rgm
Full Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by rgm on Apr 8, 2014 5:58:54 GMT -5
I am glad that this has been added. Since we have longer focal length scopes, eyepiece section and results may be different than shorter focal length scopes. I am looking forward to hearing what works for others. For me, I am quite surprised how well very wide field eyepieces behave. My 82 degree eyepieces never gave great edge performance in my SCT nor Dob. In my f12 Istar, perfect to the edge. I would like to hear if anyone uses 100 degree EPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcurry on Apr 8, 2014 6:25:09 GMT -5
I was an early adaptor of the Ethos line but quickly sold them off. An Istar scope had nothing to do with it. I didn't care for the pivoting of the head to take in the view. So, I'm back to Brandon's and other 45-55 degree eyepieces. Nagler 31 is the exception, that's my wide field go to.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by astromanuk on Apr 8, 2014 6:52:44 GMT -5
"Since we have longer focal length scopes" ....... speak for yourself! My Istar Phoenix 204/1200 is the fastest refractor I own. Luckily it is similar focal ratio to my TV127is so the same eyepieces should do. Looking forward to trying the Nagler 31 when I finally get the mount completed.
|
|
rgm
Full Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by rgm on Apr 8, 2014 14:51:14 GMT -5
Astromanuk - sorry about that! What was I thinking? I am considering a 204/1200 as a future purchase. Currently have the 127 f12 R30.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 8, 2014 16:14:04 GMT -5
Read my post over on "achros" and it may make up your mind. The new Phoenix 204-6 is going to be a great telescope. We are making five to start with and three are sold. I can't wait to use one.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 8, 2014 16:50:46 GMT -5
I'm a big Televue and Al Nagler fan myself. Al loves astronomy as much as anyone I know. I've had the privilege of spending time with him on a several occasions and he is passionate about his products. I have a case full of Naglers, Panoptics and Ethos. My two favorite pieces are the 13mm Type 6 Nagler and the 21mm Ethos. I could live with only these two pieces if I had to. Yes, they are overly expensive but the craftsmanship and quality is excellent. I find that many people spend a lot of time trying to find less expensive eyepieces that perform nearly as well as Televues, at least in their minds. Now I'm not saying there are no pieces that rival them, I'm just saying they are the eyepieces that most others are measured by. A friend of mine had a case full of Televue pieces. Over a three or four year period I watched him sell them off one by one, buy every cheap miracle eyepiece on the market, try to convince me of how great they were for the price, then sell them all off one by one and now he has a case full of Televue Panoptics and Delos. Arguments welcome  Yes, I'm obviously a Televue snob. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Ales - iStar Optical on Apr 9, 2014 4:06:29 GMT -5
Personally I find my complete line of Pentax XW eyepieces to be a perfect match for all iStar refractors we design and produce (and all other scopes I used these eyepieces with). They work absolutely wonderfuly with iStar models from F6 to F15. For wide field observing I prefer the 2" 40mm XW eyepiece (very unfortunately no longer in production). The views thru 8" F6 or 8" F8 are simply amazing.
Me and Mike kind of disagree (he is a big TV fan) on which brand delivers best views and which brand is better built... but if any of you tried to dissassemble a TV eyepiece (at least models produced some 4 years ago and older), you will agree that Pentax is ahead of this game by a comfortable margin. Our master optician Mr. Rehor also uses only Pentax XW eyepieces and we both consider them to be the best quality eyepieces ever made even though they deliver "only" 70° FOV. Actually for me personally, I consider the 70° a perfect balance across the board. I do not prefer higher FOV eyepieces (my neck and eyeball simply tell me to stay within the modest 70 degrees.... if you know what Im talking about). The fact is that Pentax WO are expensive but with the very best price-to-quality ratio.
Well we dont agree with Mike on this eyepiece issue but we pretty much agree on everything else... :-) Basically the rule of thumb on eyepieces is same like on everything else. You get what you pay for...
cheers,
Ales
|
|
rgm
Full Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by rgm on Apr 9, 2014 6:07:13 GMT -5
My collection is a combination of Pentax and Televue. I have the Pentax XWs from 3.5 to 20. Above that are Panoptics - 19,22,27 and 35. Also a mixture of Naglers for good measure - 17T4, 13T6, 3-6 zoom. I do agree with Ales about the XWs. They work perfectly for me. I also observe with eyeglasses.
|
|
|
|
Post by astromanuk on Apr 9, 2014 11:41:54 GMT -5
+1 for TeleVue eyepieces generally. I have never looked through a Pentax eyepiece but if Ales and Mr. Rehor like them then maybe I should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 9, 2014 12:10:38 GMT -5
Actually, I just checked OPT and the Pentax eyepieces are no more expensive overall than the Naglers. They are only half the price of Ethos and only one third the price of my big 21mm Ethos. I dare anyone to put a Pentax 20mm up against my 21mm Ethos. At the annual WSP this year we put the 21 Ethos into my C14 (I know, blasphemy on this forum) and moved the scope to M42. I have never seen my favorite DSO look better. There was more nebulae than I have ever seen in any telescope anywhere. Here the 100 degree field is needed to see the never ending cloud. I agree that 80 degree fields are usually not necessary and 50 to 70 would be fine. But, I see no disadvantage to the larger field. The only thing that the Pentax has over the Naglers is longer eye relief, which as a non spectacle wearer I simply don't need and find uncomfortable. My good friend used the Delos line. He simply loves them as a contact lens wearer the long eye relief suits him. I have to hover over the Pentax and Delos eyepieces and find the sweet spot. I can't wait to get those Nagler and Ethos eyepieces into the new AXT 204-6 Phoenix scopes. I plan on taking one down to the WSP next year and we'll put it side by side with the big C14 for a comparison. No doubt the refractor will have a darker background. So Ales, you bring your Pentax eyepieces with you next February to the WSP and we'll have a shootout. He's been promising to attend for the last few years. I will really hate to send you crying all the way back to Europe after my Televue pieces blow those Pentax pieces away |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 12, 2014 11:32:04 GMT -5
I really thought I would be able to provoke more of an argument from you guys with my very biased Televue posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinbarker on Apr 12, 2014 14:23:17 GMT -5
I really thought I would be able to provoke more of an argument from you guys with my very biased Televue posts. Mike Quite the reverse. tele vue make great eyepieces. i agree with your comment re the 13 mm T6 nagler. It is almost a planetary eyepiece in terms of contrast. has 12 mm eye relief, has a whopping 82 deg field that is flat and well corrected. It is also light. Cpnsequently it is my most used eyepiece. i have two which i occasionally use in a binoviewer. TV plossl's are also excellent. Especially from 11 mm up where the eye relief is nice. They really do match a lot of much more expensive eyepieces. I have never used a Televue refractor though, so cannot comment on them. Half of my eyepieces would be televue. I think the 35 Pan is a leader. Cheaper eyepieces fall short in corrections off axis. I did not like the radians though, I could see that contrast was significantly poorer than their plossl's. Kevin |
|
|
|
Post by kevinbarker on Apr 12, 2014 14:25:54 GMT -5
I am glad that this has been added. Since we have longer focal length scopes, eyepiece section and results may be different than shorter focal length scopes. I am looking forward to hearing what works for others. For me, I am quite surprised how well very wide field eyepieces behave. My 82 degree eyepieces never gave great edge performance in my SCT nor Dob. In my f12 Istar, perfect to the edge. I would like to hear if anyone uses 100 degree EPs. I had a 13 Ethos for a year or two. It was just too massive. It gave well corrected views but it was HEAVY!!!!!!! for my refractors on dovetails. It was also a gimmick as 100 degrees is too much IMHO. I found the T6 Nagler was just as effective. And a lot cheaper!! Kevin |
|
|
|
Post by astromanuk on Apr 13, 2014 5:17:35 GMT -5
Mike, you are preaching to the converted.
Kevin, the radians were the only TV eyepieces I have not enjoyed. I now have pairs of plossl's in longer focal lengths for bino-viewing, but have recently added a second 10mm Delos to give me a pair that are amazing in my TV binoviewer.
My favourites for deep sky are 31N, 17E, 13E and even the 3.7E SX. The 3.7 produces a wonderful view of planetary nebulae and globulars through my TV127.
I have found that the TV Plossls are just as good in my telescopes and observing conditions as the Clave Plossl and Zeiss Abbe orthoscopics type 1's that I have owned in the past. I am not one to go chasing the last 1% of performance at any cost. My ageing eyes far prefer a pair of TV Plossls in a binoviewer to a single Clave or Zeiss eyepiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 16, 2014 9:01:12 GMT -5
A couple of years ago I guy set up next to me that had the complete set of Abbe Orthos from Zeiss. You know the $2500 set in the wooden case? He was kind enough to let me try each one in an Istar scope. I think it was my 152 fluorite. Just was not that impressed. Some guys rave about them. The greatest planetary eyepieces ever manufactured. I just didn't see it. No eye relief in the shorter focal lengths. I kept switching back and forth between them and equal focal length Naglers. Maybe I'm lacking in culture? When I first read about them I felt slightly deprived but not any more.
Mike
|
|
Yes, I'm obviously a Televue snob. 