Televue Nagler 3 - 6 mm zoom eyepiece owners.

[Grump Martian]

I am fascinated by this eyepiece. I don't usually like the normal zoom eyepieces 6 - 21 mm etc.

What do owners of the Nagler 3 - 6 mm zoom feel. Does it perform in such a way that you don't need several individual high power eyepieces. Or do you pocess individual eyepieces aswell as the Nagler zoom.

[Peter Drew]

I've had one for several years and like it.  It seems to give similar views to other single TV plossls.  I use it mainly for collimating telescopes as most of my telescopes are too long focus for the high power even the 6mm setting would produce for average visual use    🙂

Edited March 27, 2023 by Peter Drew

[rl]

It's been around a long time and maybe underrated a bit compared to newer offerings. 

I love mine; it covers a lot of bases magnification-wise and is nearly parfocal over the whole adjustment range. Eye relief could be a little bit better; DeLites do have an advantage here (yes, I've got a couple of those as well). To my eyes the contrast holds up with the best of the competition; I have a Vixen 3.4mm which is supposedly better in this regard but to be honest I can't see much difference in terms of contrast or scattered light. It sees more action than the Vixen or any other of my sub-5mm eyepieces just because it is light, works on virtually any scope and takes up so little space. I'm actually thinking of selling the Vixen because it does not really add anything over the TV zoom.

I've got the 3.7 and 4.7 ethoses. The views have about the same contrast and obviously much more field, but they are too bulky for small scopes and don't fit in the pocket so easily. Their very expense renders them less useful just because of the extra care taken in handling!

The ability to tune the magnification to the seeing is genuinely useful, and it works just fine between the click stop positions. 

It is expensive for what it is, but it is TV so quel surprise....

[JeremyS]

Great eyepieces. I use for two purposes mainly:

1. Lightweight/ travelling. Nice and compact, replacing several EPs

2. At home, to “dial in” best high power mag for object + conditions, before switching to a standard EP of appropriate FL

[HollyHound]

Same here... I have other eyepieces in those focal lengths (Pentax XWs), but the Nagler 3-6mm zoom is used as part of my lightweight "grab and go" setup, along with an APM Zoom and ES 24mm.

It's also really quite useful for planets, just allows you to get just the right amount of magnification when required 👍

[MalcolmM]

Great when travelling, four for one, but when at home I much prefer my Tak TOEs. I find I can simply see more detail with the TOEs. I also find the TOEs much more relaxing to look through.

Same with the XW 5 and a Vixen SLV 4. So in my experience, the single eyepieces give a better and more relaxing view.

That being said, I'll never sell the Nagler Zoom. It's a great eyepiece and perfect for travelling light!

Malcolm 

[John]

I have owned a couple of 3-6 Nagler zooms in the past (not at the same time !) and currently I have the 2-4mm version (which is out of production). I have other short focal length eyepieces but the Nagler zoom does get a lot of use for the sorts of reasons given by the posters above. Perhaps the 2mm setting is not used often but the 4mm-2.5mm range, much more than I ever suspected they would be when I bought the eyepiece. As well as the quality of the eyepiece optics this might also be connected to me having scopes of better optical quality these days as well. The odd thing is that I didn't take to the 3-6mm zooms as much as I have with the 2-4mm but that might have been because back then I was rather obsessed by wider fields of view. I still have to confess that I am but the little zoom is so able and useful that I overlook it's 50 degree AFoV and 10mm eye relief. Apart from the focal length range difference, the 2-4mm has click stops at half mm intervals rather than the 1mm of the 3-6mm zoom. 

My personal feeling is that the Nagler zooms performance is close enough to the best specialised short focal length eyepieces that, coupled with the zoom feature, constant AFoV, decent sized eye lens and (by comparison to some) quite reasonable eye relief, they really earn their place in the eyepiece case alongside more specialised and exotic companions. I also have to add that I have not used a TOE, a Vixen HR, a Zeiss ZAO or a Pentax XO. I do have Pentax XW 5mm and 3.5mm and an Ethos 4.7mm as shorter FL companions though.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by John

[Ags]

Made obsolete by the Svbony SV215 3-8 Zoom?

[John]

45 minutes ago, Ags said:

Made obsolete by the Svbony SV215 3-8 Zoom?

It would be wonderful if the Svbony 3-8 zoom were to match the optical performance of the Nagler zoom plus deliver a larger range, a slightly wider AFoV and a bit more eye relief as well. At the price they are, they would simply fly off the shelves - I would certainly buy one 🙂

I've yet to see a detailed comparison between them though. Bill Paolini has one of the Svbony 3-8's so might oblige in due course. 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by John

[jetstream]

The NZ 3-6 is a great, handy and versatile eyepiece. I'll always have one.

[Highburymark]

3 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

I've had one for several years and like it.  It seems to give similar views to other single TV plossls.  I use it mainly for collimating telescopes as most of my telescopes are too long focus for the high power even the 6mm setting would produce for average visual use    🙂

I agree Peter. It’s just like a 3-6mm TV plossl with decent eye relief. Way too expensive new, and not quite at the level of the top planetaries, but the perfect high power tool for travel. I sold mine years ago, but I still remember the views of Mars and Saturn it produced from the Canaries. 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Ags said:

Made obsolete by the Svbony SV215 3-8 Zoom?

Perhaps for BV usage.  Eddgie, the BV guru over on that other forum, has been gushing over his recently acquired pair for BV usage.

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, John said:

It would be wonderful if the Svbony 3-8 zoom were to match the optical performance of the Nagler zoom plus deliver a larger range, a slightly wider AFoV and a bit more eye relief as well. At the price they are, they would simply fly off the shelves - I would certainly buy one 🙂

I've yet to see a detailed comparison between them though. Bill Paolini has one of the Svbony 3-8's so might oblige in due course. 

By one account on that other forum, they're pretty close with the NZ being better across the zoom range, especially at the short end.

Despite having the means to purchase a NZ, I could never justify the cost and limited use cases for my preferred styles of observing.  The price/performance ratio of the SZ is such that I had no issues picking one up for my travel kit.  I've been quite happy with it.

[John]

22 minutes ago, Louis D said:

By one account on that other forum, they're pretty close with the NZ being better across the zoom range, especially at the short end.

Despite having the means to purchase a NZ, I could never justify the cost and limited use cases for my preferred styles of observing.  The price/performance ratio of the SZ is such that I had no issues picking one up for my travel kit.  I've been quite happy with it.

I don't think the Nagler zoom is really that expensive considering that it covers at least 4 focal lengths. But then I'm used to Ethos type costs so most things seem reasonable by comparison 🙄

[Mr Spock]

I think for my 4", a 2-4mm would be more useful. The 3mm is only x247. A 2mm at x370 might get used on tight doubles, but the range 2.5mm (x296) to 4mm (x185) would be very handy.

[Don Pensack]

8 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

I think for my 4", a 2-4mm would be more useful. The 3mm is only x247. A 2mm at x370 might get used on tight doubles, but the range 2.5mm (x296) to 4mm (x185) would be very handy.

You are a lucky fellow if floaters don't interfere at those magnifications in a 4"!

But the logical addition to the 3-6 Nagler Zoom would be a 2.5mm Vixen SLV.

That would give you 0.5mm jumps from 2.5mm to 6mm and the in-betweens as well.

Those magnifications would be easy in your 12"...I'm just sayin'.😉

[Mr Spock]

48 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

2.5mm Vixen SLV.

I have one  It's a fine eyepiece, but, there's a gnawing gap between that and the 4mm SLV. I'm currently plucking up the courage to order a 3.3mm TOE...

[Ags]

@Mr Spock I am curious how the SLV 2.5 compares to the Nagler Zoom at 3mm?

[russ.will]

One of the very few EPs I deeply regret selling. Okay, there are few nights when I could run magnifications that high in the scopes I had, but when the air was still...

Russ

[RT65CB-SWL]

On 27/03/2023 at 21:44, Ags said:

Made obsolete by the Svbony SV215 3-8 Zoom?

I am still waiting for a clear night sky when I can do a comparison of my Nagler 3-6mm and Svbony 3-8mm zoom e/p's in the same evening/night. Working shift-work you cannot predict whether it going to be clear on your rest days in advance, no matter how much you prepare yourself or rely on Clear Outside [or other app] and metrological weather forecasts.

I do agree with those that say that zoom e/p's are the perfect travel companion, though I do prefer the view with a 'fixed' focal length e/p.

Personally I think the build quality of the TeleVue is better. I can hear a slight rattle when I shake the Svbony.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Philip R

[The60mmKid]

I love mine because it disappears in use. Optical quality is an important criterion for me, and so is enjoyability. I find the Nagler Zoom beautifully unfiddly... compact size, adequate (for me) eye relief, smooth zooming action, clear click stops. The optical quality is excellent enough that I find myself fully occupied with what I'm observing rather than thinking about the eyepiece... Exactly what I want!

[NGC 1502]

On 28/03/2023 at 21:26, Ags said:

@Mr Spock I am curious how the SLV 2.5 compares to the Nagler Zoom at 3mm?

I cannot precisely answer that. However I can get very close, because I have a NZ 3-6, and an original series Vixen LV 2.5.

The LV 2.5 is more comfortable in use because of its 20mm eye relief. But in other regards it compliments the 3-6 excellently. I’m a double star fan, and on nights of decent seeing the 2.5 teases out those very tight doubles that are so satisfying when finally, a split is confirmed👍

For me, the 2.5 is a specialist tool, the 3-6 more useful more often.

Off topic- Those of us who remember the LVs introduction in the 90s will recall how amazing they were. The 20mm ER was a game changer, especially in the shorter focal lengths!

Similarly the 3-6 with 10mm ER is luxurious compared with times past when very high power meant almost attaching your eyeball to the glass!

Ed.

 

 

[John]

This review by the late Tom Trusock dates back to 2004 but I feel it still has some validity today. The comparison here is with the TMB Supermonocentric eyepieces which are regarded by many as some of the very best of the specialized high power eyepieces:

Cloudy Nights Orion TMB VS Nagler

I've owned a few of the shorter length Vixen LV's over the years and they are very comfortable and sharp eyepieces. I felt that the ones that I used put up a slightly dimmer view sometimes than, say, a conventional ortho of the same focal length. I have seen throughput data for some eyepiece ranges that seems to confirm that the LV's are on the lower side. Still very useable though. I did feel that the Vixen SLV's took the LV concept and improved on it. The 6mm SLV was particularly nice I seem to recall 🙂

Edited April 16, 2023 by John

[Stu]

2 hours ago, John said:

This review by the late Tom Trusock dates back to 2004 but I feel it still has some validity today. The comparison here is with the TMB Supermonocentric eyepieces which are regarded by many as some of the very best of the specialized high power eyepieces:

Cloudy Nights Orion TMB VS Nagler

I've owned a few of the shorter length Vixen LV's over the years and they are very comfortable and sharp eyepieces. I felt that the ones that I used put up a slightly dimmer view sometimes than, say, a conventional ortho of the same focal length. I have seen throughput data for some eyepiece ranges that seems to confirm that the LV's are on the lower side. Still very useable though. I did feel that the Vixen SLV's took the LV concept and improved on it. The 6mm SLV was particularly nice I seem to recall 🙂

Thanks for the link John, I’ll have a read of that later.

I don’t think I have much different to add to the story here. I have 3 to 6 and 2 to 4 Nag zooms, plus a 3.4mm HR, and have also had the three TOE focal lengths. I find the zooms very convenient, and of very good optical quality, but the fixed length eyepieces just have an edge in sharpness and colour correction to me, hard to quantify or describe but there is something there. I’ll revisit the 3.4 HR vs both at some point.

[johnturley]

3 hours ago, John said:

This review by the late Tom Trusock dates back to 2004 but I feel it still has some validity today. The comparison here is with the TMB Supermonocentric eyepieces which are regarded by many as some of the very best of the specialized high power eyepieces:

Cloudy Nights Orion TMB VS Nagler

I've owned a few of the shorter length Vixen LV's over the years and they are very comfortable and sharp eyepieces. I felt that the ones that I used put up a slightly dimmer view sometimes than, say, a conventional ortho of the same focal length. I have seen throughput data for some eyepiece ranges that seems to confirm that the LV's are on the lower side. Still very useable though. I did feel that the Vixen SLV's took the LV concept and improved on it. The 6mm SLV was particularly nice I seem to recall 🙂

I have both the 3-6 mm Nagler Zoom, and a 4mm Vixen SLV, I find the results with the Nagler Zoom on the moon and planets to be at least as good as the 4 mm SLV, and has a significantly wider field of view. Although it states 50 degree APFOV on the Vixen SLV, I find it to be nearer to 45 degrees.

John