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
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4337
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
I'm shaking up the eyepiece collection with the arrival of my 13E (yay!). Certain now i'm going to add the 8E as well, but trying to decide on the low end. Telescopes are a 130mm f/8 refractor and 80mm f/7.5 (the former my main 'scope, the latter more for widefield wandering when out and about) with a 12"-16" dob planned for the near future. Interests are lunar/planetary and deep sky in equal measure.
I currently have a 5mm XW which I love (i'm a big fan of the Pentaxs at and below 10mm) but want something more for the rare nights of great seeing. Option one is to add a 3.5mm XW, but that's quite a lot of $$$ for an eyepiece that's only rarely usable here (297x in the big refractor, the 5mm at 200x is much more often my 'max power' eyepiece) and although it's a lot more usable in the 80mm that's more often a widefield 'scope anyway.
The alternative seems to me to buy the Nagler zoom. I've never used one, and it would involve selling the 5mm XW so it's a bit of a gamble. I'm not sure how i'd like the lower AFOV (I like wide fields of view, even for planetary) but the flexibility it would give would be great. It seems like a more pragmatic choice than the pair of XWs.
Anybody been down this path before?
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
KWB
Postmaster
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 7619
Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.1646Meters
|
|
Yes
You just stated the obvious, TFOV versus flexibilty and size efficiency. The Nagler zoom has exceedingly good optics IMO,I'll take it over previously owned Orthos in short focal lengths any day as it has much better eyerelief. I like the 3 to 6 for a constant eyerelief and AFOV through all magnifications. It boils down to what you want. With an 80mm Ed refractor and short focal length eyepieces combined with a barlow,my objective is breaking double stars and trying to obtain planetary detail. I have other eyepieces at lower power(longer focal lengths)to admire the sky as in how much of it I can take in with widefield designs. Absolute eye relief is no issue for me in a 5mm design of any kind. Maybe it is for you?
What do you want out of a short focal length eyepiece? 7mm is my cutoff point for showing as much detail in a globular cluster and at the same time trying to get a bit of the surrounding sky. What's your's?
--------------------
Kenny
"When dealing with a mystery,choose the most unlikely of the likely possibilities"-Sherlock Holmes
Edited by KWB (08/06/08 04:42 PM)
|
naglertized
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/10/07
Posts: 1515
Loc: Jacksonville Florida
|
|
Ben,
Get one. Your AP certianly will be able to handle it as well as your TV 60. Some things to keep in mind 50 deg. AFOV, can be quite a change going from "wider" EP's I have found the ER quite amazing given the FL's covered by the NZ. If the Dob. you are planning on acquiring has very good optics you can use the NZ it it to resolve small details in DSO's (this is per Mr. Trusock). For a very High quality EP it's quite the bargain.
--------------------
Clinton
|
doug76
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/05/07
Posts: 2554
Loc: SE Louisiana
|
|
Me, I say keep the 5mm XW, and get a 1.5x-1.7x Barlow. I have seen these, but can't remember the maker.
Doug
--------------------
Doug
The Truckstop Astronomer
Meade 12" Lightbridge/Dob Driver II
Celestron C6 SCT
Celestron C6R/Moonlight focuser
Celestron XLT150
Astro-Tech AT80EDT
Celestron CG5-ASGT, CG-4
Celestron Nexstar SE (large)
Meade SWA 34mm
Televue Panoptic 24mm
Pentax XW 10mm, 7mm
---------------------
Astro-Tech AT66ED
Celestron Nexstar SE (small)
Televue Plossl 32mm
Smart Astronomy Solar System 14.5mm
BO/TMB Planetary 9mm, 7mm, 5mm, 4mm, 3.2mm, 2.5mm
|
Tom Trusock
Reged: 02/26/02
Posts: 27299
Loc: Alternate Reality (TM)
|
|
As Clinton says, I use mine with my 18" obsession nearly every session. I've used it to reach ODM for extremely faint targets, but more typically I use it to dig the central stars out of PN.
It's a superb lunar and planetary eyepiece as well, and would be one of the very last pieces of kit I'd part with.
--------------------
There are two theories to arguing with my wife. Neither one works.
|
Zoomit
super member
Reged: 12/04/06
Posts: 125
Loc: Tehachapi, CA
|
|
Quote:
Me, I say keep the 5mm XW, and get a 1.5x-1.7x Barlow. I have seen these, but can't remember the maker.
Doug
Antares makes a 1.6x 2" barlow, as do a few other manufacturers (AP, Tak, Siebert, Wollensak) that span the quality and cost spectrum.
Using one of those in front of a 5mm would be a cheap way to get to 3.1mm, if you ever need it. To me there's a lot of ground between 5 and 3.1 when you're dealing with the limit of seeing conditions. That's certainly one of the beauties of the 3-6NZ. (Another is that you don't have to fiddle with moving eyepieces and barlows around and then focusing and rechecking focus.)
--------------------
Brandon
AstroSystems TeleKit 18" f/4.6; Orion XT8 7.4" f/6.4
TeleVue 26Nt5, 13E, 3-6NZ; Antares 2" 1.6x
Astro-Physics 15x70; Nikon Action EX 12x50
|
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4337
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
Thanks guys, think i'll give the Nagler a try. I love the 5XW but there are many nights where I 4mm might work, might not, and can see myself switching through for the ideal magnification.
One other question - how usable is it for non-Astronomers? The moon and planets are my first choice when we've got guests round who express an interest (much better than trying to show them some faint fuzzy) and it's nice to have something they can use easily without me having to explain about eye placement, blackout etc.
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
doctordub
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 908
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
I have found that my kids (ages 8 and 12)can use the 2-4 Nagler zoom easier than my 3mm Radian.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on Vixen SXW mount
Meade LXD 55 SN10/UHTC Modified
Jason 60mm F11
Canon 15x50 IS
Olympus E-510, 14-42, 40-150 Zuiko
Meade DSI, LPI
TeleVue:
Binovue & 2X Cor.
3x barlow, 2x 5mm, 2x7mm,
12mm, 17mm & 2-4mm Zoom Naglers,
2x24mm, & 27mm panoptics,
55mm Plossl & 3mm Radian
2" OIII & Nebustar filters
Siebert Power Mag wheel
Lumicon Filter selecter &
2" focal reducer
Celestron: 7 1.25" color filters
7.5mm, 26mm eps & 2X ultima barlow
|
doug76
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/05/07
Posts: 2554
Loc: SE Louisiana
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Me, I say keep the 5mm XW, and get a 1.5x-1.7x Barlow. I have seen these, but can't remember the maker.
Doug
Antares makes a 1.6x 2" barlow, as do a few other manufacturers (AP, Tak, Siebert, Wollensak) that span the quality and cost spectrum.
Using one of those in front of a 5mm would be a cheap way to get to 3.1mm, if you ever need it. To me there's a lot of ground between 5 and 3.1 when you're dealing with the limit of seeing conditions. That's certainly one of the beauties of the 3-6NZ. (Another is that you don't have to fiddle with moving eyepieces and barlows around and then focusing and rechecking focus.)
But there is the difference in eye relief and FoV, both of which favor the Pentax over the TV zoom.
Doug
|
Tom Trusock
Reged: 02/26/02
Posts: 27299
Loc: Alternate Reality (TM)
|
|
If you need glasses I'd go with the Pentax (or a Radian). If you don't need glasses, go with the zoom. The flexibility of the eyepiece is astounding.
If you want FOV and don't need glasses look at the T6 naglers.
T
--------------------
There are two theories to arguing with my wife. Neither one works.
|
naglertized
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/10/07
Posts: 1515
Loc: Jacksonville Florida
|
|
My 4.5 and 8 yr. old sons had no problem seeing Luna and Jove last night in my 15mm. TV Widefield that has a tight 10mm.ish or perhaps a tad less ER. I feel the ER on the NZ more comfortable. I can even use the NZ with a degree of comfortability with my non asrto. specs on.
--------------------
Clinton
|
|
14 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Greg K., Jason B, csa/montana
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 