Jump to content


Photo

Nikon NAV-10SW vs. Pentax 10 XW

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 chboss

chboss

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 717
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Zurich Switzerland

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:09 AM

I am wondering how the Nikon NAV-10SW compares with the Pentax 10 XW. I prefer 65-72 FOV eyepieces over larger fields. Any side by side comparisons?
Any other contenders in that range (also weight wise)?

Looking forward to hear your opinions and experiences.

best regards
Chris

#2 Ava

Ava

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Sweden

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:39 AM

The 10mm Tele Vue Delos would be a serious contender. I find mine to be the best wide field eyepiece I have (in close competition with my 13mm Ethos). Reports indicate that performance of the Delos and Pentax XW eyepieces are very similar but some prefer the ergonomics of one over the other. In comparing the Delos to my CZJ 10mm ortho the only easily noticeable difference is that the CZJ has very slightly less scatter. I have no experience with the Nikon NAV-SWs.

#3 Tamiji Homma

Tamiji Homma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:56 AM

Hi Chris,

I've done side-by-side comparison of various 10mm eyepieces.

XW 10 v.s. NAV SW 10 is virtually a tie. Both are very good from f/4. As I mentioned before, Nikon NAV SW series has very little rectangular distortion, which results in visible AMD toward edge. Image is clean but size of image gets visibly smaller than on-axis. You can easily tell that double star gets tighter and tighter toward edge.

It puzzles me why Nikon decided to do so when they market NAV SW as astronomical eyepiece. I guess they hope that they could sell NAV SW to spotting scope users. I am not sure they are successful, though :)

In terms of color rendering, NAV SW has the whitest color when you observe the Moon among wide AFOV eyepieces that I've tried.

Posted Image

Tammy

#4 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 152
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:07 AM

Wow Tammy, what an interesting side-by-side comparison! I'm interested to know how well did the Televue 10mm Delos perform against their contenders?

#5 Nuphy

Nuphy

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Newport News, VA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

Tammy, I would be interested to hear how the Tak-10U UW performs in comparison.

#6 SteveG

SteveG

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4308
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:47 PM

Why is the 12.5 in that picture? ;-)

#7 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20270
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

Having now used both head-to-head in 10mm and 7mm, I prefer the Pentax XWs across the board. The NAV-SWs have a cheesy loose screw up eyecup and suffer eyeball glint as bad as any eyepiece I've ever used. They are quality eyepieces other than that, but these are ills the Pentax lacks, and the Pentaxes are easier to get hold of and cheaper to boot.

I like the XWs much better than my Deloses, too.

- Jim

#8 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1302
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

The NAV-SWs have a cheesy loose screw up eyecup and suffer eyeball glint as bad as any eyepiece I've ever used.

- Jim



I tried Nikon NAV 14mm SW and NAV 17.5mm SW pairs in the Baader Mark V binoviewer. I found that the very bulky eyecup design of the NAV-SW's causes annoying nose clearance problems to me, no matter how low or high I adjust the cups. Regarding nose-related eyecup comfort problems, the 14mm was worse, the 17.5mm is barely acceptable. Of course, the eyecup may me completely unscrewed if desired. But for binoviewing, I prefer eyepieces with eyecups (in particular soft rubber eyecups), which are helpful to hold the eyes well positioned and centered.

Speaking of widefield eyepieces, I feel very comfortable and happy with the bino-friendly TV Delos models, and also the terrific Docter UWA 12.5, as discussed elsewhere on this CN forum, is da bomb in the binoviewer.

Stephan

#9 coutleef

coutleef

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3970
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Saint-Donat, Quebec, Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:46 PM


I like the XWs much better than my Deloses, too.

- Jim


why do you prefer the pentax over yhe delos??

#10 Tamiji Homma

Tamiji Homma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:41 PM

Why is the 12.5 in that picture? ;-)


Hi Steve,

If you look at 1.25" nosepiece of NAV HW 12.5 carefully, you find Nikon EiC-10 Barlow lens attached.
It is designed for HW 12.5 to make NAV HW 10mm :)

You can look at the full resolution photo.
http://www.pbase.com...14/original.jpg

Tammy

#11 Tamiji Homma

Tamiji Homma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

Wow Tammy, what an interesting side-by-side comparison! I'm interested to know how well did the Televue 10mm Delos perform against their contenders?


Tammy, I would be interested to hear how the Tak-10U UW performs in comparison.


Hi Peter/Stephan,

I've posted short impression here before:
Takahashi UW Eyepieces


Tammy

#12 chboss

chboss

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 717
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Zurich Switzerland

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:30 PM

Hello all thank you for your feedback!

Tammy your picture is great for comparing the size and visual appearance of all contenders. That strange winged eyecup on the Nikon did not work for me on other eyepieces in the past and the optical issue you mention is a show stopper. :( My understanding is that this Nikon eyepiece came from the spotting scope side and was modified for astronomical use, that might explain your findings.

Jim thank you for your impressions, eyeball glint is an issue that I'd rather stay away from. So the Nikon is definitely a no go.

Looks like the Pentax 10 XW will be the next addition to my lineup.
The Delos does not please my eye and living in Japan the Pentax is cheaper to buy than the TeleVue. ;)

best regards
Chris

#13 ausastronomer

ausastronomer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1830
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Kiama NSW (Australia)

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:53 PM

Looks like the Pentax 10 XW will be the next addition to my lineup.

best regards
Chris


Hi Chris,

The 10mm Pentax XW is one of the very best eyepieces money can buy, at any price. I am sure you will be very happy with it. Any differences with other premium eyepieces at this level are subtle at best and in many cases just personal preference, or brand loyalty. I haven't used any eyepiece in recent years; and I have used a lot, that would in any way make me inclined to sell my 5mm, 7mm and 10mm Pentax XW's, which I have owned for 10 years now.

Cheers,

#14 george golitzin

george golitzin

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:54 AM

Looks like the Pentax 10 XW will be the next addition to my lineup.

best regards
Chris


Hi Chris,

The 10mm Pentax XW is one of the very best eyepieces money can buy, at any price. I am sure you will be very happy with it. Any differences with other premium eyepieces at this level are subtle at best and in many cases just personal preference, or brand loyalty. I haven't used any eyepiece in recent years; and I have used a lot, that would in any way make me inclined to sell my 5mm, 7mm and 10mm Pentax XW's, which I have owned for 10 years now.

Cheers,


I've had some differences with John over the years, but not on this issue--I'm in complete agreement. And you can add the 3.5mm XW to his list.

-Geo.

#15 Scott99

Scott99

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2889
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:42 AM

Having now used both head-to-head in 10mm and 7mm, I prefer the Pentax XWs across the board. The NAV-SWs have a cheesy loose screw up eyecup and suffer eyeball glint as bad as any eyepiece I've ever used. They are quality eyepieces other than that, but these are ills the Pentax lacks, and the Pentaxes are easier to get hold of and cheaper to boot.

I like the XWs much better than my Deloses, too.

- Jim


oooh, I was going to keep quiet about it to not diss the Nikons, but I was thinking the same thing - forget the optical differences, I like the XW body much better than the Nikons. Nikon seems to have bungled the ergonomics part, the eyepieces have a bulky ring that bounces around loose.

The XW's are big & heavy, but they really hit a home run with the overall use-ability of it. (Except for the safety groove of course). You can precisely dial in the eyeguard position, which combines with a rubber outside for protection and grip-ability. For years Tele Vue and others just sort of "mailed it in" in terms of the eyeguard, they were never the correct height. Pentax realized how important the eyeguard & eye position are with long focal length ep's.

With the XW's Pentax brought the rugged "sport optics" mentality to astronomy, and combined it with coatings and glass on par with Zeiss.


#16 SteveG

SteveG

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4308
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:39 PM

Why is the 12.5 in that picture? ;-)


Hi Steve,

If you look at 1.25" nosepiece of NAV HW 12.5 carefully, you find Nikon EiC-10 Barlow lens attached.
It is designed for HW 12.5 to make NAV HW 10mm :)

You can look at the full resolution photo.
http://www.pbase.com...14/original.jpg

Tammy


Ah - you got me on that one Tammy! BTW, I really enjoy your posts and great equipment pictures.

#17 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1302
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:08 PM

The optical qualitiy of the Pentax XW line is undisputed. But it would be great if Pentax would consider bringing a modified XW version with slightly reduced shroud diameter, which would greatly enhance the binoviewer-friendliness.

TeleVue did the same with the Ethos 13mm: Narrowing the barrel diameter from 63.5mm (Version I) to 62mm (Version II) made it more binoviewer-friendly to users with ~62mm IPD.

Stephan

#18 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1302
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:16 PM

Nikon seems to have bungled the ergonomics part, the eyepieces have a bulky ring that bounces around loose.


Yes, the bulky and rattling eyecup of the Nikon NAV SW's is a bad joke.

Stephan

#19 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

The optical qualitiy of the Pentax XW line is undisputed. But it would be great if Pentax would consider bringing a modified XW version with slightly reduced shroud diameter, which would greatly enhance the binoviewer-friendliness.

TeleVue did the same with the Ethos 13mm: Narrowing the barrel diameter from 63.5mm (Version I) to 62mm (Version II) made it more binoviewer-friendly to users with ~62mm IPD.

Stephan


If they do that, MrNutty (John), is gonna, well, to be truthful, he'll probably buy the whole set.....and may have to start wearing two eyepatches..... :lol:

I actually know people who DO bino with these.

#20 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

Just got the call, my Pentax 10XW is in!! :hamsterdance: :whee: :woohoo:

#21 gb_astro

gb_astro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

On the 10SW I found the winged eyecup one of the best things about it.
Faces differ and for me this design almost completely blocks external light.

gb.

#22 MRNUTTY

MRNUTTY

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Mendon, MA

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:55 PM

I may have to invest in a smaller bulls eye on my back! :-)

#23 ebone

ebone

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Brazil

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

On the 10SW I found the winged eyecup one of the best things about it.
Faces differ and for me this design almost completely blocks external light.

gb.


+1 on NAV-SW design.
I consider the Nikon's winged eyecups first class.
Very effective and confortable. If you want it's super eazy to take off and put back.

#24 Tamiji Homma

Tamiji Homma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:56 AM

Tammy your picture is great for comparing the size and visual appearance of all contenders. That strange winged eyecup on the Nikon did not work for me on other eyepieces in the past and the optical issue you mention is a show stopper. My understanding is that this Nikon eyepiece came from the spotting scope side and was modified for astronomical use, that might explain your findings.



Hi Chris,

I did another side-by-side comparison (Nikon NAV SW 10, Pentax XW 10, and Televue Delos 10) with faster scope (f/4). It showed something I couldn't see before with slower non-flat field f/5.5, f/7, f/8 scope.

Overall, astronomical use, I think Delos 10 is the best among three. NAV SW 10 is best among three in lateral color toward edge. XW 10 shows visible weakness beyond last 10% of field at f/4, image is visibly softened comparing to the others.

By the way, SW may have heritage of spotting scope eyepiece but HW is very different from SW.

Tammy

#25 ausastronomer

ausastronomer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1830
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Kiama NSW (Australia)

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:53 PM

Hi Tammy,

Just curious what scope you used to conduct the testing at F4. I am thinking that the softening you saw in the 10mm Pentax XW in the outer 10% of the FOV could have something to do with the scope / eyepiece interaction.

I have used the 10mm Pentax at F4.2 in an 18" Obsession Ultracompact for the last 6 or 7 years, and do not see what you saw. However, I do use a paracorr type 1 in this scope which eliminates coma and effectively makes the scope an F4.8 scope, so that could explain the difference in what we are seeing also. In all my other scopes which are all F4.5 and longer newtonians, it gives my a perfectly sharp field right to the fieldstop.

Cheers






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics