Nagler type 1 rethink......

[NGC 1502]

 

Hello to all eyepiece aficionados ?

Not so long ago, I’d have had a tough time accepting some of what I’m about to share, so if you don’t buy it, I’ll definitely understand. Please remember that as you read on.......

My first eyepieces were 0.96” fitting that came with a second hand 4.5” Newtonian on a dodgy EQ mount, back in 1979. Low power was a 20mm Kellner, medium power was a 9mm HM, high power was a 6mm of unknown type. The 6mm had virtually zero ER (eye relief), the 9mm minimal ER, the 20mm was good. But I learned to hate very short ER, even though I didn’t use eyeglasses to observe, and still don’t. I just need very mild correction for reading. Highlights with that scope were Uranus, not resolved as a disc, but seen as a “star” moving against the starry background over a run of clear evenings, and Comet Halley, in 85/86.

Into the mid 90s, and Vixen came out with their LV range with 20mm ER, and I was definitely interested. After a while, I took the plunge and bought a set. I thought my eyepiece journey was over.....

In 2002, I joined my local club, and came into contact with club mates with posh wide field eyepieces, but was horrified at the prices. I cheaped out with an entry level wider field set. I soon learned that the wider field was nice, but only sharp in the centre of the field of view with the scopes I owned by then. I went through a convoluted upgrade path that (eventually) wound up with a Panoptic for low power, Radians for medium to high power, and the last of my Vixen LVs, 5mm and 4mm, for occasional very high power. Again, I thought my eyepiece journey was over..........

Fast forward to last year when I helped with a bereavement sale of astronomy kit. Amongst all the gear was a pristine and boxed Nagler 13mm type 6. The daughter of our late club member offered it to me at a bargain price, and I succumbed. ( I did let her know what the new price is ).  Of course, at the first opportunity, tried it. I was surprised at how quickly I liked it, even with the listed 12mm ER, (no glasses remember). I even realised that I had ER to spare. So when I spotted a second hand and minty Nagler 7mm type 1 (listed 10mm ER) I bought it, knowing I could sell it on if I didn’t get on with it. When I tried it, I fell in love, high power and wide field was great. I also realised that when using it and was close enough to see the field stop all round, I could move my eye a tad closer, without brushing my eyelashes on the glass. Hmm........for very high power, could the 4.8 type 1 be ok ?  With a listed 7mm ER, and reviews that said how impossibly short that is, I doubted whether it was for me. But I remembered that a clubmate had one, so I asked him and borrowed it. To my immense surprise, I found it was ok. Now I don’t mean “ok” in a derogatory sense, but “ok” in a positive way. Hardly generous of course but adequate, especially as 250x with my 10” Dob is not used too often, mainly for close multiple stars, tiny planetary nebulae, or globular clusters that can look great when seeing allows.

As I said earlier, if you’re not buying this, I really do get that. I think that several things can come into play here. If you need glasses to observe, that’s a biggie, these EPs won’t be for you, unless of course you’re ok with not seeing all the field of view. Other factors include facial  features, if you have deep set eyes, prominent eye sockets, that can make a very big difference. Something else too - for me, if I check ER in bright light by just holding an EP to my eye, then seeing the field stop becomes much more difficult than using the same EP at night in the scope. I’m guessing that’s because in bright light my pupils are small, in the dark they are dilated, and a larger pupil is the reason I can more easily see the full field - am I correct with that, and what do you think ?

The pic shows the 13mm type 6 (current model), a 7mm type 1, it’s the last of those after TV added an eyecup, rubber grip and undercut barrel, and a “smooth side” 4.8mm type 1.  

Maybe if I get a Nagler 26 or 31 my eyepiece journey will be over...........?

Thanks for reading, and cheers from Ed.

 

[Ruud]

Yes, it's okay alright. I have a Nagler T1 4.8mm that I just can't part with.

[Timebandit]

 

The Naglers are still very good at what they do in my opinion. And still have a good following among those in the know.

I have a Nagler type 5 in 20mm. And it is one eyepiece that I have never thought about changing for something else in the 20mm division. Its my goto eyepiece for DSO searching.

I always think my eyepiece journey is over and my case is completed?.                                But then a nice eyepiece comes on the SGL website that says " buy me" and temptation gives way. But this hobby is ever evolving and so must my kit. That's my excuse for me giving in to temptations anyway ?

 

 

 

[rl]

It's very common to knock this eyepiece...

I bought my 4.8 MK1 in 1987 in preparation for the mars opposition in 88. I was rather disappointed with it; it was a bit too powerful for my 5" f/10 refractor on most nights and rumours that a good ortho would do slightly better on contrast were proved to be true. So it sat, rather unloved, in my collection for years, until my taste in scopes changed and I got a 6" f/5  Newt. For smaller fast reflectors it has turned out to be the perfect high power eyepiece providing you can cope with the the relief. It does a really cracking job on the 8" f/4.5 Newt that is now my main scope. Even the eye relief issue seems a lot less problematic than I remember 30 years ago, and it's better than a 5mm Plossl or ortho. . The mag is high enough for coma not to be an issue and stars are tight to the edge as is the TV trademark.

It would see even more use had I not got a 4.7 Ethos as well....it loses this particular contest but not by a great deal and it's a whole lot lighter.

I've always found the  trick with the 4.8 MK1 is to keep the eye lens clean....eyelash streaks can drop the contrast. Baader wonderfluid does a good job. 

I expect this to be one piece of kit I will keep and enjoy to the end of my interest in the hobby..there is just no point in getting rid of it for what they fetch.

RL

[Alan White]

Aha, so this is the Eyepiece posting you referred to Ed.

Not surprised at all with the journey, we all are on that one so it feels for ever more!

What are you using for longer focal length, is it still a Panoptic?

 

[25585]

My first and only Nagler was a 13mm T1 smoothie, sold in the classifieds here last year. It was replaced by a 13mm Vixen LVW, a great ep.

However the T1 had a mystique all its own. I had to not wear glasses & jam my eye into it, but it showed me M57 & its centre star, M42 spectacular with an OIII filter and Mars, Saturn & Jupiter in my 12 inch F5 dob. I would not buy another, but wonder if any other makes of 13mm ep have 80 degree AFOV, and big eye reluef, so I can enjoy the experiences agsin, but comfortably.

[rwilkey]

Ed, that's a great story, very much enjoyed reading about your 'journey'.  I have recently bought the 3-6mm zoom from another member, but have yet to test it out. 

[Moonshane]

I really like the type 1 and 2 Naglers and prefer them to type 6 and on the moon prefer them to Ethos. I was surprised though one at how much better a 17mm Ethos was on faint objects compared with my 16mm t2. I now use mainly Delites for high power but really did like my 7mm t1 and always fancied trying a 4.8mm too. Enjoy!

 

[NGC 1502]

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

Aha, so this is the Eyepiece posting you referred to Ed.

Not surprised at all with the journey, we all are on that one so it feels for ever more!

What are you using for longer focal length, is it still a Panoptic?

 

Hi Alan, indeed it’s what I mentioned to you at our local club. Yes it’s a Panoptic for low power, and another long story, somehow I’ve managed to acquire a 24, 27 and a 35. The 24 is so small and light and a winner for scopes not having a 2” focuser. I don’t really need both a 27 and a 35 Pan,  probably a 26mm Nagler could replace them, I think it’s been discontinued by TV, but of course a used one is an option.

One of our local members has the 31 Nag, what a magnificent work of art.......about 3 years ago, on a fabulous transparent night at Kelling star party, he was using it in his NP 101, I was mesmerised and could hardly believe what I was seeing with a 4” refractor.......it brought home to me why some will invest so much money in a fine small scope.

But for my 10” F4.8, I think the 26 Nag would be a better option, to give a not too large exit pupil.

Cheers from Ed.

[25585]

I dream of a TV NP127 one day. My TV Genesis which is the grandaddy of all the NP line still does well. 

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, 25585 said:

I would not buy another, but wonder if any other makes of 13mm ep have 80 degree AFOV, and big eye relief, so I can enjoy the experiences agsin, but comfortably.

I picked up a 14mm Meade UWA smoothie and found I can just see the entire field with eyeglasses.  I measured the AFOV to be 80 degrees, not the 84 originally claimed by Meade.  I measured 17mm of usable eye relief which is just a millimeter less than the Delos, XW, XL, and LV eyepieces and the same as the ES-92s.  This is due to its 33mm diameter eye lens and very little recession of it in the housing.  However, it is clearly a 30 year old design.  It's just not as sharp as more modern designs, its contrast suffers due to outdated coatings, and it flares like crazy on bright objects.

To be honest, a much better option would be a 14mm Morpheus despite its slightly curved field and slight edge astigmatism.  I measured it to have a 78 degree AFOV, just 2 degrees less than the Meade.  In use, that difference is hardly noticeable.  I measured it to have 19mm of usable eye relief, 1mm better than the usual long eye relief champs thanks to its 37mm eye lens being set nearly flush with the top of the housing.  It has excellent sharpness and contrast and it controls stray light very well.  I don't know about European pricing, but they're on sale in the US for $175 shipped right now, including the new 17.5mm member which is supposed to be superbly corrected.  I'm tempted to get one despite having three wide field 17mm eyepieces already (AT AF70, Nagler T4, and ES-92).  Only the mediocre AF70 is 1.25", so the Morpheus could replace it in my grab and go kit.

[F15Rules]

Lovely report Ed, thank you☺.

The T6 13 Nagler is the only Nagler I've ever owned. I liked it very much and rated it highly but I sold it to fund a  Pentax 14mm XW, as I was building a set of XWs, and the Nagler was much smaller and out of kilter with my then mix of XWs and LVWs. 

I then sold the XWs 14 & 20mm due to the field curvature they exhibit: I replaced the XW14 with the (then) new Morpheus 14mm, and the XW20 with the LVW22 (both after careful comparison). The XW 3.5, 5, and 10mm are amazing IMO though.

The Morpheus 14mm is a truly excellent eyepiece and I regret selling it. I'd love the whole set one day. .☺.

The LVWs are also excellent, and I had both a 13mm LVW for comparison, and a superb LVW 22 mm, which outperformed the XW20 in my Tak and Vixen refractors.

I think you're right, Ed, the eyepiece journey seems not to end for most at of us..it's fun though!

Dave

 

[25585]

Trouble is you buy more than sell... at least I do.

Way too many of same or near focal lengths. Done the whole range thing the (Vixen LVWs), but search for my ideal individual collection is never complete.

Morpheus 14mm....hmm. Takahashi 32mm Abbe (28mm eye relief)......hmm. No likely craving for Ethos or Nagler luckily. Or a Masuyama - just yet. 

Surprisingly the oldies-but-goodies are often dusty diamonds. TV's 40mm Plossl is an excellent "discovery" for me, prefer it to the 32.

[F15Rules]

53 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Surprisingly the oldies-but-goodies are often dusty diamonds. TV's 40mm Plossl is an excellent "discovery" for me, prefer it to the 32.

Agreed. That's why I recently jumped for a selection of Parks Gold Series Plossls recently.

I had a 20mm GS some years ago and was struck by how (to me) good it was - even better than a TV plossl.

And, having owned odd other versions of the same/very similar design and really liked them (Celestron Ultima, Antares Elite, Tak LE(I love those!), Orion Ultrascopic), there is something about having a full set (or almost so) which is rather compelling?..and mine have smooth barrels too, which is a big plus for me, no undercuts to snag on diagonals!

For normal viewing though, I now feel really happy with my simplified "set" of Pentax SMC 8-24 zoom (with x1.6 Barlow nosepiece for 5-15mm higher power), LVW 22mm and 40mm TS Paragon 2". ☺

Dave

[NGC 1502]

8 hours ago, F15Rules said:

The LVWs are also excellent, and I had both a 13mm LVW for comparison, and a superb LVW 22 mm, which outperformed the XW20 in my Tak and Vixen refractors.

I think you're right, Ed, the eyepiece journey seems not to end for most at of us..it's fun though!

Dave

 

 

Indeed Dave, it can be a never ending journey. I also had an LVW set, the last of those ( 22mm ) went to someone in this thread, agreed that they are excellent, maybe I should have stayed with them.........

With the early Naglers that I was talking about in the opening post, of course I realise there’s a lot more to EPs than eye relief.............coatings, contrast, sharp field stop, lateral colour and so on. One of the things I like about the 7 & 4.8 type 1, is their relatively small size.    BTW, TV don’t refer to them as type 1, but Nagler “originals”.  If you take a look at TVs website, the data on discontinued EPs calls them that.

I intend to hang on to my long ER eyepieces, Radians and the 2 LVs, they are so comfortable to use, and in very damp conditions I find they dew up less frequently than short ER.

At last months Astrofest, I was fortunate to get chatting to David Nagler. He is very approachable ( just like his dad ) and seemed more than willing to talk. One of the things I asked is why were there no Nagler type 3s ?  He gave a friendly smile and laughed. but changed the subject........?

More cheers from Ed.

[Alan White]

4 hours ago, 25585 said:

Trouble is you buy more than sell... at least I do.

That's why you have a reputation as an Astro Magpie my friend.
Matched full sets are pointless unless you aim to use them in my opinion, the ones unused should be sold back into the hobby to be 'used' by others.
Easily solved by thinning the herd and you can then raise funds for that dream NP127, just a thought.

Sorry ED, this is a wayward direction to your thread.
 

[Stu]

16 hours ago, Moonshane said:

I was surprised though one at how much better a 17mm Ethos was on faint objects compared with my 16mm t2.

I still remember the look on your face when that happened Shane  An expensive experiment  

@NGC 1502 a great post, nice to read of your eyepiece journey, and whatever works for you, and your circumstances has to be right, right?

Circumstances for me currently limit me to a nice set of BGOs, a Nag Zoom and  24mm Panoptic. Still not roughing it I know, but the eye relief down on the 5mm is short and you need to be in the mood for it. I tend to prefer the Zoom with its 10mm ER if going for higher powers, even if it lacks that last % of sharpness.

I've never tried the 4.8mm Nag, but I think the Type 7s are often under rated given the latest gems (Delites). 82 degree Afov in a nice compact package with all the normal TV attributes is great in my book.

[F15Rules]

4 hours ago, NGC 1502 said:

Indeed Dave, it can be a never ending journey. I also had an LVW set, the last of those ( 22mm ) went to someone in this thread, agreed that they are excellent, maybe I should have stayed with them......

Hi Ed,

I do agree the LVWs are much underrated. I think so many consumer goods these days are sales volumes that are in direct proportion to the hype and marketing that they are backed up by. 

This means that some very good products are often a bit overlooked if they don't have big advertising/marketing budgets, and the astro market is no exception, even though ours is a relatively small market.

I'm sure that we all know of astro brands whose "hype" doesn't always match claims with actual performance or consistent quality. And I have to say that, although I am not a user of their products, and I quite dislike the sometimes "slavish devotion" it seems to their products, and no other, (especially in the USA), a notable exception to that kind of hype is Tele Vue. Over the years, they have consistently innovated and delivered products of a very high quality. I understand that even today they stand behind old TV products in terms of service, spares and customer service. Hats off to them.

Back to the LVWs. Given that they have always been a good deal cheaper (certainly in recent years here in the UK) than competing premium brands, at £169 when discontinued versus for example £249 for Pentax XWs, I was genuinely surprised that they didn't seem to sell in bigger volumes?

Now that they are gone, apart from the used market, (and I suspect the Pentax XWs won't be around new for much longer), I think the Baader Morpheus range is setting the pace as a true competitor to Tele Vue in terms of performance and quality, alongside ES.

Dave

[25585]

3 hours ago, Alan White said:

That's why you have a reputation as an Astro Magpie my friend.
Matched full sets are pointless unless you aim to use them in my opinion, the ones unused should be sold back into the hobby to be 'used' by others.
Easily solved by thinning the herd and you can then raise funds for that dream NP127, just a thought.

Sorry ED, this is a wayward direction to your thread.
 

My full set of LVWs is fully utilised, I can assure you ?some more than others, but all have proven buying them was worth it. They are my core ? optics.

[NGC 1502]

3 hours ago, Alan White said:

Sorry ED, this is a wayward direction to your thread.
 

No problem at all Alan..........?

[NGC 1502]

24 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

I think the Baader Morpheus range is setting the pace as a true competitor to Tele Vue in terms of performance and quality, alongside ES.

Dave

 

I’m truly amazed at their prices, it can only eat into sales of TV products............Ed.

[25585]

If only I could find my long lost circle-V Vixen 32mm Erfle. It was a 36.4mm screw thread with big 65 deg FOV for a Japanese ep for its time. The Nagler originals were groundbreakers, I was glad to have had one.

Ethos 2 may come one day. But what TV need maybe are a couple longer FL eps in their Delos & Delitae lines, keeping the 20mm eye relief. Panoptics below 35mm have less, and the biggest 2 Pans, all Naglers T4 and Ethos are in another price class.

[Alan White]

Having now test driven the new to me Nagler 11mm t6 (I bought it a couple of weeks ago),  I can see why you are so enthused Ed.
I used it on my f5 150mm Nwtonian last night and I fell into the image presented.
What a slippery slope this might become.

The t1 is clearly a nice EP also, so lots of options available.

[NGC 1502]

 

Hi Alan. I do like physically small EPs, and the 11T6 is a little charmer with a big punch !

But your wallet will be cringing as to where this may lead...........?

BTW, I mostly use my 10” Dob at the club or outreach, that’s partly because some of our newer members and the public will see a brighter view, much easier to spot the fainter stuff. At home I often will use either of my 6” Dobs, an F6 and F3.8. because they are so handy with zero hassle. Your F5 is a good compromise between the two I have.

TTFN, Ed.