Barlowed eyepiece vs dedicated eyepiece

[nitram100]

Hey guys,

I am considering a Nagler 7mm Type 6. I already own an ES 14mm 82 degree and celestron ultima apo barlow.

Would there be a huge difference between the Nagler 7mm and the 14mm barlowed? Is it really worth the cash to have a dedicated 7mm or is there a big jump in image quality.

Thanks,

Mart

[John]

I used to use Nagler T6's with a Celestron Ultima barlow and the results were pretty satisfying. I did eventually move to dedicated Naglers in all the focal lengths and there might have been a small improvement in the mount of light scatter around bright objects but it was not earth shattering to be honest.

If you were to change the Ultima barlow for a Powermate or an ES 2x Telextender there would be virtually no difference at all in the quality of the views as the latter devices seem to be practically invisible in the optical train.

[Andrew*]

Hi Mart,

This really depends more on the quality of the barlow, and the Celestron Ultima is about as good as they get. I expect you will see minor differences at best.

However, the Nagler is a very slightly better eyepiece and edge-of-field sharpness may be improved with a dedicated Nagler.

I wonder if it would make more sense in your case to still use the 14mm+2x barlow for 171x and instead get a 6mm Delos to give 200x in your scope. Alternatively, get a 12mm Delos which will double as a 6mm.

[alan potts]

I have done a good number of cross checks with all Televues where I can make a comparision using a 2 inch Powermate. None of these come cheap but I was always pleased with the doubled up result and have to say any differences where slight or maybe in the FOV differences. If you are using quality little suffers in my books.

Alan

[Moonshane]

I think the short answer to your question is that there won't be a lot of difference at all. I don't use barlows but this is partly due to convenience (using them bugs me as there seems to be a lot more shuffling of optics in the dark) and also because of the length of the optical chain and the likely strain on the focuser/deformation of the tube. a large eyepiece, barlow and paracorr (I use one) makes for a long 'baseball bat' sticking out of the focuser.

compare this

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=88647

to this to get the same kind of result

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=88648

[alan potts]

I have just had a re-read of your question. I have compaired the Meade 82 UWA from the 5000 series with a 7mm Nagler in fact. The Nagler is better than the doubled Meade but not by a mile, it is a very good eyepiece in it's own right. In general the Nagler was better at the edges, there's also better contrast, but I am being very criticai indeed.

This is mainly from memory but I do have a few notes from when I did it that I have just unearthed, I did the test about 4 months back.

Alan

[nitram100]

Thanks a lot for the info guys. I think I will stick with the barlow+ES eyepiece for the time being, especially since my skies aren't that great so I doubt I will be able to appreciate the difference anyway. I might even try and get a 100 degree high power eyepiece when the time is right, maybe an Ethos.

Thanks guys.

[Andrew*]

I think that's a fair decision as you have good kit there. The celestron Ultima magnifies more than 2x in some cases so the 14mm maybe produces around 200x in practise

[Pig]

My Celesrton Xcel Barlow worked very well with my Delos 14mm, if that helps.