82 Degree Price V Quality - Baader, Explore, and Skywatcher

[hal9550]

23 minutes ago, Bivanus said:

🙂 As @Ratlet said "tangentially related" I can confirm my 13mm T6 Nag is a bussy little EP , if by chance you find a good offer as second-hand please don't disconsider it just because is green 

Absolutely - i wouldnt turn away the option of buying second hand Tele Vue. Im not anti TV at all - quite frankly its amazing that they have such a reputation, and im sure its thoroughly deserved. If someone put up a large bunch of Naglers, second hand, i would certainly take a shot at them.

Iv been watching for weeks though and the second hand market is very small in Ireland. Very little action on ebay too,this side of the pond. I would appreciate any links to BuyNSell type sites in europe -

hopefully il have access to the classified section on here soon enough.

Buying New TV Glass is almost entirely out of consideration though - its simply to expensive this side of the atlantic

I will be selling my Baader Hyperions and perhaps some other EPs too so - the proceeds will simply be reinvested in the hobby though. So roll on my 50 posts i guess, and then classifieds will be an option

[bosun21]

The classifieds become available after 30 days and a minimum of 25 posts in astronomy related threads I believe. It also used to be 250 posts to place a for sale item. I am unsure wether the later has changed.

Edited Tuesday at 20:10 by bosun21
Typo

[hal9550]

10 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

The classifieds become available after 30 days and a minimum of 25 posts in astronomy related threads I believe. It also used to be 250 posts to place a for sale item. I am unsure wether the later has changed.

well i have a few up elsewhere anyway - but if i have to wait, i just have to wait i guess. Certainly im a bit of a waffler, so!

[Mr Spock]

I have a full set of Nirvanas. The 16mm is poor with strong field curvature. The others are excellent - very sharp and easy to use. A very small eyepiece relative to some of the others. 

I have a number of eyepieces at 4mm I can compare. The 4mm Nirvana is just behind the 4mm TOE, and ahead of the 4mm Circle-T ortho and Svbony 3-8 @ 4mm (not the 4mm setting which is actually 4.4mm).

[cajen2]

7 hours ago, hal9550 said:

Iv heard nothing but the best RE Morpheus, that is for sure. And the eye-relief seems to be the deciding factor - Il tell you what it is, i tended to acquire EP's over the last decade - and kinda half avoided touching the 82 degree ranges, until i landed the Meade UWA 5.5 in a swap with someone. I wouldnt exactly say i was hooked straight away - but every time i use it, i come away debating getting more 82s, at different less powerful focal lengths. I was chatting on CN last night, and i kinda live between 9 and 30 mm - and spend a lot of time between 10 and 25 - so there is room for some 82 degree fun, for sure. I have the oddest feeling that if i pick up an ES82 - il love it - and then some time later, il have the chance to use a morph - and bang - il be hooked on them. But i have to be conscious of budget of course

I have heard it said the 17.5 mm Morph isnt actually 76 degrees - and i have seen at least two different users complain about black outs - can you comment on this? Blackouts would annoy me a bit - i deal with them on several basic WA EPs that i use, but i content myself with the fact these werent expensive - But the Morphs will obviously cost a bit more

 

 

I've never had a problem with blackouts with the 17.5mil Morph, or indeed any others that I own. The only one in the range which I don't have is the 14mm (I have a Pentax XW at 14) so I can't comment on that one.

One thing which might well make a difference is your personal eye position. Ever since I started astronomy, I've viewed by hovering my eye over the EP till I get the best view. Other people screw their sockets into the eyecup. I'm convinced that comments on eye relief and positioning, not to mention blackouts, are often a product of these differences in  style.

 

[Ratlet]

10 hours ago, cajen2 said:

I've never had a problem with blackouts with the 17.5mil Morph, or indeed any others that I own. The only one in the range which I don't have is the 14mm (I have a Pentax XW at 14) so I can't comment on that one.

One thing which might well make a difference is your personal eye position. Ever since I started astronomy, I've viewed by hovering my eye over the EP till I get the best view. Other people screw their sockets into the eyecup. I'm convinced that comments on eye relief and positioning, not to mention blackouts, are often a product of these differences in  style.

 

The 17.5mm has an impressive eye relief at 23mm and I think folk might just getting too close to the eye lens and getting blackouts.  At least they aren't complaining about Kidney Beaning as this is the other way people interpret it, again with long eye relief.

But even compared to the rest of the range you need your eyeball a fair distance away.  It comes with an extension which I used to use but now I can get away without it now since I can use my bushy eyebrows to feel for the cup.

Edited Wednesday at 09:07 by Ratlet

[Mr Spock]

Just to give an idea how small the Nirvana is compared to other eyepieces at around 8mm.

LVW is ahead on image quality with the other three very similar. However... Nirvana = 82°, LVW = 65°, Svbony 3-8 58° and the tiny Circle-T ortho just 43°.

Note: the 7mm Nirvana actually measures 8mm.

I don't have a Morpheus to compare but it's probably about the same size as the LVW.

Which of these four I use depends on the target, scope, and what mood I'm in 

[hal9550]

2 hours ago, Ratlet said:

The 17.5mm has an impressive eye relief at 23mm and I think folk might just getting too close to the eye lens and getting blackouts.  At least they aren't complaining about Kidney Beaning as this is the other way people interpret it, again with long eye relief.

But even compared to the rest of the range you need your eyeball a fair distance away.  It comes with an extension which I used to use but now I can get away without it now since I can use my bushy eyebrows to feel for the cup.

Seeing that chart brings up a question, which i think i know the answer to, but here goes, just in case.

The Morpheus i assume, behave the exact same way in 2" and 1.25" mode? They dont do a 'hyperion' do they? they arent modular?

The chart just reminded me of my Hyperion experience. The Hyps are lovely, but expensive too. I have a 36, 21, and 13, and i originally intended to buy the full set, possibly down to and including the discontinued 3.5. And this chart played a massive part of it for me: (its my first upload so, hopefully you can see it)

My thought process was:

• The Hyperions being modular presents a rare opportunity to get 4 eyepieces for the price of one.
• By having the set, along with some fine focusing rings,  im covering a huge amount of focal length

• 21, 17.6, 17, 15.5, 14, 13, 10.8, 10, 9.2, 8, 7.1, 6.1, 5, 4.0, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2.1, 1.8 - Bold Underlined, is the base EP, and the rest of the focal lengths are achievable using the fine Focus Rings

• When removing the rings, and the 1.25" module, i have a wide field 2" eyepiece roughly 20-22mm

Even typing it out, i remember the excitement, the thought process, and the enthusiasm in general.

The reality was, when you begin half dismantling a 150 euro eyepiece, outside in the dark, its a nightmare! Luckily i didnt have any falls, or damage. But I think i did it once, or twice and then quit! I did use them in 2" form which was fine, but that is where i ended the project. The 21mm, and 13mm are lovely but, i was just disappointed when the reality didnt match the theory on paper. Had it worked i may have just stuck to 68 Degree AFOV, as an upper limit

Perhaps some people did follow through, but i dont have the confidence to dismantle eyepieces in the dark!

 

Anyway, just t confirm the Morpheus are standard, single focal length eyepieces, in both 2", and 1.25"!

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:20 by hal9550

[bosun21]

The Morpheus are basically a 1.25" eyepiece with a 2" skirt allowing them to be used in a 2" setup. They are not modular like the Hyperion.

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, hal9550 said:

The Morpheus i assume, behave the exact same way in 2" and 1.25" mode?

No, they focus in different positions because the 2" part is non-removable.  I have the 13mm and 17mm A-T AF70 eyepieces (same as Omegon Redlines), and those do focus in basically the same position in either 1.25" or 2" mode because the 2" skirt screws off.  Having a 12mm Nagler T4 with a non-removable 2" skirt, I can say I greatly prefer the removable 2" skirt style.

[hal9550]

Im sorry for all the questions!! But here is yet another question!! 

Older Second Hand Tele Vue Naglers do appear some times in various locations - for example, theres a 16mm Type 2 on ebay at the moment. An impulse buyer would just lunge straight at it for the price. Im wondering are there certain Nagler 'types' to avoid?

My reading for the last few weeks would suggest the older the type (with some focal length conditions), the less eye relief - with kidney beaning being a problem on the original ones (type 1?). Again for me it comes to a trade off between Price and quality. I dont want to buy older second hand (slightly cheaper) TV eyepieces, which, comparatively speaking, could be out performed by modern ES82 equivalents. That would be fruitless as im losing performance, simply for brand and name. I have noticed a few post on CN and elsewhere that would suggest the ES82s do outperform older Naglers. And by out perform, we may be talking about kidney beaning and eye relief. And weight too of course. But i would be curious to get opinions here. 

 

My gut instinct, at this stage, is that Morpheus fills the gap across the board, given that they are newer, with exceptional eye relief. Its hard to argue against them beyond the initial expense.

[apaulo]

Another vote for the morphs here. I have and use the full set. I cant recall ever having kidney beaning or false colour experiences with any of them. I also am not a barlow fan, but i will say the morphs barlow better than any other e/ps i have tried.  As for most used, for me its probably the 6.5mm morph.  

[Don Pensack]

4 hours ago, Ratlet said:

The 17.5mm has an impressive eye relief at 23mm and I think folk might just getting too close to the eye lens and getting blackouts.  At least they aren't complaining about Kidney Beaning as this is the other way people interpret it, again with long eye relief.

But even compared to the rest of the range you need your eyeball a fair distance away.  It comes with an extension which I used to use but now I can get away without it now since I can use my bushy eyebrows to feel for the cup.

Just a note: The details for the 17.5mm turned out to be not true on that spreadsheet.

I suspect that was the original specs from the factory, but 3 prototypes later, the eyepiece turned out to be:

Actual specs:

Focal length 17.2mm

Field stop  21.6mm

Eye relief 19.0mm

Apparent field 72.2°

[Ratlet]

3 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Just a note: The details for the 17.5mm turned out to be not true on that spreadsheet.

I suspect that was the original specs from the factory, but 3 prototypes later, the eyepiece turned out to be:

Actual specs:

Focal length 17.2mm

Field stop  21.6mm

Eye relief 19.0mm

Apparent field 72.2°

I wonder why they haven't updated it?  A little bit slack that.

[John]

5 hours ago, hal9550 said:

Im sorry for all the questions!! But here is yet another question!! 

Older Second Hand Tele Vue Naglers do appear some times in various locations - for example, theres a 16mm Type 2 on ebay at the moment. An impulse buyer would just lunge straight at it for the price. Im wondering are there certain Nagler 'types' to avoid?

My reading for the last few weeks would suggest the older the type (with some focal length conditions), the less eye relief - with kidney beaning being a problem on the original ones (type 1?). Again for me it comes to a trade off between Price and quality. I dont want to buy older second hand (slightly cheaper) TV eyepieces, which, comparatively speaking, could be out performed by modern ES82 equivalents. That would be fruitless as im losing performance, simply for brand and name. I have noticed a few post on CN and elsewhere that would suggest the ES82s do outperform older Naglers. And by out perform, we may be talking about kidney beaning and eye relief. And weight too of course. But i would be curious to get opinions here. 

 

My gut instinct, at this stage, is that Morpheus fills the gap across the board, given that they are newer, with exceptional eye relief. Its hard to argue against them beyond the initial expense.

I've owned Naglers from type 1 to type 6. The type 1's and 2's are optically excellent but, as you mention, some are prone to kidney beaning and the eye relief on the shorter focal lengths is tight. The type 2 Nagler 20mm is a much larger and heavier eyepiece than the type 5 20mm as are the 12mm and 16mm type 2's compared with their more recent versions of the same or similar focal length.

There is no doubt in my mind that the type 4, 5 and 6 Naglers are a step up from the earlier ones in performance and ergonomics. Some still have shortish eye relief though, if that is important to you. The type 5 16mm, for example, has quite short useable eye relief. It's really sharp eyepiece though, of you can get past the eye relief.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 18:43 by John

[hal9550]

23 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Just a note: The details for the 17.5mm turned out to be not true on that spreadsheet.

I suspect that was the original specs from the factory, but 3 prototypes later, the eyepiece turned out to be:

Actual specs:

Focal length 17.2mm

Field stop  21.6mm

Eye relief 19.0mm

Apparent field 72.2°

Hey Don, 

Thanks for all the info, i really appreciate it. I probably sound like a broken record, but i have pages of notes, with eyepieces being added to lists, and then taken off, depending on the feedback I get.

My question is about the Omegon Red Line Eyepieces (AKA Olivon 70s) in both 22mm and 17mm - at 70 Degrees. I have seen fab reports on CN from yourself and others regarding the 22. Given that im leaning strongly toward at least some of the Morpheus line, im contenting myself with the fact that an aprox 70Degree Afov, with excellent eye relief, is going to be worth having. 

I know that the 22, and the 17 are the best in that line of eyepieces - and on the 22mm iv seen nothing but glowing reviews. I wanted to ask you about the 17mm, is it worth considering over the Morpheus 17.5 (17.2) - my think is the specs over lap quite a bit; both in or around 17mm, both with reasonable eye relief, and both being 70 odd degrees - 

The 22mm has jumped on to my list, and barring getting some crazy deals on cut price second hand EPs, i think im just going to buy the 22. So i just wanted to ask RE the 17. I know its possibly heavier (unsure), but beyond that, the only difference is price. I can get the 17 Red line for 150+10pnp, versus 275+10pnp for the morph - its more expensive than the states for the redline, but not by much

 

Thanks in advance, and thanks to everyone who has replied - really appreciate it! im driving my wife crazy doing this research atm! lol but im off work, and tbh i like reading and learning so

[Louis D]

I have the 13mm, 17mm, and 22mm AT AF70 eyepieces (same as Omegon Redline).  The 22mm is excellent.  The 17mm has some chromatic aberrations (rainbow stars) in the out 15% of the field.  The 13mm has the same in the outer 30% of the field.  I've never looked through a 17.5mm Morpheus, but my 14mm Morpheus is about the same correction-wise as the 22mm AF70 while my 9mm Morpheus is about the same correction-wise as my 10mm Delos.  Thus, I'd probably recommend the 17.5mm Morpheus over the 17mm Redline.  I only paid $70 apiece a decade ago for my second hand 13mm and 17mm AF70s, so I don't feel too bad about them being so-so correction-wise.  If you came across a used 17mm Redline for similar money today, then it might be worth trying.

At about the same TFOV and cost as the 22mm Redline, I'd suggest you look into getting a 20mm Founder Optics Marvel 80.  I recently picked up one to compare to my 22mm Nagler T4, and it is darn close in many respects, and slightly better in others.  Eye relief is slightly shorter than the 22mm AF70/Redline, but very similar otherwise.  I'm still working up a review of it because I need to spend more time under the stars observing with it.  So far, it's a keeper.

[Don Pensack]

4 hours ago, hal9550 said:

Hey Don, 

Thanks for all the info, i really appreciate it. I probably sound like a broken record, but i have pages of notes, with eyepieces being added to lists, and then taken off, depending on the feedback I get.

My question is about the Omegon Red Line Eyepieces (AKA Olivon 70s) in both 22mm and 17mm - at 70 Degrees. I have seen fab reports on CN from yourself and others regarding the 22. Given that im leaning strongly toward at least some of the Morpheus line, im contenting myself with the fact that an aprox 70Degree Afov, with excellent eye relief, is going to be worth having. 

I know that the 22, and the 17 are the best in that line of eyepieces - and on the 22mm iv seen nothing but glowing reviews. I wanted to ask you about the 17mm, is it worth considering over the Morpheus 17.5 (17.2) - my think is the specs over lap quite a bit; both in or around 17mm, both with reasonable eye relief, and both being 70 odd degrees - 

The 22mm has jumped on to my list, and barring getting some crazy deals on cut price second hand EPs, i think im just going to buy the 22. So i just wanted to ask RE the 17. I know its possibly heavier (unsure), but beyond that, the only difference is price. I can get the 17 Red line for 150+10pnp, versus 275+10pnp for the morph - its more expensive than the states for the redline, but not by much

 

Thanks in advance, and thanks to everyone who has replied - really appreciate it! im driving my wife crazy doing this research atm! lol but im off work, and tbh i like reading and learning so

The 17.2mm Morpheus is a better eyepiece that the 17mm Redline.  But, if you get the 22mm Redline, the logical jump is to the 14 Morpheus.

A lot of people are finding the next longest focal length from a 17.2mm Morpheus is the 30mm UFF, often christened an "honorary Morpheus".  

In almost all scopes, 22mm and 17mm are too close together.  In a 2000mm scope, the difference is 91x and 117x, a difference of only 26x, which is a very small difference.  In shorter focal length scopes, the difference shrinks, so a 22--17 switch is better if it becomes 22-14.

Edited Thursday at 17:31 by Don Pensack

[John]

24 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

.....In almost all scopes, 22mm and 17mm are too close together.  In a 2000mm scope, the difference is 91x and 117x, a difference of only 26x, which is a very small difference.  In shorter focal length scopes, the difference shrinks, so a 22--17 switch is better if it becomes 22-14.

I've found this a number of times over the years. Whatever scope I'm using I seem to move from 20-something mm down to 13/14mm so, over the years, I've owned a number of excellent but underused 16-19mm eyepieces. Also, with the moderate light pollution that I normally observe under, I've not found 30-ish mm eyepieces as effective as the 20mm's for DSO spotting. 

 

Edited Thursday at 17:54 by John

[Louis D]

I generally start at 40mm (Pentax XW, ES-68, Lacerta ED) to find and frame the subject of observing and then jump to 12mm to 14mm as well.  Sometimes, 30mm or 17mm to 22mm will frame it better, but not often.  That doesn't mean I don't pull out the 30mm APM UFF, 17mm ES-92 or 22mm NT4 just to check the viewing impression.  The view looks different in each due to presentation differences inherent in each eyepiece design independent of the magnification differences.

[Louis D]

I totally agree to avoid getting too many eyepieces too close together in magnification when starting out.  There are better ways to spend your money, such as getting a quality UHC and/or OIII filter(s).

[JTEC]

19 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I totally agree to avoid getting too many eyepieces too close together in magnification when starting out.  There are better ways to spend your money, such as getting a quality UHC and/or OIII filter(s).

I agree @Louis D - those filters can bring a new depth and dimension to the visual experience of many DSOs.  Another option to consider perhaps, before packing the focal lengths, might be a high quality diagonal, like one of the Baader ones, for example.

My own experience with focal lengths is rather similar to @John ‘s.  I like to binoview, and I have pairs of Tak orthos for that, but for single eyepiece observing, the longest eyepiece I find I use is the Nagler T4 22mm.  Incidentally, this is the only eyepiece I’ve ever sold and bought again.  I had the 30mm UFF and sold it because I never used it (SGL Heresy One).  I also owned the 17.5mm Morph and sold it (SGL Heresy Two) because, again, I found that I hardly ever used it. Instead, I’m happy going between the 22mm Nag and the 13mm Ethos, though my shorter focal lengths are much more closely packed. 

[Don Pensack]

2 hours ago, John said:

I've found this a number of times over the years. Whatever scope I'm using I seem to move from 20-something mm down to 13/14mm so, over the years, I've owned a number of excellent but underused 16-19mm eyepieces. Also, with the moderate light pollution that I normally observe under, I've not found 30-ish mm eyepieces as effective as the 20mm's for DSO spotting. 

 

Yup.  22mm to 14mm most of the time.

That is, if I don't start with the 14.  6mm to 14mm is my normal range for observing, with 3.7-6mm being relegated to small objects.

My 17.2mm Morpheus gets a lot less use, as do my 22mm and 30mm.  There are just not that many large objects needing low powers on my observing list.

One notable exception is open star clusters--especially the larger ones--where a lower power compresses the stars closer together, retaining the "cluster identity" better than higher powers.

Seeing a cluster like, say, M35, in a large field makes the cluster look quite impressive.  Viewing it at 165x is possible if the eyepiece has a large enough field, but the stars are so far apart it doesn't really feel like a cluster.

[hal9550]

OK so im gonna ask another question, about eye relief on the Explore Scientifics. The only Eyepiece i have that is comparable to these is my Meade UWA 5.5mm. In describing the eye relief, i would say its fine. I dont use this eyepiece that often, but this is unrelated to eye relief! It is based on viewing conditions where i live, and the fact i tend to live between 10mm and 30mm - 

When i use the UWA5.5 eye relief has never been an issue. Its a great EP which i was lucky to get in a swap a few years ago (two starguiders and a symmetrical Ortho - the person has a smaller 4" scope, and valued getting moderate but very usable EPs). But suffice it to say, il be keeping this Meade, and wont be seeking to replace it in this 70-82 degree purchase. It is one less focal length for me to worry about. 

When it comes to eye relief 

Great Eye relief: Probably my plossls from about 17mm upward - no issues at all, i regularly use them. In this catagory i would also include my Baader Hyperions, which have excellent ER.

Acceptable Eye relief: 12.4mm Plossls, a 10mm Ultima, my Meade UWA 5.5 - im slightly closer to the lens, but not uncomfortable at all. And to see the full field of the moon using my Meade UWA 5, i actively want to get close - 

Poor but usable Eye relief : - Plossl 10mm, ortho 9, ortho 7 (just about) - rarely use the 7 but they are just about usable, the 10mm more so

Unusable/pointless/junk: plossl 8, 6, 4 -Ortho 5 i find it difficult enough to keep my eye that close to an eyepiece. I find i am even closer than anything above, and way closer than the UWA 5.5- and to add insult to injury, im looking through a tiny hole - i never use these - i got the 5mm ortho in a recent purchase and il keep it, But nothing in this range is usable to me - mostly stuff that came free with scopes - paper weights really, if im honest

Iv asked the same question in a few places, but the main thing im trying to understand, is the negative opinion on the ES82 series eye relief. Despite glowing reports for the 8.8, 11, and 18mm ES82 - there is a solid complaint on eye relief. I guess, without looking through one it is difficult to know - but given my experience above, with eye relief in general - where do you think the ES82s stand for me. does eye relief increase as you move up the focal lengths in this series? 

 

Thanks in advance, i greatly appreciate all your help

EDIT  - included picture of my 5.5 for consideration - would be curious to know if this is/was ES82 sibling - iv seen varying reports about different Meade UWAs

 

Edited yesterday at 14:35 by hal9550

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, hal9550 said:

Iv asked the same question in a few places, but the main thing im trying to understand, is the negative opinion on the ES82 series eye relief. Despite glowing reports for the 8.8, 11, and 18mm ES82 - there is a solid complaint on eye relief. I guess, without looking through one it is difficult to know - but given my experience above, with eye relief in general - where do you think the ES82s stand for me. does eye relief increase as you move up the focal lengths in this series? 

You need to separate the conversation over eye relief into two camps:

1. Those who observe without eyeglasses
2. Those who observe with eyeglasses

Those in the first camp are generally fine with 10mm to 15mm of eye relief, with the sweet spot being around 12mm or so.

Those in the second camp are generally fine with 17mm to 22mm of eye relief, with the sweet spot being around 20mm or so.

The ES82 line's eye relief is fine for the first group, but wholly inadequate for the second group.  That may be where the discrepancy in eye relief reports comes from.