ES 11mm 82° and TV 11mm Nagler and another shoot out..

[Bart]

Hello All

Been on the look out for an  11mm Nagler T6 and got a used one on ABS. Was curious to see how it compared to the ES. Got out briefly this evening despite it being windy.

I was expecting (hoping?) a small improvement in the views in the 10" F5 Dob. I could go on for ages describing this and that, but essentially, I could make out practically no difference in the view. The Nagler might be a little bit easier to use, in terms of ER,  but not by much. Its smaller and lighter. I do, however, like the 'chunk' of the ES.

I will be using this in the 16" F4.5 as well, so maybe there will be a difference in sharpness at the edges. However, would I spend the extra money for use in the F5, probably not. I was hoping to se a darker sky, more detail in the targets  observed, M81/82, M42, Eskimo Neb, M35, M37, but have to say, I spotted almost nothing. I might be 'seeing things' because I've just spent twice the money on the TV than I spent on the ES. Really, for the views, I can see almost nothing. It is better corrected at the edges, but that is it, and I've discovered after buying a CC, that coma doesn't really bother me all that much.

It was windy and I couldn't spend ages on the targets before it wobbled, but thought it was sufficient to give me an idea.

BTW, also stuck a Nagler 4.8mm T1 into the focusser to peek at Jupiter and the GRS. I was comparing it to the relatively cheap University Optics Super Abbe 4.8mm ortho (can't explain why I bought this, putting it down to clouds/boredom/lack of BCO at this focal length/no reply to an enquiry on ABS for a 5mm BGO - thanks buddy!/beer) and was definitely expecting a difference. In terms of build quality, the TV beats the pants off it. It feels a bit cheap compared to the BCO I have. The wider FOV is handy in the planetary use, in any use, I suppose. HOWEVER, at x260 there wasn't a lot in it in terms of clarity and detail. I could see the GRS and its lovely colour in both EPs. I'm reserving judgement on this one until we get a less windy night.

Have I been fretting unnecessarily about not owning TVs? Mmmmm, maybe. Can you get TV performance for a lot less money? Mmmmm, it might seem so. I know everyone will say there will be slight improvements, mmmmmmm..maybe.

Does this make me a philistine?

Barry

[jetstream]

Great report Barry.I found the same thing between my 18mm ES 82 and my 16mm Nagler

[Bart]

Thanks Jetstream

Don't know if I'm happy or disappointed with my findings...

Barry

[AlexB67]

Barry, I look forward to your f4.5 scope report with and without Coma correction, that should test the edge to edge perfromace a good deal more, perhaps you will be smiling a bit more after that  

[Bart]

Yes Alex I'm guessing you're right. The correction will be better I'm pretty sure. I had kind of hoped for darker skies or some noticeable improvement in the actual view. Maybe I'll notice it under another test, it was windy there last night. I always liked the ES EPs, this has reinforced my positive view of them

Barry

[Moonshane]

ultimately I think that the differences between great quality and top quality are very slim indeed and will only show on the nights of best seeing and conditions when miniscule additional detail might be visible. your findings don't surprise me really. I use a paracorr on my f4 scopes and with TV eyepieces the difference between with and without are there but not massive. a very brief comparison of the paracorr with an Altair Astro coma corrector showed intermediate results but with a little more tweaking in the set up, this might almost equalise things.

we all probably get carried away with 'top quality' and although I have no intention of ever selling my TV's I know that they will pretty much hold their value and I could sell for almost what I paid for them after several years' use.

[Reeny]

It's nice to know the eyepiece is a good-un.

I have the 11mm 82 degree ES, and I found a tiny bit of distortion at the very edges (around the corner of the wide view, so I really had to look for it)

Also - the Barlow I have seems to straighten out any seagull effects - so the eyepiece is near perfect for me.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/202689-11mm-82-degree-explore-scientific-first-light/

I will get myself a TeleVue Delos 6mm one day to fill the gap at 200x.

In the meantime - the 82 degree will give me excellent views at 109x magnification, and at 230x with the Barlow.

[alan potts]

Bart,

In all fairness there is not a great deal between these two types, I am making my judgement having owned many Meade 5000 series eyepieces, however you cannot expect to see any differences at this level on a night where things are moving about in the wind. The line it is the same for both is also a none starter, time and good seeing will bring you rewards.

I have just had a 17mm Ethos in the 180mm Mak and an 18mm Kasai orthoscopic and I could see more with the Ethos in terms of belt details, they were clearer in the 17mm. The 20mm Nagler was almost as good but not quite, these differences are very subtle and not easy to pick up, it takes practice to do this, not that I am claiming to be expert.

I hope you get some better weather soon.

Alan

[Bart]

Thanks Alan

Haven't really had a chance to compare in a good night yet. The moon will prevent any chance for a couple of weeks now. It's really DSOs I'll be using it for so it looks like I'll hang into both for another few weeks to compare properly.

Barry

[jetstream]

Barry,I've had a good chance this past while to use my 17mm Ethos and 18mm ES/16mm Nagler.There is a difference between the Ethos and the ES/Nagler on some objects,some of the time.The 17mm E is superb on M42,showing a more 3d,marbled effect of the core.On the amount of nebulosity the 17mmE may show a bit more-not much- than the 18mmES,the 16mm Nagler shows less by a bit than either.Another object that the 17mm E was better on is M82, being sharper than the 18mm ES-for sure noticeable.Overall contrast is the same on this object ...and others( 17E &18ES).The 17mm E is a bit better than either on some things and the ES 18mm has better contrast than the 16mm Nagler IMHO.Object detection appears to be the same with the 17E,18ES.These differences show up under the best of conditions-for me that is 21.6 mag,transparency 4.5/5.I imagine this will hold true with the rest of the ES line-they are very good.This is only my opinion however

[Bart]

Jetstream

Have decided there is nothing between the ES and the TV. The ES is easier to use with eye placement, the TV suffers kidneybeaning, but I'll probably learn to train my head/eye to get the right position. I'll keep the TV as it might just show more detail sometimes, but I'm not sure. I would definitely say though, that you're not losing anything by having the cheaper ES here in the focal length anyway. Its a great EP.

I'll be sad selling my ES, it's been a trusty and faithful servant. But something keeps telling me, just sell the TV and get the money back, its just not worth it.....mmmm....what could I do with €200....???????

Suggestions on a postcard please...

Yours confused

Barry

[alan potts]

Barry,

If you feel that way sell the Televue. I would have thought that at F 4.5 the ExSc would be wanting and I am very supprised to hear otherwise. 

I have never seen the ExSc 11mm, it is one that differs from the Meade UWA 5000 series. I had all the UWA Meades apart from the 18mm and in my scopes the Televue Naglers out performed all of the nearest focal lengths from the Meade range. Now I know that Meade may  not be the same as the ExSc but there is nothing to actually say that the Meade ones which were first on the market are not  better.

It would be a dull world if we all thought the same but don't just keep something because others like me say it is good. Sell it, you will loose less on the TV than the ExSc, remember the others you had.

Alan

[michaeldurban]

I had a similar dilemma..well..almost..

When I got my scope I budgetted for three eyepieces and a barlow.

After much searching I concluded the ES range was perfect for my

f4.5 dob.

I ordered the ES 2x focal extender and then...

My mind said: no no..hold on! save $ 40,- on each eyepiece and get

the Agena Astro starguider ED's instead !

Wow, seemed like a great ide!

And so I did...and saved $ 120,- in the process..

But now...

I definately feel I've made a huge mistake..

Simply because the ES range is a keeper...it is there to stay, and will

give you the very best performance for the money spent.

I decided to save some money, and compromised on quality.

A very common mistake made in China..

So...

Yes..coma bothers me I've found out..

So now I only use the starguiders with the ES barlow..

What a fool I have been..