Jump to content


Photo

Has Tele Vue Forsaken Long Focal Lengths?

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11679
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

Lumping the Naglers together isn't appropriate. The type 4, 5, and 6 Naglers are three completely different designs, and none of them cover the full focal length range.


I disagree with that...and so does the TV literature. The T6 design optimizes the 82 AFOV in shorter FLs, and the T5 design optimizes it for the longer FLs. This was and is the strategy they used. Then the T4 line was done to address those who need longer ER. So the Nagler T5 and T6 combination of prescriptions is the TV "solution" to a full range of 82 degree AFOV EPs with mid-ranged ER.

From the TV Site:

[i]Why Are There 3 Types of Naglers?
To achieve the full magnification range over 82° apparent field of view requires two types: Nagler Type-5 with focal lengths of 31, 26, 20, 16mm and Nagler Type-6 with focal lengths of 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3.5, 2.5mm.

The Type-5 permits the largest true field possible (31mm has 42mm field stop), while the shorter focal length Type-6 models are parfocal, with similiar size and weight and all with a comfortable 12mm eye relief.

The Type-4 models feature about 18mm of eye relief and with the "instajust" eyeguard are best for eyeglass wearers or Dioptrx users in their 22, 17, 12mm focal length range. i]

#52 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43897
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:18 PM

Plus, I need a 2" 100 degree eyepiece that gives widest TFOV capable with a 2" barrel.



So, what is your current eyepiece that fills this slot?

I was just reading where you said that for what you do, a 2mm exit pupil was about optimal. 2mm with a 21mm eyepiece is F/10.5. For anything faster, one needs a shorter focal length eyepiece to maintain that optimal exit pupil.

Jon

#53 Tom T

Tom T

    ISS

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 34990
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2002

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:28 PM

My whole argument from the getgo is that the "can't" be done argument is nonsense. I put forth a supposition of a probable real reason, that the particular prescription of the Ethos does not lend itself to a 25mm incarnation. So take or leave my supposition all you want. I don't care. My only argument is that it is nonsense that it "can't be done".


So, even if it were to be shown to be completely impractical (due to size or cost) or perhaps even impossible because it does something like violate the laws of physics, you'd still maintain it's nonsense?

And further, I never ever care what any vendor says on the topic. No disrespect at all to the vendor. I am the consumer and the consumer's needs rule.


Vendors or manufacturers / designers? It depends on who you actually mean, but I guess if you have no desire to listen to what the people who actually design and construct these things for a living (and have experience in dealing with the consumer market) have to say, those that actually have degrees and experience in the field then... I dunno. I guess if you at least say you don't trust them (for whatever reason), that's one thing. However I'd still listen - even if I have to put some filters in place.

The idea that anything can be done is absurd Bill. As is the idea that we know the reasoning behind why something hasn't been done.

Especially if you aren't willing to accept the answers from the folks who - um... haven't done it.

:lol:

Where the who-ha is that coming from Tom?


See above.

#54 rathbaster

rathbaster

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 925
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008
  • Loc: East Bridgewater, MA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:01 PM

All this speculation could probably be ended the next time Al Nagler shows up at a star party.

Just sayin'

-Joe

#55 rockethead26

rockethead26

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3336
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Arizona, USA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

All this speculation could probably be ended the next time Al Nagler shows up at a star party.

Just sayin'

-Joe


Nah, he never talks about future plans. Likes to keep everyone guessing.

#56 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

My new scope is an f/3.5

In this scope I wont be using anything longer than a 20mm Nagler T5 with my astigmatism.

I dont think the 35 Pan can be much improved upon. Its my favorite low power eyepiece of all time. But I wont use it in the new scope (hey 9mm exit pupil :p) I dont even use it at all anymore. It was great in my f/5 dob and f/15 Maks.

Im excited with the new Delos as I will have high magnification AND an exit pupil >1mm.

My dilemma is whether to get the 17 Delos or Nagler T4. Do I need either since I like the 20T5?

#57 Paul G

Paul G

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5059
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:43 PM

In the end, for me personally, don't care about the internal optical prescription too much as long as the ER and AFOV characteristics are consistent.


What existing eyepiece design covers the full range of focal lengths with consistent ER and AFOV?

Just because a consumer wants something doesn't mean it's possible or desirable for the manufacturer. In fact, manufacturers have been burned bringing products to market in response to a few vocal people on an internet group.

#58 Tom T

Tom T

    ISS

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 34990
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2002

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

Just because a consumer wants something doesn't mean it's possible or desirable for the manufacturer. In fact, manufacturers have been burned bringing products to market in response to a few vocal people on an internet group.


:waytogo: I hope our next software package for the forums has a "like" button.

This is all too true. Often the most vocal voices are a distinct minority.

#59 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:14 PM

What existing eyepiece design covers the full range of focal lengths with consistent ER and AFOV?

Pentax XW.

#60 derangedhermit

derangedhermit

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1150
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

As far as the ES 100 line being a knockoff of Ethos, I though x-ray photos had long ago proven the obvious to be true? :question:

I'm surprised this post is still here. I got a nastygram for a similar statement.

#61 derangedhermit

derangedhermit

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1150
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:41 PM

There are 1.25" eyepieces with 29mm field stops, a diameter larger than the inside diameter of the bottom barrel. How? Accept lower illumination of the edge that would be the case in a 1.25" eyepiece with a 27-27.5mm field stop.
As was said earlier--it's all about compromises and where one draws the line.

Moving the field stop from 12mm above the top of the drawtube to 12mm below can increase the fully illuminated diameter by 5mm, with no change in field stop diameter or any other design change; this includes eyepieces that attempt to max out the use of a given diameter drawtube. This is an example of a design decision that can determine performance and where the line is drawn.

#62 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:31 PM

As far as the ES 100 line being a knockoff of Ethos, I though x-ray photos had long ago proven the obvious to be true? :question:

I'm surprised this post is still here. I got a nastygram for a similar statement.


Shhhhhh... :x

#63 careysub

careysub

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1902
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:33 PM

Jeff,

I've owned both the 22mm Pan and T4 Nagler in the past. Yes, the T4 has a larger and somewhat more immersive field than the Pan does.
...


Although AFOVs wider than the Panoptic's 68 degrees have their appeal, I find that an AFOV of roughly 65 degrees hits a sweet spot, since it matches the physiology of the eye which has a stationary FOV of about 60 degrees. Your eye is fully employed, and so is the EP's output.

Less than 60 degrees, and I am aware that I am looking into a narrower EP "view port", and must be conscious of where my eye is positioned. But 65-72 degree creates a feeling of a natural, filled FOV and I tend to gravitate toward using my Panoptic or Baader 68 degree EPs over my 82 degree Nagler or ES, or the 49-52 degree Plossls.

#64 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22873
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:52 AM

What existing eyepiece design covers the full range of focal lengths with consistent ER and AFOV?

Pentax XW.

Alas, no longer true. The 30 and 40 have been discontinued, and the 20 does not have a field stop anywhere near the limit for a 1.25" eyepiece.

#65 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:22 AM

Oh right, i forgot they discontinued the 30 and 40. :foreheadslap::

#66 cjc

cjc

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 354
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Derbyshire, England

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:15 AM

What existing eyepiece design covers the full range of focal lengths with consistent ER and AFOV?


I did not get on with the 14mm but the Explore Scientific 82 series comes close. I note they now list the field stops.

#67 Paul G

Paul G

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5059
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:05 AM

Lumping the Naglers together isn't appropriate. The type 4, 5, and 6 Naglers are three completely different designs, and none of them cover the full focal length range.


I disagree with that.


Seriously? You're saying the types 4, 5 and 6 are the same design?

#68 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9848
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:37 AM

Lumping the Naglers together isn't appropriate. The type 4, 5, and 6 Naglers are three completely different designs, and none of them cover the full focal length range.


I disagree with that.


Seriously? You're saying the types 4, 5 and 6 are the same design?


The respective internal optical designs of the above types are different. However, from an END-USER PERSPECTIVE the vastly more important question is whether and how the viewing qualities produced differ across these various types. One difference that IS obvious between the T6s vs the T4s and T5s is strongly related to the significantly larger eyepiece lens size of tha latter: to me, it's MUCH easier to subjectively perceive the purportedly identical 82 deg AFOVs as generously expansive in the T4s and T5s than in the T6s. For example, I often find it takes a minute or two for my mind to "see" the AFOV in e.g. a 13mmT6 as equally expansive as in the 17mmT4 when I swap out the latter for the former, while by comparison, there is no such perceptual gap produced in switching from a 17mm Ethos to a 13mm Ethos (equal eye lens sizes). What's curious is that if I comparatively test the views through the raw eyepieces (no scope) against an illuminated sheet of white paper (i.e. an effectively "null" blank view), the perceptual gap produced by the difference in lens sizes between the 13T6 and 17T4 disappears in that I more or less instantly perceive the "sameness" of the 82 degree AFOVs.

Which brings us back to the larger question: what potential improvements could be made to the 31T5 Nagler, 41 Panoptic, or 21 Ethos, other than perhaps new versions thereof with expanded eye relief? What improvements would be sufficiently non-incremental to justify introduction of an additional eyepiece line or additional "type" for an existing line (e.g. T7 Naglers, or T2 Panoptics?) That is, enough of a difference that the re-labeling would be more than just marketing hype? Would you be more satisfied if Televue sold the improvement as "enhanced majesty factor" or if they sold it as "Ethos Type 2", or "3.7mm Ethos SX"...your choice for whatever the "SX" stands for (?)

#69 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10822
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

Televue, Televue, whereforeartthou Televue....

Hey, Maybe I'll write a play........

#70 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:01 PM


A 25mm Ethos would've been nice, but only if Televue had been able to maintain the image quality of the 21mm Ethos and 31mm Nagler.


It's probably technically feasible to make a 25mm Ethos and satisfy all the same performance characteristics required of the rest of the line. What's probably not feasible is to do so without requiring an unacceptably bulky, heavy package size. It seems that for any given AFOV, past a certain focal length the required bulk and size begins to ramp up exponentially...consider how dramatically the 31T5 bulks up compared to the 26T5 or the 21E compared to the 17E. Would you buy and use a 25E only slightly smaller and lighter than a pony keg of beer? OK, so that hypothetical is a bit of an exaggeration in degree, but is correct in principle.


The ES 100 25mm is now out, sells for $600, and weighs in at 2 lbs, 10 oz., that is to say heavier than the 21mm Ethos but lighter than the 31mm Nagler. So, the weight is competitive and the price is competitive. The remaining question is how well it performs, or put another way whether is truly fills the void left by Televue not releasing a 25mm Ethos. The tidbits I've read about the 25mm ES 100 in other threads sound encouraging, but I don't know of any thorough reviews as of yet comparing it to other wide-field long focal length eyepieces, so it remains to be seen how it stacks up to the Ethos, Nagler or even other ES 100 eyepieces. I know I'd love to compare one to my 31mm Nagler...

I don't pretend to know enough about eyepiece design to speculate whether Televue should be able to make a 25mm Ethos that would perform as well as the rest of the line while weighing less than a bowling ball. It may well be that making one now isn't feasible for different reasons, but might be in the near future. I do see another problem for now--price. The 21mm Ethos is $900 and I'm almost afraid to ask what a 25mm Ethos would go for...

#71 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43897
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

What improvements would be sufficiently non-incremental to justify introduction of an additional eyepiece line or additional "type" for an existing line (e.g. T7 Naglers, or T2 Panoptics?)



:waytogo:

The issue of the need to update the coatings was mentioned. I believe TeleVue just does this as a matter of course, incremental improvements are made without renaming the line.

Jon






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics