Nagler 22mm T4

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have recently got my first Nagler: a 22mm T4, which has nice eye relief, an essential requirement for me with my glasses. I was actually considering the Meade Series 5000 24mm UWA, but the Nagler had recently become some 25 Euro cheaper than the Meade, and the Nagler had got the better reviews, so what the hey.

The Nagler is built like a tank, and weighs 760 g (about 1.6 lb). Of course, cloudy nights prevented me from looking through the scope properly, but I did some terrestrial viewing in day time. A few things immediately became apparent:

1. it completely blew my old 26mm Plossl out of the water,
   
2. using it was more comfortable than my 14mm UWA from Meade, probably due to increased eye relief (19 vs 16 mm makes quite a difference),
   
3. it was slightly less comfortable than the 40mm Paragon (which shows hardly any kidney-beaning), and
   
4. there was some pin-cushion distortion (about same as 14mm UWA, noticeably more than the Paragon, which is almost distortion free).
   

The latter was no problem in astronomical viewing. Two days later (Jan 25 & 26) I could do some stargazing. First object up was Mars. Even at some 90x magnification in my C8, the Nagler showed clear detail on the surface. The image was tack-sharp right up to the outer 5% of the FOV, in my estimation. After looking at Mars through the 14mm and admiring it properly in the new Radian 8mm (which I will review separately) I switched to M42. Even with a nearby Moon, the view was great. The immersive effect of an 82 deg AFOV is just wonderful. I new this from the Meade of course, and the Paragon with 69deg is no slouch either in terms of immersion. The Nagler seems to have very little field curvature.

I also did a brief comparison with the Meade 14mm UWA on M42. Under the circumstances, I could not really tell whether the Nagler was sharper than the Meade, in part due to their very different magnifications (90x vs. 140x). The Meade seemed to show a bit more field curvature, and slightly less sharp stellar images towards the edge of the FOV. Given the excellent seeing, I do not think this is due to the magnification difference. Despite this, I do not think I will exchange the Meade for another Nagler any time soon (not just because that's expensive , much more because I rather like my 14mm).

Finally, I had a peek at the Moon. Once my eyes had grown accustomed to the enormous amount of light, the view was again great. Detail along the terminator stood out clearly, and there were no discernible internal reflections.

There was some kidney-beaning on the Nagler, but I got used to it quickly, and now find the right eye position almost immediately

Bottom line: I am VERY pleased with my new eyepiece :D:D and am looking forward to using it on DSOs once the moon and clouds have buzzed off.

[TheLookingGlass]

I know it's not good etiquette to comment on older posts here, but I am somewhat interested in a 22mm Nagler T4, and I wanted to know a couple of things...

What type of telescope were you using? Were you using a coma corrector? 

Thanks!

[NGC 1502]

Easy to miss, but the reviewer mentions he was using a C8, that’s the Celestron 8” 2000mm focal length f10 SCT.

F10 scopes generally don’t need a coma corrector, these are much more usually needed with F4 to F5.  Opinions vary greatly as to the necessity of coma correctors.

One of my reflectors is F3.8 and with good eyepieces I’m not bothered by off axis coma without a coma corrector, someone else could be horrified.

Ed.

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

9 hours ago, TheLookingGlass said:

I know it's not good etiquette to comment on older posts here, but I am somewhat interested in a 22mm Nagler T4, and I wanted to know a couple of things...

What type of telescope were you using? Were you using a coma corrector? 

Thanks!

As mentioned, I was using a Celestron C8, but since then I have used it in many more scopes, like the APM 80 mm F/6 triplet, my Meade SN6 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newton, and Olly Penrice's 20" F/4.1 Dobson. It always gives outstanding views. Neither the Schmidt-Newton nor the APM triplet require coma corrector, some coma was visible in the 20", but it wasn't very troublesome. It is still one of my favourite eyepieces. 

[TheLookingGlass]

Thanks you guys!

Cheers!