TV Plossl:
1 X 32 mm
1 X 20 mm
2 X 15 mm (Binoview)
TV Panoptic:
1 X 24 mm
TV Nagler:
1 X 16 mm T5
1 X 13 mm T6
Pentax:
1 X 10 mm XW
1 X 7 mm XW
Denkmeir:
2 X Denkmeir 21 MM (Binoview)
BO/TMB Planetary: (just ordered for a look see)
2 X 8 mm (Binoview)
1 X 6 mm
1 X 2.5 TV Powermate
1 X Denkmeir "Big Easy" Binoviewer
some misc. Bintel/GSO Plossl eyepieces hanging around
Gee, maybe my wife is right and I do have a "problem" ?!?!...
Picking one is like asking which child do you love most!
I love them all...I use the 24 Pan the most (widest field in a 1.25 inch package)...every viewing session start with it and then depending on the night I go from there. They all have things I like...
It would still be nice to hear from others, the forum has over 2.5k of people on it.
My interest lies with what people use and like about there eyepieces.
We all have different eyes, and normally we find eyepieces with a 2 – 2.5 mm exit pupil
(Divide the focal length of your eyepiece by the F ratio of your scope... Example 10mm eyepiece in a F5 scope 2 mm exit pupil.)
So for me it’s my 13 mm LVW that spends most time in the focuser for DSO.
And the 8 and 6 mm for Planets.
I know a few people with 24 mm Panoptics and they seem to spend lots of time in the focuser!
What I look for most in an eyepiece is how easy it is to look through.
My friends 18” is a great scope and I really like using his 22 mm nagler, not really the 2 mm exit pupil but around 4.4 mm with paracor.
But it’s really nice to use and lovely to look through.
It’s just nice to look into an eyepiece get no black out or see you eyelashes or get tired eyes from eye strain.
Yeh imaging is nice but you can’t beat the eyepiece view. Not manipulated buy the computer. Don’t shoot me, and lots of great photos are taken by many of you.
But I have never seen a photo as good as the view of the great 47tuc in an 18” or even in my scope.
I have:
- a couple of GSO plossls which see little use,
- a 14mm Meade s4000 UWA,
- a 7mm Pentax XW,
- a 5mm TMB Planetary
The 5mm gets the most use on planets, and before and after imaging sessions to judge the seeing.
The 14mm is my DSO all-rounder, lovely wide field of view and sharp to the edge.
The 7mm Pentax is an excellent eyepiece, great for high-power DSO work and a great companion to Rod's 20", giving 360x. The views of the humunculous through his scope and my 7mm Pentax were breathtaking.
In addition I own a full set of University Optics HD orthoscopics (5mm,6mm,7mm,9mm,12mm and 18mm), which I sometimes use for lunar/planetary/double stars. I also keep these for my 10yr old son to use in the 10" scope.
I like them all, otherwise I wouldn't have them. I don't keep anything I don't use, albeit some eyepieces get used more often than others. My two most used are the 14mm Pentax XW and the 10mm Pentax XW. These give 150x and 210x respectively in the 18" Obsession. I find this power ideal for most DSO work. What I like about them is the exceptional contrast, sharpness and light throughput. Combine that with the cool neutral colour reproduction, comfort and the big eye lens giving a very submersive view, there aren't many, if any, better eyepieces that money can presently buy IMO. The 31mm Nagler probably comes next as I use it to frame large extended objects and star fields at lower power. What I like about it is the large FOV without an oversized exit pupil in an F4.5 scope.
Can I ask if you did not have the 31 Nag, or 27 Pano would a 26 Nag substitute for both of them?
Also I had a 12 mm Nag T4 but I always found it a bit soft in focus, meaning I could never get a real sharp focus with it.
My 13 mm LVW seems a lot better than the 12 mm Nag I had
TV Panoptic 24 (arriving in a few weeks)
I am thinking of getting a Vixen LVW, not sure what focal length yet.
I really love the 30 XW. Great sharpness, through-put and contrast. Slight field curvature with my F5 scope, but a lot better than other EP’s I have looked through. Gives me close to 1.7 degrees of sky. Felt like quality right from the day I picked it up. Was going to wait for the BO/TMB 30mm but got the XW instead.
The Hyperions are really good for the money. Very comfortable to use, excellent eye relief. It has a thread under the rubber eye cup so a T-ring and SLR can be attached for eyepiece projection photography. The XW also has this feature.
The Burgess/TMB Planetary’s are great. Love the screw up eye cups, same as the XW. The 7mm also doubles as a deep sky EP on certain objects. Don’t get to use the 3.2mm much as the atmosphere can rarely support it.
I just received in the post my Burgess TDM 40mm Super Wide Orthoscopic, this is a 2" eyepiece. I am just waiting for the clouds to clear off to try it. I'll certainly let you know how it goes. It was either one of these or a University Optics 40mm.
Can I ask if you did not have the 31 Nag, or 27 Pano would a 26 Nag substitute for both of them?
Not really Dave. Firstly I can't use the 26mm Nagler T5 with my glasses on and take in the full FOV, which I like to be able to do. The "stated" eye relief of Nagler eyepieces is often slightly in excess of "useable" eye relief for many people, particularly for eyeglass wearers. I think they measure it to the top of the eye-lens, which can be recessed in the enclosure. Or something along those lines. At this focal length I am solely trying to maximise the FOV with good performance to the EOF, without an oversized exit pupil in the 18"/F4.5. I don't use this focal length for dim faint fuzzies where I would need superb contrast or high transmission, if I did I would have a 30mm Pentax XW, which clearly outperforms the 31mm Nagler in these areas. When I observe those dim faint fuzzies its always at a lot higher power.
The 27mm Panoptic doesn't get used in the 18" scope. It is the low power widefield for the 10" scope. It is a good choice for this because it is small and light and doesnt affect the balance of the scope. The 31mm Nagler does, as would the 26mm Nagler, considering it is balanced for smaller eyepieces. The 30mm Pentax XW would be a better choice in the 10" scope, but I can't justify selling the 27mm Panoptic to buy it. Particularly as I really only use the 10" for planetary and lunar and my 10 yr old normally uses that scope. I think for a 10yr old he is doing very well to have a 10" dob with Argo Navis and a 27mm Panoptic as his finder eyepiece. That 10" dob has also had a lot of time and money spent on it and is a long long way above standard. The thing is he is a very keen observer and loves it, so I don't want him to be held back with inferior equipment if I can give him good stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave47tuc
Also I had a 12 mm Nag T4 but I always found it a bit soft in focus, meaning I could never get a real sharp focus with it.
My 13 mm LVW seems a lot better than the 12 mm Nag I had
Something wrong with it, or it didn't match the scope you were using it in. Maybe, you should have sent it back and exchanged it?
While it is a tad soft at the edges in a short focal length reflector, it is still a very good eyepiece and only a small notch behind the 10mm Pentax XW IMO. When used in the 18"/F4.5 (2100mm focal length) it performs superbly.
Our eyepiece collection is very compact. Eye relief is a priority so we have the following EP's which suit our needs. Four out of the five EP'S also have adjustable eyecups which we find invaluable.
We use the 27mm Pano as our finder EP. The Nagler 17mm is our most used EP.It's amazing on large nebula, global clusters and galaxies the detail very sharp and very good contrast and the 82 degree FOV is a WOW The Pentax 10mm is wonderful with dark contrast and very good for finer detail of DSO's. The Pentax 7mm is very good for extra magnification on Planetary Nebula, Clusters, Planetary and Lunar. The Burgess 5mm is our only pure planetary EP very sharp and good contrast. The Orion Barlow gives us 13.5mm when used with the 27 Pano and 8.5mm when used with the 17 Nagler giving us a wide range of focal lengths with just a minimum number of EP's.
We purchased all of these EP's on recommendation from IIS members on the forum and have never been disappointed with any of them.
Something wrong with it, or it didn't match the scope you were using it in. Maybe, you should have sent it back and exchanged it?
Hi John I was with Dave observing one night when we did a bit of a comparison between his 12t4 vs his 22mm panoptic barlowed. This was in a 10" f5 dob.
The nagler didn't look bad until we compared with the barlowed panoptic, which was much much sharper.
I have mentioned this over on CN and some others have noted that they didnt think the t4's were as sharp as some others. Others of course said there is nothing wrong with a t4. I guess its not wise to draw conclusions on a sample size of one, but I'd love to repeat that test with another 12t4.
Hi John I was with Dave observing one night when we did a bit of a comparison between his 12t4 vs his 22mm panoptic barlowed. This was in a 10" f5 dob.
The nagler didn't look bad until we compared with the barlowed panoptic, which was much much sharper.
Geoff,
I don't doubt this. The Panoptic is working at F10 with a 2.5 metre focal length, the Nagler is working at F5 with a 1.25 metre focal length. I believe 12mm Nagler T4 works progressively better in longer focal length scopes. It performs a lot better in my 18"/F4.5 which has a 2.1 metre focal length, than it does in the 10"/F5 with its 1.25 metre focal length. Combined with a paracorr it performs superbly in both scopes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkler
I have mentioned this over on CN and some others have noted that they didnt think the t4's were as sharp as some others. Others of course said there is nothing wrong with a t4. I guess its not wise to draw conclusions on a sample size of one, but I'd love to repeat that test with another 12t4.
Nothing new here. Blind Freddy can quickly figure out the T4 Nagler's (all of them) in fast and short focal length systems are far from perfect in their EOF performance. They are still good. They are designed with longer eye-relief and the softness at EOF is the trade-off for the longer eye-relief. When combined with a paracorr all of the T4 Naglers are superb, although IMO a touch behind the Pentax XW's, in most respects apart from AFOV.
My goodness me, I'm feeling much better, I thought I had to stop now, but it is apparent that I am nowhere near the REL (that's Reasonable Eyepiece Limit)
Don’t shoot me,
and lots of great photos are taken by many of you.
