Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

3.5 mm nagler eyepiece, any good?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've been looking for a high power, light, widefield EP for my Takahashi for a while, and have considered many options. But in the end only one eyepiece met all needs - the venerable Nagler 3.5, so pi

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

I have the 10, 7, 5 and 3.5mm Pentax XW's. I use them in refractors from 102mm F/6.5 to 130mm F/9.2 and in my F/5.3 300mm dobsonian. If they have faults I can't see them - they are very fine eyepieces

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by John
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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 :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

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! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :grin:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by alan potts
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 !

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.