Zoom , Just one look and then my heart went BOOM!

[Neil H]

That's what I thought it was thanks John 

[johninderby]

4 minutes ago, Neil H said:

That's what I thought it was thanks John 

Can you imagine the eyestrain, headaches etc. caused by using binoviewers  with zooms set at different focal lengths. 😵‍

Edited February 16, 2022 by johninderby

[Neil H]

That would be bad , John I will PM you so not to take over thread

[catburglar]

I’ve used a TV 8-24 zoom and the one original version of the Nirvana’s in 4, 7 & 16mm FL. Other than the FoV there wasn’t much to choose in terms of image quality or viewing comfort.

The zoom was very convenient- much more so than the fixed FL eyepieces. In a tracking scope I didn’t miss the FoV and sold the Nirvana’s. I now rarely use the zoom however- preferring the Baader and Fujiyama orthoscopics for critical lunar and double star observing.

[banjaxed]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

 

Not had any blackout problems with my 16mm Nirvana.

Neither have I, and I love the 7mm also.

[Pixies]

12 minutes ago, banjaxed said:

Neither have I, and I love the 7mm also.

I had heard so much love for them that I was really disappointed when  I first used it. I got advice here on using wide-field EPs but could never really get on with it.

I thought it might have just been me and 82° EPs, but then I tried the ES ones and they were fine. Sold the Nirvana on to a good home.

Everyone and their eyes are different. 

[Stu1smartcookie]

2 minutes ago, Pixies said:

I had heard so much love for them that I was really disappointed when  I first used it. I got advice here on using wide-field EPs but could never really get on with it.

I thought it might have just been me and 82° EPs, but then I tried the ES ones and they were fine. Sold the Nirvana on to a good home.

Everyone and their eyes are different. 

The ES eyepieces were also on my list 

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

So you can set both zooms to exactly the same setting. Without the clickstops would be hard to have both zooms set the same or you would have to fiddle around to try and get them the same.

Sorry to hear you didn't get on with non-click stop zooms in a binoviewer.  I've had no problems.  I just roughly zoom the two eyepieces until I reach the desired magnification in my dominant eye.  I then zoom the other eyepiece back and forth a bit until the image scales and field stops merge.  It usually takes less than second.  It's much easier to tell when best magnification matching has been achieved than when best focus in monovision has been achieved.  The two images just snap together all of a sudden.  I've never experienced eye strain using them.

[PeterC65]

I started out with the Baader Zoom as my only eyepiece but now have five Explore Scientific eyepieces which I prefer and use much more often.

I bought the ES 68° 24mm first as the Baader Zoom field of view is only about 44° at 24mm. The ES 68° 24mm was a bit of a revelation, not just because of the wider field of view but because the image was sharper and the eyepiece itself was more comfortable to use. After that I started wondering about the ES 82° range and then things just snowballed. Other that the ES 52°, I find all of the ES eyepieces very comfortable to use, and they are bomb proof. The ES 52° looks the same as the others but it is quite fiddly to get the eye position right.

I still use the Baader Zoom, but mainly for initial GOTO alignment when I want to quickly change magnification.

[Stu1smartcookie]

3 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I started out with the Baader Zoom as my only eyepiece but now have five Explore Scientific eyepieces which I prefer and use much more often.

I like the look of the ES range but the prices literally scare me lol ... thats why the nirvana Eps look tempting .. still not sure though . 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

I have the Nirvana 7mm -16mm and see no reason to change them. I did sell on the 4mm due to floaters. The Vixen 4mm SLV is nowhere near as bad for floaters and all round just better except for the narrower fov.

The OVL Hyperflex zoom I just failed to get in with, although the person who bought it from me seems happy with it.

 

[Stu1smartcookie]

10 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

I have the Nirvana 7mm -16mm and see no reason to change them. I did sell on the 4mm due to floaters. The Vixen 4mm SLV is nowhere near as bad for floaters and all round just better except for the narrower fov.

I think , i would go for those two if i went down the Nirvana route , did you use a barlow with these EPs ? If so how were the views ?

[johninderby]

I have the 7 and 16 Nirvanas. Just sold my ES4.7 and will be replacing it with a 4mm Nirvana. Just prefer the Nirvanas. Find them easier to look through.

Edited February 17, 2022 by johninderby

[Stu1smartcookie]

Seems to be a few conflicting reports of Nirvanas , to be expected , but they do seem to get a good press .

[johninderby]

Differences in eyesight probably explains it. 🤔

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

39 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I think , i would go for those two if i went down the Nirvana route , did you use a barlow with these EPs ? If so how were the views ?

On occasion I have used the 7mm with a GSO 2.5x ED barlow with the refractor on the moon at 255x for fun and it was surprisingly OK...

However owning decent 4-9mm eps I've not bothered trying to barlow the 16mm. It's purely for widefield and a good job it does too. For instance when teamed with the 4" refractor, the Perseus Double Cluster is framed very nicely with very little distortion toward the edge of field.

 

Edit: I meant to add one caveat for the Nirvanas - they seem to be the worst eyepieces in my collection for fogging up easily.

Edited February 17, 2022 by ScouseSpaceCadet

[scitmon]

Doesn't the telescope you are using them on come into the equation too?  As I understand it, with long focal length telescopes such as my Skymax 180, spending extra £'s on higher quality EPs is not really worth it?

[Saganite]

13 minutes ago, scitmon said:

Doesn't the telescope you are using them on come into the equation too?  As I understand it, with long focal length telescopes such as my Skymax 180, spending extra £'s on higher quality EPs is not really worth it?

Yes it does and you can generally get away with inexpensive eyepieces for very slow telescopes, but if you have a number of scopes as a lot of people do and my scopes range from f5.3 to f15, you tend towards the better corrected and thus more expensive eyepieces.  That is my experience.

[Louis D]

22 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Beware of relatively low eye relief with the Nirvanas (12mm). Worries some people more than others.

FYI: Hyperflex Zoom FOV 60-40° . 15mm eye relief.

I bought a generic version (Wollensak) of the Hyperflex 7.2mm-21.5mm from Surplus Shed, and I measured the usable eye relief to be around 10mm.  Just look at the tiny eye lens (16mm diameter) and how much it's recessed (it's the third eyepiece from the left), and you'll understand why.  The Celestron Regal 8-24mm zoom is second from the right.  I unscrew the entire eye guard to use it with eyeglasses (15mm of usable eye relief with its 26mm diameter eye lens).  There's really no way to use the Wollensak with eyeglasses except to see the central portion of the view.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Louis D

[PeterC65]

2 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I like the look of the ES range but the prices literally scare me lol ... thats why the nirvana Eps look tempting .. still not sure though . 

ES eyepieces are expensive but much less expensive than Televue or Pentax. I think of them as mid priced. I considered the Nirvana's but there are only a few of them whereas you can get anything you are ever likely to need from ES.

[PeterC65]

1 hour ago, scitmon said:

Doesn't the telescope you are using them on come into the equation too?  As I understand it, with long focal length telescopes such as my Skymax 180, spending extra £'s on higher quality EPs is not really worth it?

It depends whether in time you might change your scope or buy another.

Initially I just had a Skymax 127 and so with the long focal length I thought I'd be fine with lower spec eyepieces. But now I also have a short focal length refractor and am glad I went for a higher spec.