Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Vixen HR 2.4mm Versus Nagler 3-6mm Zoom


Pig

Recommended Posts

I booked a couple of days holiday based on what seemed an excellent forecast and all turned out pretty good so I have been visiting the local dark site for the past 2 nights, the Milky Way was clearly visible last night and thus I got the best results.

I was using the TAK DF 100  (f7.4) to try and keep it as close to the recommendation for these 2 eyepieces. I used 3 targets, 2 doubles 57 Cancer and the ever reliable Izar, and of course the Lunar surface.

As we already know both of these eyepieces are excellent and split double stars without too much trouble .....as expected.However, the Vixen was the clear winner, even with its higher mag the clarity of the secondary star in Izar was a perfect circle showing that lovely blue colour, the same pattern continued with 57 cancer with both stars clearly separated and with the HR besting the view again. I have always liked the NZ as it is a great performer but the HR did best it tonight.

The lunar surface was also fantastic and I was stunned by just how good the HR performed, the craters and general detail were awesome. What was also very surprising was the brightness of the view, the size of the exit pupil did not seem to affect it at all. I would recommend anyone with a shortish refractor at least try this HR eyepiece as you may be very pleasantly surprised ? I will do a similar comparison when the 4mm TOE arrives.

I also had a friend with me that wanted to do some imaging for the first time so we spent quite a bit of time over the 2 nights messing about but we did end up with some nice lunar shots. Hanging a camera off the back of the TAK DF was a fairly painless experience with just a tad of messing around to achieve focus. ? The DF seems to be quite a versatile scope when all is said and done.

If the forecast stays as it is predicted I will be off again tonight for another all-nighter ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Good report Shaun, ultimately not surprising as a result I guess. I think my BGOs give a smidge more sharpness over the Nag, and the HR is a step ahead again from what I read.

The 3.4 should be excellent too, a really useful mag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However Shaun - isn't the comparison a bit unfair? The Nagler is a zoom eyepiece which has its own advantages. You wouldn’t necessarily expect it to outperform a good quality single focal length eyepiece, although you wouldn’t want to pay the price of flexibility with a noticeable loss of quality either. 

It’s like a camera zoom lens - great for the flexibility it gives but if you wanted top notch performance at a given focal length you’d get a prime lens. Apologies if I’m stating the obvious ? Good to see that you’re having some good nights anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Considering the Nag Zoom seems to of been a bit of a game changer over the last few years, then this is praise indeed for the HR. From what I have read the NZ has gone up against some high quality fixed focal lengh eyepieces in the optics department ,and certainty held its own. The excuse that its a "zoom" seems to of been thrown out of the window with the likes of the NZ and Leica. Therefore with the HR it seems to be introducing a far higher quality optics in short focal eyepieces, and getting into the  realms of the legendary ZAO territory. But the HR is readily available and cheaper than the ZAO.

I see Shaun you have bit the bullet and gone for a 4mm TOE. This will be interesting, as not much user views around to make a strong assessment on these. So a head to head with the HR ,even at different focal length with be interesting. But also with the NZ available to test against at the same focal length. You may be seen as the Guinea" pig "on SGL for the TOE.?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jetstream said:

Great report Shaun and I second your findings- the 3-6 NZ is good, the 2.4mm HR2 superb. I am extremely interested in the 4mm TOE vs the 2.4mm HR2. When is it coming?

Thanks Gerry,  The 4mm TOE should be here within the next week so if it is anything like the HR then all should be good for a quick summary. I had another session last night and managed to split E1338 which is 1.1 arc seconds, so not bad at all, I will keep looking for more tight doubles as testers. The Lunar views are spectacular and even on the white surface extra detail is apparent that I haven’t noticed before ✨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Good report Shaun, ultimately not surprising as a result I guess. I think my BGOs give a smidge more sharpness over the Nag, and the HR is a step ahead again from what I read.

The 3.4 should be excellent too, a really useful mag.

Cheers Stu pretty good all in all, and yes if the 3.4mm was available I think I would have definitely bought one by now ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kerrylewis said:

However Shaun - isn't the comparison a bit unfair? The Nagler is a zoom eyepiece which has its own advantages. You wouldn’t necessarily expect it to outperform a good quality single focal length eyepiece, although you wouldn’t want to pay the price of flexibility with a noticeable loss of quality either. 

It’s like a camera zoom lens - great for the flexibility it gives but if you wanted top notch performance at a given focal length you’d get a prime lens. Apologies if I’m stating the obvious ? Good to see that you’re having some good nights anyway 

Indeed Kerry. The views through the NZ are fantastic and mine will not be going anywhere ? it’s just that if you are inclined to want go that extra mile visually the HR will more than perform and will not disappoint. My post  is not about which is the best eyepiece, it is just to say how the 2 compare visually at high power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

Considering the Nag Zoom seems to of been a bit of a game changer over the last few years, then this is praise indeed for the HR. From what I have read the NZ has gone up against some high quality fixed focal lengh eyepieces in the optics department ,and certainty held its own. The excuse that its a "zoom" seems to of been thrown out of the window with the likes of the NZ and Leica. Therefore with the HR it seems to be introducing a far higher quality optics in short focal eyepieces, and getting into the  realms of the legendary ZAO territory. But the HR is readily available and cheaper than the ZAO.

I see Shaun you have bit the bullet and gone for a 4mm TOE. This will be interesting, as not much user views around to make a strong assessment on these. So a head to head with the HR ,even at different focal length with be interesting. But also with the NZ available to test against at the same focal length. You may be seen as the Guinea" pig "on SGL for the TOE.?

Yes Simon the NZ gives fantastic views and is also very versatile, there is nothing not to like about it at all. But the HR is a step up... and seeing is believing. Reviews on the TOE are pretty limited to say the least and I have only seen one tangible review so far that puts it up there with the HR.... I don’t mind taking the risk and adding an extra Guinea to my name ? I am sure it will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pig said:

Cheers Stu pretty good all in all, and yes if the 3.4mm was available I think I would have definitely bought one by now ?

 

I may be wrong, but isn't the 3.4 HR available? I thought I had seen it listed on the FLO web site last time I looked. Or is there a long delay in shipping?

The HR really do seem to be a game changer in high power viewing through quality scopes. So at some point would love to try one in the 120ed. And a 3.4 HR v my Pentax 3.5XW would certainty be a eye opening comparison. But if a HR is so much better , then this could be an expensive exercise. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 4mm TOE. Great kit your building up Shaun?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

I may be wrong, but isn't the 3.4 HR available? I thought I had seen it listed on the FLO web site last time I looked. Or is there a long delay in shipping?

The HR really do seem to be a game changer in high power viewing through quality scopes. So at some point would love to try one in the 120ed. And a 3.4 HR v my Pentax 3.5XW would certainty be a eye opening comparison. But if a HR is so much better , then this could be an expensive exercise. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 4mm TOE. Great kit your building up Shaun?

 Simon the 3.4mm will be around June time before it hits the shelves I believe. Most sites show it on back order that I have seen ?I think  the XW is very different eyepiece even if it is of very similar power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pig said:

Indeed Kerry. The views through the NZ are fantastic and mine will not be going anywhere ? it’s just that if you are inclined to want go that extra mile visually the HR will more than perform and will not disappoint. My review is not about which is the best eyepiece, it is just to say how the 2 compare visually at high power.

Fair enough. However I’m gonna have to stop reading your reviews because they just make me want more eyepieces which I don’t need. Do I.........? :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerrylewis said:

Fair enough. However I’m gonna have to stop reading your reviews because they just make me want more eyepieces which I don’t need. Do I.........? :icon_biggrin:

I am afraid you may not need them but you will probably end up wanting one ? especially so with the DL in your armoury ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

Takahashi also do a 4mm Abbe Orthoscopic ep, which is £159, more affordable. 

A fair portion of all eyepices are a lot cheaper ? is the ortho the same eyepiece? ...... nope ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great first review Shaun! 

I know what you mean about a still bright image despite the short exit pupil. I was also very surprised when I compared that 2.4mm against the 5mm SLV and the views showed nearly comparable brightness. It seems a no sense argument, unless most of the "good" eyepieces out there actually have less light transmission we believe, I'd say. 

Vixen should seriously invest some effort at making a 5mm, 6mm, and 7mm HR, instead of spending (or wasting) time and resources making a 100mm in 1.25" format! :D 

 

7 hours ago, kerrylewis said:

However Shaun - isn't the comparison a bit unfair? The Nagler is a zoom eyepiece which has its own advantages. You wouldn’t necessarily expect it to outperform a good quality single focal length eyepiece, although you wouldn’t want to pay the price of flexibility with a noticeable loss of quality either. 

Many very good eyepieces (e.g. most TV, Pentax XW, etc) include a barlow inside and zoom eyepieces essentially have an adjustable barlow. So, whilst it is true that the 5:3 optical scheme in the HR is simpler and this can be one factor for a higher transmission, the fact that it is a single focal length eyepiece should not matter. Additionally, the Nikon MC zoom I have gives just slightly better performance than Vixen SLV or TV Delos; the Zeiss zoom 25.1-6.7mm clearly outperforms them on axis instead.

It would be great if Vixen made a Vixen HR Zoom 8-2mm eyepiece, same HR specs, except that 5:3 scheme is adjustable. If this is possible, I believe it would be welcome by many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piero said:

Vixen should seriously invest some effort at making a 5mm, 6mm, and 7mm HR, instead of spending (or wasting) time and resources making a 100mm in 1.25" format! :D

Spot on Piero! I hope they are listening at Vixen! :happy7:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pig said:

You have sold the conception of a 2-8mm HR zoom to me Piero ..... now all you have to do is convince Vixen ? let me know if you want some support ?

I'd be happy if they sent me one for testing! LOL! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.