Eye Pieces you would like to try out

[25585]

I would like to compare the ES to my Nikon NAV-SW. Though the HW is more comparable in AFOV, the SW has much better eye relief (27mm claimed) & therefore viewing comfort. 

[jkwhinfrey]

5 hours ago, Saganite said:

I mostly use Binoviewers, but I have always wanted to try the 31mm Nagler.

That would be quite a set of binoviewers ?

[Saganite]

6 minutes ago, jkwhinfrey said:

That would be quite a set of binoviewers ?

It would indeed, 

[CrazyPanda]

10 hours ago, John said:

Quite a list - that should keep you busy !

Welcome to the forum by the way

Thanks!

5 hours ago, Louis D said:

Not quite what you wanted, but I've extensively compared my 17mm Nagler T4 to my 17mm ES-92, and the only thing the Nagler has going for it is it's relatively diminutive size.  The ES-92 has no astigmatism or field curvature that I can detect unlike the Nagler which has some of both out near the edge.  While wearing eyeglasses, the ES-92 is far easier to hold the view and much more comfortable to look through.  I haven't tried to do limiting magnitude, contrast, or finest detail tests with either because the targets I use these eyepieces on don't lend themselves to such tests.  I will say the Nagler views like other older TV products such as the 27mm Panoptic in that it has really dark background skies where stars look like brightly lit salt on black velvet.  The ES-92 views like the more modern designs such as the Delos.  I can't put my finger on it, but there is a difference.  I'll have to try to figure out what it is, but it is definitely different.

Good to know. I also own the 17mm ES-92 and it's an astonishingly good eyepiece. In my 8" F/10 SCT, stars are pinpoints right to the edge, and there's very little scatter or ghosting. The view of Jupiter through it is one of my favorite astronomical sights. It's *razor* sharp, very high contrast, and the FOV is incredibly immersive. My only complaint is how heavy the eyepiece is. 

I love the view through it so much I want to try the 12mm version, but then I also want to try the Docter. So many choices lol

[25585]

FOV apart I wonder how the ES 17 compares with LVW 17. 

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

FOV apart I wonder how the ES 17 compares with LVW 17. 

I know the 22mm LVW is highly regarded, so it's quite likely the 17mm is a superb performer.  I didn't buy LVWs back in the late 90s because I didn't like the eyecup design compared to the twist-up Pentax XL design.  The Pentax is much better for eyeglass wearers.

If you want a new 17mm you'd better hurry.  Vixen has confirmed they have discontinued the line and are selling out remaining stock.

[onlyme]

9 minutes ago, Louis D said:

it's quite likely the 17mm is a superb performer.

 

I have the LVW 22mm, 17mm and 13mm, and I never leave home without them.

All I can add to what Louis said is get them while you still can.

[GavStar]

On 25/10/2017 at 21:09, Alan White said:

Go on Louis, would love a picture.

Here are some comparison pictures of the ES92 vs terminagler amd ethos 21. All seem quite similar in size and weight to me.

 

[John]

I was going to take a photo like that of the 21mm Ethos and the 31mm Nagler side by side but I could not hold them securely in one hand - you must have slightly larger hands than I do Gavin

I wonder why the ES 17 / 92 is as large and heavy as it is ?.

[GavStar]

In the es92 the size of the top lens is very large (and heavy?) to give the necessary eye relief and still have the 92 degree field. 

[John]

1 hour ago, GavStar said:

In the es92 the size of the top lens is very large (and heavy?) to give the necessary eye relief and still have the 92 degree field. 

Makes sense.

This seems to be the challenge with getting a wide field that is sharp right across and provides long eye relief. Lots of glass is required, big lenses, expensive glass types, high quality figuring and polishing of lens surfaces, carefully designed and machined baffles and top quality coatings. No wonder such eyepieces cost a few bob !

 

[Alan White]

They all look so huge, how does this work with balancing your scopes?

[GavStar]

 

51 minutes ago, Alan White said:

They all look so huge, how does this work with balancing your scopes?

I use strong focusers such as feather touch 2inch and 3.5 inch which handle the eyepieces easily. As the eyepieces are broadly the same weight I find that I don't need to change the balance very much.

[niallk]

Wow, the 92° 17mm ES is 1.8x the weight of the TV 17E!!

[Alan White]

6 minutes ago, GavStar said:

 

I use strong focusers such as feather touch 2inch and 3.5 inch which handle the eyepieces easily. As the eyepieces are broadly the same weight I find that I don't need to change the balance very much.

Thanks GavStar, makes sense.

[25585]

13 hours ago, John said:

Makes sense.

This seems to be the challenge with getting a wide field that is sharp right across and provides long eye relief. Lots of glass is required, big lenses, expensive glass types, high quality figuring and polishing of lens surfaces, carefully designed and machined baffles and top quality coatings. No wonder such eyepieces cost a few bob !

 

Equivalent to a prime camera lens. And as pricey!

[25585]

16 hours ago, GavStar said:

Here are some comparison pictures of the ES92 vs terminagler amd ethos 21. All seem quite similar in size and weight to me.

 

What effective eye relief has the 17mm? Advertised as 22mm but might lose some due to eye lens design and depth from surface I guess. 

[25585]

23 hours ago, onlyme said:

I have the LVW 22mm, 17mm and 13mm, and I never leave home without them.

All I can add to what Louis said is get them while you still can.

Have a 13mm LVW to replace my Nagler T1. Should sell the latter but its my first quality ep.....

Other two LVWs have the fl in high er models already. 

[GavStar]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

What effective eye relief has the 17mm? Advertised as 22mm but might lose some due to eye lens design and depth from surface I guess. 

Not sure whether effective eye relief is less than 22mm but in actual use it seems broadly the same as my Delos, Pentax xw and vixen Ivw. However I don't wear glasses. Also materially more than my ethos so as per my observing last night I used my 17mm es more than my 21mm ethos despite the smaller fov.

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, 25585 said:

What effective eye relief has the 17mm? Advertised as 22mm but might lose some due to eye lens design and depth from surface I guess.

I measured mine to have 17mm of eye relief.  That's about 1mm less than a Delos or Pentax XL and about the same as a Pentax XW.  Pentax decided to recess the eye lens of the XWs, thus the slight difference.  The ES-92 is recessed slightly less than the XW, but loses some eye relief none-the-less because of it.

[25585]

11 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I measured mine to have 17mm of eye relief.  That's about 1mm less than a Delos or Pentax XL and about the same as a Pentax XW.  Pentax decided to recess the eye lens of the XWs, thus the slight difference.  The ES-92 is recessed slightly less than the XW, but loses some eye relief none-the-less because of it.

I took the eye cup off my XW 10mm which gives an extra mm or 3. But the more expensive an ep, the less I want to tamper with it. 

[N3ptune]

On 2017/10/25 at 06:24, Alan White said:

Goodness me that's a Hand Grenade, where does the pin pull out from?

It's 700g, I don't know where the pin is but it's pushing the EQ5 to it's limits. Very good eyepiece. So glad.

[astronomer2002]

Damn - this thread has given me another dose of the "mustavs" ! 

I now need to get my hands on one of these, though I expect it will generate some grief from the budget overseer 

 

 

Must be a few out there that are not getting used, but rarer than hens teeth in the s/h market

I have tried ES 100 degree eyepieces but didn't get on with them, and similarly found the Ethos was awkward to use for me, so went down the TV Nagler route.

 

Ian B

 

 

[John]

I've owned most of the Naglers but found the Ethos easier to use. Shows how we are all a little different with regard to eyepiece preferences

I wish I didn't like the Ethos range in some ways, particularly financial impact

[nightfisher]

2 hours ago, John said:

 

I wish I didn't like the Ethos range in some ways, particularly financial impact

I am pleased to say i dont have this problem, i think my most expensive EP cost me £49..the joys of a Maksutov