SW Nirvana 16mm or Celestron Luminos 15mm?

[Aronnax]

Help! I'm looking at new EP's, and am after a 15mm or thereabouts EP to start the collection.

I'm torn between the Nirvana, and the Luminos to go with my f6 SW200p, as these are in my budget. Any advice or comments, especially from those with experience of these EP's, would be most welcome.

Thanks very much

[andrew63]

I have a WO UWAN 16 - same as Nirvana and use to own a Celestron Axiom 15 - which was rebranded / modified as the Luminos. My feeling is that the UWAN has better edge correction - out of the two I'd certainly take a nirvana. This was in a refractor by the way.

andrew

[John]

The 16mm UWAN / Nirvana is pretty close to the performance of the 16mm Tele Vue Nagler. I really enjoyed it when I had an F/6 200P dob and could hardly tell the difference when I upgraded to the 16mm Nagler.

[faulksy]

very good the nirvana range, go for it,( said in a rocky balboa voice)

[8kids]

I have the 16mm Nirvana it's very good in my Explorer 300pds. I'm on the lookout for the others but they don't show up often second hand.

[Aronnax]

Thanks for the input so far, much appreciated.

It looks like the Nirvana is getting the votes at the moment for sure. My only worry is that when I order a new shiny bit of kit, it will mean these clouds stick around for an extra month

[Stargazer_00]

14mm es 82 all day long in my opinion. If that isn't too short. The luminos is okay but suffers with focus about 10% from the field stop and if you went on to get the range I found the 10mm unpleasing. They are excessively heavy round in my view. the es are better all round. lighter cheaper and optically better. I posted a review of sorts in the review area which might be relevant given the focal length of your scope is comparable to mine

[andrew63]

The thing which would put me off considering the ES or Meade at 14mm is field curvature which several reviewers have commented on. This is naturally user specific depending on age for one and also telescope in use - short tube refractors have loads. I would think it is an issue to consider though.

Enjoyed reading your reports on the ES range Stargazing00

andrew

[rory]

regarding the nirvana e/p's , is there a particular reason why theres a lack of focal lengths ?

sorry for jumping in on this thread .

[John]

regarding the nirvana e/p's , is there a particular reason why theres a lack of focal lengths ?

sorry for jumping in on this thread .

The manufacturer only made it in those focal lengths, unfortunately, so thats what the various brands that sell them have to accept. If there had been a couple more in the range I reckon they might have achieved what ES are doing now, a few years ago.

When they were first launched by William Optics there was talk by William Yang (the company President) of more focal lengths but they never materialized.

One thing I've not seen is a "head to head" review of UWAN / Nirvana's and their ES equivalents. That would be very interesting I think.

[alan potts]

I have never owned one of the WO/Nirvana eyepieces or a Celeston. Judging by some of the remarks the other day to a thread I started on Celestron eyepieces I think you would be better off with the Nirvana range, it is a shame that there are only 4 to choose from...

John,

As for a head to head with Nirvana and ExSc which would you put against each other there are not any real direct matches. You could do 16mm V 14mm, or 16mm V 18mm. Maybe 28mm V 30mm is less of a problem. I will depend on scope of course but in my LX, 2mm is a fair difference I guess 4mm V 4.7mm is the closest.

Alan.

[Aronnax]

regarding the nirvana e/p's , is there a particular reason why theres a lack of focal lengths ?

sorry for jumping in on this thread.

No worries! It does seem a shame, and that was part of the reason I was drawn to the Luminos range as they would give me a good selection of parfocal EP's. But I am happy to get the most suited EP from different ranges as the time comes to expand the EP collection.

Thanks for the comments so far, it has really helped.

[Stargazer_00]

In my experience parfocality is pointless. certainly not a buying criteria but rather a nice to have

[Aronnax]

In my experience parfocality is pointless. certainly not a buying criteria but rather a nice to have

Indeed, which is why all else being equal, I'd stick to a parfocal range, but the slightest sniff of a better option wouldn't stop me getting something different

[John]

I have never owned one of the WO/Nirvana eyepieces or a Celeston. Judging by some of the remarks the other day to a thread I started on Celestron eyepieces I think you would be better off with the Nirvana range, it is a shame that there are only 4 to choose from...

John,

As for a head to head with Nirvana and ExSc which would you put against each other there are not any real direct matches. You could do 16mm V 14mm, or 16mm V 18mm. Maybe 28mm V 30mm is less of a problem. I will depend on scope of course but in my LX, 2mm is a fair difference I guess 4mm V 4.7mm is the closest.

Alan.

That is a problem Alan. When comparing eyepieces you need as many factors as possible to be equal, including focal length. Quite small differences in magnification make it difficult to tell whether, say, a contrast improvement on DSO's, is due to that or something within the eyepieces being compared.