What EP in the range of 9-10 mm?

[Cloudy]

I'm new in this hobby and trying to get a proper set of EPs. My scope is a SW Dob 10" and have already a couple of EPs that I'd like to complement with one in the range 9 to 10 mm.*

I am interested on experiences ie comparison between a TeleVue Nagler6, 9 mm and a Pentax XW 10 mm (other than weight and FOV).

I lived in a not too dark area and this also makes me wonder on the benefit of purchasing such expensive EPs. I've frequently read that if darkness is an issue, any inexpensive Plössl can do a pretty good job too...

Thanks in advance and clear skies!

Cloudy

[Capricorn]

Not sure what you are asking, nor what you want.

You ask about comparisons of Naglars and Pentax's, in the £300-400 bracket. Then switch to plossls that come in the £20-30 bracket.

The first 2 are premium and both will be good, very good. What will differ is how well either will suit you. One you will find better then the other for subtle reasons that another person would consider the other way.

Could you tell any difference between TV Radians and Naglars? Even though the cost difference is about double. Might you find the cheaper one better for you?

For budget then GSO and Antares plossl's are about £20, TV plossl's are about £75. Everyting in between - Vixen NPL's at £30. TMB Planetary's at £40-50.

I have a set of Antares W70's that a couple of weeks ago were used on a dob and they were pretty good, they are ~£60-65.

Have to say the only answer is to try a few and see how you feel. That means purchasing ones that you might consider not worth it.

[pvaz]

General complaints are, Naglers have a warmer color then Pentax and are a bit more fussy about eye position but you get a larger FoV for it. Some prefer the warmer color others don't.

That's what I read, I only tried the one nagler I have and never used a XW. I would advise to try before buying if you can.

[Cloudy]

Thanks Capricorn! Sorry not to be so clear with my question.

I am fully aware of the high price of both Pentax XW and Nagler 6 but my point in mentioning the inexpensive Plössl is simply because I've read comments in elsewhere saying that if you live in less than ideal darkness conditions it is not worth to invest so much money in expensive EPs like TeleVue or else, just that.

Unfortunately it is really difficult for me to have access to try the EPs I'm interested in (TV and Pentax) so this is why I'm resourcing to the Stargazers community for advice.

Again, thx for your comments.

[pvaz]

I think you should try to get one at regular 2nd hand price. Then try it and if you don't like it they usually sell fast at a regular price.

Worst case scenario you don't like them and you loose only the postage.

That's what I did and end up keeping them all.

[JohnDenim]

These guys 1.25" Eyepieces allow you to try before you buy.

A great incentive.

Although the website is still under construction, and not trading until Feb 1st.

If you are interested I'd email the contact on there.

HTH, John.

[NGC 1502]

I am interested on experiences ie comparison between a TeleVue Nagler6, 9 mm and a Pentax XW 10 mm......

I lived in a not too dark area and this also makes me wonder on the benefit of purchasing such expensive EPs. I've frequently read that if darkness is an issue.... Cloudy

The main differences between a T6 Nagler and Pentax XW are

the XW has a 20mm eye relief and 70 degree apparent field, the

T6 has 12mm eye relief and 82 deg field.

If you wear glasses to observe the XW may suit you better, but

its a personal thing, what suits one may not suit another. Getting

either of them wouldn't be a mistake.

I do think that good eyepieces are a benefit whatever your observing

conditions.

Best regards, Ed.

[umadog]

It's only fair to point out that just as many people don't notice the "warm" tone mentioned above. If it's there at all then it's subtle.

[John]

I did a "group test" of mid-power eyepieces a while back which included the Nagler Type 6 9mm and the Pantax XW 10mm:

http://stargazerslounge.com/equipment-reviews/100531-mid-high-power-eyepieces.html

[umadog]

I've recently bought a new Explore Scientific 82 degree 14 mm and found it to perform very well compared to my TV eyepieces, including my 7 mm Nagler. Considering that it was 1/3 of the price, I'm very happy. They are made in the same factory as the Meade UWA, I believe.

Meade UWA and Explore Scientific 6.7mm 82 Degree Wide Field Eyepieces - Review

The Pantax XW do look nice. I'm very tempted, but I already have a pretty complete collection now so I can't really justify it.

[Chris H]

When used in a 10" Dob these ep's are going to give a high enough level of magnification to darken the sky background enough in most conditions, if you have really bad levels of light pollution then it may be a different matter (maybe someone will be able to tell you) as for a choice between the two the 9T6 is available for £224 and the Pentax for £274, if it were me I'd go got the Nagler. I currently have a Nagler and a Pentax XW 5mm I prefer the 82 degree FOV.

[Cloudy]

Gee guys!

This was a true lesson + a wealth of great oieces of additional information, thanks!

John: I was delighted to read your review on this very EPs, I got all the info I needed. A great report!

I'll keep trying to get the opportunity to try the EPs before purchasing them but as said before, this is not very easy in the particular area in the country I live in (Germany, and by the way, I'm Chilean and have been living here for a few years).

So far I've not seen any astronomy shop offering the opportunity to try EPs or else before purchasig them. And in my astronomy club not many people have these EP brands.

Clear skies!

[ollypenrice]

With a Dob, especially in an EP likely to do planetary work, the longer nudge-free observation time afforded by very wide FOVs is really worth having. In a tracking mount fewer elements and a smaller FOV might be better.

I do find I see a touch of false colour in some of the Pentaxes but this is an opinion shared by very few so it might be just me. I love TV eyepieces. The Nagler is more exciting and immersive but more fickle than the Radian, which is easy and very 'clean.' For spectacle wearers it has to be the Radian or Pentax.

In general, are premium EPs worth it. In my view, resoundingly, Yes. I don't always vote for the most expensive kit, BTW. For example, on top diagonals I would say don't bother.

Olly

[Moonshane]

my take on eyepieces is that you should buy the best you can afford (used if in excellent condition and at less than 75% of the new cost) and if for some reason you don't like it or don't get on with it then sell it and try something else. if you can keep it to compare with the new one and then sell the one you prefer least, even better.

things to consider are 1) is the eye relief adequate - people with glasses (when observing) or who don't like to be too close to the eyepiece won't like short focal length plossls and orthoscopics. 2) do you want a wide field 3) is edge sharpness important to you 4) do you want simple construction 5) is weight an issue

I have a decent range of eyepieces and you might think it odd that for planetary/lunar magnifications and with a manual dob, that I prefer my 40 degree AFOV orthos and 50 degree plossls to my wide field eyepieces like my 100 degree Ethos. To my eyes, the simpler (and often cheaper) designs are cleaner and brighter than the wide field designs for planets. with a bit of practice, nudge and drift works fine with dobs even at very high (250x +) mags.

For more extended objects like nebulae and open clusters, the wide field come into their own.

I don't believe that LP is an issue on eyepiece choice but the logic might be, why spend lots and lots on an eyepiece when all you can see are solar system objects and double stars (where the simpler designs excel).

As others have said, if you buy top quality then you'll never wonder, would I have seen it better with an 'X'.

BTW the optical quality of a £60 TV plossl or £70 Baader Genuine ortho is just as good (as stated better on some objects) as a £440 Ethos, you just lose field of view and in some cases eye relief.

This is what I think anyway based on my own eyepieces

I can only reflect of the eyepieces I have tried which does not include Pentax - reviews say they are just as good, and some say better, than TV but I suggest the difference would be very minimal either way.

Just realised I have not answered your question!

If you want it for planetary etc use and don't wear glasses to observe, then I'd recommend a 9mm Baader Genuine Ortho. If you do wear glasses then maybe a 10mm Pentax or Radian.

If you wanted a wider field than the Pentax then the 9mm Nagler is the obvious choice for me. The alternative might be a Barlowed 19mm Panoptic, which would also give you a light and wide field too.

[Moonshane]

ps don't get me wrong, if you can fit the object (nebulae etc) into the field of a plossl or ortho they are great for that too. in fact I suspect being less complex, they might even let finer detail through than more complex designs. not tested this though.

[John]

I think everyone has a slightly different take on eyepieces and what one person prefers would not necessarily be the eyepiece of choice for another.

I've tried a number of different types of orthoscopics in my undriven, alt-azimuth mounted scopes over the years, including the Baader Geniune Orthos. While they were crisp and contrasty, their tight eye relief and narrow fields of view were not something I enjoyed and I for one observe better when I'm comfortable and orthos don't make me feel comfortable.

The Baader GO's that I have used were certainly equal to Nagler equivilents, in optical performance but, in my opinion, were not quite as good as the Pentax XW10mm or the Ethe that I compared them to. As the Ethe offer much more eye relief and much more field of view as well as the all important sparkling optical performance, that's what I've invested in. If I ever move away from the Ethe it would be to Pentax XW's.

In a way my approach is the same as Shanes - I've just come to a slightly different conclusion with regard to orthoscopics

Thats just a personal view however "your mileage may (probably will !) vary"

[Moonshane]

totally true John! Vive la difference! (as they say in China).

all we can do is say what we think and then others can make up their minds.

[umadog]

Whilst it is true that a wider field allows the object a longer time to drift through, it is also true that only the central part of the field is coma-free (the degree to which this is the case will depend upon magnification and focal ratio). As a consequence, when planetary observing with a wide-field eyepiece the "drift through the field" method will mean that the planet will appear more blurry for more of the time. For this reason, whilst I generally use Radians for planetary viewing, I nudge back to the centre before the object leaves the field of view.

[John]

....it is also true that only the central part of the field is coma-free (the degree to which this is the case will depend upon magnification and focal ratio)....

I think it also depends on the scope used. My refactors don't display any coma and there is very little in my maksutov-newtonian (around 70% less than a conventional newtonian).

But many folks do use a coma-corrector with a fast newonian when they use well corrected wide field eyepieces like Naglers and Ethe.

[umadog]

Yep, that's true, I should have said that, I was thinking about Newts only. The coma-corrector increases the size of the coma-free region; it doesn't remove coma throughout the whole field.

[Cloudy]

Thanks to all for this valuable input. As said, I learned much more than just the benefits of the two EP I am intested in.

Clear skies