ES LER 92°

[Commanderfish]

That's a great idea spaceboy!  How much does that counterweight weigh?  I'm not sure it would be enough to compensate for my eyepieces...

[spaceboy]

It's 1kg so should be more than enough if positioned in the right place.

[GavStar]

Just wondered if anyone had got one of these yet and if so what they think of it?

[GavStar]

I've decided to give it a go. If it's like the 17mm ethos but with easier eye relief I will like it a lot

 

[GavStar]

Quite a large top lens!

[Ruud]

35 minutes ago, Gavster said:

Quite a large top lens!

Quite a good image too. Thanks.

It's a sexy eyepiece with its big, green eye.

[GavStar]

I've just done a quick daytime test. The ES is definitely more comfortable for me than the ethos. You can see the field stop comfortably unlike the ethos where I have to jam my eye in quite a bit closer to get an equivalent view. If the night views are as good then the ethos could be on the way out. But lots more testing required. 

Two other points on the ES - I wouldn't want the eye lens to be any bigger as it will start to get uncomfortable and it (obviously) is a heavy eyepiece so I have to be a bit careful balancing and when I put it in and out of the diagonal.

[Don Pensack]

A follow up note here: I tried both the 17 and the 12mm 92° with my glasses on, and both required pushing the glasses in uncomfortably close to my eyelashes to see the entire field.

I judge that the Effective Eye Relief (from rubber eye cup up is probably more like 17mm than 20.  It probably is 20mm from the glass, but that won't help glasses wearers.

[Don Pensack]

Also: 17 Ethos 704g, 17mm ES 92° 1159g.

[GavStar]

Don,

Yes I can see that wearing glasses may give some issues. I don't observe with glasses but still like plenty of eye relief, hence my preference on comfort for the Es 92 vs ethos.

I think I read on cloudynights that you were hoping to compare the ES 92 with the ethos and the delite - have you managed to do this and if so what are your thoughts re quality?

Thanks

Gavin

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

A follow up note here: I tried both the 17 and the 12mm 92° with my glasses on, and both required pushing the glasses in uncomfortably close to my eyelashes to see the entire field.

I judge that the Effective Eye Relief (from rubber eye cup up is probably more like 17mm than 20.  It probably is 20mm from the glass, but that won't help glasses wearers.

How do these compare to the 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s with respect to pressing eyeglasses into the eyeguard to see the entire field?

[GavStar]

So I've been enjoying using the 17mm so much I got this one as well. I really like the viewing comfort and the ability to see the whole fov without pushing your eyes in too far. Nice and sharp as well - similar to ethos imo. A French discussion board commented that these eyepieces had Pentax xw comfort levels - not sure I would go that far but i can see where they were coming from.

[Don Pensack]

On 5/16/2016 at 12:42, Gavster said:

Don,

Yes I can see that wearing glasses may give some issues. I don't observe with glasses but still like plenty of eye relief, hence my preference on comfort for the Es 92 vs ethos.

I think I read on cloudynights that you were hoping to compare the ES 92 with the ethos and the delite - have you managed to do this and if so what are your thoughts re quality?

Thanks

Gavin

A follow up note here: I tried both the 17 and the 12mm 92° with my glasses on, and both required pushing the glasses in uncomfortably close to my eyelashes to see the entire field.

I judge that the Effective Eye Relief (from rubber eye cup up is probably more like 17mm than 20.  It probably is 20mm from the glass, but that won't help glasses wearers.

 

Gavin,

I did just that.  Bear in mind that the Ethos does NOT have enough eye relief to use with glasses and that the Delite is in the same boat as the ES92 where eye relief is concerned.

The Ethos had better correction over the whole field than the ES92, but it was not enormously so.  The ES92 still has essentially no astigmatism at the edge.

The 18.2mm Delite yielded better contrast than either of the two wider 17s, but then the apparent field is a LOT smaller (62°), and the true field minuscule in comparison.

You could just say that it is an apples to oranges comparison.

The 17 Ethos was also 455g lighter than the ES92.

However, if you need to wear glasses at that focal length, I know of no other eyepiece that wide that is usable with glasses, and the ES92 17mm is one of ES' 3 best eyepieces, IMO.

[Dave In Vermont]

Very interesting! Thanks for bringing these to our collective attention. I'll toss this over to (Steve) bomberbaz. He has some huge EP's, or did? I'll see.....

Thanks again -

Dave

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Very interesting indeed. I find 17mm eye relief sufficient with my glasses (16 works too). I am somewhat tempted by these.

[bomberbaz]

They do look a very nice piece of glass, thanks for the heads up on the thread Dave. TBH as some will know I have the Nikon 17 & 12.5 which, with the reducer effectively gives me 4 eyepieces. As I have not used either the Ethos nor the ES 92, I cannot really compare. However I have recently purchased a TV Dioptrx and early results are superb for this and the Nikon's.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread with a mini review so will write a separate review once I finish my testing of this. I need another clear night to finish my testing.

Good luck with the ES Gavster.

[Paul73]

Good thread! I surprised myself with the Ethos eye relief. The view draws you in; so jamming your head into the eyepiece to see the whole immersive view really works for me. But, I am really intrigued by the "XW levels of comfort" comment.

After choosing some eyepieces based in weight for my little scope, I won't be going there again. It has got to be about viewing experience/ image quality. And. Not about a bit of faffing about with balance. That said. There are a couple of high end zooms which I fancy trying........

TV do a heavy 2" to 1.25" adapter which redresses the balance when the eyepiece is in the scope (for a price...).

Paul

[John]

I find the 15mm eye relief of the Ethos range quite comfortable and can take in the whole field with my eye pressed gently against the soft rubber eyecup - I don't seem to need to "jam it in".

The XW's have another 5mm and 28 degrees less AFoV so are even easier to use of course. During a session when I've been using mostly Ethos eyepieces though, switching to an XW does seem to take away a little of the excitement so generally I try and stick to one or the other eyepiece type

The XW optical and build quality is superb though and can't be faulted. They cost a couple of £hundred less than an Ethos too !

 

[Louis D]

4 minutes ago, John said:

I find the 15mm eye relief of the Ethos range quite comfortable and can take in the whole field with my eye pressed gently against the soft rubber eyecup - I don't seem to need to "jam it in".

 

Don't all of the Ethos have a 30mm diameter eye lens?  If so, wouldn't they have at most 12.6mm of eye relief by trigonometry?

[John]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Don't all of the Ethos have a 30mm diameter eye lens?  If so, wouldn't they have at most 12.6mm of eye relief by trigonometry?

Mine seem to range between ~26mm (4.7mm) and ~31mm (21mm). The eye relief seems pretty consistent across the range though and certainly more than the 12mm of the Nagler's that preceded them.

Apologies to the OP though for sidetracking - this thread started on the ES 92's.

 

[Paul73]

13 hours ago, John said:

I find the 15mm eye relief of the Ethos range quite comfortable and can take in the whole field with my eye pressed gently against the soft rubber eyecup - I don't seem to need to "jam it in".

I'm a hoverer. So it feels pretty close to me. But, I don't really think that it detracts from the view. I use mine with the rubber folded back most of the time.

The ES range have always been very comfortable to use; with the 82° and 100° ranges being a touch better that the 68°. Hopefully, the 92° will be as comfy. Although, with the longer eye relief and the fixed eyecup, it may not suit those, like me, who can't keep their heads still.

Paul