Pentax XW 3.5mm v Tak TOE 4mm v Vixen SLV 4mm

[IB20]

So I think this is next mm range upgrade I’d like to address. I’m really loving the Pentax range at 10, 7 & 5, and wondering if the 3.5mm is as good?

Also like the sound of the TOEs but can’t find any shoot outs or reports between the two.

Another option is the cheaper SLVs, which I’ve read positive things about. It’s likely that this length EP doesn’t see lots of use and so cheaper might make more sense. I seem to have developed a taste for high end equipment though 😅.

The scope I plan to use it in is 570mm f7.5 so not silly mags and manageable exit pupil.

Any thoughts, comments etc would be gratefully received.

[MalcolmM]

I've never used a Pentax but I had both the 4mm TOE and 4mm SLV for a while and could compare them side by side with a Tak FC100DC. I do have Takitis but I preferred looking through the TOE. I got rid of the SLV shortly after. I'm afraid I could not quantify the difference, I just found it easier to use and a better view. I've also compared side by side the TOE and the much admired Nagler 3-6 zoom. Again I prefer using the TOE, though I'll not be getting rid of the Nagler!

In both cases I find the TOE easier to look through and a better more pleasing image, just don't ask me why Though from reading lots of stuff on this site, it seems eyepiece choice is a very individual thing!

Malcolm

[IB20]

38 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

I've never used a Pentax but I had both the 4mm TOE and 4mm SLV for a while and could compare them side by side with a Tak FC100DC. I do have Takitis but I preferred looking through the TOE. I got rid of the SLV shortly after. I'm afraid I could not quantify the difference, I just found it easier to use and a better view. I've also compared side by side the TOE and the much admired Nagler 3-6 zoom. Again I prefer using the TOE, though I'll not be getting rid of the Nagler!

In both cases I find the TOE easier to look through and a better more pleasing image, just don't ask me why Though from reading lots of stuff on this site, it seems eyepiece choice is a very individual thing!

Malcolm

Excellent. Thanks Malcolm. I must admit, I have a 76DC so I feel a TOE would be a perfect match. Nice and light and no undercuts, just how we like it.

[JeremyS]

17 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Excellent. Thanks Malcolm. I must admit, I have a 76DC so I feel a TOE would be a perfect match. Nice and light and no undercuts, just how we like it.

You are speaking my language 😊👍🏻

[Stu]

1 hour ago, MalcolmM said:

I've never used a Pentax but I had both the 4mm TOE and 4mm SLV for a while and could compare them side by side with a Tak FC100DC. I do have Takitis but I preferred looking through the TOE. I got rid of the SLV shortly after. I'm afraid I could not quantify the difference, I just found it easier to use and a better view. I've also compared side by side the TOE and the much admired Nagler 3-6 zoom. Again I prefer using the TOE, though I'll not be getting rid of the Nagler!

In both cases I find the TOE easier to look through and a better more pleasing image, just don't ask me why Though from reading lots of stuff on this site, it seems eyepiece choice is a very individual thing!

Malcolm

I do agree that the TOE and Vixen HRs are a smidge ahead of the Nagler Zoom. Hard to quantify but I do see a difference. The zoom is obviously more flexible and if you want to travel light is ideal.

I haven’t compared the XW 3.5 with the HR 3.4mm, will give that a go sometime when the weather and seeing cooperate.

[F15Rules]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

You are speaking my language 😊👍🏻

Turning Japanese? - I really think so!!🎌

Dave-San

PS..Takahashi is a very common surname in Japan...the third most common in fact😊

Edited April 2, 2022 by F15Rules
Additional text info

[IB20]

45 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Turning Japanese? - I really think so!!🎌

Dave-San

PS..Takahashi is a very common surname in Japan...the third most common in fact😊

I do find it strange that Takahashi use katakana for their logo which is a more western friendly alphabet than hiragana. Like that will sell it to us more?! タカハシ vs たかはし… I’m sold!

[F15Rules]

12 hours ago, IB20 said:

I do find it strange that Takahashi use katakana for their logo which is a more western friendly alphabet than hiragana. Like that will sell it to us more?! タカハシ vs たかはし… I’m sold!

Where Taks are concerned, I just prefer the term Nirvana...

Dave

[Mr Spock]

I like my Vixen. I had the 4mm NLV a while ago but sold it when I moved from a 250mm f4.8 to a C9.25 where it was of no use. Now I have a 102mm f7.5 and 300mm f5, I have a SLV 4mm. Very nice, orthoscopic like views, with good eye relief. 

[IB20]

Haven’t thought too much about the Nagler 3-6mm zoom, it would tick all the boxes mind.

I find that I always reach for a fixed length EP over the zoom EP I have now. For travel I think a zoom makes perfect sense.

Can’t stop my brain telling me tick Tak TOE though!

[Roy Challen]

On 02/04/2022 at 17:49, IB20 said:

Excellent. Thanks Malcolm. I must admit, I have a 76DC so I feel a TOE would be a perfect match. Nice and light and no undercuts, just how we like it.

SLVs are also undercut free☺️

[Pixies]

On 04/04/2022 at 20:29, Roy Challen said:

SLVs are also undercut free

I was about to say that

[Louis D]

On 04/04/2022 at 14:29, Roy Challen said:

SLVs are also undercut free☺️

Interesting.  Their LV and NLV predecessors both had undercuts.  I guess when they moved production to China, they also removed the undercuts.

[Deadlake]

On 02/04/2022 at 18:33, Stu said:

I do agree that the TOE and Vixen HRs are a smidge ahead of the Nagler Zoom. Hard to quantify but I do see a difference. The zoom is obviously more flexible and if you want to travel light is ideal.

I haven’t compared the XW 3.5 with the HR 3.4mm, will give that a go sometime when the weather and seeing cooperate.

I thinking the TOE is a little smoother in it's image where the Vixen shows every detail. Both are excellent just more about person preference of presentation of the image.

How are you getting with the TOE 2.5 mm? Is it worth having?

The HR 3.4 mm and TOE 4 mm are keepers, maybe I should try the TOE 3.3 mm first.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Deadlake

[MalcolmM]

23 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

maybe I should try the TOE 3.3 mm first

I took the head staggers a while ago and got all the TOE's. I find the 2.5 and 3.3 just as easy to use as the 4 and the image just as good too so I would definitely recommend all of them 

That being said, the only direct comparison I have made was the TOE 4 with the SLV 4 (and the Nagler zoom with each TOE). In every case I preferred the TOE.

If your HR3.4 is a keeper though you would definitely want to do a comparison before shelling out on a TOE 3.3

My 2.5 TOE gets most use in my FS60CB where the scope can easily take the power (and more) but I don't have a barlow to multiply up other eyepieces to that power.

Malcolm 

[IB20]

In the 76DCU, the 4mm TOE would give me 143x and 0.53mm exit pupil, whereas the Pentax XW would give me 163x and 0.47mm. The TOE 3.3mm resulting in 173x & 0.44mm.

I wonder if the 4mm TOE is actually better for higher mags? My 8” dob would reach 300x which is probably a bit too much! The Starbase 80 would be 200x but I don’t think it’d handle that mag very well.

The jump from 5mm to 4mm EP is 114x v 143x, which is 25% and the 5mm to 3.5mm is closer to the magic 40% difference but when seeing will no doubt play a part, perhaps having smaller increments is better?

I had a look at the Sun with the 3.2mm BST and was actually surprised with what I saw, floaters didn’t seem to have too much impact and although a bit softer, I could still see plenty of detail. (If anyone wants a more budget option, I can’t recommend the 5 & 3.2mm BSTs enough, theyre really capable EPs).

I must also say I absolutely adore the Pentax XWs 5, 7 & 10 and I’m really gravitating towards the 3.5XW because they are so comfortable and easy to use.

 

[Highburymark]

In my refractors, I can see the difference between XW5/Delite 4 and 3, and TOE 4/3.3/2.5 every time I compare them. Unless you need the width of the Pentaxes and Televues, I don’t think anything beats the TOEs for comfortable, high powered lunar and planetary viewing. Rather than break down the technical differences between these eyepieces, I just see more with the TOEs- more detail in Jupiter’s belts, smaller craterlets on the Moon, greater definition in the Cassini gap on Saturn. Martin’s description “smoother” is spot on. I also had a Nagler zoom in the past and loved it, but would rate the Takahashis as slightly sharper. I’m constantly amazed at how well the 3.3 and 2.5 soak up magnification. Ordinarily I would rarely go above 225x on the planets, and yet have had Jupiter and Saturn at 360x in the TSA-120 with barely any degradation in views - obviously in excellent seeing. Haven’t compared them with any Vixens or XW3.5 though. And otherwise I have no particular love for Takahashi eyepieces - the orthos I tried had to be sent back because they had debris on the field lens. 

[IB20]

3 hours ago, Highburymark said:

In my refractors, I can see the difference between XW5/Delite 4 and 3, and TOE 4/3.3/2.5 every time I compare them. Unless you need the width of the Pentaxes and Televues, I don’t think anything beats the TOEs for comfortable, high powered lunar and planetary viewing. Rather than break down the technical differences between these eyepieces, I just see more with the TOEs- more detail in Jupiter’s belts, smaller craterlets on the Moon, greater definition in the Cassini gap on Saturn. Martin’s description “smoother” is spot on. I also had a Nagler zoom in the past and loved it, but would rate the Takahashis as slightly sharper. I’m constantly amazed at how well the 3.3 and 2.5 soak up magnification. Ordinarily I would rarely go above 225x on the planets, and yet have had Jupiter and Saturn at 360x in the TSA-120 with barely any degradation in views - obviously in excellent seeing. Haven’t compared them with any Vixens or XW3.5 though. And otherwise I have no particular love for Takahashi eyepieces - the orthos I tried had to be sent back because they had debris on the field lens. 

See, it would be predominantly for planetary use. That’s my main Interest. I’m now thinking TOE again… Do you think TOE 3.3 or 4 for this season’s Mars and Jupiter viewing for a 570mm scope?

Edited April 23, 2022 by IB20

[JeremyS]

Just seen on a US forum a post saying the person had been told by the US Tak importer today that no more TOEs are to be made. Not sure if true, but would be a pity if the TOEs went the way of Vixen HRs….

So maybe the 3.3 and the 4, @IB20? 😉

[IB20]

Right I’m getting both. 😅 Just in what order?

[JeremyS]

If it were me, and given you already have 5mm  XW, the next “step” up would be the TOE 4.

I got an HR3.4 to use with my Tak FC 76DCU for the 2018 perihelic opposition of Mars. It often worked well, but there were times when 4 mm might have been more useful given the conditions (I also have a TV NZ 3-6 which is useful for tuning into the max mag supported by the conditions).

[Deadlake]

Anyone compared a TOE 3.3 to HR 3.6 mm?

[JeremyS]

6 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Anyone compared a TOE 3.3 to HR 3.6 mm?

The Vixen HR was 3.4 mm, Martin.

No I haven’t. 

[Highburymark]

4 hours ago, IB20 said:

See, it would be predominantly for planetary use. That’s my main Interest. I’m now thinking TOE again… Do you think TOE 3.3 or 4 for this season’s Mars and Jupiter viewing for a 570mm scope?

The 3.3mm would be superb in the 76mm. 170x-ish - perfect for planets. These eyepieces are made for high power - where other eyepieces might start to struggle. Also, the 3.3 is a peach. 

[Highburymark]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Just seen on a US forum a post saying the person had been told by the US Tak importer today that no more TOEs are to be made. Not sure if true, but would be a pity if the TOEs went the way of Vixen HRs….

So maybe the 3.3 and the 4, @IB20? 😉

I’d heard they were just shutting down production for a while as a result of supply difficulties Jeremy, but this was a few weeks ago. Hope this latest report isn’t true.