TV 16 MM T5 Nagler

wavelandscott (Scott) · #1 07-09-2005, 09:45 PM

I was curious if anyone has had any experience or thoughts on a 16 mm T5 Nagler.

It looks like it will fill a gap in my eyepieces that I would like to fill (around 15 mm).

I do not wear glasses so I am not overly concerned with eye relief in this instance.

I have read that this is a "little brother" to the 31 mm and all of the good/bad this might imply...

I am also considering other alternatives in and around this length so if you know of alternatives I would be happy to hear about those as well.

No real rush to do anything but, Christmas is coming!

Thoughts/comments appreciated...

Cheers!

iceman (Mike) · #2 08-09-2005, 06:04 AM

At around that FL there's heaps of options available, all would work fantastic in your 12.5" dob and your 8".

- The nagler you mentioned
- 14 or 18mm Meade s5000 UWA
- 14mm Meade s4000 UWA
- Pentax 14mm XW
- 13mm Nagler T6
- 16mm Nagler T2

Just a few options to consider..

[1ponders] (Paul) · #3 08-09-2005, 07:56 AM

I have access to a 16 at the Mapleton Observatory, but I've not tried it in an 8" scope. Next time I'm up there with my scope I'll pop it in and see what its like.

wavelandscott (Scott) · #4 08-09-2005, 08:41 AM

Ice, Your list looks like the one I came up with too...

1ponders, I would be interestedd in your opinions after you get a chance to try one...

Cheers!

ving (David) · #5 08-09-2005, 09:13 AM

louie has a 16mm nagler

I used it at linden, it was great in my f6 8".

beren · #6 10-09-2005, 04:16 PM

I have a 14mm meade UWA which i think performs very well , but its a Brontosaurus and with hindsight i wish i had gone with the smaller Nag type6 13mm or the nag 16mm . i doubt you could go wrong with any of the premium eyepieces Mike listed but with the 16mm nag you could be cleaning the objective often , my type 6 9mm nagler has 12mm ER and to take the whole view in my eyelashes touch the lens often

wavelandscott (Scott) · #7 10-09-2005, 06:31 PM

I've already got an 11 mm T6 with eye relief of 12 mm and have not had a problem...

Maybe my eye lashes are not yet long enough?

Seriously though, I was wondering about the 10 mm ER but my experience with the 11 does not have me too concerned...

Cheers!

Dave47tuc (David) · #8 11-09-2005, 07:05 PM

Talking of 16 mm Naglers, would there be anyone going to Snake Valley who has a 16 mm Nagler T5 ????

I have found my 31 mm Nagler Barlowed is awsome

I could not convince you of this, until you have seen this yourself. And I would not recomend anyone buy a 31 mm Nagler then get a Barlow to get a 15/16 mm EP.

But as I have a 31 mm Nagler and barlow I tried this combination. I could not belive how sharp and big the field was. I will just have to show those going to Snake Valley

I would like to compare the 31 Combo, against a 16 mm Nagler.
Obviously weight is the big issue. But that is obvious. I just would like to compare views.

As for Deep Sky observing the 31 Barlowed is what I'm using most often.

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #9 11-09-2005, 07:53 PM

Scott,

Something else to consider is the 17mm Nagler T4. This is a 2" eyepiece and has much longer eye-relief than the 16mm NT5. It is more money but it is also one of the best Nagler eyepieces of all and one of my favourite eyepieces, although I don't own 1. It may be worth shopping around for one 2nd hand on Astromart. Another option is to look for a 2nd hand 16mm Nagler T2 on Astromart, this is also a very nice eyepiece and less money than the 16mm NT5.

David,

Louie's 16mm nagler is a type 2 not a type 5 which Scott is considering, but as mentioned above may be a good option for him.

CS-John B

square_peg114GT · #10 12-09-2005, 03:51 AM

At mid to long focal lengths I like to make jumps of ~1.4x degrees of true field between EPs, hence I jump from the 14mm UWA to the 20 T5. Next on the list is either a 35 Pan or 31 Nag. Probably the Pan just to save a few $$. Another thing about the 1.4 relationship is you won't duplicate mags with a barlow. A 35 Pan will barlow to 17.5, nicely fitting between the 14 & the 20. The 20 barlows to 10, again nicely between my 14mm & my 8.8mm. Just a thought.

wavelandscott (Scott) · #11 12-09-2005, 10:10 AM

John,

Thanks for that, I would like to stay 1.25 inches if I can...

I've got the 24 Pan which I adore so 17 is getting a bit longer than I think I want...

I had not really considered a T2...

Lots of things to consider that is for sure and no real rush to do anything either...

Cheers All!

ving (David) · #12 12-09-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

David,

Louie's 16mm nagler is a type 2 not a type 5 which Scott is considering, but as mentioned above may be a good option for him.

CS-John B

LOL, shows ya what i know

at least i knew it was a 16mm nagler

excuse my ignorance, but whats the "CS" for?

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #13 12-09-2005, 10:30 AM

CS=Clear Skies

ving (David) · #14 12-09-2005, 10:37 AM

gawd i'm slow sometimes!

atalas · #15 16-09-2005, 07:46 PM

Hey better than a slow telescope David ! Scotty 15 panoptic might be worth checking out as well . Next time you come out to Kulnura you can check out the 16mm type II Nag
you'll love It ! the cheapest I've seen them on Astromart is about $200.00 US . The one I bought cost me $295.00 au to my door. Anyway all the best in your search for the ultimate EP.

Louie

wavelandscott (Scott) · #16 16-09-2005, 11:23 PM

Atalas,

Thanks for that I'll be sure to take you up on the offer...

I've been thinking about the 15 Pan a lot too...I do like the 24 Pan!

But, 82 degrees is tough to beat...I've really enjoyed looking through the 11 mm T6...

There are just too many good EPs to choose from!

Cheers!

square_peg114GT · #17 17-09-2005, 12:01 AM

From what I've heard the 15 Pan is the worst of the line and not very popular. Seems like blackout or something. I'll see if I can find the report.

square_peg114GT · #18 17-09-2005, 12:41 AM

Here's a report of bad interface of the 15 Pan with a SCT.

Don Pensack review

And one by Ed Ting

Ed Ting review

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #19 17-09-2005, 09:11 AM

Scott,

I would be looking at either of the 16mm Naglers before I looked at the 15mm PAN. I agree with PEG, worst of the Panoptics IMO, not that that makes it a bad eyepiece in any way, still very good, just the two 16mm Nag's are better IMO.

CS-John B

wavelandscott (Scott) · #20 17-09-2005, 10:45 AM

Thanks guys for the comments, I've read both those links before Pegster and they are actually what stopped me originally from pulling the trigger on a 15 Pan purchase but, each time I look through the 24 Pan I re-think how much I enjoy it and if the 15 is anything like it...etc. etc.

In any event, I am leaning heavily toward the 16 mm Nagler T5...

Cheers,