8mm Radian or something else ??

[RikM]

I also think it is easy to forget that our eye are all different. Having had the chance to compare a few good eyepieces, I know which ones best suit my eyes and observing preferences. That doesn't necessarily make them better, just means that they are better for me.

Can we throw an Ethos in the mix too?I'm thinking those Pentax XW's are really good,optically, with 20mm ER and twist up eyecups-for the cold.I have heard something about field curvature in FL above 10mm with the XW's-any thoughts anyone?

Yes, it's there in the 14mm and 20mm but very minor. I've used them at -15°C without any issue though I did get frost-nip on the toes of my left foot

My reasons for choosing XW were image brightness and contrast, neutral colour cast (it does bother me ), rubberised casing (don't like my nose getting cold on metal housings), eye relief (I wear glasses), 70° aFOV is just right for me, the focal length options available. The Delos range weren't all launched at the time and I don't think I would have chosen them even if they were. I have something of the rebel in me, so I would rather go for something as good as the field leader (Televue) but not as popular. For the same reason I will never own a TAL-100RS, too many people like them. (It's okay, you can think me an idiot, I'm used to it )

[YKSE]

I think in real terms it is asking a bit much to make a effective study of a XW which are of cousre 70 degree FOV and an Ethos, even though I do have the 8mm and the 6mm. To be honest it is difficult to even work with the Nagler at 82 degrees. They are of course the same 7mm and whilst they not be absolutely exact 7mm they really look like different magnifications with the field difference, plays tricks with your eyes.

I have been using a 6mm Delos as well in the mix as a sort of referee. I have had 3 nights of clear for 20 minutes and then clouds so it is slow at the moment but I am getting there, it will give me something to do now I can't build.

Alan

Alan, Not so many site members have your amount of quality EPs and sky conditions, the quality difference in your EPs should be very subtle, it'll be great if you can check some other things too, like alleged edfe brightening in wide field EPs, field flatness? I happened to come to this page

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/Eyepieces/Zoom-Eyepieces/Zeiss-Zoom-Eyepiece-8.4-25.1-mm-1.25.html

I just can't recall that I've read any review mentioned Panoptic's field curvature, a real suprise to me.

[AlexB67]

One of my favourite eyepieces these days is my little 9mm TS HR Planetary. It gives me lovely sharp views through my hydrogen alpha solar scope, and cost roughly a quarter the price of the Radian. I like its compact size and weight, ideal for use on the mini giro I often use, making balance a bit simpler.

Righto, that's it. I am going back to my SW plossls and just have a range of BSTs and sell the lot    It is a funny game, some will convince buy the most expensive you can afford and only cry once, then when you do,  and you have others saying buy cheap. I can't win.

[AlexB67]

I also think it is easy to forget that our eye are all different. Having had the chance to compare a few good eyepieces, I know which ones best suit my eyes and observing preferences. That doesn't necessarily make them better, just means that they are better for me.

Yes, it's there in the 14mm and 20mm but very minor. I've used them at -15°C without any issue though I did get frost-nip on the toes of my left foot

My reasons for choosing XW were image brightness and contrast, neutral colour cast (it does bother me ), rubberised casing (don't like my nose getting cold on metal housings), eye relief (I wear glasses), 70° aFOV is just right for me, the focal length options available. The Delos range weren't all launched at the time and I don't think I would have chosen them even if they were. I have something of the rebel in me, so I would rather go for something as good as the field leader (Televue) but not as popular. For the same reason I will never own a TAL-100RS, too many people like them. (It's okay, you can think me an idiot, I'm used to it )

What you describe in that post and what I read in reviews is touching on why I really like the idea of the XWs potentially. Perhaps the XL has opened up a little bias window already but the transmission and contrast  in that XL 10.5 is supreme. Compare that to my SW 10mm plossl I also tried briefly alongside. I feel confident in saying there are notable differences on numerous fronts, it was worth every penny. 

I was slightly concerned about the XWs longer focal length ones, hence I was thinking < 10 mm or so Pentax, Delos, >= 14mm Delos potentially, though a common theme seems to be that people rave about the brightness and contrast in the XW series.

In any case, the XWs and  Delos  would be worth a try before committing either way at some stage.  When I say concerned they are likely to be very small details and differences, both will be excellent no doubt.

[jetstream]

I also think it is easy to forget that our eye are all different. Having had the chance to compare a few good eyepieces, I know which ones best suit my eyes and observing preferences. That doesn't necessarily make them better, just means that they are better for me.

Yes, it's there in the 14mm and 20mm but very minor. I've used them at -15°C without any issue though I did get frost-nip on the toes of my left foot

My reasons for choosing XW were image brightness and contrast, neutral colour cast (it does bother me ), rubberised casing (don't like my nose getting cold on metal housings), eye relief (I wear glasses), 70° aFOV is just right for me, the focal length options available. The Delos range weren't all launched at the time and I don't think I would have chosen them even if they were. I have something of the rebel in me, so I would rather go for something as good as the field leader (Televue) but not as popular. For the same reason I will never own a TAL-100RS, too many people like them. (It's okay, you can think me an idiot, I'm used to it )

Rik,does the XW equal or beat an Ethos for image brightness?I'm thinking they will be very close-I need some cold weather eyepieces,great to hear that the XW doesn't frost up as easy as others.Most of my EP's do frost up fast-except the Luminos.The XW's are purged and filled with inert gas too I believe

[RikM]

I was slightly concerned about the XWs longer focal length ones, hence I was thinking < 10 mm or so Pentax, Delos, >= 14mm Delos potentially,

Probably a good way of dividing up the EP case

I haven't tried a 14mm Delos but Alan's review put it slightly ahead of the XW. Certainly the points he said where the Delos was better (field curvature mainly) I can see in XW also, so I have little doubt he right. I am sure the 20 and 14mm aren't quite as good as the 10 and 7mm (shh...if I'm a good boy there may well be a 5mm under the tree on Christmas morning ) The 17.3 mm Delos is an absolute peach.

[jetstream]

Righto, that's it. I am going back to my SW plossls and just have a range of BSTs and sell the lot    It is a funny game, some will convince buy the most expensive you can afford and only cry once, then when you do,  and you have others saying buy cheap. I can't win.

Alex,this post cracked me up I'm still chuckling-good one!

[RikM]

Rik,does the XW equal or beat an Ethos for image brightness?I'm thinking they will be very close-I need some cold weather eyepieces,great to hear that the XW doesn't frost up as easy as others.Most of my EP's do frost up fast-except the Luminos.The XW's are purged and filled with inert gas too I believe

Very hard for me say I'm afraid. I see things according to field of view rather than magnification and they don't quite match up. I've compared a 13E to a 14XW...not much in it if honest. The 14XW gave a much brighter view on the night, but it's a lower magnification, so you would expect it to. I thought the 13E was bit...meh! to be honest. I've also done the 8E / 7XW. The 8E won that one. Actually the 8E is the Ethos I have been most impressed with. I've had a look through a 21E as well though not in my scope, so I can't say how it would be against the 20XW. Optically excellent but I just don't like the 100° field.

[jetstream]

Very hard for me say I'm afraid. I see things according to field of view rather than magnification and they don't quite match up. I've compared a 13E to a 14XW...not much in it if honest. The 14XW gave a much brighter view on the night, but it's a lower magnification, so you would expect it to. I thought the 13E was bit...meh! to be honest. I've also done the 8E / 7XW. The 8E won that one. Actually the 8E is the Ethos I have been most impressed with. I've had a look through a 21E as well though not in my scope, so I can't say how it would be against the 20XW. Optically excellent but I just don't like the 100° field.

I was kind of thinking the XW's may be excellent-if that 14mm gave brighter images,with only 1mm separation that is an indication of how good it really is.My 10mmE frosts up immediately,the others not bad-the Delos with it's big eyepiece lens is prone to it too-but not as bad.My sky transparency is best when it is very cold,so I have to maximize scope time,not un-frosting time,LOL!I have also fogged EP up internally when unthawing with a cool airflow over them-so enter the purged/sealed Explore Scientific 82'-great but ER a bit tight(still fogs).Thank you for the objective opinion on the XW and Ethos

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have a division of Naglers at the long end and mainly XW/XF at the short, with a Delos thrown in for good measure. For solar, I have added the MaxVision EPs (they have to be 1.25"). The XF now mainly sits in the solar group, while the Delos 8 had taken its place in the planetary line-up. Works for me, for now .

[John]

I like Rik's rebellious streak and wish I'd discovered XW's before I did Naglers

I very nearly jumped ship from both the Tele Vue and Pentax camps a month or so ago for a more off the wall alternative, but I just could not quite convince myself to actually press the button 

[jetstream]

I like Rik's rebellious streak and wish I'd discovered XW's before I did Naglers

I very nearly jumped ship from both the Tele Vue and Pentax camps a month or so ago for a more off the wall alternative, but I just could not quite convince myself to actually press the button 

OK John,I have to ask....which brand were you thinking of jumping to?

[John]

OK John,I have to ask....which brand were you thinking of jumping to?

I was seriously considering the Leica Vario ASPH zoom with the Baader 2x VIP barlow Gerry. It would cover the 18mm to 4mm range (with the barlow) and the reports I've read indicate performance approaching the very top tier Zeiss orthos and a FoV of 60-75 degrees across the range. Expensive option though and I have some slight concerns on the level of quality it achieves with newtonians but those might not be justified. 

[jetstream]

The Leica products are supposed to be top tier thats for sure,I had looked at that EP myself,but with the f4.8,I wasn't sure how it would perform with that mirror-not enough experience on my part.I hope somebody buys one & lets us know how it works....

[AlexB67]

Another interesting review I just spotted, comparing the paradigm and pentax XF 8.5mm, seeing I threw it in the mix earlier.

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2815

The paradigm I believe is effectively the same as my 8mm BST starguider. It does make me wonder about how much better a 8.5 mm pentax XF really is. Given the price I don't expect an XF to be like an XW . I am aware that the BST starguider is already a very good eyepiece of course, especially considering it cost me < 50 quid. This review does not make it sound like an XF is really a gain overall perhaps,  and more of a gain in some areas, but not as good in others, that says a lot for the BST starguider clone paradigm at its price.

The off axis performance is arguably not much  better as well in faster scopes.  Something that I did observe in my pentax XL where planetary detail was retained better than my BST 8mm in repeated tests, I found it quite noticeable.  I agree a lot what he says that an image off axis stars coming apart a bit in planetary performance in the BST, he claims about 50% at f/5, in fact I started to notice it in my 10 inch at f4.7 after about 35% already a little bit of detioration.  Interestingly I do not find the BST hard on the eye at all, no kidney beaning or anything of the sort ever, provided the eye cup is out  far enough, in fact I find BSTs very easy on the eye placement. 

All that  really makes me think one experiment I'd love to do one day( that has been in the back of my mind  lot anyway ) would be to see how well my eyepiece perform through a decent coma corrector, and see what I am left with in terms of views.

[Naemeth]

I was seriously considering the Leica Vario ASPH zoom with the Baader 2x VIP barlow Gerry. It would cover the 18mm to 4mm range (with the barlow) and the reports I've read indicate performance approaching the very top tier Zeiss orthos and a FoV of 60-75 degrees across the range. Expensive option though and I have some slight concerns on the level of quality it achieves with newtonians but those might not be justified. 

Might interest you to know I'm also considering one. Might have spare money in January that I can set aside for it, to get later in the year .

[John]

Another interesting review I just spotted, comparing the paradigm and pentax XF 8.5mm, seeing I threw it in the mix earlier.

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2815

The paradigm I believe is effectively the same as my 8mm BST starguider. It does make me wonder about how much better a 8.5 mm pentax XF really is. Given the price I don't expect an XF to be like an XW . I am aware that the BST starguider is already a very good eyepiece of course, especially considering it cost me < 50 quid. This review does not make it sound like an XF is really a gain overall perhaps,  and more of a gain in some areas, but not as good in others, that says a lot for the BST starguider clone paradigm at its price.

The off axis performance is arguably not much  better as well in faster scopes.  Something that I did observe in my pentax XL where planetary detail was retained better than my BST 8mm in repeated tests, I found it quite noticeable.  I agree a lot what he says that an image off axis stars coming apart a bit in planetary performance in the BST, he claims about 50% at f/5, in fact I started to notice it in my 10 inch at f4.7 after about 35% already a little bit of detioration.  Interestingly I do not find the BST hard on the eye at all, no kidney beaning or anything of the sort ever, provided the eye cup is out  far enough, in fact I find BSTs very easy on the eye placement. 

All that  really makes me think one experiment I'd love to do one day( that has been in the back of my mind  lot anyway ) would be to see how well my eyepiece perform through a decent coma corrector, and see what I am left with in terms of views.

You can really go around in circles with this, can't you ?

You read a review where a BST clone gets close to, or equals a Pentax XF. You read another review where the XF gets close to or betters a Radian. You then find a review where a Radian somewhat outperforms a BST clone. 

I think it demonstrates that there are quite a lot of very good eyepieces around. As to which you will enjoy using the most - the only way is to try for yourself probably

Thank goodness for the used equipment market !

[AlexB67]

You are right John, it is fun reading about it all the same and I enjoy that. I know there is only so much I can get out such reviews partly filled with subjectivity as well, but the ultimate proof of the pudding is in the eating.

One thing is for sure, buying that pentax XL on the used market made me feel  a little nervy, the most I spent on an eyepiece so far, probably not much my most people standards, but sometimes you just got to try things out.  I don't regret that purchase one bit. The reviews helped quite a bit with that and asking here as well.  What I do find with reviews and forums on this stuff, if you read enough of them by experienced observers, and  some points get repeated often, there is usually some substance/truth in it.

[John]

..... What I do find with reviews and forums on this stuff, if you read enough of them by experienced observers, and  some points get repeated often, there is usually some substance/truth in it. 

I agree. As you read more reports on an item, trends seem to emerge that separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak

[alan potts]

Gerry,

Where I live may not be as cold as some parts of Canada but cold it most certainly can be. When it is down to minus 25 though it is normally very dry. I use a photographer vest to keep my eyepieces in inside my down duvet, I never have any forst forming on the eyepieces even when it is cold and wet air in place. The vest is very well made though not cheap and it has many large deep pockets. I find it brilliant, you soon work a system as to what is in each pocket.

The talk of all these eyepieces makes me smile, even Johns talk of all change. It strikes me what you all really want and I wish you all had is 5-6 nights a week where you can get outside and use the eyepieces you already have.

Alan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have read the same review, and I must say I cannot replicate the ghost images on Jupiter in either my C8 or my 80mm F/6. There are several remarks in that review which I cannot fully understand (from a optics/physics point of view (and I did study astronomy at uni, after all)). What does the author mean by "coatings not optimized for astronomical use"? The AR coatings of the XF might not be up to XW standards, but an AR coating simply tries to reduce the internal reflections, and this helps both during daytime and at night. If an EP is clearly sharper during daylight observations, I would expect it to perform better at night as well, at least in the same scope (not done in this review, I gather). 

Alan is indeed right, we really need some clear nights to look through our EPs, rather than at them

[jetstream]

Gerry,

Where I live may not be as cold as some parts of Canada but cold it most certainly can be. When it is down to minus 25 though it is normally very dry. I use a photographer vest to keep my eyepieces in inside my down duvet, I never have any forst forming on the eyepieces even when it is cold and wet air in place. The vest is very well made though not cheap and it has many large deep pockets. I find it brilliant, you soon work a system as to what is in each pocket.

The talk of all these eyepieces makes me smile, even Johns talk of all change. It strikes me what you all really want and I wish you all had is 5-6 nights a week whereI have never hseen a photographers vestyou can get outside and use the eyepieces you already have.

Alan

I have never seen a photographers vest,Alan.My eyepieces frost up when in the focuser or fog up,then frost up from my eye.We just had close to 3 weeks of -30c lows, on my worst/best night I came home at -33c.I keep them in the case(closed) when not in use to help keep them useable.If this vest will work,I will get one-will it get rid of the frosted up eye lens when put back into the vest?

[Damo636]

In case anyone is interested, there is an 8.5mm XF for sale in the site classifieds. I had one of these between the 10 & 7mm XW's and it gave up precious little, other than fov, to its more expensive siblings.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In case anyone is interested, there is an 8.5mm XF for sale in the site classifieds. I had one of these between the 10 & 7mm XW's and it gave up precious little, other than fov, to its more expensive siblings.

I also spotted an XF8.5 on ABS-UK (might be the same). Mine was also used mainly between the XW10 and XW7, and it seemed to perform almost on a par with the XWs. I now use a Delos 8 in that role, and use the XF8.5 mainly for solar.

[Damo636]

Yep, I think its the same seller Michael.