Eyepiece Choice

[JamesM]

I'm sure this might be a straightforward question but here goes.

Listed below are three 1.25 eyepieces of the same focal length. What I would like to know is which one would you choose based upon your own experiences. Sure the Pentax is dearer and has less FOV but it has an established pedigree based on quality. The others are cheaper with more FOV but are stars pinpoint across the whole field of view? Like all newbies, eyepiece comparisons are difficult to consider when you haven't actually looked through them and although it is easy to buy the most expensive in the 'hope' that you can achieve a good image, experience tells me that something twice the price isn't necessarily twice as good. I would welcome any comments.

The details:

Pentax XW 14mm 70' FOV £240

Explore Scientific 14mm 82' FOV £129

Meade 5000 UWA 14mm 82' FOV £148

Many thanks

James

[Moonshane]

looking at your signature, I'd possibly consider a scope first?

but seriously folks. I can GUARANTEE you that something twice the price will not be twice as good. the road to optical perfection is like a pyramid. the price goes higher and higher but the gain each time is smaller and smaller.

personally, I chose a top brand in the knowledge that they sell on quickly and at not much less than you pay and also that you make the most of the conditions you have and the scope you are looking through.

I have never used the Pentax but if you can afford it, and based on reputation, of the three mentioned I'd go for that over the others personally. Of course my own view (being a TV junkie) would be something entirely different; if you definitely want a 14mm, then go for the 14mm Radian at about £170 and buy a TV plossl to go with it for the same money!

[JamesM]

I do own some gear its just that I haven't bothered to post it up so apologies. :D

I do understand the pyramid theory but I also get the sense that with companies like TV leading the way, other manufacturers are following suite and perhaps producing better eyepieces that they might have done in the past - be it at a price. Issues about acceptable contrast etc can be subjective but what I would like to know for sure is whether my chosen eyepieces do what they say on the tin, especially with regard to the whole FOV.

Thanks for you advice though.

James

[Moonshane]

I think your comments are spot on.

whether you'll get a full field of sharp stars will depend on your scope too. faster scopes will begin to show coma rather than astigmatism but slower scopes will give more similar results even with modest EPs. see what others say who've used the actual EPs.

[Albireo380]

I used to own a Meade 18mm UWA. It seemed of the same quality as my 16mm Nagler in an f10 SCT. It also seemed as good in an f5 Dob.

So, I suppose I am saying that the Meade UWAs are of pretty high quality, in my experience.

Tom

[pvaz]

I read great thinks about the 16mm Nirvana, from several sources, comparing it to the equivalent Nagler. Maybe it's an option to consider too.

[John]

I was loaned a Pentax XW 10mm by First Light Optics a while back to compare with my Nagler Type 6 9mm. I'm a great fan of the T6 Naglers but the Pentax was immensely impressive and seemed to have slightly better light transmission than the Nagler. It (the Pentax) is also a very comfortable eyepiece to use with very comfortable eye relief and a nice big eye lens which gives an immersive field despite the 10 degrees or so less FoV on paper.

And the stars were pinpoints right across the field of view, even with my F/4.8 newtonian, as they are with the Nagler.

I've not used either the ES 14mm or the Meade 5000 UWA 14mm so I can't comment on how they compare with the XW but I'd be surprised if they could beat the Pentax !.

,

[JamesM]

Thanks guys for coming back with your advice.

Albireo thanks for the benefit of your experience and for yours as well John, it always makes sense to ask especially as you both reference the Pentax against the infamous 'Naglers'! Pvaz, I hadn't thought of the Nirvana in the mix, ......just when I've managed to narrow it all down there's another idea!. :D

Many thanks guys.

james