NotSoSuperNova

That's a seriously beautiful result but wow, that's a lot of hours on target. How long did it take to complete?

I suppose we're something of a peaceful bunch by nature. I find it strange that the AV community has always had that reputation. Especially when it's quite simple to evidence what the equipment is actually doing. By coincidence my best friends father was a designer at Cambridge Audio and Mission from around the 70's onwards, so your analogy isn't lost on me. I've had enough of a look behind the curtain to appreciate what that industry does and how seriously they take their work. Unfortunately that didn't give me any more of an appreciation of high-end audio equipment. My original question did revolve around the same point though. There doesn't seem to be much, if any information (except what's been put together by amateurs) that details eyepiece performance. And I find that slightly strange. Then again, it's perhaps just my nature to not accept that the 6mm Ethos and the equivalent XWA 100° (United Optics) are both very good eyepieces. I'm compelled to know the numbers that make it the case. No matter about spending time with AV community either. Their loss is our gain 😁

Just for the record Peter. That table completely backs up what you said all along, and covers the entire Tele Vue line-up. They're a great manufacturer across the board (especially the Radian range). Interestingly though, I see the 100 degree, XWA range from Kunming United Optics has a couple of technically good entries on there, so perhaps that time isn't too far away. I don't think companies like Tele Vue have much to worry about in the near or long term regardless.

That may be true but if we consult our newly found chart (and believe said chart is accurate), you'll see that many of the 82 deg eyepieces are technically great (especially those in yellow), and even outperform the 68 deg range overall. But that's the beauty of this perhaps, if you like or prefer the 68 deg experience then more power to you. Sometimes we just like what we like. *Here's the link again if anyone is interested but after the first two columns you're looking at centre (to be ignored), middle and edge readings for the eyepiece in an F4 and F10 scope respectively. A reading of under 10 is visually perfect. angular size of aberration table

This is a great link. That's the exact kind of resource I was looking for. Strange it's tucked away on a Russian forum and not widely available but it's a niche question maybe. It's great work from them regardless. Thanks for sharing.

Great post. I'd like to be in the same position given the funds. I'm a sucker for the ooze, perceived or otherwise! 😁

These were the first ones I thought of because of the 82 degree FOV. I've never looked through one but I'd be interested to see how they compare (in whichever way they're tested). A quick check shows that people say they're a great alternative to the Nagler but that it's a lot of money for the small improvement. Others say they prefer one or the other for personal reasons. It's a great example though. Perhaps they are very similar in terms of performance.

Nor should it be cheap. There's a genuine market for quality goods no matter the sector, and for good reason. I have the best eyepieces I can afford in the hope that they offer me the best viewing experience. I'm sure most of us are in the same boat. I'm sure we could agree that the manufacturing process on high end eyepieces, while complex, will be automated to some degree and that eyepieces of a particular model will come out "almost" identical at the end. My question revolved around there being people out there who know that process and turning out Nagler-esk eyepieces under a different name and half the cost. If you're saying that's not possible then I'll take it as fact. It was a genuine question that I'll be happy to know the answer to.

You'll have to humor me I'm afraid Peter 😄 I don't have knowledge or experience to get close to being able to answer that. It's great to see you pop up here though. In your opinion, is there anyone doing a decent job ay copying these ultra wide eyepieces and doing a good job of it (for a noticeably lower cost), or do those prices truly reflect the manufacturing & testing process of getting these on the market?

I thought it might be the case which is why I mentioned the performance testing. Much of what get information-wise seems to be driven by opinion. It's highlighted by what Prador says about Louis D as it happens. I've read posts by him before and think they're both really well written and informative, but they're subjective. When I buy a new television there are more parameters tested than I know what to do with, apples and oranges maybe but I hope I make a salient point. This kind of topic will always circle around personal preference but do you think there's a line somewhere? Can we get lucky with a £100 (for argument's sake) similar spec eyepiece that you'd struggle to tell the difference with on a blind test?

This is what I was thinking might be the case if I went back and looked with a more critical eye. I'm certain I'd still be impressed but perhaps not wow'd. I think I'd have to get lucky even in the second hand market to bag any one of these. Fingers crossed though!

How good is the TV Nagler? I mean really? I had the privilege of looking through one recently and on reflection I think the occasion may have got to me. I'm pretty sure that I could have been looking through a much, much cheaper eyepiece and still felt the quality pouring into my eye, so ready was I for my mind to be blown! Now thinking about this, and even though the quality of that eyepiece is undoubtedly good great, I'm wondering how the complete experience of using a top brand eyepiece compares to products in different tiers of the price/quality pyramid. As well, I understand that these were developed by Al Nagler in the 60's and apart from some minor material changes, they remain much the same and have only improved upon in regards to AFOV (by the Ethos range). To me that says that they're quite a simple product and therefore shouldn't be that difficult to copy or cut the cost of (from a competition point of view this is). So this kind of descends into a hybrid of a bang for buck and diminishing returns topic I suppose. But I'm genuinely interested to know your thoughts on it. Essentially the question is are we overpaying for a great product and where on the spectrum does the quality start to tail off? Also I'm not aware of any available resources that present standardised eyepiece performance information. Are there any?

I would recommend to anyone doing this adjustment manually that the screws that you make this adjustment to are not the best quality. I like to make sure mine are locked off nice and tight and when I made the adjustment I twisted the head off the screw. Bearing in mind that I'm talking nice and tight, not Hulk tight, if I were doing the same again I would 1. take it easy with the stock parts and 2. think about replacing the screw with a decent one before doing it. Just my experience.