Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_supernovae_remnants.thumb.jpg.0a6deb4bf0886533629e2bdc08293bc9.jpg

Olli

How good are ES 82 series Eyepieces?

Recommended Posts

On 06/11/2018 at 15:40, Ruud said:

ES 82s are very good optically.

For the 11mm, my eyelashes are too long. I suppose
because the eye relief is measured from the glass, but the
eye lens lies rather deep. My eyelashes brush the rubber if 
I want to see the full 82°.
A minor issue was that the field stop of the 11mm is not well
defined. I returned the eyepiece and went for a Delos 12mm.

ES11.png.adbb88ba802161330337a1827a8feee7.pngES 82°  11mm

Skywatcher Nirvana are also very good optically but only
available in 4, 7, 16 and 28mm. The 4, 7 and 16mm come
in a 1.25" barrel and have good ergonomics. The  28mm
is impossibly big. The newer models have a fold down
eye cup, which I have not tried, but the classic model with
twist up eye cup is still around.
SW16-Classic.png.fdbea86a35e36badf6c05af92f79cc83.pngSW Nirvana 82°

The Nirvana is also sold as William Optics UWAN,
TS Optics UWAN and more.

I used to have a 28mm Nirvana, I really liked it and got on well with it. I only changed it because I could for a Nagler as in my signature.

Edited by bomberbaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

I sed to have a 28mm Nirvana, I really liked it and got on well with it. I only changed it because I could for a Nagler as in my signature.

Aside from the slightly wider field, how did the Nagler compare to the Nirvana in tightness of stars center and edge?  Do both have the "ring of fire" at the edge where bright objects split into multiple colors?  My 30mm ES-82 mushroom top has somewhat bloated stars in the center compared to just about any other 30mm eyepiece including my 80 degree Widescan III clone.  It is very well corrected for astigmatism and field curvature to the edge, but it has difficulty focusing all the colors into one spot, so bright objects show up as distinct red and blue projections separated by a degree or two in the last 10% of the field.  If I only look in the center, it isn't all the perceivable in my peripheral vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, johninderby said:

Wonder what the Explore Scientific 2", 9mm, 120°  eyepiece is like?  🤔

Or how about the first 10 samples of this eyepiece which lacked a field stop and provide a 140 degree AFOV?  By all accounts on CN, it's very impressive if a bit soft and indistinct by the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nirvana was used when I had a coma corrector and was tight across the full field, ota is a F4.7 dob. As far as I remember I don't recall any issues other than even with the CC it got a little ragetty at the very edges but it wasn't a huge problem and certainly given the price is a third of the nagler definitely value for the money paid. 

The nagler is a beauty, I wouldn't sell this for anything. It is my main finder and wide field viewing EP. Its as sharp without a CC as the Nirvana was with one.

If your on a budget and after a good widefield EP then it should be on your shortlist.

Now if you are looking for a very low cost but good eyepiece at 22mm, the Skywatcher 22 SWA eyepiece is superb. Indeed I once compared it to a 16mm Nagler and it beat it in clarity and tightness of the stars. http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_accessories-eyepieces/skywatcher_swa-70_2in_eyepieces.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, johninderby said:

If only it wasn’t such an expensive eyepiece.

Not going to be spending £892.00 on an eyepiece anytime soon.  😯

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/explore-scientific-eyepieces/explore-scientific-120-degree-2-inch-9mm-eyepiece.html

If someone is in the US, they could pick up this factory refurbished, customer returned 9mm ES-120 for $499.95 which is less than half the cost quoted in the UK for new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

Now if you are looking for a very low cost but good eyepiece at 22mm, the Skywatcher 22 SWA eyepiece is superb. Indeed I once compared it to a 16mm Nagler and it beat it in clarity and tightness of the stars. http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_accessories-eyepieces/skywatcher_swa-70_2in_eyepieces.html

Indeed.  I have the AstroTech AF70 version and it lives in my A-team eyepiece case alongside my Meade 5000 SWA, ES-92s, Delos, and XW/XL eyepieces.  It handily outperforms my recently acquired 24mm APM UFF which I'm still developing opinions about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

The nagler is a beauty, I wouldn't sell this for anything. It is my main finder and wide field viewing EP. Its as sharp without a CC as the Nirvana was with one.

I'll have to pick one up someday to add to my 30mm comparo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2018 at 13:13, Olli said:

What do people think about the Baader Hyperion 68 ° eyepieces? 

I agree with Louis D, the Baader Hyperions do not perform well in fast scopes and all three that I have owned I have now sold on.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone who has posted in this thread. I think I’m going to bite the bullet and order the 82 Es eyepieces hopefully next week.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two eyepieces have just arrived I ordered a 24mm 68 and a 6.7mm 82 ES ordered as a birthday present to my self.My collection is starting to grow. Thanks for all the help 😀

 

 

 

Edited by Olli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Olli said:

a birthday present to my self

Happy Birthday @Olli!! 🎂:hello2:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful, Olli.

I was using the 24mm 68° myself tonight (Maxvision version, same optics) for the first time in maybe half a year and it struck me how eye pleasing this eyepiece really is. You'll love yours! Happy observing! Don't forget to let us know your first impressions of the new eyepieces.

Have a great birthday!
post-38669-0-81687700-1415657013.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎06‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 15:40, Ruud said:

ES 82s are very good optically.

For the 11mm, my eyelashes are too long. I suppose
because the eye relief is measured from the glass, but the
eye lens lies rather deep. My eyelashes brush the rubber if 
I want to see the full 82°.
A minor issue was that the field stop of the 11mm is not well
defined. I returned the eyepiece and went for a Delos 12mm.

ES11.png.adbb88ba802161330337a1827a8feee7.pngES 82°  11mm

 

Interesting what you say about the 11mm ES 82 deg, I have the 14, 11, 8.8, 6.7, and 4.7mm in the 1.25 in range, and the 24 mm in 2in, and fairly pleased with them, but the design of the 11mm appears to be slightly different from the other 1.25 in eyepieces, in so much as although all the others are approximatley parfocal, the 11 mm focuses about 4mm further out, and to reach focus I have to insert it not fully in to my focusing mount, or use an extension tube.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnturley said:

Interesting what you say about the 11mm ES 82 deg, I have the 14, 11, 8.8, 6.7, and 4.7mm in the 1.25 in range, and the 24 mm in 2in, and fairly pleased with them, but the design of the 11mm appears to be slightly different from the other 1.25 in eyepieces, in so much as although all the others are approximatley parfocal, the 11 mm focuses about 4mm further out, and to reach focus I have to insert it not fully in to my focusing mount, or use an extension tube.

John

Try putting some O-rings around it to parfocalize it.  I had to do that with my 12mm Nagler T4 because it focuses about 20mm further out than most of my other eyepieces.  I also had to add a 2" extension to the 2" skirt to leave enough barrel to secure in the focuser.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Try putting some O-rings around it to parfocalize it.  I had to do that with my 12mm Nagler T4 because it focuses about 20mm further out than most of my other eyepieces.  I also had to add a 2" extension to the 2" skirt to leave enough barrel to secure in the focuser.

Hi Louis

Thanks for the tip, do you know where some suitable ones are available from.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, johnturley said:

Hi Louis

Thanks for the tip, do you know where some suitable ones are available from.

John

I searched on ebay for mine and settled on the following for 2" barrels: 10Pcs 58mm x 50mm x 4mm Mechanical Rubber O Ring Oil Seal Gaskets

They're also available through Amazon and aliexpress.  For 1.25" barrels, I'd probably search for 36mm outer diameter 1.9mm or 2.4mm thick rings or possibly the 35mm OD 1.5mm or 1.9mm thick rings or if you need exactly 4mm, the 40mm OD 4mm thick rings.  Most are sized by the outer diameter unless it specifically says inner diameter, so double the thickness and subtract it from the OD to figure out the ID which should be about 1.25" or 31.75mm.  O-rings stretch a bit, so they can be 1mm or so undersized without too many issues.  Thinner rings give you more flexibility to tune the parfocal distance more exactly.  Fatter rings sit more squarely on the focuser top.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Louis D said:

I searched on ebay for mine and settled on the following for 2" barrels: 10Pcs 58mm x 50mm x 4mm Mechanical Rubber O Ring Oil Seal Gaskets

They're also available through Amazon and aliexpress.  For 1.25" barrels, I'd probably search for 36mm outer diameter 1.9mm or 2.4mm thick rings or possibly the 35mm OD 1.5mm or 1.9mm thick rings or if you need exactly 4mm, the 40mm OD 4mm thick rings.  Most are sized by the outer diameter unless it specifically says inner diameter, so double the thickness and subtract it from the OD to figure out the ID which should be about 1.25" or 31.75mm.  O-rings stretch a bit, so they can be 1mm or so undersized without too many issues.  Thinner rings give you more flexibility to tune the parfocal distance more exactly.  Fatter rings sit more squarely on the focuser top.

 

Hi again Louis

Thanks for the information, I will look into it.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.