Building a quality "Wide" set of EPs – are Pan + ES82s the way to go?

[Moonlit Night]

15 hours ago, Space Hopper said:

Yes, there are some big heavy eyepieces out there, some will cause balancing issues and will ask questions of how suitable your diagonal and focuser are.

This one from ES was certainly 'a bit of a lump' ! 😀

 

Now that is what I call an eyepiece. I think I will stick to my Delites’ I don’t fancy that much weight hanging off the back of my little frac

[Don Pensack]

20 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

The Morpheus eyepieces are very popular. 

If I was going for a 24mm it would most likely be the UFF in the hope it was as good as the 30mm.

It's not as good as the 30mm, but it is close to being the only 24mm widefield compatible with glasses in a 1.25" format (the other being the Baader Hyperion, but the latter is not well--corrected at f/5-f/6, while the 24mm UFF is.

 

[radiofm74]

3 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

It's not as good as the 30mm, but it is close to being the only 24mm widefield compatible with glasses in a 1.25" format (the other being the Baader Hyperion, but the latter is not well--corrected at f/5-f/6, while the 24mm UFF is.

 

Plus – forgive the shallowness of the comment – UFFs look a lot like Morphs! The 30 UFF, 24 UFF and 14-9-4.5 Morphs will make for a nice set I think!

[Don Pensack]

8 minutes ago, radiofm74 said:

Plus – forgive the shallowness of the comment – UFFs look a lot like Morphs! The 30 UFF, 24 UFF and 14-9-4.5 Morphs will make for a nice set I think!

The 30mm to 17.5mm (17.2mm) jump in magnification is a reasonable jump in a lot of scopes.

For example, in a 1200mm focal length scope, it's 40x to 70x, not a large jump.

With longer focal length scopes, the 24mm in between makes some sense.

In a 2795mm focal length, that is 93x, 116x, and 163x.  A 22mm eyepiece would be closer to the in=between magnification, however.

 

The apparent field of the 24mm UFF doesn't feel like the others, alas, but it is quite comfortable to use.  It has an effective eye relief of 17-18mm, fine for glasses.

(it is one of the only glasses-friendly, widest-field, 1.25" eyepieces)

Measured apparent fields:

30mm UFF--70°

24mm UFF--64°

17.2mm (17.5mm) Morpheus--72°

13.9mm (14mm) Morpheus--78°

[radiofm74]

8 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

The 30mm to 17.5mm (17.2mm) jump in magnification is a reasonable jump in a lot of scopes.

For example, in a 1200mm focal length scope, it's 40x to 70x, not a large jump.

With longer focal length scopes, the 24mm in between makes some sense.

In a 2795mm focal length, that is 93x, 116x, and 163x.  A 22mm eyepiece would be closer to the in=between magnification, however.

 

The apparent field of the 24mm UFF doesn't feel like the others, alas, but it is quite comfortable to use.  It has an effective eye relief of 17-18mm, fine for glasses.

(it is one of the only glasses-friendly, widest-field, 1.25" eyepieces)

Measured apparent fields:

30mm UFF--70°

24mm UFF--64°

17.2mm (17.5mm) Morpheus--72°

13.9mm (14mm) Morpheus--78°

I take your point. I might still want a 24mm for the nights when I'm out with my f/6.3 (reduced) C8 or C6 and the UFF is not available: the 24mm would effectively be my widest, lowest power eyepiece. 

I am intrigued however:

- What 22mm would you suggest? If I found a Vixen LVW 22mm I think I'd scoop it up in a heartbeat, but they're not on my market. And I haven't seen a 22 in the ES or UFF lineup.

- Between UFF and ES 68° 24mm, considering that I'd probably be comfortable with either in terms of eye relief, which one would you pick to complement the 14-9-4.5 Morphs? 

Thanks, and sorry for pestering you with my questions!

Edited March 1 by radiofm74

[Naughty Neal]

Not many in 22mm range, Oberwerk but only seem to come on pairs or the same ep under the Angle eyes brand name on Ali exp.

[Louis D]

I finally found a reasonably priced, used Tele Vue Nagler T4 22mm and have been using it at that focal length.

Before that, I used the Astro Tech AF70 22mm which is the same as the Omegon Redline.  It is also 2"-only.  It's very well corrected except for the last 5% of the field that has a bit of astigmatism in fast scopes.  It also has enough eye relief for eyeglass wearers.

[radiofm74]

Speaking of Naglers… ;D

My dratted C8 weights in at 6.2 kgs complete with its finders and diagonal. So in one of my applications (C8 on tracking Advanced Polaris), I'm ever so slightly above payload and every gram counts. 

I might still take the UFF 24 + Morpheus route, or I might take the Pan + ES82° route. Night will bring counsel.

But since "light and quality" is the name of the game, and assuming I could negotiate a good discount for the whole package from a dealer I know, what would you think of an "all TV" set?

- Panoptic 24
- Nagler T5 16 or T6 13 (which would be your suggestion?)
- Nagler T6 9
- Nagler T6 5

I've seen that eye relief on these is 12mm. For an observer that does not use glasses would it be uncomfortable? It's the last option I'll explore, promised…

PS: concerning the shorter focal lengths. I usually use a reducer on my SCTs so I don't think that a 4.5-5mm EP would be redundant. And it would be positively precious with my 420, 625 and 920 focal length refractors all the while respecting a minimum 0.5 eye pupil. 

[John]

18 minutes ago, radiofm74 said:

Speaking of Naglers… ;D

My dratted C8 weights in at 6.2 kgs complete with its finders and diagonal. So in one of my applications (C8 on tracking Advanced Polaris), I'm ever so slightly above payload and every gram counts. 

I might still take the UFF 24 + Morpheus route, or I might take the Pan + ES82° route. Night will bring counsel.

But since "light and quality" is the name of the game, and assuming I could negotiate a good discount for the whole package from a dealer I know, what would you think of an "all TV" set?

- Panoptic 24
- Nagler T5 16 or T6 13 (which would be your suggestion?)
- Nagler T6 9
- Nagler T6 5

I've seen that eye relief on these is 12mm. For an observer that does not use glasses would it be uncomfortable? It's the last option I'll explore, promised…

PS: concerning the shorter focal lengths. I usually use a reducer on my SCTs so I don't think that a 4.5-5mm EP would be redundant. And it would be positively precious with my 420, 625 and 920 focal length refractors all the while respecting a minimum 0.5 eye pupil. 

I used to have that set - with the T6 13mm instead of the T5 16mm. Because my scopes were shorter focal length than the C8 I also had the T6 7mm, 3.5mm and for a time the T6 2.5mm but that did not get much use. 

Very fine eyepieces in my opinion. I don't wear glasses and found the eye relief OK for me. Others may vary in that though.

 

 

Edited March 2 by John

[Louis D]

By all accounts, the 16mm NT5 is exceptionally sharp, but with only 10mm of eye relief, fairly tight even without eyeglasses.  The entire T6 line was designed with 12mm or ER because that seems to be the Goldilocks amount for non-eyeglass wearers.  They've become the 82 degree gold standard against which all other  UWAs are judged.

Here are some eyepiece tests of the Tele Vue eyepieces you're interested in from Ernest.

You'll need to translate them using Google or their Chrome browser:

Panoptic 24 mm

Nagler 16 mm Type 5

Nagler 13 mm Type 6

Nagler 5 mm Type 6

Overall, he liked them a lot.

Here's the table with links to fixed focal length eyepiece tests/reviews.

Here's the table with links to zoom eyepiece tests/reviews.

Edited March 2 by Louis D

[Don Pensack]

On 01/03/2024 at 07:55, radiofm74 said:

I take your point. I might still want a 24mm for the nights when I'm out with my f/6.3 (reduced) C8 or C6 and the UFF is not available: the 24mm would effectively be my widest, lowest power eyepiece. 

I am intrigued however:

- What 22mm would you suggest? If I found a Vixen LVW 22mm I think I'd scoop it up in a heartbeat, but they're not on my market. And I haven't seen a 22 in the ES or UFF lineup.

- Between UFF and ES 68° 24mm, considering that I'd probably be comfortable with either in terms of eye relief, which one would you pick to complement the 14-9-4.5 Morphs? 

Thanks, and sorry for pestering you with my questions!

There are a few I'd recommend, but the Omegon Redline 22mm is glasses-friendly, and very well corrected at f/5, and a 70° field.

It's 2", though it's a fine eyepiece at an economical price (and available under other labels as well).

If we're limited to 1.25", however, and you prefer longer eye relief, and it is to be used in a scope under f/8, the APM UFF 24mm is the one.

It's a lot better than the 24mm Hyperion, the other glasses-compatible 24mm widefield.

It's available under other labels, too:

Altair Astro (UK)	UltraFlat
APM	Ultra Flat Field
Celestron	Ultima Edge
Meade	Series 5000 UHD
Orion	Ultra Flat Field
Sky Rover	Ultra Flat Field
Stella Lyra (FLO)	Ultra Flat
Tecnosky	UltraFlatField

So you can shop price.

 

[radiofm74]

After further deliberations (and finding very attractive offers on TV eyepieces with two Swiss dealers) it's now between

- UFF or ES 24 + Morpheus kit (14-9-4.5) or

- Pan 24 + Nagler T6 13, 9 (or 7), 5 (or 3.5) with the prospect of later completing the line. 

Both sets would be internally consistent (weight, eye relief) and work well with all my scopes I'm using or might use in the future. Based on what I read, they should be more or less equivalent in optical quality and FoV afforded. Comfort, hard to say…

- Pros of TV set: form factor (I am a traveller, light and small is my preference); I like the magnifications better, and as noted they're part of a line I can also expand (3.5, used 2.5… or Delites…); I cannot deny that their "classic" status appeals to me
- Pros of UFF/ES/Baader: the Morpheus might have an edge in comfort, usable FoV, and also maintenance (no eyelashes near the glass); the set costs less (I can have a great price on the TVs but I'll still have to sell something to stay in budget); I am used to and like very much Baader's little "eye-protecting wing". 
 
Tomorrow I'll go to a shop having both Naglers and Morphs in the house, and so I plan to see them side-by-side and if allowed to put my eye to them for a feel. 

Do you think that a daytime test could offer good indications as to their respective comfort and ease of use? I know that my pupils will be less dilated and thus react differently, but I'd still hope to get a rough idea… 

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, radiofm74 said:

After further deliberations (and finding very attractive offers on TV eyepieces with two Swiss dealers) it's now between

- UFF or ES 24 + Morpheus kit (14-9-4.5) or

- Pan 24 + Nagler T6 13, 9 (or 7), 5 (or 3.5) with the prospect of later completing the line. 

Both sets would be internally consistent (weight, eye relief) and work well with all my scopes I'm using or might use in the future. Based on what I read, they should be more or less equivalent in optical quality and FoV afforded. Comfort, hard to say…

- Pros of TV set: form factor (I am a traveller, light and small is my preference); I like the magnifications better, and as noted they're part of a line I can also expand (3.5, used 2.5… or Delites…); I cannot deny that their "classic" status appeals to me
- Pros of UFF/ES/Baader: the Morpheus might have an edge in comfort, usable FoV, and also maintenance (no eyelashes near the glass); the set costs less (I can have a great price on the TVs but I'll still have to sell something to stay in budget); I am used to and like very much Baader's little "eye-protecting wing". 
 
Tomorrow I'll go to a shop having both Naglers and Morphs in the house, and so I plan to see them side-by-side and if allowed to put my eye to them for a feel. 

Do you think that a daytime test could offer good indications as to their respective comfort and ease of use? I know that my pupils will be less dilated and thus react differently, but I'd still hope to get a rough idea… 

Your eye's pupil will be radically different in size in the daylight.

You will be able to get an idea of the field size, but not ergonomics of use.  That will take a dark-adapted pupil size.

If you don't wear glasses, both sets would be excellent.  Fields of view are nearly the same.  The 13mm Nagler is actually 79° and the 14mm Morpheus is 78°, and the 14mm (13.9) Morpheus has a true field about 4.5% wider than the 13mm Nagler.

[radiofm74]

The "test" was wholly inconclusive … I was only allowed to point a Nagler 13 and Morph 12.5 briefly at a grey sky, can't say I got anything out of it. HOWEVER, seeing the EPs in person, and given my nomadic life as a visual astronomer, it took me just a fraction of a second to choose the Naglers. 

Negotiations ensued with the dealer that had followed me through the whole thing and at the decisive moment – quite inadvertently! – the hand slipped (or was it the mind?) and it so happened that I ordered not three but four Naglers.  

So at the moment I am expecting to take delivery of a Pan 24, of Naglers T6 13, 9, 7, 5, and of an eyepiece bag. Should be towards the end of the month (Pans being backordered the way they are). 

The initial budget has been duly pulverised and I suspect I'm gonna have to sell something to remain in the good graces of my beloved wife, 50 or no 50 😂

Thanks again to everyone who contributed! I'll be sure to post a picture as soon as the goods are with me!