viewing. False colour, aberration etc.
Having said that, I've only ever used them in the AT80 refractor & the C8. I've not tried them in the 12" or the 20".

Anyway, not disputing your recomendation, just adding my experience.

Hi Bryan,

False colour bothers some more than others. The LVW's do have some false colour on bright targets towards the EOF. Just about all premium widefields share the same problem, to varying degrees, including the Nagler T6's and Pentax XW's. However, I always try to keep my targets "towards" the centre of the FOV.

What's also worth noting is that the two telescopes you have used the LVW's in, have been known in many cases to have "optical issues". The 80mm Short tube introduces a whole host of aberrations (spherical aberration and false colour), which is to be expected from an F5 achromatic refractor; and some SCT's can have their own share of problems. Some SCT's are good but I have seen a few that were downright ordinary (from both manufacturers). I can only suggest before you form a conclusive opinion on the LVW's you try the 17mm LVW in the 20" SDM, which is a scope of known optical quality. Try the 17mm LVW on some targets like Eta Carina, Omega Centauri, Jewel Box, NGC 2808, Gem Cluster, Tarantula Nebula etc. I think you will be pleasantly surprised how well it performs, in the right scope on suitable targets.

Cheers,
John B

[bobson (Bob)]

John,

Also number of posts doesn't mean you know something better

Your dead right it doesn't. But about 38 years more experience under the stars might

And obviously I was right. What? I hurt your "professional" feelings? You are an amateur and write and behave like one. Age and number of years under the stars doesnt give you right to write to me like this. Its your opinion what you and Suzy wrote here and I still stick with my regardless what you or her think about it.

What do you think? Everyone should buy Pentax just because you and Suzy say so? I will buy what ever I want to buy OK! I left my country of origin because of communist people like you who wanted everyone to think like them.

Long posts bla-bla-bla, I have experience bla-bla-bla, good for you OK.

[robz (Robert)]

Hi Bob.
Being a resident of Perth also, and not knowing as much as most do on the subject of E.P's, this discussion was interesting then somehow turned sour.

It's the one's who are trying to filter in some information and good advice who eventually suffer in instances like this as in the end, they are no wiser.

Each person has their own ideas on what is best for them, whether that be a review or experience in the field. Either way, it's still that.........their own preferences.

I have a 12 inch SCT and three E.P''s..........all 70 degree, 150 buck Skywatchers that are generic and sometimes re-badged chinese el - cheapos.
Of these E.P.'s only the 8mm shows superb planetary deatil........the other two are only good for paper weights.

I'm sure that the posts here were not meant to challenge you or your opinion in the way I see it so far.
You obviously have the knowledge that most don't..........but you also have a preference as we all do, and that's fine.

Not worth getting upset over it mate...........I've been in similar situations on other non related forums, and it allways ends badly in the end.

Regards,
Rob.

[bytor666]

Wow,

Bobson. No need to get all huffy over some excellent advice. I myself have also tried a 17mm Nagler Type 4 and owned the 12mm Nagler Type 4. The 17mm Nagler T4 is excellent in a short focus telescope if you own a Paracorr. I viewed through the 17mm T4 without a Paracorr and the edges were not corrected or as sharp as the center, so I passed on that one completely.

TeleVue Naglers are indeed excellent eyepieces, but so are Pentax XW's in the 3.5mm, 5mm, 7mm & 10mm focal lengths in a short focal ratio telescope w/o a Paracorr. The 14mm XW shows some field curvature in short focal length scopes for "some" who cannot accommodate for FC. The 12mm Nag Type 4 I owned was also an awesome eyepiece which I used w/o a Paracorr in my 10" F/4.7 reflector, but I sold it and picked up a 10mm Pentax XW because it has higher transmission, is flat right to the edge in my 10" scope and has less problems holding the view.

I have also done extensive reviews on thousands of eyepieces here and on CN.....and it was here and there, (plus trying hundreds of eyepieces in the field), that led me to obtain the very best eyepieces I can afford on the used market to this date.

John & Suzy were only trying to help....I took their advice, (mainly John's and others), and I now own the 10mm XW, 7mm XW, 14mm Denk, 22mm Vixen LVW and I have a 34mm ES 68 degree on the way. I have tried tons of eyepieces in these focal lengths and this is right where I am at NOW because they all perform excellent on and off axis w/o a Paracorr and I really appreciate the info I gathered from them, and others, to have arrived at these excellent observing choices.

PS: HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!!! AND TRY NOT TO GET TOO ANGRY. LOL.