Radian 8mm vs Radian 6mm

[Earl]

I was playing with these at the weekend, they Eye Relief is great, but the difference between the two eyepieces visually was not really that much, is it worth having the both?

[John]

I was playing with these at the weekend, they Eye Relief is great, but the difference between the two eyepieces visually was not really that much, is it worth having the both?

With your 8" SCT there is quite a difference in the magnification they deliver, 8mm = 250x, 6mm = 333x the seeing conditions on a particular night will dictate whether the higher magnification will be useable - on some nights 250x will be the max practical. So, yes, I think it's worth having both

[pbyrne]

With your 8" SCT there is quite a difference in the magnification they deliver, 8mm = 250x, 6mm = 333x the seeing conditions on a particular night will dictate whether the higher magnification will be useable - on some nights 250x will be the max practical. So, yes, I think it's worth having both

I agree with this assessment, when it comes to lunar and planetary observing that extra magnification makes all the difference. I have the two myself and I find this is where the 6mm comes into its own.

[Earl]

I didint think of it that way, It would explain why the vieing between the two eyepieces was not amazing this weekend as viewing was not brilliant, lots of boiling etc.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Totally agree with this. I want a Radian 6, and probably a 10mm, next to my 8 (which I love!!). The 6 for nights of exceptional seeing, the 10 for nights when the 8 streches things too far.

I am much more happy with the relatively large gaps in magnification at the long end of my EP range (40mm = 50x, 22mm = 90x, 14mm = 142x) than gaps at the top, where FOV is less important than subtle changes in magnification.

[nicnac]

my plan is

6mm,8mm,10mm,12mm radians

15mm,20mm,25mm,32mm TV plossls

and a 2" panoptic, not sure which one yet tho

this is the set up i hope to finish up with

[Moonshane]

my plan is

6mm,8mm,10mm,12mm radians

15mm,20mm,25mm,32mm TV plossls

and a 2" panoptic, not sure which one yet tho

this is the set up i hope to finish up with

I came at the thread question from another direction. I have

35mm Panoptic 2"

24mm Panoptic 1.25"

18mm Radian 1.25"

14mm Radian 1.25"

2.5x Powermate 1.25"

The mags vary on my two scopes of course but I get the following mags with the dob:

14mm 114x 286x 5.6mm

18mm 89x 222x 7.2mm

24mm 67x 167x 9.6mm

35mm 46x

The right hand figures are the 'effective eyepiece' focal lengths with the Powermate. I don't often get to use the 14mm plus Powermate as the seeing is often too unsteady. The 24mm Panoptic (which is also superb) plus Powermate is probably the most used combination for higher power.

This gives a nice range but I wish they did a 16mm Radian as I'd buy one in a shot. Looks like a 16mm T5 Nagler to fill the 'gap' to give me 100x and 250x. I think then that would be it but I also feel there's no such thing as a finished eyepiece collection

Personally, I'd definitely retain both Radians if I were you and if you want a recommendation for a 2" Panoptic, the 35mm is simply awesome even in the fast dob.

cheers

Shane

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I came at the thread question from another direction. I have

35mm Panoptic 2"

24mm Panoptic 1.25"

18mm Radian 1.25"

14mm Radian 1.25"

2.5x Powermate 1.25"

.........

Shane

Whilst I agree that ninac's list of EPs is a bit long, I would rather avoid the use of my TeleXtender (similar to the powermate), during observing (use them a lot for planetary imaging). I feel it disturbs concentration and I do not like the extra glass (despite the quality of both the TeleXtenders and the Powermate).

The gap between the 22mm Nagler and 40 mm Paragon I have may be a bit large, but here the true field of view is the main concern, and they are stepped quite nicely: 1.37 deg to 0.89 deg (about a factor of 1.4). The same ratio is found between the 22mm Nagler and the 14 UWA I have. I do believe I will replace my 14mm UWA with a Nagler 17mm T4, and a 12mm T4, but that is of less concern than adding a 10 and 6mm Radian (probably in that order).

[nicnac]

Whilst I agree that ninac's list of EPs is a bit long

tis a bit long i suppose but im not really a fan of the barlow so that selection (used on both scopes) should do me.

out of interest which EP's would you chop?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

tis a bit long i suppose but im not really a fan of the barlow so that selection (used on both scopes) should do me.

out of interest which EP's would you chop?

Once you have them all, why chop?

I have found that at the long end, FOV is the governing factor, and IF I ever replace the 40mm Paragon, it would be with say a 31mm Nagler, but even that has a narrower FOV than the Paragon 40mm. I have found that at that end, a single Nagler 22 easily replaced my Plossl 26 and 36 mm, because the Nagler matched the former on magnification, and the beat latter on FOV. The 26 was already being pushed out by my 14mm UWA, which had almost the same FOV.

It really is worth considering replacing say 2 Plossls for a single Nagler or Panoptic (at the long end).

By contrast, at the short end I do like my EPs "closely packed". As I said, I am no great fan of barlows (or the better Powermates and TeleXtenders), so I quite agree with you there.

I suppose the final note is that EPs are very personal, and everybody has there own optimal choice.