Jump to content


Photo

TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ?

  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#1 Nigel_Choy

Nigel_Choy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia

Posted 31 January 2011 - 04:26 AM

I am looking on purchasing either one of this EP's

Explore Scientific 30mm 82 FOV
TeleVue nagler 31mm 82 FOV

Can anyone tell me the difference between this 2 EPs Which is better and what makes it better from the other one. Thanks!! :p

#2 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43401
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 31 January 2011 - 06:15 AM

I can't say... the 31mm Nagler is the longer focal length widefield all are compared against... Cost wise, it's a bundle but I finally sprung for one and it's a wonderful eyepiece in any scope, fast or slow.

#3 Darenwh

Darenwh

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2823
  • Joined: 11 May 2006
  • Loc: Covington, GA

Posted 31 January 2011 - 07:54 AM

I have seen posts by some people who have switched from the Nagler 31mm to the Explore Scientific 30mm. Hopefully some of those people will submit their stories to this thread. I have the ES30 and can say it is an increadable eyepiece. I have not compaired it head to head with the Nagler 31mm so cannot give you a direct compairison. I will say though that with either eyepiece you will be very happy.

#4 rdl800

rdl800

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 642
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2011
  • Loc: CT

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:03 AM

the 27mm or the 35mm TV Panoptic is a cheaper alternative that provides great results. If you use it on your cpc8 you'll be satisfied with the results.

I have the 35mm Panoptic and it's a great low power eyepiece for my 8" scope! ..if not, I'd lean toward the venerable Nagler 31mm; hard to argue with success!

#5 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9769
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:37 AM

Completely aside from their comparative optical qualities, there's a difference in the respective shapes of the two eyepieces that to some, makes the 31T5 notably more comfortable to use, but to others, may make little difference at all. The section of the 31T5's body immediately underneath the eyelens has a tapered conical shape, whereas the 30mm Explore Scientific has more of a flat cylindrical shape with little to no taper around the eyelens. The 31T5's tapered shape makes it easier to many people's tastes to snuggle their face (particularly their cheek area underneath the eye socket) into a comfortable viewing position than with the Explore Scientific's shape. Note that while this issue obviously interrelates with eye relief, it is nonetheless a distinctly different issue from what distance between eyelens and eye the design is optimized for (i.e. eye relief).

#6 Darenwh

Darenwh

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2823
  • Joined: 11 May 2006
  • Loc: Covington, GA

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:48 AM

Actually, the Explore Scientific N2 30mm, the newer version of this eyepiece, has an eye lens that is easy to look through. I have the origional and had to remove the twist up portion to get my eye into a good viewing position. As long as a person gets the newer version they should have no problems with eye placement.

#7 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9769
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:54 AM

Actually, the Explore Scientific N2 30mm, the newer version of this eyepiece, has an eye lens that is easy to look through. I have the origional and had to remove the twist up portion to get my eye into a good viewing position. As long as a person gets the newer version they should have no problems with eye placement.


Yes, I just looked at ES's website, and the shape of the new N2 series is much closer to that of the 31T5 Nagler (tapered conical section). The older more cylindrical version (which a fellow club member bought last year and which I've tried a few times back-to-back with my 31T5) simply wasn't nearly as comfortable to my tastes.

So, with this distinction in mind, it's back to optical comparisons.

#8 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:46 PM

Had the Meade 30mm 5000 UWA which is supposed to be very similar to the ES and having looked thru the 31T5 Nagler i would pick the TV Nagler. The Meade was nice but the Nagler was great!

#9 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12627
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 31 January 2011 - 06:36 PM

I am sure that they are both excellent eyepieces. They both are about of the same weight. I own the 31mm Nagler. It is a great eyepiece.

#10 orveko

orveko

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Lake County, IL

Posted 31 January 2011 - 06:59 PM

Does anyone have a comment on how either of these eyepieces work with glasses? I am often skeptical of posted eye relief specifications ...

#11 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 31 January 2011 - 07:03 PM

Does anyone have a comment on how either of these eyepieces work with glasses? I am often skeptical of posted eye relief specifications ...

The Meade 5000 UWA i could see apprx. 70% of the FOV with my glasses, with the 40mm SWA 5000 you can easilly take in the whole FOV.

#12 orveko

orveko

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Lake County, IL

Posted 31 January 2011 - 07:06 PM

Does anyone have a comment on how either of these eyepieces work with glasses? I am often skeptical of posted eye relief specifications ...

The Meade 5000 UWA i could see apprx. 70% of the FOV with my glasses, with the 40mm SWA 5000 you can easilly take in the whole FOV.

Thanks a bunch :grin:

#13 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12627
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 31 January 2011 - 11:19 PM

Does anyone have a comment on how either of these eyepieces work with glasses? I am often skeptical of posted eye relief specifications ...


I have found that posted eye relief of at least 17mm to be necessary to view while wearing glasses. Visit the vendor's internet site you are interested in purchasing from. Drill down until you get the eye relief. My 17mm and 12mm Naglers have 17mm of eye relief--and I can get the entire field in. My 31 and 22 Naglers have 19mm of eye relief, plenty for use while wearing glasses. Eye relief of 19 to 20mm of eye relief should be plenty. Different brands of eyepieces have different characteristics. Therefore, in the final analysis, you have to test eyepieces with eye relief of 17mm or so.

#14 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 01 February 2011 - 12:57 AM

Do y'all think there is a market for "astro eyeglasses" that are smaller and inset quite a bit closer to the eyes? My optometrist says can do pretty much anything and he works with these tiny eyeglasses that I would bet could easily be altered to make it easier to get the eye in closer to the eyepiece... He used Zeiss coatings on my newest pair of regular glasses when I told him I was into astronomy.

#15 Nigel_Choy

Nigel_Choy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia

Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:20 AM

That's a cool glasses.. I myself is a eye glass wearer. I wonder where you get those glasses?

#16 spacedoutbob

spacedoutbob

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2008
  • Loc: California

Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:36 AM

I have never looked through a ES 30mm. I have had a 31mm nagler for 10 years. Until the Ethos came out, that was my main eyepiece I used in my 10" Meade Starfinder Equatorial and 17.5" Discovery Truss Tube. I still use it. It's a fantastic eyepiece. Just my 2/100th of a dollar.

Bob

#17 Nigel_Choy

Nigel_Choy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia

Posted 01 February 2011 - 10:44 AM

So Should i go for the TV 31mm type 5?

#18 Nigel_Choy

Nigel_Choy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia

Posted 01 February 2011 - 10:46 AM

So I'll go for the TV 31mm type 5? Good Idea? :D

#19 kohudson

kohudson

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Mayhill, NM

Posted 01 February 2011 - 11:32 AM

So I'll go for the TV 31mm type 5? Good Idea? :D


When I went to the Deepest South Texas Star Safari in Australia last year I had the pleasure of viewing through a TV 31mm for several nights. What a wonderful eyepiece. I haven't tried the Explore Scientific but I can vouch for the Nagler. I'm saving my money for one... By the way, I wear glasses while observing.

I think you are going to be happy with your decision!

Thanks,

#20 Paul G

Paul G

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4932
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 01 February 2011 - 12:05 PM

So Should i go for the TV 31mm type 5?


It's one of my most used eyepieces. Highly recommended.

#21 Jack Day

Jack Day

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2005

Posted 01 February 2011 - 01:21 PM

I also own the older version ES 30, that I removed the twist cup from. All I can say is that I am completely happy with it, and I do use my glasses while viewing with no issue. I have used the T5 31, and it is also a great eyepiece. I chose the ES for two primary reasons:

Cost: Was 1/3 the cost of the TV

Exit Pupil: 30mm has a slightly smaller ep than the 31mm.

#22 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:53 PM

I have the 30mm Meade UWA, and enjoy using it very much. I find it has ample ER for my eyeglasses when the rubberized top is rotated nearly all-the-way down, and it seems okay ergonomically with my facial structure- an aspect i believe is not discussed a lot, and has a substantial bearing on *effective* ER & comfort of use.

On the contrary, i once owned a 28mm UWAN (W.O.'s UWA), and while it *technically* had "enough" ER, its soda-can shape was simply too wide at the top- i had to tilt my head at an angle in order to sneak my eye up to view if i wanted to see the entire FoV. Not at all ergonomic... for *me*. Others seemed fine with it.

I've found the Meade 30mm UWA less obtrusive in this regard.

For a brief period of a few nights i was able to compare the Meade, A-B fashion, to the Nagler T5 26mm... but not the 31mm. My 15" Dob was used for this, with a Paracorr. I found the view quality very similar- for colors, sharpness, background, faintness of stars seen. The BIG difference i saw was the T5 had substantial "pincushion" distortion, the Meade did not.

Not caring much for the PC, i sold the Nagler off & kept the Meade, and have not regretted the choice since.

Assuming the ES-30 was similar in nature to the Meade UWA, my default recommendation would be to strongly consider the ES, over the Nagler. I, for one, certainly saw no differences i'd consider worthy of doubling the price of the investment. Yet if :money: :money: is no object, and you must unquestioningly have "the best", the Nagler would seem to be better fitting that criteria.
;) mike b

#23 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:58 PM

31T5, absolutely. It's in a class by itself. Pincushion is the price you pay for sharp stars to the edge.

Nigel about those glasses I think Lindberg makes these tiny glasses, but it's a matter of having the frames (or rather the earpieces since they have no frames), somehow altered for astro use. Actually, I think customizing the nosepiece would be they key to insetting the lenses for astro use. The lenses themselves can be custom cut to any shape, so they could be made very small. The earpieces are thin titanium, and simply plug into a hole in the side of the lens kinda like a truss rod on a mirror box.

#24 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12627
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:04 PM

So Should i go for the TV 31mm type 5?


It is a great eyepiece. You can't go wrong with it.

#25 sixela

sixela

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14318
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Boechout, Belgium

Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:49 PM

Does anyone have a comment on how either of these eyepieces work with glasses? I am often skeptical of posted eye relief specifications ...

The Meade 5000 UWA i could see apprx. 70% of the FOV with my glasses, with the 40mm SWA 5000 you can easilly take in the whole FOV.

Thanks a bunch :grin:


Small note: may not apply to the newer version. The old version requires you to look through it with head tilted at an angle to see all of the field, and that's simply impossible to do well with eyeglasses. The newer one with 31T5 style tapered conical top might be a lot better.

All the JOC Kunming UWAs of the earlier generation and the UWAN have "what on earth were they thinking" eye facing eyecup designs (as had the 34mm Meade 5000 SWA I just sold).

Glad they ditched it in favour of the 31T5 style design, and it earned them at least one new customer.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics