16mm Type 2 Nagler

[Moonshane]

I previously bought a 1.6x 2" Antares Barlow mainly to use with my 26mm Nagler as a 'poor man's' 16/17mm Nagler. It worked rather well but when a good used 16mm Nagler T2 came up for a decent price I thought I'd take a punt and go for it, selling the barlow to part fund the purchase. They don't come up for sale that often and are an out of production model, long ago replaced by the 16mm T5 and also to some extent the 17mm T4.

I have never used a T2 Nagler but they seem to have something of a cult following, especially the 20mm which is still the largest eyepiece they have made (I think?). The eye relief of the 16mm T2 (and T5) is quite short at 10mm and the eye lens is also recessed so seeing the full field will be a challenge and the lens will need regular cleaning to remove eyelash grease, or so I read!

It seems a little OTT to have a 13mm Ethos and a 16mm Nagler which have the same true field but with my biggest scope (1840mm focal length with Paracorr fitted), the difference in magnification (142x vs 115x) does make a perceptible difference when the mirror is not quite at equilibrium or the seeing is pants.

Looking forward to getting this and using it soon.

[estwing]

wow that's a bigger difference than i'd imagined,i can see the attraction of getting this ep.

[John]

Interesting eyepieces, the older Nagler designs. I've owned some of the Type 1's which were very nice although I found the T6's which replaced them had more eye relief and better coatings.

I've never owned a T2 Nagler though so it will be interesting to see what you think of it Shane. Andrew* has, or had, a 20mm T2 and thought a lot of it I recall.

[estwing]

there's a t2 20mm on ab&s now

[Moonshane]

same seller too. not for me though. I'll eventually be after a 20mm TV Plossl at that focal length for the HH nebula.

[Moonshane]

Well the eagle has landed! Initial thoughts are - wow......It's in great condition with just the odd nick here and there from normal careful use - considering this is possibly 20 years old it's been looked after. Coatings are good and the usual TV quality, perhaps with a hint more purple than the more recent eyepieces.

The 2-1.25" barrel is smooth and the eyepiece appears to focus most effectively using the 1.25" setting - it's a long way out. This is similar to the 22mm Panoptic I had previously and this eyepiece is also very similar to that in every way. The eyepiece is extremely secure in the 1.25" setting so no issue using it.

In terms of eye relief, I am pleasantly surprised. It's a case of simply putting your eye to the eyepiece and using it. If I wore glasses it might be an issue but I don't so it's not. The whole field is readily seen, especially with averted vision - i.e. look at the centre and the whole field is visible. Look to the left and the left side is not unless you move your head - that's how it is with almost all ultrawides I think.

I have high hopes for this eyepiece and I am glad I went for it. Now I have the thing, it feels like a bargain. The box is a little jazzy too. Wonder why they changed? Here it is next to my other recent purchase, a 25mm TV Plossl. One day I may even get to use them both!

[Moonshane]

one thing I have noticed is that the 'ring of fire' so prevalent on other ultrawides I have (the 13mm Ethos and 26mm Nagler) is hardly visible so I have hopes this will be more usable for me on the moon than those mentioned.

[Moonshane]

pps I am now going to contradict myself re glasses wearers. Although at 10mm the ER is tight, it appears impossible to create the kidney bean effect with this eyepiece. therefore it seems possible to bring your eye back quite a bit (to say a 70 degree view) with no ill effects. therefore, this might be an alternative to those looking for a wide field at a cheaper price than say a 17mm T4 or 15mm Panoptic.

[foundaplanet]

Very nice, hope you have some good fun with them..

[Moonshane]

cheers Col - you certainly helped with that :0)

one more eyepiece and that's me set forever.......ahem.

[alan potts]

Shane,

Hope it came with free good weather. It is a nice looking eyepiece, one of the things I really like about TV, they keep it simple. I too go for the magnifcation difference and not the FOV, golly look how many overalps I would have.

Alan

[John]

Looks in great shape Shane - folks tend to look after their nice eyepieces

Is it a Japanese or Taiwanese one ?

[alan potts]

A tad off subject but the ring of fire you refer to, is it the blue ring around the edge because that is all I ever see and think nothing too it. If this is the case is it not rather badly named?

Alan

[Damo636]

Nice looking eyepiece Shane, it'll be interesting to hear how it performs under the stars. I had the 25mm plossl for a while and it was a great ep, very sharp. I often think about gradually over time collecting all the Televue plossl's, as it would be nice to have a simple (lightweight) glass set at my disposal. Mind you, that's just one of many notions floating about in my head at the minute

[John]

A tad off subject but the ring of fire you refer to, is it the blue ring around the edge because that is all I ever see and think nothing too it. If this is the case is it not rather badly named?

Alan

I've seen that to a greater or lesser extent on virtually every 82 degree eyepiece I've used. It should be named "the thin blue rim" in my opinion - "ring of fire" is really OTT

Funnily enough it's not so apparent with 100 degree EP's although it's still there a little.

[Moonshane]

Looks in great shape Shane - folks tend to look after their nice eyepieces

Is it a Japanese or Taiwanese one ?

hi John

It's the Taiwanese one (thankfully it seems) as according to some reports the coatings on the Japanese were slightly inferior to later Taiwanese ones. Not sure why or how etc. It would not have stopped me buying it though at the price and all it cost me were some recycled bits I was not really using.

[Moonshane]

I agree John, ring of fire is OTT. in the 16mm T2 it's a thinner ring than my 26mm T5, about the same as the 13mm Ethos, but is not as obvious and tinted orange in colour, fading to yellow - more fire like at least, the newer eyepieces must have converted to gas

[Moonshane]

Nice looking eyepiece Shane, it'll be interesting to hear how it performs under the stars. I had the 25mm plossl for a while and it was a great ep, very sharp. I often think about gradually over time collecting all the Televue plossl's, as it would be nice to have a simple (lightweight) glass set at my disposal. Mind you, that's just one of many notions floating about in my head at the minute

that's what I have done really Damo. I intend to get the 20mm which apart from the 55mm, 40mm and the 8mm completes the set. I may possibly get the 40mm which seems wrong but for solar, when seeing is poor it might be good for 40x in my small dob.

[great_bear]

it appears impossible to create the kidney bean effect with this eyepiece.

That's the reason why the T2s were created, I believe.

(T1s having a real issue on this front)

[Moonshane]

cheers Jeremy, hadn't appreciated that. Just had a quick peek in the scope but seeing is pants. it gives 100x in my small dob and the eye relief is surprisingly comfortable. looking forward to using it in anger.

[faulksy]

very nice shane, lovely condition, hope you enjoy it

[Moonshane]

Got a brief first light with this on Friday and was pretty impressed! It's a very usable eyepiece and the sharpness is good, basically it does what I hoped; provides a lower power option with approx the same true field as my 13mm Ethos. In comparison with the Ethos, the eyepiece is more compact, a little light I think and the eye relief a little tighter, although it's easier to see the whole field than with the Ethos! I used my 6" f11 as it was already outside and I only had a couple of hours available.

as you might expect, the Ethos at 123x and with an exit pupil of 1.2mm against the Nagler at 100x and exit pupil of 1.5mm gave a slightly darker sky, and a little more detail in e.g. M13 than the Nagler but all in all, the results were fairly close. This difference was most pronounced with M107, a new globular for me, which was low down and in the mirk (and in not totally dark skies). It was just visible with effort and averted vision in the Ethos but not the Nagler.

The difference was not that great though and considering the Nagler cost one third the price of the Ethos, I can certainly recommend it if you want a wide field at this focal length.

In reality I bought this eyepiece in the main for dark site and poor nights of seeing use of my big dob and I will report again when I have tried it with that scope. I'll try to do a more detailed summary then with comparison of different objects.

[John]

Sounds like a good addition to your eyepiece case then Shane

[alan potts]

Nice little report Shane, I love M107, I like the 11th mag cross of stars that are around it, though it is a fairly difficult globular without something like your mega Dob.

Alan

[Gazabone]

Just got myself a T2 16mm, so looking forward to a decent dark night now, especially after reading the comments in this thread.