Pentax and Delos 3.5mm eyepieces

[F15Rules]

4 hours ago, John said:

I've used a 30mm XW (long ago) and thought it very nice but I slightly preferred the Nagler 31 too.

I've passed on the 14mm and 20mm XW's in favour of the Delos equivilents mainly because of reports of noticable field curvature in the XW's. Maybe this is overblown though ? - I've not actually tried the 14 and 20 XW's myself to be fair to them.

 

 

I am probably one of those that mentioned not liking the XW 14 and 20mm, John.

Bear in mind I really rate the 5, 7 and 10s very very highly, (never seen a 30mm or 40mm in the flesh, never mind used them?), but I had mint examples of the 14mm and 20mm and thought they were OK, not great like their shorter brethren..But then I compared the 14mm to a Morpheus 14mm and the 20mm to a Vixen LVW 22mm, and I couldn't argue with what I was seeing: the Morph 14 and LVW 22 were clearly, (not slightly) superior to the XWs. In the 14mm the main difference was the Field Curvature, very bad on the XW, and on the XW20 the contrast was significantly better in the LVW 22mm, with also some FC on the XW20 (less than the XW14 though), and negligible visible in the LVW.

Add to the mix the 76 degree fov of the Morpheus, it was an easy decision to keep the Morph and sell the XW14. The LVW22 has a 65 degree fov, so 5 less than the XW20, but it is such a well rounded eyepiece. It is still probably my favourite eyepiece?.

The scope was a Vixen ED103s apo doublet operating at F7.7, and the comparison was made observing M42 over about 4 hours total viewing.

Dave

[mikeDnight]

And I thought the 20mm XW was better all round than the 22 LVW, which just goes to show what a weird bunch we all are.  In fact, I prefered the 20mm XW to my wonderful 20mm Nagler.  Both the 20mm Nagler and the 20mm XW gave indescribably fantastic views of M42 in my friends 102 ED and in my 100mm Tak from a dark site. Truly a 3D impression that ive not yet seen beaten by anything else. Having said that, after playing around with my 17.5mm Morpheus last night, i have very high hopes that it will match, and possibly better the performance of either of the former two eyepieces. The moon was washing out the sky last night, but star fields were still spectacular in the Morpheus, and sharp across the field. And the Morpheus doesn't have stupid undercuts!!! 

If a 76° field is acceptable to you and you're happy with 1.25" fit eyepieces  (though Morpheus have 2"fit option as standard), and you're looking for long eye relief, low distortion, high high high end performance at a fraction of the price of TV or Pentax, then Baader Morpheus have to be a major contender. I wouldn't, or at least very much doubt, I'd ever return to either Pentax or Televue after using the Morpheus. 

[F15Rules]

"And I thought the 20mm XW was better all round than the 22 LVW, which just goes to show what a weird bunch we all are."

Couldnt agree more Mike.. as they say over the Pond, "Your mileage may vary".

The great thing here on SGL though is that we can have sincere and strongly held opinions on kit but still fully respect each other's views (literally ?!). The eyepiece that gives you the view that you like most is the best eyepiece for you?.

I have to agree about the 17.5mm Morpheus though Mike. What a lovely eyepiece.

Back on thread though, I have never looked through a Pentax 3.5mm or a Delos of any kind..But based on the 5mm XW I owned, I'd expect the XW 3.5mm to be outstanding, and based on general reviews of the Delos range, the same for the 3.5mm Delos too, albeit over 20% more expensive than the XW.

Dave

Edited March 21, 2019 by F15Rules

[Dippy]

On 21/05/2014 at 13:27, alan potts said:

Pentax XW 3.5mm TeleVue Delos 3.5mm.

Well here we go again having just wiped 2000 words from Word by pressing a wrong button.

Pentax 3.5mm XW

This eyepiece is the shortest of the Pentax XW line up and like its fellow combatant is about the tallest of the range. The eyepiece comes in a rather nice screw fit bullet case and that fits neatly into a well made and padded box, no surprises there from what is a quality company marketing near to the top of the price scale. The 3.5mm tips the scales at a modest 365 grams according to my Argos specials in the kitchen, though this is of course subject to a tolerance of plus or minus half a kilogram. The eye-relief on all the models from the range is 20mm though the eye-lens is a little recessed but presents no problems for me when I put on my glasses and tried it out, this is something that I do not need to do normally.The field of view is a nice 70 degrees and one would expect it to be sharp. As a part of the same system there is a twist up eye-guard that can be deployed to help get the eye in the correct place for viewing, this is something that I took advantage of as although I can use Delos without the system raised I could not on the Pentax, this is due to the fact I am used to one and not the other and black-out or kidney-beaning is something we can do without.

TeleVue 3.5mm Delos.

This eyepiece has been on the market for about 18 months now and is one of the shortest from TeleVue, because of that it will not appeal to everyone as the magnification is going to be very high on all but the very shortest focal length scopes. However it is an eyepiece I can use on very good nights on a small selection of targets, mainly the Moon and Planets. Older TeleVue eyepiece just used to come in a study box with a thick plastic bag inside holding the goods along with some instruction and a little chrome and black sticker. Now the box seems to have been upgraded a little with a type of poly foam liner holding the eyepiece wrapped inside a plastic bag with the other bits as well. I have noticed this on all my Delos and Ethos eyepieces but others seem to be as they always were. The Delos is again about the largest in the line and weighs in at 460 grams, so it is a fair bit heavier than the Pentax but I do not believe is likely to trouble any Dobsonian uses, it must be the extra 2 degrees of field the Delos offers. Eye-relief is the same 20mm with a newer design lift up and twist lock eye-guard, of the two here my preferred choice and a massive improvement over the T4 Nagler and Radian systems.

Look no beans.

Scopes

Because of the focal length I am only going to use my shorter scopes. Total scope time for the test was 15 hours 20 minutes over a very long period due to inclement weather.

115mm APO, which is F7 and gives a magnification of X230.

190mm Maksutov/Newtonian from Sky-Watcher, this is F 5.26 and give a power of X 286

70mm ED refractor which is F 6 and gives a lower X120, this is still close to its maximum though.

Targets.

Moon

Saturn

Jupiter

Mars

Comet Panstarrs.

Apo 115mm, well cooled, power X230 used driven and undriven

The Moon.

I viewed the Moon with this scope on two nights when seeing was good but not the best ever, nonetheless it was allowing me to use X230. The Moon was 5 days old and later in the week just about exactly first quarter on the second night.

On the first night I was studying the craters Kant, Tacitus, Pitiscus and Hommel switching eyepieces at about 4 minute regularity, being very careful with focus. I was trying to see if there was any detail what so ever I could see in one that was not there in the other, it was a good job I was not holding my breath on the result. I changed location to craters Burg, Plana and Plana ‘C’ witch lie north of the Mare Serenitatis but the result was as far I could determine the same.

The next time the Moon had moved on a couple of days, it was now in about my favourite position half illuminated, up to this point I find the Moon an interesting object but much passed three-quarter phase leaves me a bit cold and no doubt annoys our astro-photography members no end. I was scrutinizing the area of Werner and Nonius ‘F’ and later taking in the area of Mons Hadley, part of the Apennins Mountains where Apollo 15 landed and made base. It is difficult to comprehend that men walked and bounced near or where I was looking and may even have played some golf, my they left it in a mess. I spent a long time on the Moon with both eyepieces and at no point could I see one was any better than the other, though there was a small amount of chromatic aberration from the very edge of the Pentax when you got the Moon in the right place that was not visible in the Delos, I struggle to believe it would be an issue with anyone though.

One thing I did notice was that whatever eyepiece I was using when I changed them over, thought that the next eyepiece had better contrast as the black looked, well blacker. I can only think this is something to do with the eye relaxing as it is taken away from the views of the bright surface into the darker conditions around me. Then the eye dilates again as it’s reintroduced to the surface of the Moon which must be may times bright than my surrounds.

Mars.

Mars has never been one of my favourite planets and I believe this is much to do with the power that you need to use to see it at any size, doing this we are fighting a battle with the seeing Gods, one we seem to loose most of the time. First night on Mars was April 9^th so it was very close to the opposition which we only see ever two years or so. I was seeing some detail on the surface that was triangular in shape and checking SGL the following day told me it was Syrtis major which to me looked a bit like Africa in the wrong place. There was also the white of the polar cap to be seen when seeing permitted which is never enough. Both eyepieces perform excellent on the first night and on this scope I again could not really drive a wedge between them. I would say that there was very slightly more peachy orange about the Delos rendition, the Pentax seemed paler but only just. I was getting a little flare from the XW from time to time that was there one moment then gone, I didn’t see the same with the Delos.

Second and third nights on the planet with this scope were a month apart and results were much the same though one of the nights I could see a bright area to the south of the disc which I am lead to understand is an area known as Hellas. The last night I could see Mars was not a bright as I could remember it was the month before though there was still a good deal of detail that could be weeded out from the view.

Saturn.

This planet takes magnification very well and the rings are wide open making a spectacular view, though unfortunately it is not best placed this year as it is low down in the sky for me and must be worse from England. I was rather astonished that I could see as much as I could as it was wobbling around in the turbulent air but Cassini was there and I could also make out a little of the polar region being darker than other parts of the disc. This was something to leave for a few weeks as I did not want to stay up all night. When I final got back to it the other night conditions were excellent and the air was nice and still for once, with the scope being one of three I was using in a scope juggling ( very dangerous art taught to me by a circus performer) routine, the X230 the APO delivered was close to optimum for the planet. Again Cassini was there but this time clear and shouting ‘look at me’, the polar shading was clear with a definite line there to be seen and I could make out what I think was 4 of the moons.

I believe it was John that said to me there could be a situation where one eyepiece would better the other on a target specific basis, for me this was true I did just prefer the Pentax on Saturn as the view seemed a bit more polished where as with a gun to my head I would have picked the Delos for Mars, now we have to have two eyepieces of same focal length costing a fair wedge just for planets, it sort of left me wondering if it varied for different scopes as well.

Jupiter.

The largest of the solar systems members is past its best now but it is still high in the sky for the first part of the night, though it will not be long before the twilight claims it. Always a joy to look at though any scope and for many X230 is prime power, though in my opinion it is a little too much, for me less is more and I prefer to view around the X170 mark regardless of telescope aperture. Of the two nights I viewed this target oddly the moons were all on one side but the belts were clear to see through both eyepieces and again I would not say one was better than the other. There was no detail as such that I could see in the equatorial belts though of course they stood out clearly and as usual the Great Red Spot was on its holidays, I was unable to see little in the way of clear polar region shading that was there with a lower power which always makes me wonder why people seem to over egg the pudding.

70mm ED refractor, let us not forget with Carbon fiber tube. Power X120.

Jupiter

This was viewed only the once with this scope as a part of the juggling act and I am always amazed just how much you can see with a small scope when X120 is getting close to its theoretical limit. All moons were clear to see albeit a bit unbalanced and the two equatorial belts stood out nicely. The chromatic aberration on the Pentax XW seemed a little worse with this scope and there was some visible using the Delos as well so the scope was having a hand in matters, it is fair to say it is not in the same class as the other one. There was no light scatter that I could see and both views were very alike but there was something that was telling me the Pentax was just a tad cleaner, it was just a feeling with no hard evidence.

Comet Panstarrs.

This little scope has a massive field of view with the right eyepiece and I used it to track down Comet Panstarrs which is just below Ursa Major or the Plough at the moment. I don’t know who gave the name of the Great Bear to this collection of stars but I would suggest they were into some strong narcotics at the time, the Plough I can see and live with. I fully understood this was going to be a difficult object in so smaller scope but I was able to locate it with a finder eyepiece and work up with other eyepieces until the 3.5mm’s  were selected for the breach. I will not lie, it didn’t look a great deal like a comet to me, more of a dim blob, I am sure without sky like mine it would have remained invisible. The thing though I did notice was the Pentax seemed to make a better job of point star sources in the area of the blob, again though I am being hyper-critical here and either one would out perform most it not all on the market. It has to be said that the night of this observation was my best sky so far this year, it was truly exceptional.

Sky-Watch 190mm Mac/Newt. F 5.26, cooled and collimation checked.

Saturn.

I viewed Saturn the other night in excellent condition and the extra aperture of this scope, which I think is under-rated as a visual instrument by some way, it always seemed to get labeled an astrograph, but extra size was there and telling. There is nothing like top conditions to bring out the best in a scope and make me look tired out all the next day but with the weather of late you have to make hay while the sun shines. This telescope was giving a rather large X286 and boy Saturn didn’t seem to mine one bit. Everything was there that was there before with the smaller scope and then some. With both oculars I was able to see not only a bold Cassini Division and polar belt but I could see a difference in colour between the A and B ring but no sign of the other elusive Encke gap, I think something much larger is called for. I believe I could see 5 moons as well but could not check as my outdoor laptop has finally given up the ghost. I spent over an hour on Saturn alone and this time I just feel the 3.5mm Delos was top of the class but Pentax was pulling the shirt tails rather hard. With the right scope and conditions these two are really sharp There is of course another explanation as well, that it is all in ones head and these two really are as good as each other. In some respects it is a shame that I cannot lay my hands on a Vixen LVW 3.5mm as then we would have just about every top line 3.5mm eyepiece I know offering such eye-relief albeit with a slightly smaller field of view.

The Moon,

Without going over the same ground I used the exact same craters on the same nights with the Mak/Newtonian and I have to say on this target even at a large magnification of X286 there was nothing in it what so ever, just sharp and contrasty views. It must be said that even on something short of top quality seeing the views these two eyepieces give of the Moon are worth the price tag alone, they are truthfully jaw-dropping. My Son Daniel wanted to look and rightly made the comment, “our house wouldn’t last long there look at all the meteorite damage,” since seeing the program on the Russian Meteor everything is meteorites and dinosaurs.

The optical illusion, for want of a better way of putting it, that I saw on the 115mm Apo was still in evidence here with regards to the perceived contrast difference, I would love to hear any thoughts from site as to what this is and has anyone else noticed.

Mars.

The good thing about this scope is quality of image and with the eyepieces both 3.5mm in focal length the power is right up there in the Mars power band at X286, with the right conditions the telescope is large enough and can handle this.

Firstly the disc was much larger but focusing between the two completely different focus points of first the Pentax and then the Delos was tedious, the tiniest bit out and all detail is gone. Again I was seeing a slightly more orange Mars with the Delos but it was so hard to pick up it could have been me. Details seemed a little more up front with the TeleVue and sort of looked like the glue lines you see on a tennis ball when looked at the right way, as well there was a complete lack of any aberration that I could see from one side of the field to the other. The Pentax was again showing this slight flare from time to time, nothing serious but it was there and the detail, whilst the same was just a touch more subtle.

Just as I was ready and willing to believe the flare I was seeing periodically in the Pentax was a fault in the XW, I saw the exact same thing with the Delos just for a fleeting moment, this just goes to prove that an eyepiece test needs to be done over a few nights as this was clearly variation in seeing conditions and nothing to do with the eyepieces.

Conclusion.

I think whilst I was doing the observations for this report on what must be two of the very best 3.5mm eyepieces that are currently on the market, I have been wondering what to say at this point, not that I am usually lost for words. After 15 hours and 20 minutes I think both are outstanding eyepieces from two of the finest producers. They are both sharp, full of contrast with little or no scatter. I always wonder what Pentax could have done if they had set out to design an astronomical eyepiece as opposed to a range for a finder scope. My one criticism is I feel there could have been more in the range, I feel the jump of 10mm, 7mm, 5mm and then the one we have here is a little lacking, however this is just my opinion. TeleVue’s Delos on the other hand has more in the range and were designed with the night sky in mind and I believe some of the range are the best on the market. I own the Delos and it is a superb eyepiece, I borrowed the Pentax from my friend in Sofia, Dani, and I thank him for that.

There were plus points on each side all the way through the test and very little I could say that was negative. However I think if spent my money again I believe I would buy the Pentax XW, 3.5mm as it really comes so close to orthoscopic quality no matter what you point it at and it will also be on it’s game in the daylight as well.

I hope you enjoyed reading it.

Alan  

Good evening Alan, I like reading the subject material of your reviews, but most of the time I find it difficult to understand or follow what you are writing. Would it be possible before posting just edit, add  punctuation and finally trim at least two thirds of the writing. I can understand probably English is not a first language for most of the people, but really it is difficult to understand this really useful review. 

[John]

2 hours ago, Dippy said:

Good evening Alan, I like reading the subject material of your reviews, but most of the time I find it difficult to understand or follow what you are writing. Would it be possible before posting just edit, add  punctuation and finally trim at least two thirds of the writing. I can understand probably English is not a first language for most of the people, but really it is difficult to understand this really useful review. 

I think posters need to feel free to post in the style that they like.

I have always found Alan's reports clear, interesting, comprehesive and accurate.

We are very lucky to have people prepared to compile and post detailed and independant reviews like this on the forum.

[markse68]

3 hours ago, Dippy said:

Good evening Alan, I like reading the subject material of your reviews, but most of the time I find it difficult to understand or follow what you are writing. Would it be possible before posting just edit, add  punctuation and finally trim at least two thirds of the writing. I can understand probably English is not a first language for most of the people, but really it is difficult to understand this really useful review. 

How rude! 😳🤦‍♂️ Shame there isn’t a flabbergasted emoji in the “likes” palette!

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, Dippy said:

Good evening Alan, I like reading the subject material of your reviews, but most of the time I find it difficult to understand or follow what you are writing. Would it be possible before posting just edit, add  punctuation and finally trim at least two thirds of the writing. I can understand probably English is not a first language for most of the people, but really it is difficult to understand this really useful review. 

Perhaps we could get Wikipedia writers to post a plot synopsis for @alan potts's reports/reviews like they do for movies and books for folks who want only the executive summary and not the experience?  Have you asked J. K. Rowling if she could post a condensed version of her novels as well?  I'm sure we'd all appreciate it since many of us don't have the spare time to read 600 page books, and having a third party write that synopsis just isn't the same as having the original writer do it.

@Dippy Please do not read my reports/reviews either as they tend to be very lengthy and in depth as well; and as a Texan, I don't take well to being told I'm long winded in my story telling.

[alan potts]

4 hours ago, Louis D said:

Perhaps we could get Wikipedia writers to post a plot synopsis for @alan potts's reports/reviews like they do for movies and books for folks who want only the executive summary and not the experience?  Have you asked J. K. Rowling if she could post a condensed version of her novels as well?  I'm sure we'd all appreciate it since many of us don't have the spare time to read 600 page books, and having a third party write that synopsis just isn't the same as having the original writer do it.

@Dippy Please do not read my reports/reviews either as they tend to be very lengthy and in depth as well; and as a Texan, I don't take well to being told I'm long winded in my story telling.

I am touched that you consider me worthy, I bashed out quite a lot of reviews a few years back when I had contact with the Dealer in Sofia and often borrowed eyepieces, even though I had about 35 at peak and often wrote stuff when I was changing to Televue and still had Meade and other makes.

And for the other person, I am most certainly not changing anything, many have complemented me on my style and humour in writing and whilst I am not gifted as a writer it reads fine to me and I put a lot of effort into all of these though accept they are not perfect.

Alan

[Spikey]

11 hours ago, Dippy said:

Good evening Alan, I like reading the subject material of your reviews, but most of the time I find it difficult to understand or follow what you are writing. Would it be possible before posting just edit, add  punctuation and finally trim at least two thirds of the writing. I can understand probably English is not a first language for most of the people, but really it is difficult to understand this really useful review. 

How very dare you @alan potts write a review six years ago that isn't perfect.

We'll have to make sure that Dippy's membership fees are deducted from your salary immediately !

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I just reread the whole review, and it reminded me that

a) I now have a 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newtonian

b) A 3.5 mm EP would make sense for that focal length and focal ratio

c) I have the XW5, 7 and 10 (with Delos 6 and 8 with parfocalizer rings "intercallated" in the series)

d) I have nice piece of space in my EP case, just begging for a 3.5 mm EP.

Oh dear.

[alan potts]

2 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I just reread the whole review, and it reminded me that

a) I now have a 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newtonian

b) A 3.5 mm EP would make sense for that focal length and focal ratio

c) I have the XW5, 7 and 10 (with Delos 6 and 8 with parfocalizer rings "intercallated" in the series)

d) I have nice piece of space in my EP case, just begging for a 3.5 mm EP.

Oh dear.

It's a fine eyepiece but being a TeleVue snob, I have the Delos, not seen light for a long time as AP seems to take up most of my time, when I have a clear sky, been awful of late, better now. Hope you can understand my reply as I clearly can't write, punctuate or spell.

Alan

[John]

I've edited that down by two thirds for you Alan :

"It's a fine snob, I have not seen light for most of my time, I have been awful of late, better Hope you can understand I clearly can't."

Makes perfect sense now

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

40 minutes ago, alan potts said:

It's a fine eyepiece but being a TeleVue snob, I have the Delos, not seen light for a long time as AP seems to take up most of my time, when I have a clear sky, been awful of late, better now. Hope you can understand my reply as I clearly can't write, punctuate or spell.

Alan

I quite happily mix Tele-Vue and Pentax, with some Vixen and the odd MaxVision thrown in for good measure. Since I got my parfocalizer rings, the Delos and XW EPs play very nicely together (except my Delos 14 mm which focuses a good deal further inwards). I might at some point replace my Nagler 12T4 with the ES 12mm 92 deg. The 12T4 is my least favourite Nagler. If the ES 12 works well, I might even replace the 17T4

[JeremyS]

45 minutes ago, alan potts said:

It's a fine eyepiece but being a TeleVue snob, I have the Delos, not seen light for a long time as AP seems to take up most of my time, when I have a clear sky, been awful of late, better now. Hope you can understand my reply as I clearly can't write, punctuate or spell.

Alan

Your reply is far too short, which makes it very difficult to follow, Alan.

🤣

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

1 minute ago, JeremyS said:

Your reply is far too short, which makes it very difficult to follow, Alan.

🤣

Yours is even shorter, and therefore even harder to follow

😜

[Louis D]

12 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I might at some point replace my Nagler 12T4 with the ES 12mm 92 deg. The 12T4 is my least favourite Nagler. If the ES 12 works well, I might even replace the 17T4

That's the exact path I went down.  Both ES-92s are superior to their NT4 counterparts in every way except for sheer size and bulk.  Luckily, the 22mm NT4 is the best of line, so I can continue to live with it quite happily.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

That's the exact path I went down.  Both ES-92s are superior to their NT4 counterparts in every way except for sheer size and bulk.  Luckily, the 22mm NT4 is the best of line, so I can continue to live with it quite happily.

I have also always felt the 22 was best, but many people suggest the 17 is superior. I don't see that

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I have also always felt the 22 was best, but many people suggest the 17 is superior. I don't see that

Agreed, the 17mm is definitely not the strongest of the three.  It has enough SAEP to make it difficult to see the entire view at once when the field stop comes into view.  It also has some field curvature and a bit of edge astigmatism; although I could live with those two if the exit pupil were a bit better behaved.  However, it's not as bad as the SAEP in the Meade MWA 26mm I recently reviewed.

[alan potts]

We have rather gone away from the point of the thread, which was insulting me I think, but while we are at it I've had all the T4 range and I feel the 22mm is best, I was disappointed with the 12mm, I'm a little surprised they have not dropped the range by now. To touch on Michael's point on the 14mm Delos I think if I recall the 8mm was similar with focus, I had the full range once Doc bought most of them from me after I spent months trying to see differences between the Delos and the Ethos range, stuck with the latter.

Alan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

37 minutes ago, alan potts said:

We have rather gone away from the point of the thread, which was insulting me I think, but while we are at it I've had all the T4 range and I feel the 22mm is best, I was disappointed with the 12mm, I'm a little surprised they have not dropped the range by now. To touch on Michael's point on the 14mm Delos I think if I recall the 8mm was similar with focus, I had the full range once Doc bought most of them from me after I spent months trying to see differences between the Delos and the Ethos range, stuck with the latter.

Alan

The Delos 6 mm and 8 mm focus 1/4" further out with respect to the XWs, the 14 mm slightly further in, which means the 6 and 8 can be combined with parfocaliser rings to make them parfocal with the XWs, but not the 14. 

[John]

I use the 17.3 and 14 Delos with the 10 thru 3.5mm XW's to make a 1.25 inch set (plus the 24 Panoptic at the lowest power end). The two longest FL Delos reach focus a tiny bit further in then the XW's but close enough. The other Delos, as with the 24 Pan and the Nagler zooms, about 8mm further out.

I don't mind focus tweaking at lower magnifications but I like to minimize it at high powers if possible.

The 22mm T4 Nagler was my first "big" Tele Vue and I really liked it

 

 

 

 

 

[alan potts]

4 hours ago, John said:

I use the 17.3 and 14 Delos with the 10 thru 3.5mm XW's to make a 1.25 inch set (plus the 24 Panoptic at the lowest power end). The two longest FL Delos reach focus a tiny bit further in then the XW's but close enough. The other Delos, as with the 24 Pan and the Nagler zooms, about 8mm further out.

I don't mind focus tweaking at lower magnifications but I like to minimize it at high powers if possible.

The 22mm T4 Nagler was my first "big" Tele Vue and I really liked it

 

 

 

 

 

Mine was the 20mm, another fine chunk of glass. I had the 14mm XW a long time ago but actually preferred the Meade 14mm Mk 1 UWA, just to put the cat among the pigeons. I have never tried the 30mm and 40mm XW but for me they really shone at 10mm and below, possible the best 70 degree eyepiece ever to hit the market. And you an I have said many a time, what could Pentax have done if they set out to design an astronomical eyepiece.

Alan

[markse68]

29 minutes ago, alan potts said:

what could Pentax have done if they set out to design an astronomical eyepiece.

wasn’t the XO range astro specific? they went to great trouble to minimise internal reflections in those I think

[Dantooine]

11 hours ago, alan potts said:

We have rather gone away from the point of the thread, which was insulting me I think, but while we are at it I've had all the T4 range and I feel the 22mm is best, I was disappointed with the 12mm, I'm a little surprised they have not dropped the range by now. To touch on Michael's point on the 14mm Delos I think if I recall the 8mm was similar with focus, I had the full range once Doc bought most of them from me after I spent months trying to see differences between the Delos and the Ethos range, stuck with the latter.

Alan

I’m at the same point in deciding which ones to keep. Someone will get some bargains at some point. The biggest expense in this hobby is the ones you sell 🤔

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

14 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

I’m at the same point in deciding which ones to keep. Someone will get some bargains at some point. The biggest expense in this hobby is the ones you sell 🤔

Unless you buy second-hand and take care of the kit. In that case you often sell at nearly the same price you orginally bought it for