Meade 5000 or ES 82 (or other...)

[Spec-Chum]

After my successful excursion into widefield views with my MoonFish 30mm 80 deg I'm now seriously considering getting a decent 14mm-16mm in 82 deg.

A Nagler is out, but a ES 82 or Meade 5000 is within reach. I've heard this 2 are optically the same. Would this be true? The price difference, now the prices have gone back up is £158 for the ES and £116 for the Meade 5000.

The Nirvana is also an option at £145 I guess, but not much choice in focal lengths on those

I guess my question is the Meade best value? Or is the slight premium on the others for a reason.

Thanks

[fredster]

The Meade is a no brainer while selling for £116, nothing else competes in that segment.

[Damo636]

The Meade UWA & the ES more than likely share the same optics so I would go for the cheaper of the two. I reckon all three would perform pretty equally, & by that I mean excellently

[crazyjedi]

I believe that Meade and ES get their glass from the same manufacturer but the assembly is different. The ES lenses are N2 purged weather proofed according to the sales pitch.

I have the ES 68 degree 24mm lens (Argon purged apparently ) and it is a really nice solidly built EP with good optics. I haven't had the pleasure of the Meade version (5000 SWA) but I have got several Meade 5000 super plossls and they are all nicely made and optically very good too.

I don't reckon there will be much difference between the Meade and the ES 82 degree lenses. As the Meade version is cheaper it may be more sensible to go for the Meade lens but then you won't be able to wobble on about how your lens is Nitrogen purged and hence now impervious to the weather - and nuclear attack

They're both fine lenses though so you can't go too far wrong with either

[Dunkster]

Now, an ES 82 up against a Nirvana is something I would like to see...

If posts on the other side are to be believed the ES also use different coatings, but also tend to be lighter at a given FL.

The 14mm ES 82 is currently on sale at US$99, so if you chose carefully you could have it shipped + duty + vat for comfortably under £100. TH seems have have the newer UWA 5000 "WP" (waterproof) for a few more notes which may bear more resemblance to the ES than the previous gen.

[John]

I'd always strongly consider a UWAN or a Nirvana if they have an appropriate focal length. This is because I've personally owned them and directly compared them to Naglers and I know how close their performance is to the "best in class".

I use a Nirvana in the 4mm focal length at the moment. It sits between the superb 5mm and 3.5mm Pentax XW's but is far from outclassed by them

[crazyjedi]

I'd always strongly consider a UWAN or a Nirvana if they have an appropriate focal length. This is because I've personally owned them and directly compared them to Naglers and I know how close their performance is to the "best in class".

I use a Nirvana in the 4mm focal length at the moment. It sits between the superb 5mm and 3.5mm Pentax XW's but is far from outclassed by them

Yes at the OP's F6 ratio those two will stand up quite well, but the ES lenses and Meade lenses are very close in price to the Nirvana's. At F6 it is probably difficult to tell them all apart.

[great_bear]

I didn't get on with the 16mm UWAN / Nirvana - field far too curved for my liking...

[cs1cjc]

I did not get on with the ES82 14mm which had too little usable eye relief and too curved a field for me. I am using the ES68 16mm which is tight on eye relief but otherwise excellent, I think.