Are Naglers unsuitable for planetary viewing?

[coliea]

I thought this post http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,10183.0.html was very helpful for beginners, especially Steve from FLO's advice on initial eyepiece purchases.

But then I came across this SPO discussion: http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8192 which suggests that Naglers aren't great for planetary observation, stating "It's a great shame Al Nagler never has produced a good planetary eyepiece, it's time he did. The Radians are the nearest he got but they are really narrower field Naglers and easily beaten by the BO/TMBs."

This is of interest to me as my plan was to purchase a Skywatcher 80mm Fluorite OTA along with one or two of the eyepieces suggested by Steve (Panoptic/Nagler). But as my initial interest would be lunar and planetary observation I now think it may be more practical and no more expensive to go for the Burgess Optical 91mm Triplet which comes with 40mm TMB planetary eyepiece and other goodies as standard.

If you experienced guys were new to astronomy and buying your first telescope would you prefer the Equinox 80mm Fluorite with a Panoptic and Nagler eyepiece or this BO Triplet package http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=BurgessTriplet

??

Thanks for looking.

Col.

[John]

I would agree that Naglers are not optimised for planetary use - they are optimised for widefield viwing with pinpoint stars across the field even in short focal ratio scopes.

That said, I and many other astronomers use Naglers very successfully for planetary viewing and get the bonus of those wide vista's to boot . Also Naglers tend to barlow well - my favourite high power combination is a 7mm Nagler plus a 2x Ultima barlow - thats 10 glass elements - but I have still seen Saturn's crepe ring and the E & F componants of the Trapezium in M42 with my 8 inch scope so I don't feel that I'm loosing much !. Another plus is that tracking planets at high power with an 82 degree field of view is easier as the objects stay in the field longer (I do much of my obseving with an Alt-Azimuth mount).

For the ultimate planetary eyepieces try TMB mono's or Baader true Ortho's - personally I'm happy to trade a little in contrast for the wide, sharp views !.

That's just my opinion of course - others will have a different viewpoint as you have found out by surfing the net !.

On the scopes, both the Equinox and the Burgess 91mm use the same glass only the Equinox is a doublet and the Burgess is a triplet design. In my view aperture rules so go fo the bigger scope. Having owned a 90mm apo (a Megrez 90) I found the aperture a bit limiting so went for a 102mm ED. With the benefit of experience I'm not sure that I would pick a small APO as a 1st scope - they are best as 2nd scopes IMHO.

Of course a 6 inch f8 newtonian will be a lot cheaper and show you more planetary detail - but apos are nice !

Sorry if that's added to your confusion !.

John

John

[russ]

The Radians are the nearest he got but they are really narrower field Naglers and easily beaten by the BO/TMBs."

That's certainly not true. The reviews i've seen have suggested the BO/TMB does a great job for the money but can't quite match the Radian or the Pentax XF. And I can't see why you would need more than 60 degree FOV for a planetary eyepiece. The ultimate planetary eyepiece is the one with the fewest optical elements, great light through put and great contrast.....ie the Ortho. Or better still the TMB Monocentric. The other designs sacrifice a little performance to give the comfort.

Not sure that SPA thread is entirely helpful. The Nagler isn't the best planetary eyepiece around, that's for sure. But it was never designed to be. It still does a nice job though. The Radian is a good planetary eyepiece and comfortable to use. The BO/TMB offers far better value but not quite as good. The Pentax XF beats them both but is not cheap.

Russ

[Stephen Green]

Hi Col I agree with Russ and John I have been useing Nagler's and have found it a very good all round eyepiece and have seen very clear views of the planets

Stephen

Eastbourne As East Sussex

[coliea]

Mmmm... it appears that like most things it's not a straightforward yes-no answer. I guess it ultimately depends on personal preference and how much you're willing to spend i.e. cost/performance you're happy with.

With the benefit of experience I'm not sure that I would pick a small APO as a 1st scope - they are best as 2nd scopes IMHO.

Sorry if that's added to your confusion !.

It does give me something else to consider John.

The reasons I was initially going for an 80mm APO refractor were: 1. I was hoping to have a crack at astrophotography at some stage and believe these scopes are ideal, and 2. I didn't want an "open" tube as my first scope, preferring the ease of use/maintenance of a refractor.

Would you advise that I save the pennies a bit longer and go with a 100mm refractor, what with aperture being king and all that, bearing in mind a 120mm is well outside my price range and I don't think I'd even be comfortable with the size.

Col

[mcut]

if you did not want an open tube have you thought about a Mak for your first scope.

i have the skywatcher 127 Mak and bought a few additional eyepieces including a Baader Ortho. the scope is a good one IMHO.

[mcut]

sorry forgot a link for you,

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=mak127eq32

and you will have change to spend on eyepieces.

[John]

It does give me something else to consider John.

The reasons I was initially going for an 80mm APO refractor were: 1. I was hoping to have a crack at astrophotography at some stage and believe these scopes are ideal, and 2. I didn't want an "open" tube as my first scope, preferring the ease of use/maintenance of a refractor.

Would you advise that I save the pennies a bit longer and go with a 100mm refractor, what with aperture being king and all that, bearing in mind a 120mm is well outside my price range and I don't think I'd even be comfortable with the size.

Col

I think Mcut's suggestion of a Mak is a good one - 127mm is a decent aperture and the Mak's stay in collimation pretty well. They are especially good for Lunar and panetary observation which you said in your original post is your initial interest.

The only downside I have come across with Maks is that they need longer to cool down than other designs. If that's not a problem for you then they make a lot of sense.

John

[coliea]

if you did not want an open tube have you thought about a Mak for your first scope.

Hadn't thought of a Mak. TBH I just like refractors (dunno what it is about them), but that Skywatcher Mak does look like a good deal and you've everything you need to get started.

While I'm not in a position to buy a scope for at least a couple of months I'm doing all the research now, and the advice I'm getting on the forum is priceless.

Cheers all - now I gotta get back to work... just been checking the forum on my lunch break