OvidiuDanut
super member
Reged: 09/25/07
Posts: 126
Loc: Romania
|
|
Reading some posts around several forum regarding the hyperions i came across the idea that if one have a scope with f/6 or above there is no need to get naglers because hyperions perform just as well except for the smaller AFOV. Could this be true? Is for instance the 31mm Hyperion on an f/>6 scope just as good as a 31mm nagler on a f/<5 scope?
--------------------
When we look at the immensity of the Universe we start to see ourselves smaller and smaller...
|
Nightknight
member
Reged: 10/12/07
Posts: 74
Loc: The great pacific northwet of ...
|
|
See this discussion? CloudyNights Hyperion discussion
Some of the posts give comparisons like you're looking at
--------------------
You can only talk astronomy with astronomers. Everybody else just yawns.
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 10441
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Just as good? I seriously doubt it. They are good, and they are much, much less expensive.
Good enough? Worth the monetary savings? That question is impossible to answer for anyone except the one using them.
--------------------
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye) 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Next Project: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
longfocus
sage
Reged: 02/03/07
Posts: 378
Loc: Sunshine Capital of Canada
|
|
If a person spends say $500-$1000 on a scope, there is no reason to spend that much per eyepiece. To me, this is common sense. The more expensive the scope is, the more it makes sense to go ultra-premium. An $899 12" at f/5 scope hardly needs a 2" Nagler worth nearly as much as the scope IMHO. Not unless you plan on using one eyepiece (ridiculous again IMHO). The Hyperions are great eypieces for the money.
It is not worth comparing the 31 Terminagler to the 31 Aspheric. Not really for a second. However, you may be pleasantly surprised at the sheer light throughput of the Baader eyepiece!!
|
mosdc61
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/04/06
Posts: 510
|
|
I have to disagree; my 12" cost me $1000, but had no second thoughts when getting a 31T5, 13 Ethos (and eventually an 8mm), & Powermate. At f5, eyepiece quality is even more critical, especially widefields.
As with cameras, I prefer my quality in the lenses (in this case eyepieces).
Re the Hyp and Stratus lines; I tried several before settling on the TV's, but didn't enjoy them at all, and especially found the off-axis and internal reflections on open clusters too distracting. They went back the same day. The only long and tough decision for me was TV or Pentax.
|
KWB
Postmaster
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 7619
Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.1646Meters
|
|
That's what this hobby is all about-you have to satisfy yourself and no other person can do it for you. Whether someone want's to spend $100.00 or $1000.00 on an eyepiece,that's the right decision for them and IMO no one else can be the determiner of what is proper and what is not proper as far as spending money. To me the cost of the telescope used with the eyepiece is irrelevant.
--------------------
Kenny
"When dealing with a mystery,choose the most unlikely of the likely possibilities"-Sherlock Holmes
|
BillP
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/26/06
Posts: 2208
Loc: Vienna, VA
|
|
OvidiuDanut,
Optically, the Hyperions do quite well, especially considering their price. Naglers are a step up though, being corrected better off axis, and showing more uniformity across the fov in terms of background darkness (the Hyperions show a general lightening of the fov as you get closer to the field stop). Build quality is better as well on the Naglers, using thicker guage metals in the construction and the graphics are better with more longevity vs the silk screening on the Hyperions where the letter tend to wear away over time.
As you get to longer focal lengths, you are correct as the off-axis correction becomes excellent on the Hyperions. However due to the better internal baffling the uniformity of the background fov darkness is better on the Naglers.
All this said, the Hyperions are indeed outstanding eyepieces in their own right for mid-range wide fields. However, the Naglers are still a step above in optics even in longer focal ratio scopes IMO due to the better attention internally to baffling and stray light control.
Personal preferences go a long way in determining what will work best for you. I've had both the Naglers and the Hyperions in my stall of EPs. The Hyperions actually stayed longer given their extreme value for the dollar and due to their unique flexibility with the fine tuning rings to change focal lengths (which of course the Naglers cannot do). So both are great EPs and satisfy differing tastes for differing observers.
-Bill
--------------------
250mm f/4.7 Orion XT10i Dobsonian
102mm f/8.0 Tak TSA Super-APO
66mm f/5.9 WO ZenithStar SD APO
40mm f/10 Coronado P.S.T.
|
panhard
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/20/08
Posts: 2535
Loc: Markham Ont.
|
|
Quote:
OvidiuDanut,
Optically, the Hyperions do quite well, especially considering their price. Naglers are a step up though, being corrected better off axis, and showing more uniformity across the fov in terms of background darkness (the Hyperions show a general lightening of the fov as you get closer to the field stop). Build quality is better as well on the Naglers, using thicker guage metals in the construction and the graphics are better with more longevity vs the silk screening on the Hyperions where the letter tend to wear away over time.
As you get to longer focal lengths, you are correct as the off-axis correction becomes excellent on the Hyperions. However due to the better internal baffling the uniformity of the background fov darkness is better on the Naglers.
All this said, the Hyperions are indeed outstanding eyepieces in their own right for mid-range wide fields. However, the Naglers are still a step above in optics even in longer focal ratio scopes IMO due to the better attention internally to baffling and stray light control.
Personal preferences go a long way in determining what will work best for you. I've had both the Naglers and the Hyperions in my stall of EPs. The Hyperions actually stayed longer given their extreme value for the dollar and due to their unique flexibility with the fine tuning rings to change focal lengths (which of course the Naglers cannot do). So both are great EPs and satisfy differing tastes for differing observers.
-Bill
Very well stated Bill. We are all individuals who see things our own way. Myself the cost is what makes the Hyperions attractive to me also the flexibility. 
--------------------
Orion xt10i
8 & 17mm Hyperion eye pieces
koning 32mm 25mm skywatcher eyepieces
lumicon 0111 & antares variable polarizing filters
12x50 binos
A love for this hobby
"What goes around comes around."
"She who must be obeyed."
Herb c
cloudy nights my # 1 site
43.53°n 79.17°w
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
Great reply Bill,
It all depends if the increased quality of Naglers or Pentax EPs is worth the difference of price.
Frankly it was for me, but that is really a personnal decision.
Francois
--------------------
François
Nexstar 8 SE
50mm StellarVue finderscope, Astronomik UHC-E and Orion OIII filters
WO Swan 40mm; TV Pan 22mm; TV Nagler 9T6, 12T4, 17T4; TV Plossl 11mm and 15mm.
WO 2" dielectric diagonal retrofitted with Denk Power Switch (and now reach the zenith with the shorty adapter).
|
Starkler
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/04/05
Posts: 686
Loc: Australia, Melbourne
|
|
Quote:
If a person spends say $500-$1000 on a scope, there is no reason to spend that much per eyepiece. To me, this is common sense. The more expensive the scope is, the more it makes sense to go ultra-premium. An $899 12" at f/5 scope hardly needs a 2" Nagler worth nearly as much as the scope IMHO.
I'll add my voice to the chorus of those disagreeing with this.
The fact that a certain dob only costs $899 in no way means that your views wont benefit by putting the very finest eyepieces into the focuser.
An f5 newtonian is still just that, and the views still benefit from the aberration control of premium eyepieces as they will in the finest scopes. Over a period of time I built up an eyepiece case that was worth multiple times what the scope was worth on its own (until I bought a premium truss dob).
Having said that, on the other hand I wouldnt use unbranded plossls in a high end scope of any description.
--------------------
Geoff
15" SDM truss dob | Vixen r130sf | GSO 10" dob
|
watcher
super member
Reged: 11/21/07
Posts: 106
Loc: NJ
|
|
I don't know about differences between f/4.5 and f/6 scopes,all I have to go by is my old f/10 cat, and my f/8.3 refractor. Frankly, I think some of the eyepiece afficianados in this forum are making life harder for beginners. I don't doubt that a three or four hundred dollar eyepiece is better constructed than a hundred dollar eyepiece, but if I have to defocus stars near the edge of field to look for coma and field curvature, and park the full moon on the edge of the field stop to check which one reflects less light, and bounce my eyeball off the eyepiece looking for blackouts to tell which is the winner, it just doesn't make sense to me. I recently bought a full set of Swan wide field eyepieces because they were on sale. Only after I clicked the mouse and made the purchase did I read the rather disparaging review of the Swans. I thought I'd made a big mistake. But when I got them, and plopped them in the focuser, one after another, I was stunned. The views were gorgeous. Perfect little pinpoint stars from one edge of the field to the other. I'm sure if you tested them next to Naglers, the Naglers would win, but I don't want to test eyepieces, I want to look through them.
--------------------
1986 Celestron c-8 (retired)
Celestron Omni XLT 120
Meade 16x50 binoculars
|
Bob Griffiths
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/10/05
Posts: 4125
Loc: Frederick Maryland
|
|
I'm with you watcher...
Unless my eyeballs instantaneously tell me that one EP is better then another I'll take either EP home with me...IF I have to look hard to see a difference then either will do just fine...
Bob G
--------------------
CPC1100
Nexstar 8i + GPS & Rays Brackets
Denk S1 power switch
Orion 100 mm Refractor
Meade LXD 55 ...AR-5 127 mm Refractor
Exploradome Observatory S.I.E. (Smiling Irish Eyes)
39*21'03" N
77*28'12" W
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
I own the 40mm Swann from WO and use it on a 8SE. It is just wonderful. Not to the level of the Pans or naglers, but for what i wanted that FL, it does the job.
In the department of EPs, it is all very personnal.
You know if it is good when you try it. Sometimes the more expensive EPs are better sometimes not. Hey i found that the TV plossls were better on planets than naglers or pans or pentax. Much less expensive.
Francois
Francois
--------------------
François
Nexstar 8 SE
50mm StellarVue finderscope, Astronomik UHC-E and Orion OIII filters
WO Swan 40mm; TV Pan 22mm; TV Nagler 9T6, 12T4, 17T4; TV Plossl 11mm and 15mm.
WO 2" dielectric diagonal retrofitted with Denk Power Switch (and now reach the zenith with the shorty adapter).
|
mosdc61
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/04/06
Posts: 510
|
|
Well, I certainly didn't expect to cause such a stir with my above post, really. I simply suggest that in a fast scope, eyepiece quality is more important in wide-field designs when it comes to correction of abberations.
Watcher, I have to completely agree with your post. Having owned a CPC and other slower scopes in the past, I'll say there are MANY fine eyepieces to be had for much better prices than we can get for the premiums; the GSO Superviews very capable in long f/l scopes, making them a great value.
|
Rick Woods
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 4262
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Eyepieces are a lot like audio gear. Some people need the very highest-end stereo equipment, and can tell the difference instantly between the best and the not-quite-best. Other people just want to listen to the music, and aren't picky about the gear. I think the greater happiness lies on the latter path.
Which is funny; I'm a guitarist, but I'm not really picky about my amplifier since the real sound comes from my fingers and brain. On the other hand, I plunked a wad of cash for a set of Brandon eyepieces so I could get that little bit of "extra". Go figure. It must be a left brain/right brain thing.
But one thing's certain: you'll have a lot more fun if you just relax, don't worry about it, and enjoy what you've got!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C
|
watcher
super member
Reged: 11/21/07
Posts: 106
Loc: NJ
|
|
Didn't mean to stir things up.  Ok, maybe a little bit. But I do want to clarify, that I have nothing against those who worship the green print. If it weren't for companies like Televue, and Pentax, and Zeiss, and the good number of folks in our hobby willing to chase that last bit of measurable perfection, I don't think these "average" eyepieces would be of such outstanding quality.
--------------------
1986 Celestron c-8 (retired)
Celestron Omni XLT 120
Meade 16x50 binoculars
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 10441
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Well said, watcher. We often forget just how good the "low end" eyepieces of today really are. Heck, even my 25mm Kellner gives outstanding views, and I was happy with it for years.
--------------------
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye) 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Next Project: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
Oly Olson
super member
Reged: 02/17/08
Posts: 154
|
|
The 31mm Celestron Axiom and Meade UWA are other options that may be "good enough" for most folks vs. the Nagler.
Cheers,
Oly
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
With the axiom, you have to add to the equation that it is a very heavy EP, 2 pounds if not more.
That may be a problem (with the nagler as well) that the asperic does not have.
Francois
--------------------
François
Nexstar 8 SE
50mm StellarVue finderscope, Astronomik UHC-E and Orion OIII filters
WO Swan 40mm; TV Pan 22mm; TV Nagler 9T6, 12T4, 17T4; TV Plossl 11mm and 15mm.
WO 2" dielectric diagonal retrofitted with Denk Power Switch (and now reach the zenith with the shorty adapter).
|
Oly Olson
super member
Reged: 02/17/08
Posts: 154
|
|
Quote:
With the axiom, you have to add to the equation that it is a very heavy EP, 2 pounds if not more.
That may be a problem (with the nagler as well) that the asperic does not have.
This is true, it's really a very very heavy eyepiece.
Best,
Oly
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 