John

I enjoy observing the moon at practically all it's phases 🙂

22 minutes ago, Louis D said:

By one account on that other forum, they're pretty close with the NZ being better across the zoom range, especially at the short end.

Despite having the means to purchase a NZ, I could never justify the cost and limited use cases for my preferred styles of observing.  The price/performance ratio of the SZ is such that I had no issues picking one up for my travel kit.  I've been quite happy with it.

I don't think the Nagler zoom is really that expensive considering that it covers at least 4 focal lengths. But then I'm used to Ethos type costs so most things seem reasonable by comparison 🙄

45 minutes ago, Ags said:

Made obsolete by the Svbony SV215 3-8 Zoom?

It would be wonderful if the Svbony 3-8 zoom were to match the optical performance of the Nagler zoom plus deliver a larger range, a slightly wider AFoV and a bit more eye relief as well. At the price they are, they would simply fly off the shelves - I would certainly buy one 🙂

I've yet to see a detailed comparison between them though. Bill Paolini has one of the Svbony 3-8's so might oblige in due course. 

19 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

I wonder why TEC won’t release the test reports of their optics. They must have their reasons.

Many premium scope makers seem have taken the same decision. I think it is to stop buyers "cherry picking" if theirs turns out to have a strehl / PV / RMS that is fractionally lower than another example.

I have owned a couple of 3-6 Nagler zooms in the past (not at the same time !) and currently I have the 2-4mm version (which is out of production). I have other short focal length eyepieces but the Nagler zoom does get a lot of use for the sorts of reasons given by the posters above. Perhaps the 2mm setting is not used often but the 4mm-2.5mm range, much more than I ever suspected they would be when I bought the eyepiece. As well as the quality of the eyepiece optics this might also be connected to me having scopes of better optical quality these days as well. The odd thing is that I didn't take to the 3-6mm zooms as much as I have with the 2-4mm but that might have been because back then I was rather obsessed by wider fields of view. I still have to confess that I am but the little zoom is so able and useful that I overlook it's 50 degree AFoV and 10mm eye relief. Apart from the focal length range difference, the 2-4mm has click stops at half mm intervals rather than the 1mm of the 3-6mm zoom. 

My personal feeling is that the Nagler zooms performance is close enough to the best specialised short focal length eyepieces that, coupled with the zoom feature, constant AFoV, decent sized eye lens and (by comparison to some) quite reasonable eye relief, they really earn their place in the eyepiece case alongside more specialised and exotic companions. I also have to add that I have not used a TOE, a Vixen HR, a Zeiss ZAO or a Pentax XO. I do have Pentax XW 5mm and 3.5mm and an Ethos 4.7mm as shorter FL companions though.

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

Thought that was SV ?

I think it is any colour you like now with SV 🙂

30 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

(120+250)/2=185mm 😈😂……. Like this…..

https://www.telescopengineering.com/telescope/apo180fl-f-7/

it’s only $19,000 and It’s Fluorite 👍

Hope they test it in green 😏

Interesting review of TAL super and ultra wide eyepieces here from Bill Paolini:

The TAL Super & Ultra Wide Angle Eyepieces - User Reviews - Articles - Articles - Cloudy Nights

I've very rarely seen any of these for sale in the UK. A couple of the 24mm UWA's perhaps but that's all.

Before I caught the wide field bug, I had owned all the TV plossls apart from the 55mm 2 inch one. Both sets of the original "NP" ones and later the newer design ones. I enjoyed them a lot, even the 11mm and 8mm which have quite tight eye relief. Even after I had moved to wider fields of view I hung onto the 25mm and 20mm TV plossls for exactly the first task that you describe Neil, the Horsehead Nebula.

The light transmission levels of the TV plossls, especially the 25mm and 20mm, have been measured as very high, more so than good orthos and others which you would think would do well. I figured that every little helps with a target such as the Horsehead 🙂

2 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

That was the original plan John 🙂

Thinks I'll need some penny washers to do that as the TAL boss is 45mm vs the SW ally leg one at 35mm. The one the GoTo is on has the round legs so a different fitment that wouldn't work. I'll find a way... 🙂 

Sounds right. I used a TAL tripod to mount an AZ-3 a few years back and recall needing quite a few washers between the tripod leg tops and the sides of the mount hub flange. It worked quite well though - so much better than the flimsy aluminium tripod that was supplied with the mount as standard.

20 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

so true and of course that's pushed prices up lots too. I was at one time looking at surveyor tripods but they've jumped in price in many cases and many are collect, so not many over my way. Now I'd just need to find a TAL head for a wood tripod... maybe - tho I think with the EQ5 it'd be just fine with the convenience of either GoTo or dual-motor drive.

The top of the tripod boss looks like this:

So I guess it may be possible to just bolt the EQ5 directly via that central hole? Will try that at some stage later perhaps, but that'd be a fair chunk of weight. Might be OK tho once the scope is balanced up etc.

It might be possible to simply remove the TAL hub (or what is left of it) and bolt the legs onto an EQ5 compatible hub. How wide are the hub flanges (the bit that fits between the top of the tripod legs) ?

Excellent news Gerry - hope you can enjoy the scope more now 🙂

10 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

I have an Altair 72 EDF Deluxe, which is an excellent scope, tiny but powerful. Not sure if the optics in it are better than my SW ED80 though.

Possibly not - the Synta ED doublets can be pretty darn good. My ED120 is a belter 🙂

My ED70 is the basic ED (an FPL-51 or equivalent) and does show a little false colour around brighter targets but the objective seems well figured and that means a lot to me. 

It will be very interesting to hear how your 152 performs when you have used it a few times 🙂

40 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

Not from the postman, but went to a nice gentleman near Stoke and bought his rather lovely Starwave 152mm from him. Lovely telescope, nice to look at, ( to me, )  but his dog stole the show, a lovely border Terrier/ Jack Russel cross, who thought I needed a face wash! I need to get me a new dog!

I tried to get a shot of the lens, beautiful and a slight green tint...

Now I intend to do as @Stu1smartcookie has done and apply it to my SkyTee along with my Starsense. Maybe a lighter mount too.

I tried to resist this, even started a thread asking for help to avoid, but seeing this on ABS in as good as new condition, I couldn't resist. It Hardly looks like it has been used.

 

Very nice !

I have recently acquired a Starwave 70ED which looks like a miniature version of your 152mm !

Mine is my 1st Starwave and I have to say that I have been well impressed by it both in terms of performance and build quality. The focuser, which looks to be the same unit that your 152 has, is really, really nice 🙂

11 hours ago, Deadlake said:

Interested in why you would move from TeleVue to Pentax and not the other way around. 

You've had your TeleVue from some years not, why the Pentax EP's?

All the best, Martin

Fair question Martin. I'm not decided by any means on this  or any other eyepiece path, which is why I used the term "tyre kicking". I have owned Ethos and XW eyepieces for around a decade, perhaps a little more so I feel that I know both types quite well.

I have also owned the ES 92's that @Louis D mentions and the 22mm T4 Nagler. 

If I move away from Ethos I will almost certainly miss them at times and likewise with the Pentax XW's. I'm trapped by excellence !!!!

Oddly, for a Tele Vue enthusiast, I don't feel quite the same about the Delos. I had the 17.3 and 14 Delos for a while and both were excellent performers and comfortable to use but somehow I didn't grow as fond of them as I have the Ethos and XW's. I still have the 14mm Delos (the 17.3 was not a focal length that I used much) but I don't feel similar pangs about the thought of letting it go, if that is where my path leads me 🙄

Very interesting report 🙂

It seems a shame to me that the very best high power eyepieces (for the non-glasses wearer) seem to remain in production for such a short time. We have the ZAO's, the TMB Supermono's, the Pentax XO's and now (apparently) the Vixen HR's out of production (for quite a long time in some cases) so fast becoming "unobtainium" for most.

I think the Tak TOE's are still being produced but for how long I wonder ?

Maybe the market for such eyepieces is too small to support production more than a short time ?

52 minutes ago, Franklin said:

.... And yes, I have seen non-collimatable cells with the 3-bolt focusers as well but not after Vixen changed their colour scheme to blue when the Sphinx range was released, around early 2000 I think? 

Sounds right. I think my ED102SS F/6.5 and it's sister scope the 102S F/9 were some of the last designs to use the older Vixen styling. They took a breather for a couple of years and then produced the F/7.7 103 ED which used a different mating element glass with lower lead levels I believe. I'm not sure exactly when Vixen moved from a 3 bolt focuser attachment to the screw on arrangement though.

Apologies to Dave for diverting this thread onto other Vixens. That 80mm F/15 looks wonderful and will be well worth some TLC to iron out any minor issues 🙂

1 minute ago, Marki said:

 

... I did have a 125 Apolar, but returned it as it has been damaged in transit.....

.

 

The first 125 Apolar that I was sent suffered similarly - an internal lens element broken in transit. It's a long way overland from Siberia ...... 🙄

Lovely scopes Mark  👍

1 hour ago, Franklin said:

Could be mistaken but I think the older models came with collimatable cells because of the 120deg 3-bolt fixing of the focuser assembly on these models which gave the possibility of some tilt. When Vixen adopted the screw in focuser design they also stopped making the collimatable cells because both ends screw into the tube and should all be square and lined up correctly.

You might be right in this but quite a few of the older Vixen models have non-collimatable objective cells AND the 3-bolt focuser fixing. My 23 year old ED102SS F/6.5 is one example and I've seen quite a few older Vixen's with the same cell design. Some also with collimation adjustments though so it varies.

I wonder if Vixen stopped including collimatable objective cells because the accuracy of the manufacturing tolerances in the scopes meant that they simply didn't need them ?

Probably only Vixen would really know ! 🙂

1 hour ago, markse68 said:

Never heard of a 100RT John- what was different to the R and RS?

I'd love to get my hands on an Apolar-wow!  fascinating scopes though I've read tricky to collimate! There was regular 125mm Achromatic refractor too I think though that was rare as well- I think someone on this forum has one- looks very similar to that Apolar

Mark

The RT was the first TAL 100 to be produced I think. I bought mine new in 1999. It's main features that differentiated it from later models were the metal dew shield and a short travel rack and pinion focuser with a bespoke mirror diagonal that fitted using a tapered collar rather than the more normal 1.25 inch push fit barrel. The focuser and diagonal arrangement were rather limiting really because not all eyepieces would come to focus in the scope and you could only use the bespoke diagonal with it. Later versions improved on the focuser a great deal. Mine came in the wooden "coffin" and the kit included the very nice 25mm TAL plossl and a 10mm Kellner which was OK but not quite so good. 

The collimation of the Apolar would have been rather tricky. The optical arrangement was like this:

The instruction manual simply advised a return to the factory (in Siberia) for any collimation adjustments !

A 150mm Apolar was designed and prototypes tested but it never went into production as far as I am aware.

I don't have any TAL's now but have owned a few in the past.

This TAL 100 RT was both an excellent performer and (in my view) good looking:

Thanks to FLO I also got the chance to try the TAL Apolar 125 refractor, a 6 element design but using no ED glass. A very interesting scope 🙂

Great looking scope - very traditional, purposeful look.

The sort of scope that ought to be pictured on Sir Patrick Moore's lawn in the "Observers Book of Astronomy" 🙂

@Les Ewan's post could suggest a new thread for the forum: "What are you using your TAL wooden box for ?" 😁

I don't think I have posted in this thread for a while so I thought that it would do no harm to post some pics of my refractors. In order of aperture they are a Tasco 12TE-5, an Altair Starwave ED70, a Takahashi FC100-DL, a Vixen ED102SS, a Skywatcher ED120 Pro and a TMB/APM/LZOS 130mm triplet. As can be seen, I rather like refractors on alt-azimuth mounts 😄

Some of my eyepieces have hybrid 1.25 inch + 2 inch barrels (see pic below, credit: Roger Vine of Scopeviews). More than once I have left the dust cap on the 1.25 inch barrel and found myself wondering how the seeing had deteriorated so fast 🙄

Saturn viewed through a couple of mm of soft translucent plastic is not improved I can tell you 😲

I now use such eyepieces in 2 inch mode with black 2 inch dust caps - not so easy to forget to take off !

I've had a couple of issues with nuisance lighting in the past. One with a neighbour and one with a school across the road from me. In both cases communication both sorted out the problem and raised awareness with others of the negative effects of such lighting. Since then the neighbour has had a look though my scopes and I have undertaken some outreach sessions at the school. There is no need to resort to illegal action at all.