3.5 mm nagler eyepiece, any good?

[simo1222]

Hi, a question about the 3.5mm nagler, im getting a 12" skywatcher auto (dobsonian) and it comes with 10mm and 25mm eyepieces as standard with a power of up to 150x with those two but i am thinking about getting the 3.5 nagler wich will give me 450x magnification, bearing in mind that my scope has a practical power of up to 600x. i know the nagler range are expensive so dont want to rush into it, can anybody help. thanks david.

[UTMonkey]

I'm a newbie with a dob looking for the next eye piece, but from what I have been reading and told is that whilst the 12" is more than capable to cope with that EP sadly UK visibility isn't up to much, 250x at a stretch.

[johninderby]

Try the Televue eyepiece calculator.

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3_page.asp?NoBack=True&id=89&plain=TRUE&focal_length=1500&fl_unit=mm&aperture=305&a_unit=mm&fratio=&_2in=yes&Nagler=TRUE&sortby=SortFocalLength&title=&SUBMIT1=CALCULATE

You can plug in the specs of your scope and find out what mag, FOV etc apply for your scope.

John

[John]

The 3.5mm Nagler eyepiece is excellent but I really don't think you would get much use out of it in a 12" F/5 scope. 450x exceeds what the typical seeing conditions will allow by a fair margin - 300x would be more likely and even then there will be nights when that's too much.

So a 5mm eyepiece would make much more sense, in my opinion.

The most used focal length eyepiece in most scopes is 13mm - 16mm so, if you are going to invest, that might be the best focal length range to invest in.

[swamp thing]

Hi

IMO you just wouldn't use an eyepiece of that mag seeing just won't allow it.

TBH I seldom go over 300x even in my 16" scope.

You would be far better off spending your money on an eyepiece you'd use more often.

Regards Steve

[A McEwan]

As above, but with the caveat that there will be "some times" when the 450x will be usable and rewarding - just don't expect it to be very often unless you're in an area where you get very good to excellent seeing often.

A 6.7mm will give a usefull 223x and will probably get used a lot more often.

Ant

[Mark at Beaufort]

I had a 5mm Nagler which I used with my 10" Dob - in fact I had the best view of M13 with this EP.

In the end I decided to sell this Nagler and I invested in a 3mm - 6mm Nagler zoom. This is a fantastic EP but I rarely use the 3mm element of it - just occasionally to view close doubles and maybe some features on the Moon.

Over the years I have reduced the number of EPs and now (ignoring the Hyperion Zoom for the PST) use just 4 EPs of which the 13mm Ethos is used 80% of the time.

Mark

[ollypenrice]

Your scope has a pracital power of 600x if you happen to be in space. These numbers are meaningless and it will rarely be worth exceeding 200x, 300 at most.

I have a truly excellent site at 900 metres elevation and don't buy EPs giving more than 250x. It simply isn't worth it. Many people think of telescopes as being there to make small things look big, which is not wrong. But in astronomy big telescopes are really about making faint things look bright, which is not the same thing.

Olly

[John]

... Many people think of telescopes as being there to make small things look big, which is not wrong. But in astronomy big telescopes are really about making faint things look bright, which is not the same thing.....

Great line Olly and spot on - this ought to be a sticky

[Multi-Coated]

Totally agree with the previous few posts , don't make the age old mistake of going bananas with magnification . Follow the advice of these guys and you'll be very happy with the performance your new scope will deliver.

[simo1222]

lol

[simo1222]

well thanks for all the help, it seems a 13mm would be more suited and i would definatley look more into it before i buy an expensive eyepiece, any recomendations for this size?

[John]

Well they do a 13mm Nagler type 6 (same range as the 3.5mm you mentioned above but at the other end of it !) which is a lovely eyepiece. Pity you have just missed the 20% off Tele Vue sale !.

Otherwise a 16mm William Optics UWAN or a Skywatcher 16mm Nirvana (both the same eyepiece) would delivery very nice views in a 12" F/5.

The above assumes that you don't wear glasses when observing. If you do then there are other options which might be more suitable.

[Moonshane]

whilst I agree with the above comments generally, there are times when even with 6" of aperture, magnifications of 250x and even (honestly) 400-500x are possible on the moon and double stars.

with either my 12" (now sold) or my 6" dobs, I regularly use my 6-3mm Nagler zoom on the moon and this gives about 260x at 6mm. Occasionally I can use a little more and rarely a lot more.

all that said, for general viewing my most used magnification is between 130x-200x so assuming your focal length is about 1500mm this equates to maybe 13mm-8mm as being your most used range assuming you are like me. a 13mm would be spot on so maybe either a 11mm or 13mm Nagler or even a 10mm or 12mm Radian. You can get these used regularly from £150 for the Naglers and £100 for the Radians.

another option is to buy used and relatively cheap versions of the focal lengths you think you might use and when you are happy and ready to 'commit' to a high quality eyepiece, sell them (probably for the same money) and buy the premium version. this is what I did until I got the right sort of mix.

[simo1222]

Just been looking and im being drawn to the 12mm type 4 nagler or the 13mm type 6, can anybody tell me the pro's and cons of either because i cant really tell them appart except the barrel size and price? thanks david.

[simo1222]

Well they do a 13mm Nagler type 6 (same range as the 3.5mm you mentioned above but at the other end of it !) which is a lovely eyepiece. Pity you have just missed the 20% off Tele Vue sale !.

Otherwise a 16mm William Optics UWAN or a Skywatcher 16mm Nirvana (both the same eyepiece) would delivery very nice views in a 12" F/5.

The above assumes that you don't wear glasses when observing. If you do then there are other options which might be more suitable.

shame i missed that coz they aint cheap, and no i dont wear glasses.

[Collyer911]

hi there,

i,ve just had my 16mm nagler type 5 delivered this week and i love to tell you how i,m getting on with it............

but as always no clear skys yet!!!

ggrrrr

[swamp thing]

Just been looking and im being drawn to the 12mm type 4 nagler or the 13mm type 6, can anybody tell me the pro's and cons of either because i cant really tell them appart except the barrel size and price? thanks david.

Hi

Well first off you wont go wrong with either, they are both excellent eyepieces.

The 13mm T6 will suit you better if you prefer small light eyepieces and don't require long eye relief.

It weighs under 1/2 lb with 12mm eye relief.

It packs one hell of a punch for such a small eyepiece.

The 12mm T4 will suit you better if you prefer big eye lenses and long eye relief.

It weighs just over 1 lb and has 17mm eye relief.

I have the 12mm T4, it was my first Nagler and still my favorite.

However I would add that if you are relatively new to astronomy you may not see the benefit of Nagler eyepieces yet.

There are cheaper options.

Regards Steve

[gravityguy]

Hi

Well first off you wont go wrong with either, they are both excellent eyepieces.

The 13mm T6 will suit you better if you prefer small light eyepieces and don't require long eye relief.

It weighs under 1/2 lb with 12mm eye relief.

It packs one hell of a punch for such a small eyepiece.

The 12mm T4 will suit you better if you prefer big eye lenses and long eye relief.

It weighs just over 1 lb and has 17mm eye relief.

I have the 12mm T4, it was my first Nagler and still my favorite.

However I would add that if you are relatively new to astronomy you may not see the benefit of Nagler eyepieces yet.

There are cheaper options.

Regards Steve

Old post I know but I am new to astronomy and I had the opportunity to look through a t5 ep last week (I think it was a 31mm) and the difference between that and my stock ep's was immense! It felt like I was looking through a porthole into the heavens. I think I described it at the time as akin to watching a film on an old TV set and then watching the same film in HD on a super wide screen. I need some naglers in my life!

[cs1cjc]

...

But in astronomy big telescopes are really about making faint things look bright, which is not the same thing.

...

But for visual astronomy a telescope never makes objects brighter. It can only make objects bigger without dimming them too much...

[tich]

Old post I know but I am new to astronomy and I had the opportunity to look through a t5 ep last week (I think it was a 31mm) and the difference between that and my stock ep's was immense! It felt like I was looking through a porthole into the heavens. I think I described it at the time as akin to watching a film on an old TV set and then watching the same film in HD on a super wide screen. I need some naglers in my life!

That would be my Ascension 32mm 2" eyepiece, there are plenty of clones of these online & I did a thread about mine Ascension Eyepiece.

[Stargazer_00]

I'd personally recommend the 14mm ES82. This eyepiece is a DSO killer. Amazing performance for the price, I dont think you could spend your money better in this range than getting this eyepiece.

[alan potts]

Has something gone a bit wrong here, what have the last two posts to do with a 3.5mm Nagler?

Sorry my fault I have just re-read the thread, someone was way out with their magnification, I agree 400 plus is far too much.

Alan.

[John]

It's an old thread so things can get confused when they are brought back to life again

Back in 2011, when the thread was started, ES had not much of a presence in the eyepiece scene. I don't think ES do a 3.5mm even today.

I suspect the OP has long ago made his decision !

[alan potts]

John,

most likely sold it and got another if he is like me. ExSc has the same range as the old Meade at the lower end and 4.7mm is the shortest, I had the Meade it is a nice eyepiece, wish I had kept it.

Alan