Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Eyepieces

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ?
      #4352210 - 01/31/11 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!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4352288 - 01/31/11 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darenwh
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 05/11/06

Loc: Covington, GA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #4352352 - 01/31/11 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rdl800
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 01/18/11

Loc: CT
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4352439 - 01/31/11 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!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FirstSight
Duke of Deneb
*****

Reged: 12/26/05

Loc: Raleigh, NC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: rdl800]
      #4352508 - 01/31/11 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).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darenwh
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 05/11/06

Loc: Covington, GA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: FirstSight]
      #4352533 - 01/31/11 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FirstSight
Duke of Deneb
*****

Reged: 12/26/05

Loc: Raleigh, NC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Darenwh]
      #4352546 - 01/31/11 09:54 AM

Quote:

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/27/09

Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: FirstSight]
      #4353192 - 01/31/11 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!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4353844 - 01/31/11 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orveko
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 02/04/09

Loc: Lake County, IL
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: GeneT]
      #4353897 - 01/31/11 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 ...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/27/09

Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: orveko]
      #4353901 - 01/31/11 07:03 PM

Quote:

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orveko
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 02/04/09

Loc: Lake County, IL
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Tank]
      #4353909 - 01/31/11 07:06 PM

Quote:

Quote:

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: orveko]
      #4354530 - 01/31/11 11:19 PM

Quote:

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johnnyha
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: GeneT]
      #4354697 - 02/01/11 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: johnnyha]
      #4354864 - 02/01/11 04:20 AM

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
spacedoutbob
member


Reged: 03/26/08

Loc: California
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4354873 - 02/01/11 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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: spacedoutbob]
      #4355336 - 02/01/11 10:44 AM

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: spacedoutbob]
      #4355342 - 02/01/11 10:46 AM

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kohudson
sage


Reged: 01/21/09

Loc: Mayhill, NM
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4355439 - 02/01/11 11:32 AM

Quote:

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




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,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4355514 - 02/01/11 12:05 PM

Quote:

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




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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jack Day
super member
*****

Reged: 03/04/05

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4355657 - 02/01/11 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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike B
Starstruck
*****

Reged: 04/06/05

Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Jack Day]
      #4355997 - 02/01/11 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 is no object, and you must unquestioningly have "the best", the Nagler would seem to be better fitting that criteria.
mike b


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johnnyha
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4356162 - 02/01/11 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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4356174 - 02/01/11 05:04 PM

Quote:

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




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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: orveko]
      #4356284 - 02/01/11 05:49 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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




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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darenwh
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 05/11/06

Loc: Covington, GA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4356405 - 02/01/11 06:39 PM

The new design looks like it would be easy to look through. I ended up removing the mushroom from mine and I love the eyepiece. I really think it is as good as any other 30mm I have ever used.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Darenwh]
      #4356461 - 02/01/11 06:58 PM

+1 on the excellence of the 31mm Nagler. I haven't tried the others, though.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #4356660 - 02/01/11 08:07 PM

Wow looks like Many of you like the TV ep: But Manu of you still haven't tried the ES one. Should I flip a coin to see which to buy?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4356672 - 02/01/11 08:11 PM

Well, some have tried the previous incarnation, and it is rumoured to be optically identical (at least as far as glass types, lens configurations, polishing and coating are concerned) even though the baffling, retaining ring and other mechanical aspects may be different.

I'd say: if you have the money to spare, you can't go wrong buying a 31T5 (especially if you can buy one used, which means it will probably not depreciate very much). If you don't, well, then the question answers itself.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jack45
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/07/03

Loc: Lacey WA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4356704 - 02/01/11 08:20 PM

We seem to leave out the 31mm Axiom LX. An excellent ep with or without a paracorr. I saw no different between it and the 31mm T/5. Wait there is one, ER 21mm for the Axiom and 19mm for the Nagler, just saying. Oh, and price!

Clear Skies!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jack45]
      #4356782 - 02/01/11 08:56 PM

I totally forgotten about the celestron Axiom LX. But I think televue is still better right?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jack45]
      #4356786 - 02/01/11 08:58 PM

We're not exactly "leaving out" the 31mm Axion LX. Compared to the ES, it's basically the same design (or if you can believe ES a very slightly earlier version of the same design) made by the same people in the same factory but in different packaging.

Sure, the polishing quality might be different, the coatings might be different and the internal baffling might be different, but I'd be hard pressed to actually see a difference from what little I've seen to date.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4356922 - 02/01/11 10:06 PM

So axiom and es is around the same design?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4357301 - 02/02/11 02:31 AM

The Celestron Axiom LX (not the old "Axiom" without LX), ES 82 and Meade 5000 UWA share the same basic design and are all made in the Jinghua Optical Company factory in Kunming, yes.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Nigel_Choy
super member


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4357395 - 02/02/11 05:29 AM

So basically everything is the same except the brands and coatings?

My final decision is I'm going for Televue Nagler 31mm type 5


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4357442 - 02/02/11 06:42 AM

I've just received my 30mm Explore Scientific 82 N2.

No first light yet (well, only daytime first light, but trees don't tell you everything), but some observations:

Subjectively, as close to a 31T5 in look and feel as it gets (probably not a coincidence). With small eye pupil, just the same lateral colour with the eye improperly placed when looking at the edge, suggesting there will be exactly the same ring of fire effect (not that it matters). Eye relief is pretty tight for a 30mm eyepiece, just like on the T5 (the stated eye relief is larger than the usable one because the eye lens is concave), but for me it's perfect. In daylight it's fairly easy for me to see exactly where the exit pupil is (in my f/4 StarBlast the exit pupil is a lot larger than my daytime eye pupil!) and I can say that I just have to press my face into the eye cup and it's perfect. 10/10 for comfort.

Coatings (using the "cap the eyepiece on one end and see what diffuse light comes back your way" on both sides) is evidently not up to T5 Nagler standards, let alone Ethos standards (the difference with the 21mm Ethos, despite its many groups, is quite striking). My guess is that the coatings aren't as well matched to the different indices, i.e. some corners were cut there compared to the absolute best. Coatings remind me a bit more eyepieces like the T2 Naglers or the Meade 4000 UWAs. Actually, probably not as effective as far as transmission is concerned as the the 34mm Meade 5000 SWA that it replaces.

But I digress. It's got four groups and eight air-glass transitions, so a difference between 0.5% reflectivity and 0.25% reflectivity will only amount to a total difference in transmission of 2%, so I'm not overly worried (though it's probably inevitable that bright object in view would produce a tad more veiing glare). In fact, comparing to the Meade SWA and looking at multiple reflections of dust particles on the outer lenses, low angle scatter is probably very well controlled, and that's probably more important.

Focuser in-travel required is (thanks to the absence of that conical section on the 31T5 which prevents the 31T5 from being seated deeply in the focuser but allows a very large field stop without any vignetting) surprisingly middle of the road, nothing like the 31T5. Good thing for Paracorr owners. I think that's the convenience that is costing us 1mm of focal length and a tiny bit of field stop size if you compare with the 31T5.

As the eyecup design is now flawlessly executed, the only "what on earth were they thinking" feature now seems to be the shiny 2" barrel with 2" filter threads and very narrow and shiny retaining ring for the field lens. From looking down into the capped eyepiece and looking through the uncapped eyepiece with light sources around, it's a fairly safe bet that it can still cause the (rare) bright off-axis object glare issue than plagued the direct predecessor (in particular, there's the hard to fix edge of the retaining lip that's just as shiny and directly abuts the field lens).

They'd be much better off anodising the barrel black (and possibly flat-black-painting the lower section that will never contact filter threads) and adding a fairly narrow blackened retaining ring like TeleVue does on the 21mm Ethos just above the field lens. I'd gladly pay for it (in fact, I have a half destroyed M48x0.75mm retaining ring from TeleVue but the threads are different enough for me to fail to install that on the ES. So much for standards and US companies knowing how to convert 0.75mm per thread into tpi correctly).

From daytime observation and comparing with a 26T5, I'd say that its design will probably perform almost exactly like a 31T5, but with slightly less pincushion distortion (although that never bothered me in the 31T5 at night). But design isn't everything; execution also matters, and it's clear the price difference between it and the 31T5 isn't just lining Al Nagler's pockets.

For me, though, it's pretty good, and just at the price point I wanted it.

At substantially less than even second hand 31T5s, that's quite a feat, but more about that later.

Summary: as close to a 31T5 as you'll get for the price as far as I can see (WARNING: has not seen stars YET). Not actually identical, and no match (as far as attention to detail is concerned) for Ethos or Pentax XW eyepieces (given the price, though, and the almost legendary performance of 31T5 and Pentax XW eyepieces that's a big "Duh!").


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mgb
sage
*****

Reged: 09/02/09

Loc: Montreal, Qc... Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4357570 - 02/02/11 08:54 AM

Sixela,

Thanks for the info and I am anxiously waiting for your full report.

It's not that I need more glass but at that price and if they perform much like what I read... Well why not go for a few.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rdl800
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 01/18/11

Loc: CT
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4357593 - 02/02/11 09:06 AM

sixela,

great explanation; your experience shows.

btw, I was in your neck of the woods a couple of years ago. It's a wonderful place , but, many lights and people everywhere. How are your skies there?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: rdl800]
      #4357648 - 02/02/11 09:41 AM

VERY light polluted. Less so if I drive an hour to stand between the cows, but even there light domes are a dime a dozen. It takes me two hours and a half to drive to decent skies and five hours to drive to really good ones.

Ah well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4357720 - 02/02/11 10:21 AM

I should add (for completeness' sake) that there's a second retaining ring closer to the eye lens that is also shiny, but I doubt it's relevant (the specular reflection from light that can reach the ring in my opinion probably can't reach the exit pupil anyway.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4357973 - 02/02/11 12:12 PM

Quote:

Wow looks like Many of you like the TV ep: But Manu of you still haven't tried the ES one. Should I flip a coin to see which to buy?




If you are going to flip a coin, play it safe and go with Nagler.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Nigel_Choy]
      #4357993 - 02/02/11 12:22 PM

Quote:

So basically everything is the same except the brands and coatings?

My final decision is I'm going for Televue Nagler 31mm type 5



Nigel,

If you can't do a direct compare, then I think this is your best bet. You'll pay more, but I think you'll be getting the best unit. The 31mm Nagler is really an amazing eyepiece. The other brands might be as good, or they might not; but I don't think they'll be better.
There must be some reason that the 31mm is the one everything else gets compared to. If I had to get rid of all my TV eyepieces, this would be the last to go, and even then they'd have to pry it from my fingers. For me, it's in the "Legendary UWA" category, along with the old Meade 14mm UWA.

Of course, I've been wrong before!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jack Day
super member
*****

Reged: 03/04/05

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: GeneT]
      #4358165 - 02/02/11 01:33 PM

If you do decide to go the TV route, be aware that it does require a bit more infocus as I recall, so some scopes will/may not come to focus without some modification.

Edited by Jack Day (02/02/11 01:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bart
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/28/06

Loc: Somewhere near Charlottesville...
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Jack Day]
      #4358217 - 02/02/11 01:55 PM

Notice that we are now quibbling over small degrees of quality between the two, if any. I say save your money and get the ESs. Your money will go further.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Bart]
      #4358356 - 02/02/11 02:51 PM

Were there any detailed head-to-head comparisons shared?

I think in the absence of methodical A:B comparative data, it's premature to conclude that differences between the two are "small" in degree.

I bought a 30mm ES 82 (still awaiting first light, unfortunately) over a 31mm Nagler Type 5 mainly because (a) it was cheap on sale, (b) I find it hard to detect on-axis image quality differences between *any* long focal length, lowest power eyepieces (very different than high power/short focal length eyepieces IMO) and (c) I've used the 31mm Nagler a gazillion times at club star parties (borrowed) but have never looked through an ES 30mm, and wanted to try something new.

Here, specifically, is what I'd like to see compared:

1. Lateral color
2. Rectilinear distortion (day and night)
3. Field curvature
4. Tone
5. Correction for edge of field astigmatism
6. Comparative comfort (eye relief, visibility of field stop)
7. On-axis image quality
8. Fit and finish
9. Relative value

If the weather cooperates I plan on borrowing another CNer's 31mm Nagler and first lighting my 30mm ES on Saturday at our first seasonal club star party and indulging my curiosity. If it works out, I'll share what I learn. If there's already a comparison of the two eyepieces with respect to these criteria, I'd love to give it a read.

Regards,

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4358767 - 02/02/11 05:33 PM

Quote:


Here, specifically, is what I'd like to see compared:




I'll have a bite. The only caveat is that it's all daylight usage, so it sweeps a lot under the rug (the eye accommodates for quite a bit of field curvature for daylight targets, the eye pupil is restricted making the modified StarBlast eyepiece torture bench a benign scope, etc.).

Quote:


1. Lateral color




Appears to be the same as in long T5s (with the same sensitivity to eye placement in daylight usage). I expect the same ring of fire at night, but I haven't seen it yet.

Quote:


2. Rectilinear distortion (day and night)




Less. I guess the eyepieces are closer to zero angular magnification than the 31T5 is. Very noticeable in daylight use (but I used a 26T5 to compare).

Quote:


3. Field curvature



Seems quite flat for the time being (like the 31T5), but let's see at night. The eye knows all too well what you're looking at in daytime usage.

Quote:


4. Tone




Holding the eyepiece to a white wall, more neutral than the 26T5 and even the 16T5 (which is pretty white for a Nagler). Very similar to the 21mm Ethos.

Quote:

5. Correction for edge of field astigmatism



In a Paracorred Starblast, quite good compared to the 26T5, but of course the restricted eye pupil makes it easier on the eyepieces by lengthening the effective f/ratio well beyond f/4.6.

My guess (working from memory) is that it's slightly better than the behemoth Meade 5000 UWA, but conditions aren't favourable to really decide.

Quote:

6. Comparative comfort (eye relief, visibility of field stop)



Feels like a 26T5 (probably no coincidence, since they've abandoned the "innovative" eye cups at last and reverted to something which Just Works and has for ages).

I'd guess that makes the eye relief a tad smaller than that of a 31T5, but for me it's perfect. The 26T5 is stated to have 16mm of eye relief but the usable eye relief is't that large because of the concave eye lens, and this eyepiece shares all these traits. I have the eye lens at the exit pupil if I just press my face lightly on the eyeguard, so it's just perfect for me.

Quote:


7. On-axis image quality




I'm not sure you can say anything relevant for such eyepieces. In slow scopes, they're bound to perform well (essentially completely scope diffraction limited), and in fast scopes, at least my eye aberrations overwhelm anything an eyepiece can generate. In other words, there's no reason for me to prefer the 31T5; stars are going to appear just as ugly as with the naked eye anyway once my eye pupil is dilated.

Quote:


8. Fit and finish




External fit and finish superb, but coatings aren't as good as on T5s (and certainly not as on an Ethos). Coatings appear a bit more reflective but they don't "glow", so I don't expect a lot of low angle scatter, just somewhat less transmission (but we know from Brandons that's not that important) and perhaps some extra veiling glare (there are more chances for some of that light to creep back to the eye).

There are some shiny surfaces outside (retainer for field lens is a lip on the shiny barrel rather than a nice rounded and flat black retaining ring like on the 26T5, though I seem to remember it wasn't as wide on the 31T5) and inside (the one that's probably most troublesome is a grooved surface in the middle that is obviously anodised and reflects back to the eye both from the eye side and the scope side if you have a cap on the other side). My guess would be that it's going to be plagued by the exact same occasional "problems" as its predecessor, i.e. a rare problem with some extra veiling glare if you have very bright sources just outside of the view that might make it irritating for lunar observing, but for my scope type that's really not relevant.

Reflects a "what can we get away with if it costs less" attitude rather than the more paranoid attention to baffling in the Nagler (which in turn is just healthy paranoia, and nothing like the real paranoia Pentax or Zeiss can sometimes display).

Quote:


9. Relative value




No night time use, but I bet the eyepiece is good and daytime performance was really impressive for the price I paid. It's certainly light years ahead of the Meade 5000 SWA it replaces.


Quote:

If there's already a comparison of the two eyepieces with respect to these criteria, I'd love to give it a read.




I know what I wrote isn't perfect --daytime testing is only limited in what it can tell you, but hey, some imperfect info is better than none, right?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bart
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/28/06

Loc: Somewhere near Charlottesville...
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4358872 - 02/02/11 06:20 PM

Quote:

Were there any detailed head-to-head comparisons shared?

I think in the absence of methodical A:B comparative data, it's premature to conclude that differences between the two are "small" in degree.

Jim




You Sir are correct. I made my claim on anecdotal evidence and a few snippets of actual testing of the EP as presented by various folks that have handled the new line of EPs. My mistake.

I will say this, even if they are not equal to the vaunted Televue Nagle Eps, but in fact very close, I will still see them as desirable over the TVs at close to a third of their price. Half when not on sale. Its that magic balance between FOV, quality and cost that ES has met that has made a believer out of me. Bravo ES!

Now make a 2.7mm and a 21mm 82 and I will be in heaven, in more ways than one.

Cheers.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Bart]
      #4359411 - 02/02/11 10:00 PM

Quote:

Its that magic balance between FOV, quality and cost that ES has met that has made a believer out of me. Bravo ES!




Cost is always a factor. One reason I buy TeleVue products is because I can afford them. I am not wealthy, but comfortable. Here is my saying: 'there may be eyepieces as good as TeleVue, but there are none better'. Now, this applies across all their lines. There are individual Plossls made by other vendors better than a specific TeleVue Plossl, and so on. However, their best are the best and their not the best are almost the best.
GeneT


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4359537 - 02/02/11 10:56 PM

Thanks Alexis. That's marvelous.

Very helpful.

Regards,

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4359756 - 02/03/11 01:47 AM

I'd be interested to know if at least my daytime observations are consistent with what you see; two pairs of eyeballs are a better judge than one...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Benach
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/24/08

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4361362 - 02/03/11 06:39 PM

Alexis, will make an appointment for that within a couple of weeks ok? I still have the 31mm T5 so you then don't have to compare by heart but it can be done directly.

Edited by Benach (02/03/11 06:44 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4361688 - 02/03/11 09:04 PM

Hopefully Saturday, if the weather cooperates.

I'll be running a 4-incher though, and slow-ish to boot (f/8.6), so probably not as good of a test of edge correction as your Dob.

Regards,

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Benach
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/24/08

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4362455 - 02/04/11 09:08 AM

Jim: won't make it by next saturday. Will be somewhere in March though.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Benach]
      #4372732 - 02/08/11 05:21 PM

I've just had it under the stars. Compared it to a 26T5 and to a 21mm Ethos (which makes it harder for me to compare things like veiling glare because magnifications are different).

The scope in use was my resident eyepiece torture bench, aka Starblast with 2" focuser and Paracorr. An f/4.6 system with the Paracorr and an f/4 system without the Paracorr (but at that f/ratio unable to deliver clean stars because of brutal field curvature and coma, so it's only used to test specifically how much astigmatism is added when you subtract the scope aberrations).

A second scope (but used less intensively) was my Paracorred f/4.5 (f/5.1 with Paracorr) 400mm Dob.

Targets were the moon (for checking glare, scatter issues and lateral colour), M45 (for field curvature and astigmatism), the M36/37/38 open clusters in Auriga (for checking field curvature more stringently and for panning to discover what distortions there are) and M42 with NPB (with OIII/H-beta and H-alpha passbands, also to check on lateral colour).

Edge of field astigmatism is fairly well controlled, and only really obtrusive in the f/4 Starblast (where it combines with coma and field curvature but adds fairly obvious astigmatism from 20 from the edge onward). There's also quite a bit of field curvature in that scope but most comes from the fairly short focal length StarBlast.

With the Paracorr inserted, my eye's astigmatism actually dominates over the entire field (the vignetting by the secondary actually makes edge stars look less astigmatic than the centred stars!).

In the f/5.1 system, there is very little edge of field astigmatism, actually not much more than in T5 Naglers though more than at 40 off-axis in the 21mm Ethos (which is really a superb eyepiece).

There is too much field curvature too accommodate in the Starblast-sans-Paracorr, but I have no problem focusing the edge and the centre at the same time in even the Paracorred StarBlast, except when observing M36/37/38 critically (the eye accommodates less easily for different focus than on bright stars, and it takes the f/5.1 system with less field curvature on its own before no refocus at all is needed).

Colour tint is less yellow than in large T5 Naglers, still bluer than the fairly neutral 16T5 and very slightly more yellow than on the 21mm Ethos.

There seems to be little low angle scatter and the moon's ashen glow is actually just as well defined as in the 26T5 and 21mm Ethos.

There is some glare with the moon close to the field stop in the Starblast but none in my 400mm Dob (which is baffled better, and by the looks of it the Starblast's spider vanes are responsible for some of the issues and effects are visible even in the 21mm Ethos). No issues seem to be caused by the ring in the middle which in daylight seems to be a possible source of glare.

Distortion is very well controlled (at least for an 80 AFOV eyepiece). I'd say there is just a tad more pincushion distortion than is necessary to get zero angular magnification distortion but *a lot* less than in the T5 Naglers. Hardly any globe effect is visible when panning. Only the Ethos beats it even though there is actually more angular magnification distortion at the edge of the Ethos (but that's at 50 off-axis instead of 40).

Lateral colour is well controlled but starts fairly brutally at 7 from the edge (when placing the moon at the edge in the Starblast one end of the moon is a rainbow and the other end has no lateral colour at all). When using an NPB filter, stars also only split into a red one and a green one fairly close to the edge -- much closer to the edge than I remember in Panoptics let alone Meade 5000 SWAs. The T5 has the same kind of effect but much closer to the edge, and the Ethos is almost completely devoid of lateral colour except just next to the field stop.

Summary: darn close to a T5. It's very hard for me to evaluate whether the coatings actually cause more veiling glare because of the differences in magnification (and I suspect even 30mm ES vs. 31mm T5 might make it too close to call). A tiny bit more edge of field astigmatism but really insignificantly so in fast scopes because my eye is actually what gates performance. In an f/5 scope, though, I don't think it'd be that easy to see much difference in focus (though star testing should still enable you to see which is the 31T5). If one thing is different, it's the lateral colour that's absent from the majority of the field but pops up close to the edge.

Light years ahead of the 34mm Meade 5000 SWA it replaced.


For the price I paid, it's a killer eyepiece.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mgb
sage
*****

Reged: 09/02/09

Loc: Montreal, Qc... Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: sixela]
      #4373070 - 02/08/11 08:00 PM

Sixela,

Thank you for this great report... Greatly appreciated.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul R.
professor emeritus


Reged: 04/08/07

Loc: Northern Illinois
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: FirstSight]
      #4373851 - 02/09/11 06:21 AM

Had them both for usage in a f5 scope. The 31N was far superior..better contrast, sharper, very little pincushion distortion compared to the 35P..etc..smaller exit pupil..

Plainly I could *see* things in the scope's field in the 31N that I couldn't see with the 35P. A no brainer here..

I have news for you though..the 21E for the most part outperforms BOTH of them..with the obvious exception of slightly smaller actual FOV and diminished eye relief.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sixela
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/23/04

Loc: Boechout, Belgium
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Paul R.]
      #4374000 - 02/09/11 08:27 AM

Depends on the object.

A 21E is better to see detail in objects that in a 30ES/31T5 are well above the contrast threshold for detection, but if you have very large but very faint objects you do need larger exit pupils to increase the chance of detection.

That's why I have both a 30ES and a 21E.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
robinsondd
sage


Reged: 05/28/07

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Benach]
      #5249483 - 05/31/12 08:07 PM

Came across this thread will looking at the Nagler 31T5.

So Nigel, how do you like your EP?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: robinsondd]
      #5568661 - 12/13/12 04:20 AM

Wow!

Two excellent reviews Alexis! Both day and night versions were a nice read. I did a Google search on the 30mm ES N2 82 and ended up here reading ALL OF IT!



Very informative indeed.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Damo636
sage


Reged: 08/16/11

Loc: Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Paul R.]
      #5568724 - 12/13/12 06:44 AM

Quote:

Had them both for usage in a f5 scope. The 31N was far superior..better contrast, sharper, very little pincushion distortion compared to the 35P..etc..smaller exit pupil..

Plainly I could *see* things in the scope's field in the 31N that I couldn't see with the 35P. A no brainer here..

I have news for you though..the 21E for the most part outperforms BOTH of them..with the obvious exception of slightly smaller actual FOV and diminished eye relief.




Great reviews!

I also had both and did my own comparison. I kept the Nagler simply because the ES (latest N2 version) had completely unuseable filter threads! I found them so close at f5 its barely worth mentioning the differences. I don't know if its my eyes, but the 31 Nagler has the worst pincussion distortion I have ever seen! The ES to my eyes has a much flatter field. I have no doubt had the ES been in 100% working order, the Nagler would have been rehomed! I do love the big Nagler though & have no desire to part with it, unless maybe for the 25mm ES 100, if it ever comes to pass that is


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Damo636]
      #5568784 - 12/13/12 08:02 AM

Quote:

I don't know if its my eyes, but the 31 Nagler has the worst pincussion distortion I have ever seen! The ES to my eyes has a much flatter field.




A flat field means that the entire field is in focus at the same time. In my experience, the 31mm Nagler has a very flat field.

Pincushion distortion is something else all together.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Damo636
sage


Reged: 08/16/11

Loc: Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5568871 - 12/13/12 09:27 AM

You are correct Jon, I'm getting my aberrations mixed up The 31 Nagler has a flat field but, for example, panning through the Milky Way, its as if the field is bending, almost like looking through a fishbowl! It doesn't bother me as I don't tend to observe in this manner, but I can see how some have experienced a feeling of motion sickness as a result. I found the ES to be much better in this regard!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Damo636]
      #5569521 - 12/13/12 04:12 PM

What is the exact weight of the 30mm ES N2 82? I was thinking of selling my Orion 38mm Q70, and getting a 30mm ES N2 82 for better edge correction and a smaller exit pupil.

Are they 3 pounds?

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Damo636
sage


Reged: 08/16/11

Loc: Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5569561 - 12/13/12 04:43 PM Attachment (41 downloads)

Its slightly heavier than the 31 Nagler Mark....

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Damo636]
      #5569573 - 12/13/12 04:54 PM

That's not too bad at all! Just over 2 pounds would be ok! Thanks for putting the 30mm on the scale Damo! I thought they were 3 pounds....but just over 2 is fine !!!

I'm thinking of selling up my 38mm Q70 and grabbing one of these!!! I love the eyepiece pron. :^)

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Djarum
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/12/09

Loc: Huntsville, Al
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm ? new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5569601 - 12/13/12 05:14 PM

Good comparison. Thinking about getting the ES to replace my AT Titan II 40mm. The ES should give me similar FOV at more magnification.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5570472 - 12/14/12 08:46 AM

Quote:

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.




Wow, a doctor who does what he can to help his patients??? That's a rare thing these days....congratulations!

They would probably be great for those with astigmatism, but they'd have to be by prescription only....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starry eyes
super member


Reged: 04/30/10

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5571932 - 12/15/12 01:59 AM

One important feature that the Nagler 31mm can make use of is the Dioptrix. I have a Dioptrix on my 31mm so I don't need eyeglasses for my visual use. I find that the combination of the Paracorr II, 31 Nagler, and Dioptric is a real treat to use on my F4.5 scopes. I don't know if anybody else has this complete system so well dialed in.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bherv
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/10/06

Loc: WMass
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Starry eyes]
      #5572263 - 12/15/12 09:56 AM

I had a chance to do a side by side comparison of the two. I found that both are excellent eyepieces. One thing I found surprising was that despite
the slightly higher magnification of the ES 30 it actually seem to have a larger total field of view. I was using a 17.5" f/4.5 with a Paracorr for the test. The ES 30 is definitely a great value at 1/2 the price of the 31 Nagler.
Barry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ohioalfa64
sage


Reged: 08/16/12

Loc: Ohio (NW)
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: bherv]
      #5580755 - 12/20/12 01:59 PM

My ES 30mm 82-N2 arrived today. Yes, it weighs in at 2 lbs 4 oz. It is the size of a large Hermes Egg. It is huge to hold in your hands. Its like softball size.

Can't wait to see it in my Dob (12.5" f4.0), paracorred of course (to f4.6).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: ohioalfa64]
      #5581812 - 12/21/12 02:21 AM

Quote:

I had a chance to do a side by side comparison of the two. I found that both are excellent eyepieces. One thing I found surprising was that despite
the slightly higher magnification of the ES 30 it actually seem to have a larger total field of view. I was using a 17.5" f/4.5 with a Paracorr for the test. The ES 30 is definitely a great value at 1/2 the price of the 31 Nagler.
Barry.




What's the 30mm ES 82 like w/o a Paracorr @ F/4.7? From your review Alexis, you said you could see field curvature.
I detest FC and can put up with a bit of coma more.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: ohioalfa64]
      #5582170 - 12/21/12 09:55 AM

Quote:

My ES 30mm 82-N2 arrived today. Yes, it weighs in at 2 lbs 4 oz. It is the size of a large Hermes Egg. It is huge to hold in your hands. Its like softball size.

Can't wait to see it in my Dob (12.5" f4.0), paracorred of course (to f4.6).




The old, nonwaterproof version weighs in at 3.08lbs, but what an eyepiece!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: csrlice12]
      #6010068 - 08/06/13 06:31 PM

Here I am back at this thread again !!!!

Deciding between another 34mm ES 68 or a 30mm ES 82. Don't know which one to get this time !!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustaBoy
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/19/12

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6010087 - 08/06/13 06:42 PM

Hi Markus,

Well, I know that you like your 100 eyepieces, and since 82 is closer to 100 than 68 is, then you could get the 30/82.

Simple <g>

Also, since you have had a 34/68 in the past, and you know how you like to try new things...

Simple again!

Anything else I can help you with, Sir?

-Chuck


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: JustaBoy]
      #6010150 - 08/06/13 07:20 PM

Why not get both the 34 68* AND the 30 82* and remove all doubt?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: JustaBoy]
      #6010152 - 08/06/13 07:21 PM

I never really gave the 34mm ES enough time and I didn't do any reports on it....so I totally forget how it performed in my scope! So....not so simple at all!

The 30mm ES 82 will have better correction, but I am trying to consider the weight of that as well compared to the weight of the 34mm ES 68....Not sure what to do this time around!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustaBoy
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/19/12

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6010188 - 08/06/13 07:38 PM

*Not sure what to do this time around!*

Considering if you get the 34/68 that you will have a $50 head-start on your next eyepiece purchase after this one...

Hmmmmm?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mattyfatz
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/27/06

Loc: Boise Idaho
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6010220 - 08/06/13 07:56 PM

I'm sorry to rain on the Explore Scientific parade, but I have to do it again.
I was really excited about these eyepieces at first. I was convinced they would meet my needs. I currently own 2 of the 82* examples. People are pleased with the ES eyepieces when they upgrade from the standard Plossls that most scopes come with. I bought mine in lue of buying Televue's. I have been disappointed with that decision ever since
Comparing them head to head with Naglers is just ridiculous. It's like comparing a Porsche 911 to a VW Jetta .. Sure their both German, sure they both have six cylinder engines.. and they both will get you down the road, but is there really any question as to performance? If price wasn't an option which one would you own? The ES models are not crisp and flat to the edge, so the full FOV is not usable. In a Televue, if the FOV is advertised at 82* it really is that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tonyt
professor emeritus


Reged: 09/02/09

Loc: Australia
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: mattyfatz]
      #6010244 - 08/06/13 08:09 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry to rain on the Explore Scientific parade, but I have to do it again.




It's ok to rain on the parade, but you need to be specific about which eyepieces you've compared. There's considerable variation in performance of the different ES eyepieces. The ES30mm is an excellent eyepiece in my experience.

Edited by tonyt (08/06/13 08:09 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beatlejuice
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 04/05/11

Loc: Hamilton, ON,Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: mattyfatz]
      #6010262 - 08/06/13 08:17 PM

Quote:

I currently own 2 of the 82* examples.




Quote:

I have been disappointed with that decision ever since




Would one of them be the 14 and be for sale by any chance?

Eric


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: beatlejuice]
      #6010301 - 08/06/13 08:42 PM

On tle plus side, at least you weren't out Televue prices....and truthfully, while not quite the same quality of the Naglers, they are not the slouches you make them out to be. And there is NO comparison in price. I love my TVs, but I love the ESs as well.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eklf
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/12/07

Loc: Carrboro, NC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: csrlice12]
      #6010344 - 08/06/13 09:14 PM

To the users of ES 30 82* - I have a request. I am considering the ES 30 . Can you please check and tell me whether the field stop is fuzzy or sharp? The 11 and 6.7 that I tried both had fuzzy ones (I have an irrational irritation with fuzzy field stops).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bremms
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/31/12

Loc: SC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: csrlice12]
      #6010350 - 08/06/13 09:19 PM

My 8.8 and 11mm 82deg are pretty sharp to the edge. My fastest scope is F6.0 so it's not a tough test, but they are darn good ep's for $100. Don't like them? sell them for $85 and get some Naglers. They are not a little less expensive.. they are 1/3 the cost. The Naglers are better. I would get some Nags but found the ES EP's meet my needs.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: bremms]
      #6010365 - 08/06/13 09:28 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry to rain on the Explore Scientific parade, but I have to do it again.
I was really excited about these eyepieces at first. I was convinced they would meet my needs. I currently own 2 of the 82* examples. People are pleased with the ES eyepieces when they upgrade from the standard Plossls that most scopes come with. I bought mine in lue of buying Televue's. I have been disappointed with that decision ever since
Comparing them head to head with Naglers is just ridiculous. It's like comparing a Porsche 911 to a VW Jetta .. Sure their both German, sure they both have six cylinder engines.. and they both will get you down the road, but is there really any question as to performance? If price wasn't an option which one would you own? The ES models are not crisp and flat to the edge, so the full FOV is not usable. In a Televue, if the FOV is advertised at 82* it really is that.

--------------------
**Matty**




This is NOT the type of info I need. I have also owned Naglers and TV eyepieces and not ALL of them are any better than ES eyepieces. Please take your rants elsewhere, thanks.

It also depends greatly on focal length of the scope used, etc, etc.

Any other info here is welcomed.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hfjacinto
I think he's got it!
*****

Reged: 01/12/09

Loc: Land of clouds and LP
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6010429 - 08/06/13 10:08 PM

Markus,

I compared these 2 a few months ago, I actually own the 31MM Nagler T5, if doing it again I would get the 30MM ES.

Read my review here.

Battle of the Behemoths


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: hfjacinto]
      #6010458 - 08/06/13 10:25 PM

Thanks Helder !!!

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MRNUTTY
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 11/22/11

Loc: Mendon, MA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6011135 - 08/07/13 09:47 AM

Markus, when I owned the ES's, the 30mm was one of my favorites. However, I have a lot of long FL EP's, and it's considerably more difficult to find differences in them versus shorter EP's unless you have very dark sky's and the right objects to view which I had scant time to compare.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: MRNUTTY]
      #6011859 - 08/07/13 05:00 PM

Hi John,

Thanks for the info. I was going to get another 34mm ES 68, but now I am leaning a lot more towards a 30mm ES 82 !!!

I have been using my 14mm ES 100 as my finder for the last week, LOL!

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6012133 - 08/07/13 07:07 PM Attachment (32 downloads)

I'm sure it's not all hot air but....

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6012163 - 08/07/13 07:22 PM

Hahahahaha !!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6012177 - 08/07/13 07:31 PM

Quote:

Hahahahaha !!!




....wait till you see the next one, LOL!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustaBoy
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/19/12

Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6012207 - 08/07/13 07:46 PM

I think that somebody needs to send this pic to Uncle Al...!

-Chuck


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: JustaBoy]
      #6012243 - 08/07/13 08:06 PM Attachment (20 downloads)

Personally, I think the ES 30mm 82 is a "Smokin" good deal, I'm surprised it's even legal...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6012246 - 08/07/13 08:07 PM



You're the PhotoShop Master

I'm still going to get my hands on that eyepiece !!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6012251 - 08/07/13 08:09 PM

Yep, Colorado.


Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #6012260 - 08/07/13 08:14 PM

LOL, ok...my 6GB FTP transfer to a client is done, I'll stop..:-)

This one is funny too:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/Eyepieces/Num...

Just trying to bring some levity to this, enjoy what ever eyepieces you have, legal or not.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6012369 - 08/07/13 09:01 PM

Quote:

This one is funny too:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/Eyepieces/Num...




Yah, dat is a good one!


Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Wmacky
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: Florida
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: mattyfatz]
      #6012628 - 08/07/13 10:51 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry to rain on the Explore Scientific parade, but I have to do it again.
I was really excited about these eyepieces at first. I was convinced they would meet my needs. I currently own 2 of the 82* examples. People are pleased with the ES eyepieces when they upgrade from the standard Plossls that most scopes come with. I bought mine in lue of buying Televue's. I have been disappointed with that decision ever since
Comparing them head to head with Naglers is just ridiculous. It's like comparing a Porsche 911 to a VW Jetta .. Sure their both German, sure they both have six cylinder engines.. and they both will get you down the road, but is there really any question as to performance? If price wasn't an option which one would you own? The ES models are not crisp and flat to the edge, so the full FOV is not usable. In a Televue, if the FOV is advertised at 82* it really is that.




So the only eyepieces worth bothering with are the ones that cost several hundred dollars each? Why is it that the eyepiece forum is the only one that makes such statements.

Edited by Wmacky (08/07/13 10:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Wmacky]
      #6012677 - 08/07/13 11:19 PM

I had to really laugh at that statement myself. The 4.7mm ES 82 was crisp and flat to the edges in my fast reflector. Same goes for the 6.7mm ES 82 as well. I've also tried a couple of others and I was impressed. The 14mm had a bit of field curvature, but I really didn't like the feel of it, so I sold that off. The 4.8mm Nagler has such short eye relief, I wouldn't ever own one of those. The 4.7mm ES is the same in that regard even though it has excellent sharpness and is a really good eyepiece.

I've had Naglers as well. I owned a 12mm Nagler type 4 and it wasn't "In a Televue, if the FOV is advertised at 82* it really is that" at all. Most of the central area was really sharp, but in a fast scope the edges were not sharp at all. It was a really nice eyepiece, but not "ridiculously better" than ES eyepieces AT ALL. I really liked it, but over time it was a PITA struggling to hold the view while keeping the field stop in view. I've also owned a few other Naglers as well: A 9mm Nagler and a 20mm Nagler. The 9mm Type 1 was my workhorse eyepiece in 1996-1997 and it served me well. The 20mm Nagler was excellent, but I wasn't used to the heft at the time, so I sold it off.

I tried a 17mm Nagler Type 4 and w/o a paracorr, the edges were a complete mess....so it goes without saying that "Not all Naglers are ridiculously better" than ES 82's. The 22mm Nagler also needs a Paracorr in a fast scope to really strut it's stuff as well.

It'd be a whole new ballgame if we threw in a few Pentax XW's.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6013002 - 08/08/13 07:37 AM

Quote:

I tried a 17mm Nagler Type 4 and w/o a paracorr, the edges were a complete mess....so it goes without saying that "Not all Naglers are ridiculously better" than ES 82's. The 22mm Nagler also needs a Paracorr in a fast scope to really strut it's stuff as well.





Coma is a reality of a fast Newtonian. Any wide field eyepiece in a fast Newtonian will exhibit coma, that is why coma correctors are used. Judging the edge correction when viewing through a fast Newtonian without using coma corrector is a can of worms.

Bottom line:

If you want sharp to the edge views in an F/4.7 Newtonian, it requires eyepieces that are well corrected for astigmatism in a fast scope and a coma corrector.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6013022 - 08/08/13 07:57 AM

Still trying hard to beat the dead horse to death yet again Jon...and going completely off topic to boot......You always seem to feel the need to come in here and correct me yet again. You can do that in the beginners forum, but not here to me. I was talking about Naglers Vs ES eyepieces and you took the last part of my "on topic" discussion and beat the overly beaten dead horse again.

Bottom line: The 17mm T4 and the 22mm T4 doesn't just show coma, there was a lot more than that. Those two are in dire need of a coma corrector, the 12mm T4 not so much. Not all eyepieces need a coma corrector. Some just match perfectly with the positive FC of a Newtonian like the XW's or others, and the comment was pertaining to "Not all Naglers being superior to ES eyepieces", and that includes being used in a fast or slow scope.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6013049 - 08/08/13 08:11 AM

Quote:

Still trying hard to beat the dead horse to death yet again Jon.....You feel the need to come in here and correct me yet again. You can do that in the beginners forum, but not here to me.

Bottom line: The 17mm T4 and the 22mm T4 doesn't just show coma, there was a lot more than that. Not all eyepieces need a coma corrector. Some just match perfectly with the positive FC of a Newtonian like the XW's or others, and the comment was pertaining to "Not all Naglers being superior to ES eyepieces", and that includes being used in a fast or slow scope.




I discussed specific eyepieces, I just pointed to the difficulties evaluating eyepieces without a coma corrector.

As long as you continue to evaluate the edge correction of eyepieces in your fast Newtonian without a coma corrector, I will continue to point out the difficulties with doing so.

Field curvature in a Newtonian is essentially zero. Do the calculation.. with a 17mm Nagler, the field curvature of the Newtonian is essentially equal to the depth of focus, the eye cannot resolve it with a 4mm exit pupil.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phillip Creed
Idiot Seeking Village
*****

Reged: 07/25/06

Loc: Canton, OH
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6013573 - 08/08/13 12:30 PM

I can second Markus' appraisal of the T4 Naglers in an un-Paracorr'ed fast Newt. The only Televue eyepiece I honest to goodness didn't like was the 17T4. I used it in a 6" f/5 achromatic refractor, and it was fine there. It had plenty of eye relief and put up a sharp, high-contrast image on- and off-axis.

I then popped in my 12" f/4.9 w/o Paracorr, though, and...ouch. The outer 40% wasn't pretty. I don't know what it is, but there's something more than coma at work with an un-Paracorr'ed Type 4 Nagler. Not only did I see the "comet tail" of coma on stars near the edge, but stars in the outer half of the FOV looked bloated. It was an easy decision to put on the selling block, as holding the finicky exit pupil and the beads of sweat every time I wanted to thread a filter upstream of a scarily-protruding field lens (DO NOT set that eyepiece down without a field lens cap!) just added in a sizable PITA factor. I later tried the other T4's in the same scope, with similar results. Head-to-head, my old 13T6's edge sharpness just blew away the 12T4's.

Getting back to the ES vs. Televue discussion, I used to own a 23mm Celestrion Axiom LX, which later got cloned by ES as the 24ES-82. I could see coma in my un-Paracorr'ed 8" f/4.9 and 12" f/4.9 scopes, but the key is that's all I could see. The stars looked like points with comet tails, but they at least looked like *points*. I looked through Tom Trusock's AT111 with a 22T4 and the 23Ax, and they were both razor-sharp, but there's no coma in the refractor. Conversely, a 22T4 vs. 23Ax (24ES-82) match-up in my 12" f/4.9 was a knockout victory for the latter.

Yes, I'm aware that if you've got a fast Newt, you should have a coma corrector if you want that perfect, "refractor"-like image. But there are some designs that just seem to work a lot better than others w/o the presence of a Paracorr--hardly an inexpensive item--and they're good enough for budget-minded astronomers with moderately-, but not screaming-fast, reflectors (~f/5). Explore Scientific offers a lot of ES82 designs that work well in this regard, as well as a few marred by field curvature, like the 14ES-82 and 18ES-82.

As for the 30ES-82 vs. the 31T5, I've got the former and no desire to own the latter unless I'm independently wealthy. The performance gap is as small as the price gap is large, and ther's only so many DSO's a low-power ultrawide is best suited for. I did a Cloudy Nights review of the 23mm Axiom LX in 2008, and David Knisely did a later review of the 24ES-82, but they're essentially the same eyepiece. The 30ES-82 is simply the 24ES-82 with 25% more eye relief and FOV width.

As long as I've owned ES eyepieces (or their clones), I've also had Televues in the eyepiece case as well. They peacefully co-exist.

Clear Skies,
Phil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Phillip Creed]
      #6013643 - 08/08/13 01:02 PM

Quote:

As long as you continue to evaluate the edge correction of eyepieces in your fast Newtonian without a coma corrector, I will continue to point out the difficulties with doing so.






Quote:

Yes, I'm aware that if you've got a fast Newt, you should have a coma corrector if you want that perfect, "refractor"-like image. But there are some designs that just seem to work a lot better than others w/o the presence of a Paracorr--hardly an inexpensive item--and they're good enough for budget-minded astronomers with moderately-, but not screaming-fast, reflectors (~f/5). Explore Scientific offers a lot of ES82 designs that work well in this regard, as well as a few marred by field curvature, like the 14ES-82 and 18ES-82.






Yep....this is what I have been saying over & over & over here, but keep on getting berated by Jon about it. Without a paracorr, I can name a few that were sharp to the edges.

22mm Vixen LVW
10mm Pentax XW
7mm Pentax XW
14mm Denk (close to it)
20mm Nag T2

Oh but wait, the scientific whatcha-ma-callit, and the ray-traced doo-dad, doesn't add up.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hfjacinto
I think he's got it!
*****

Reged: 01/12/09

Loc: Land of clouds and LP
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6013883 - 08/08/13 02:39 PM

Markus,

I have the 17MMT4 and in my scopes they are very good, I've never had a fast newt and unless I ever get the 20" Teeter F3.5, I won't get it either. As to whether a paracor is needed, its immaterial, some people use them some people don't. Its like to some people the NP101 is the best scope ever to others, its just an expensive scope.

Now as to the 31MM T5 and 30MM ES, they are very close, from my review the differences are subtle, so that if you are actively looking for differences you can see them, but if just using them then they are both excellent.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: hfjacinto]
      #6013937 - 08/08/13 03:03 PM

Quote:

so that if you are actively looking for differences you can see them, but if just using them then they are both excellent.




I think that might just sum up the differences between "Observers" and what their emphasis is on this forum. Some are actively looking at the objects that fascinate them. Others seem to be more interested in picking apart eyepieces, craning their necks so their spinal alignments go out of whack and making their eyes water in order to make darn good and sure THEY have the BEST eyepiece in the world.

That is most certainly my opinion, but I am sticking to it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6014035 - 08/08/13 03:49 PM

Quote:

I think that might just sum up the differences between "Observers" and what their emphasis is on this forum. Some are actively looking at the objects that fascinate them. Others seem to be more interested in picking apart eyepieces, craning their necks so their spinal alignments go out of whack and making their eyes water in order to make darn good and sure THEY have the BEST eyepiece in the world.

That is most certainly my opinion, but I am sticking to it.




So true! I'll wring every last photon out of an eyepiece when I go out of the city to see what I can when I find a really dim object. Just last Sunday I found NGC-281, (Pacman Nebula), in Cassiopeia for the first time and I went through as many eyepieces as I could, (my own), and even borrowed other observers' eyepieces to grab the best view using my Orion Ultrablock. I would have used an O-III on it, but there was only a 1.25" one there and most of the eyepieces I used were 2" ones to get the widest possible FOV. I should have tried the 25mm Sterling plossl Eric had with his O-III filter!!! Maybe next time!!!

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phillip Creed
Idiot Seeking Village
*****

Reged: 07/25/06

Loc: Canton, OH
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6014137 - 08/08/13 04:55 PM

I've looked through f/5 scopes that had a Paracorr'ed 31T5 and a 30ES-82. In both cases, there's very little in the way of field curvature or astigmatism to correct from the get-go, and they're razor sharp at the edges.

Jon is correct in surmising that a Paracorr is the best way to see how well-corrected an eyepiece is, but I don't think it's the perfect device for an apples-to-apples comparison. If a Paracorr *just* corrected coma, yes, it's the definitive and only acid test needed; discussion = done. Edge aberrations are typically caused by the mirror's coma, the eyepiece's field curvature and the eyepiece's off-axis astigmatism, and while a Paracorr will effectively eliminate the first, it will also reduce the other two. It helps flattens the field and the 15% boost to the scope's effective focal ratio reduces off-axis astigmatism. An eyepiece with field curvature will still sharpen up with a Paracorr in the optical train, and ditto an eyepiece with mild off-axis astigmatism.

Those who own the Pentax 14XW and 20XW--two eyepieces known for their field curvature--swear by the ability of the Paracorr to clean it up edge-to-edge. A similar chasm in Paracorr'ed vs. un-corrected performance exists for the T4 Nagler line. Of course, for those of us who don't have a coma corrector, blessed is the eyepiece that shows *just* coma and not the other two aberrations. Most people I know that use premium wide-field eyepieces with Newts/dobs in the f/5 range don't use a Paracorr, as they don't feel the need to correct the coma. That is especially the case for the T5 and T6 Naglers, Panoptics of 24mm+, and the Ethoi, and I'd say it easily applies to the 24ES-82 and 30ES-82 eyepieces.

Clear Skies,
Phil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Phillip Creed]
      #6014159 - 08/08/13 05:04 PM

Quote:

Those who own the Pentax 14XW and 20XW--two eyepieces known for their field curvature--swear by the ability of the Paracorr to clean it up edge-to-edge. A similar chasm in Paracorr'ed vs. un-corrected performance exists for the T4 Nagler line. Of course, for those of us who don't have a coma corrector, blessed is the eyepiece that shows *just* coma and not the other two aberrations. Most people I know that use premium wide-field eyepieces with Newts/dobs in the f/5 range don't use a Paracorr, as they don't feel the need to correct the coma. That is especially the case for the T5 and T6 Naglers, Panoptics of 24mm+, and the Ethoi, and I'd say it easily applies to the 24ES-82 and 30ES-82 eyepieces.

Clear Skies,
Phil




Now that's an excellent bit of information to know. My next eyepiece is going to be the 30mm ES 82.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eklf
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/12/07

Loc: Carrboro, NC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6014449 - 08/08/13 07:50 PM

Quote:



Yep....this is what I have been saying over & over & over here, but keep on getting berated by Jon about it. Without a paracorr, I can name a few that were sharp to the edges.

22mm Vixen LVW
10mm Pentax XW
7mm Pentax XW
14mm Denk (close to it)
20mm Nag T2

Oh but wait, the scientific whatcha-ma-callit, and the ray-traced doo-dad, doesn't add up.




I also own the 22 LVW, 7 XW, and used to own 10 XW. They are very well corrected for astigmatism. And they all three show coma in a F5 reflector. No its not obtrusive, and one can easily choose to ignore it. However to say that these do not show coma in a f5 reflector is incorrect. Ofcourse, not everyone is able to see coma.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: eklf]
      #6014461 - 08/08/13 07:55 PM

Eyepiece Coma: Trying to decide can put you into one ........

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: csrlice12]
      #6014584 - 08/08/13 08:59 PM

Quote:

I also own the 22 LVW, 7 XW, and used to own 10 XW. They are very well corrected for astigmatism. And they all three show coma in a F5 reflector. No its not obtrusive, and one can easily choose to ignore it. However to say that these do not show coma in a f5 reflector is incorrect. Ofcourse, not everyone is able to see coma.

--------------------
Clear Skies/Kumar




The Last Vixen LVW I had was sharp right to the edges in my fast scope w/o a paracorr. I've said it dozens of times and I will say it again. There is also zero coma to be seen in the 10mm and 7mm XW's and I can see coma...trust me on that one. If you want to nit pick and split hairs using "scientific data", knock yourself unconscious and have a good snooze.

I know what I was seeing in my 22mm LVW and 10mm & 7mm XW's and the views were sharp right through the entire field. You can cut it, and slice it and dice it all you want here.....have a party, LOL!

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6015076 - 08/09/13 03:13 AM

Well,

I went ahead and just ordered the last 30mm ES 82 from Agena Astro !!!!

Can't wait to try this out !!! No more crummy edges in a 2" low power wide field for me any more !!! I hope it plays well with my eye socket....etc etc.



30mm Explore Scientific 82


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eklf
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/12/07

Loc: Carrboro, NC
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6015236 - 08/09/13 07:47 AM

Quote:


The Last Vixen LVW I had was sharp right to the edges in my fast scope w/o a paracorr. I've said it dozens of times and I will say it again. There is also zero coma to be seen in the 10mm and 7mm XW's and I can see coma...trust me on that one. If you want to nit pick and split hairs using "scientific data", knock yourself unconscious and have a good snooze.

I know what I was seeing in my 22mm LVW and 10mm & 7mm XW's and the views were sharp right through the entire field. You can cut it, and slice it and dice it all you want here.....have a party, LOL!

Cheers,



Quote:

Oh but wait, the scientific whatcha-ma-callit, and the ray-traced doo-dad, doesn't add up.




The 7XW field of view is very close to being naturally free of coma in an F5. The slightly bigger one of 10XW would show minuscle amounts of coma. The 22 LVW, on the other hand, is a very different story.

However your free (and eloquent) admission, that what you see is a scientific impossibility, effectively ends further rational discussion (at least on my part) of this topic.

Edited by eklf (08/09/13 07:55 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: TechPan6415]
      #6015255 - 08/09/13 07:58 AM

Quote:



I think that might just sum up the differences between "Observers" and what their emphasis is on this forum. Some are actively looking at the objects that fascinate them. Others seem to be more interested in picking apart eyepieces, craning their necks so their spinal alignments go out of whack and making their eyes water in order to make darn good and sure THEY have the BEST eyepiece in the world.




Personally I am an observer, not an eyepiece guy. But I have telescopes like my 12.5 inch in F/4.06 and the 16 inch F/4.42 that are quite fast and very demanding of the eyepiece and so aberrations like coma and off-axis astigmatism can be quite apparent. For me, it's not about having the best possible eyepieces but rather having eyepieces that are the most effective tools for observing the way I like to observe.

I am big on starhopping, a well corrected edge makes differentiating a small galaxy or planetary nebula from a star easier, it there are aberrations like field curvature, coma, astigmatism, the star is not a nice round point nor is the object I am looking for. I am also big on just enjoying low power sweeping and I do like a clean field of view.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #6015262 - 08/09/13 08:02 AM

Quote:

The Last Vixen LVW I had was sharp right to the edges in my fast scope w/o a paracorr. I've said it dozens of times and I will say it again. There is also zero coma to be seen in the 10mm and 7mm XW's and I can see coma...trust me on that one




Exactly how do you perform this test, are you observing a magnitude 2-4 star focused in the center of the field of view and then moving it progressively towards the edge?

An eyepiece that corrects for coma will show coma in a fast coma free telescope. That's how coma correction works. The coma free field of view of a the XT-10 is about 0.11 degrees, the TFoV of the 7mm XW is about .4 degrees..

How is it that this thread on the comparison between the 31mm Nagler and the 30mm Explore Scientific has diverged into a discussion of a wide range of eyepieces of quite different focal lengths and manufacturers? It seems that it needs to get back to the original topic.

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs (08/09/13 08:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beatlejuice
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 04/05/11

Loc: Hamilton, ON,Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6015311 - 08/09/13 08:43 AM

Quote:

How is it that this thread on the comparison between the 31mm Nagler and the 30mm Explore Scientific has diverged into a discussion of a wide range of eyepieces of quite different focal lengths and manufacturers? It seems that it needs to get back to the original topic.




Good point Jon. My take on this is that so very few of us have had an opportunity to actually compare the 2 side by side that there is a lot of educated guessing going on involving other eyepieces which has led to divergent topics overtaking the thread. It seems to happen in a lot of other threads as well, but, this can be a good thing as often a lot of valuable information ends up being revealed that would have remained hidden if strictly dealing with the topic of the thread.

Eric


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phillip Creed
Idiot Seeking Village
*****

Reged: 07/25/06

Loc: Canton, OH
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: beatlejuice]
      #6015332 - 08/09/13 08:57 AM

Markus, you WILL see coma in a 10" f/4.7 with a 30ES-82. The coma-free portion of an f/4.7 scope is only 2.28mm and the 30ES-82 has a 43mm field stop. The issue would be whether or not *something else* is there, too, like field curvature or off-axis astigmatism, and how sensitive the observer is to the effects of coma. The f-ratio below which the coma compels someone to get a Paracorr varies from person to person.

My f/4.9 scopes have a 2.62mm coma-free zone. I notice the coma starting with my 10mm Delos (12.7mm field stop), or when the field stop is > 5X the coma-free zone. Below this, I don't readily see it along the edge. Above this, the coma I do see isn't deemed worth forking over $400 for a Paracorr at f/4.9.

The 22LVW I have does show coma at f/4.9. No surprise there. It's also the only thing I see, and compared to off-axis astigmatism and field curvature (which I have a very low tolerance for), the coma's small potatoes. I tested it once in a 16" f/4.5 w/o coma correction I used to own--a very brutal test chamber--and all I could see was the mirror's coma there.

Ditto the 30ES-82. There's coma, but that's it, in my f/4.9 scopes, and I put up with it.

Basically, it boils down to how sensitive one's eyes are to coma, not whether or not the coma's there, in a fast reflector.

Clear Skies,
Phil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Phillip Creed]
      #6015835 - 08/09/13 01:23 PM

Quote:

Exactly how do you perform this test, are you observing a magnitude 2-4 star focused in the center of the field of view and then moving it progressively towards the edge?




Yep. I took the bright star in Bootes, centered it, and moved towards the edge of the 22mm Vixen LVW. I don't know why, but it stayed sharp to the edges. I tried the same test using the same star on an Orion 22mm LVW and it wasn't as sharp near the edges at all. As we all know, every eyepiece has it's own little individual quirks and the 22mm Vixen LVW I owned was quite special.

Quote:

The 7XW field of view is very close to being naturally free of coma in an F5. The slightly bigger one of 10XW would show minuscle amounts of coma. The 22 LVW, on the other hand, is a very different story.




As it has been noted before, the negative field curvature of the 10mm and 7mm XW's play really well with the positive FC of Newtonians giving them a flat field. One cancels out the other. The 22mm Vixen LVW I had was one of a kind. I tried the 22mm Orion LVW, which is essentially the same EP but it wasn't as good as my Vixen LVW. I got rid of it because I became addicted to 100 degree and 82 degree eyepieces.

Quote:

However your free (and eloquent) admission, that what you see is a scientific impossibility, effectively ends further rational discussion (at least on my part) of this topic.




I didn't say it was a "scientific impossibility"....I was being sarcastic because certain people try to refute what I see with a scientific explanation...I know what my eye sees, and that is all that matters.


Quote:

How is it that this thread on the comparison between the 31mm Nagler and the 30mm Explore Scientific has diverged into a discussion of a wide range of eyepieces of quite different focal lengths and manufacturers? It seems that it needs to get back to the original topic.




You went off topic trying to refute what I saw and I merely told you, as I have told you time & time again what I am seeing....all that matters is that I see what I see and I don't need claims of what I see being a non-possibility with irrelevant, scientific jargon, that goes nowhere.

Quote:

Markus, you WILL see coma in a 10" f/4.7 with a 30ES-82. The coma-free portion of an f/4.7 scope is only 2.28mm and the 30ES-82 has a 43mm field stop. The issue would be whether or not *something else* is there, too, like field curvature or off-axis astigmatism, and how sensitive the observer is to the effects of coma. The f-ratio below which the coma compels someone to get a Paracorr varies from person to person.

My f/4.9 scopes have a 2.62mm coma-free zone. I notice the coma starting with my 10mm Delos (12.7mm field stop), or when the field stop is > 5X the coma-free zone. Below this, I don't readily see it along the edge. Above this, the coma I do see isn't deemed worth forking over $400 for a Paracorr at f/4.9.

The 22LVW I have does show coma at f/4.9. No surprise there. It's also the only thing I see, and compared to off-axis astigmatism and field curvature (which I have a very low tolerance for), the coma's small potatoes. I tested it once in a 16" f/4.5 w/o coma correction I used to own--a very brutal test chamber--and all I could see was the mirror's coma there.

Ditto the 30ES-82. There's coma, but that's it, in my f/4.9 scopes, and I put up with it.

Basically, it boils down to how sensitive one's eyes are to coma, not whether or not the coma's there, in a fast reflector.

Clear Skies,
Phil




Hi Phil,

It all depends on the FC of the eyepiece really. The 10mm and 7mm XW is proof of that like I just said with the negative FC getting cancelled out by the positive FC of the telescope mirror. I know that the 30mm ES will show some coma in my reflector, as I have tried the 30mm Meade 5000 and they will be very close in performance. I can see coma in the 30mm Meade 5000 UWA, but like some of the other eyepieces I have used, it is very well controlled and not bothersome at all. The 30mm ES will be eons better than the 38mm Q70, or 38mm Burgess SWA I have been using for the last 2 years, which had really comfy eye placement, but had warp factor edges !!!

As for the 22mm Vixen LVW...I don't know what it was but stars stayed sharp right to the edges in my reflector. The 22mm Orion LVW easily showed coma, but it wasn't really bad....it was very well controlled. Mathematically or scientifically, I know it is there in any eyepiece in my reflector....but some eyepieces hide it, or show it a lot more depending on the positive or negative FC of the eyepiece in conjunction with the positive or negative FC of the scope used.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TechPan6415
sage
*****

Reged: 07/29/12

Loc: Aspen, Co
Re: TeleVue Nagler 31mm vs Explore Scientific 30mm new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6015915 - 08/09/13 01:56 PM

Quote:

Quote:



I think that might just sum up the differences between "Observers" and what their emphasis is on this forum. Some are actively looking at the objects that fascinate them. Others seem to be more interested in picking apart eyepieces, craning their necks so their spinal alignments go out of whack and making their eyes water in order to make darn good and sure THEY have the BEST eyepiece in the world.




Personally I am an observer, not an eyepiece guy. But I have telescopes like my 12.5 inch in F/4.06 and the 16 inch F/4.42 that are quite fast and very demanding of the eyepiece and so aberrations like coma and off-axis astigmatism can be quite apparent. For me, it's not about having the best possible eyepieces but rather having eyepieces that are the most effective tools for observing the way I like to observe.

I am big on starhopping, a well corrected edge makes differentiating a small galaxy or planetary nebula from a star easier, it there are aberrations like field curvature, coma, astigmatism, the star is not a nice round point nor is the object I am looking for. I am also big on just enjoying low power sweeping and I do like a clean field of view.




I'll be the first to admit I need to get more quality observing time in, we have not had decent weather for that for over a month, but I am not complaining since we really need the moisture. But during the times I have been out in great conditions, I have been *very* happy in what I saw in my 16" F4.43 with the now sold 30mm ES 82. I saw a little bit of coma at the edge of the field of view, but it hardly bothered me at all and I have no interest in adding weight and complexity with a coma corrector.

I am also very much into star hopping, probably will never own any kind of automated / goto scope, I love the challenge of finding objects on my own and often do well. But I am just not at all bothered by any perceived or real lack of image quality in my wide field views. They are bright, seem very sharp and tight when the conditions are good, my scope is well collimated and I have always ID's objects with ease at the edge when hunting.

The only reason I sold the 30 is to obtain better eye relief by going to the new 25mm 100 degree. That eyepiece also seems fine in regards to image quality, but I have only had it out once so I can not really make a full statement on that other than it seemed on par with the 30mm when I compared them side by side. I too love wide field sweeps for the Milky Way and clusters of galaxies not to mention large low surface brightness objects.

I, my wife, my friends and even some other scope owners including one with a C14 and another with a 22" obsession were all quite impressed with the views in my "budget" setup during a night of exceptional seeing...but then none of these less-than-experts even know what Cloudy Nights is, let alone spend time on it, believe me, I asked.

Maybe I will start to see more flaws when I get more chances to do quality observing, but for now, I am super happy with what I consider to be my dream setup.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)


Extra information
11 registered and 32 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ausastronomer, droid, Scott in NC 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 10655

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics