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
Albie
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/22/05
Posts: 3502
Loc: Alberta,Canada
|
|
Quote:
Albie, do your eyelashes touch the eyelens of the 16T5 when you are in optimum viewing position?
I've never felt my average length lashes hitting the lens and have never seen eyelash oil on the lens.
Because I don't wear glasses I don't worry too much about short eyerelief although the stated eyerelief of the 16T5 did have me a bit concerned before I bought it. I believe an expensive widefield like a Nagler should have at least enough er to allow you to see the entire fov comfortably and I feel the 16T5 does.Obviously if you have to wear glasses while viewing the 17T4 is the one to get,that's if it's a Nagler you want.
--------------------
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Dob with Moonlight CR1
Televue 2x barlow and 5T6,7T6,9T6,16T5 and 26T5 Televue Naglers.
SkyMaster 15x70,Regal LX 8x42 and Noble 10x28
|
Satisfied
member
Reged: 02/14/08
Posts: 43
Loc: Colorado
|
|
Wow, great feedback. Thanks, guys. I'm not familiar with Tom T's article about the WO 16mm UWAN. Can someone post the link?
--------------------
8" LX90 ACF
ETX 105 AT
|
Albie
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/22/05
Posts: 3502
Loc: Alberta,Canada
|
|
Here's a link Uwan Review
--------------------
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Dob with Moonlight CR1
Televue 2x barlow and 5T6,7T6,9T6,16T5 and 26T5 Televue Naglers.
SkyMaster 15x70,Regal LX 8x42 and Noble 10x28
|
Covey32
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 632
Loc: Georgia
|
|
The 16 T5 has a concave top lens, which helps greatly in keeping eyelashes from brushing it. This helps compensate for the shorter eye relief.
--------------------
Hank
12.5" Mag1 Portaball
Orion 120mm F5 Refractor
Skywatcher 120ED F7.5 Refractor
1982 Celestron C8 Orange tube
Edited by Covey32 (08/11/08 12:26 PM)
|
Albie
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/22/05
Posts: 3502
Loc: Alberta,Canada
|
|
The Uwan would be an excellent alternative to the Nagler for 82° views,probably the closest to Nagler-like performance IMHO.I have only owned the 7mm Uwan.It was a very nice ep.The build quality was excellent as well as the performance.My biggest gripe would have to be the slight staining around the eyelens surround from the grease used for the adjustable eyecup.I don't know why that is the way it is considering the quality of the ep.
I believe that if I hadn't been bit by Naglers and their surrounding hype I probably would have been quite happy with a set of Uwans even though they should have made a few more focal lengths.
--------------------
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Dob with Moonlight CR1
Televue 2x barlow and 5T6,7T6,9T6,16T5 and 26T5 Televue Naglers.
SkyMaster 15x70,Regal LX 8x42 and Noble 10x28
|
KWB
Postmaster
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 7618
Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.1646Meters
|
|
I wouldn't say the 17T4 has plenty of eye relief for eyeglass wearers across the board because it doesn't have enough for this eyeglass wearer. The 22T4 better in this regard.
FWIW,Bob,the 26T5 doesn't have great eye relief IMO,not near enough for my eyeglasses. Nagler eyepieces are terrific for those that can properly use them. To me the expense is worth it.
--------------------
Kenny
"When dealing with a mystery,choose the most unlikely of the likely possibilities"-Sherlock Holmes
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
I had to make the same choice not long ago.
The difference in weigth is quite significant between these two and as well as eye relief.
It may be that, as nicely written above by Don, the 16T5 is a better performer than the 17T4. Also, some of us just can not use the 17T4 because they have difficulty placing their eye at the rigth place and experience blackouts. Which is not my case. But it may be a problem for you.
What is in favor of the 17T4 over the 16t5 is not 'rational' and cannot be described in numbers of standard description of the quality of an EP. It is the immense immersive feeling the 17T4 has and that the 16T5 just does not have. Don't get me wrong, the 16T5 is a great EP.
It is a little bit like comparing the 9T6 with a 12T4. The immersive feeling is just not there with the 9T6 or the 16T5 compared to the T4 EPs. It is a very personnal feeling that perhaps not everybody has. But for me, it made the 'superiority' of the 16T5 completely irrelevant. I just like that 'immersive' feeling and would never change my 17T4 for a 16T5 unless weigth starts beeing a problem.
With a 16T5, you have a great EP. With a 17T4, you have a unique and 'immersive' experience.
I suppose you have to try it to know if this is also true for you.
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).
|
jcjr
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/06/08
Posts: 563
Loc: TN, USA
|
|
The 'feeling' from an EP does seem to have psychological perceptual factors. Have had a 24 Pan and 13 T6 for a little while. For some reason they seem more immersive with the eyecups folded down. Keeping the same eye distance.
With the eyecup up, the image seems 'framed' or 'contained'. With the eyecup down, the image just 'looks bigger' though I know its gotta be an illusion. With eyecups folded down, the image looks like it is 'floating suspended in the air'.
My other psychological impression is that usually the AFOV of the Pan 24 and 13T6 appear to be about the same size, though I do not doubt that the 13T6 is actually wider than the Pan 24. Some cultures supposedly only have 3 numbers, 1, 2 and Many. Perhaps my brain does this on EP's-- narrow, medium, wide.
17T4 seems perhaps too heavy, and the 16T5 is the perfect size but am concerned about the eye relief.
Perfect geometric mean between 24mm and 13mm is about 18mm [(13 * 24)^0.5]
Meade 18mm UWA is a good likely, but it is a little heavy, and is fat enough that it might get 'crowded' on some small diagonals.
Currently am thinking maybe just get 19mm Pan and WO 16mm UWAN, about 13mm eye relief both locations, and about the same weight/size as 13T6 and 24Pan. 'Bracket' the geometric mean on both sides.
--------------------
CPC 1100, C102SLT, SV F80, Meade 70 & 60 AZT
Q70 38mm, Pan24, Meade 5K 18mm UW, Axiom LX 15mm, Nagler 13T6, Axiom LX 10mm, Expanse 20mm, 9mm, 6mm, BO/TMB 5mm, 2.5mm
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 10917
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Francois,
You just explained why the 13 Ethos is such a powerful eyepiece: the sensation of immersion in the scene.
Jcjr,
I feel the same way about eyecups. In the winter, I pull them off to help avoid fogging up the lenses, and I'm getting in the habit of either leaving them off or folded down all the time now. I agree that this helps the feeling of "immersion".
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
The day they will make a 20mm Ethos will probably be the day my EP case will change completely!!
As for getting the Pan 19 already having the 13T6 and 24 Pan, i just wonder if it is not too close to the 24 pan. Don't get me wrong, i owned a 19 Pan that i just sold one month ago and i am already starting to think that letting it go away was a major error. It depends on the FL of your scope obviously. Unless you change your 24 pan and 19 pan for a 20T5 (but then the eye relief is short).
It is the reason i changed my 19 pan for a 17T4, it was too close to the 22 Pan i had.
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).
|
Alan K
sage
Reged: 09/21/05
Posts: 239
Loc: Atlanta, USA
|
|
I had the 16T5 for years, very sharp, light weight and the 1.25 barrel is nice. I sold it due to short eyerelief. I later bought a 22 LVW with roughly the same field, very sharp, medium weight and very good eyerelief. I am much happier.
--------------------
Meade LX90 (8" f/10 SCT), Orion StarBlast (4.5" f/4 Reflector)
|
jcjr
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/06/08
Posts: 563
Loc: TN, USA
|
|
Quote:
As for getting the Pan 19 already having the 13T6 and 24 Pan, i just wonder if it is not too close to the 24 pan. Don't get me wrong, i owned a 19 Pan that i just sold one month ago and i am already starting to think that letting it go away was a major error. It depends on the FL of your scope obviously. Unless you change your 24 pan and 19 pan for a 20T5 (but then the eye relief is short).
Francois
Thanks Francois
That is a good point. Am ignorant of the topic and have spent too much time obsessing on the choices (grin). It would not be convenient to have any more eyepieces than would be necessary. The fewer the better.
The multiplicative steps between 13-16-19-24 are 1.23X-1.19X-1.26X. So actually the jump between 19 and 24 is the biggest step in that progression.
It seems that the max practical eyepiece span for many scopes will approach perhaps a decade. For instance, 4mm to 40mm. Or 0.5mm exit pupil up to 5mm exit pupil...
The middle magnification octave seems important in a lot of scopes.
--------------------
CPC 1100, C102SLT, SV F80, Meade 70 & 60 AZT
Q70 38mm, Pan24, Meade 5K 18mm UW, Axiom LX 15mm, Nagler 13T6, Axiom LX 10mm, Expanse 20mm, 9mm, 6mm, BO/TMB 5mm, 2.5mm
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
What scope are you using (what is the FL).
At lower magnification, you do not need many EPs.
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).
|
jcjr
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/06/08
Posts: 563
Loc: TN, USA
|
|
Quote:
What scope are you using (what is the FL).
At lower magnification, you do not need many EPs.
Francois
Hi Francois
CPC1100 F10, 80mm finder F3.75, 50mm finder F4, and C102 refractor F6.5.
Those eyepiece focal lengths of 13 thru 24 are in the 'meat and potatos' range for all those scopes, strange as it seems, since they are such different creatures.
I want some overlap in that range, because the 80mm and 50mm finders are both piggybacked on the CPC1100, so three eyepieces will be in use at any time. For instance there might be situations where TWO 24mm eyepieces would be desirable, so a close neighbor at 19mm might be 'almost as good'.
Anyway, that is the reasoning, but dunno what I'm doing. Just 'swatting at geese with a rake'. (grin)
--------------------
CPC 1100, C102SLT, SV F80, Meade 70 & 60 AZT
Q70 38mm, Pan24, Meade 5K 18mm UW, Axiom LX 15mm, Nagler 13T6, Axiom LX 10mm, Expanse 20mm, 9mm, 6mm, BO/TMB 5mm, 2.5mm
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 806
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
OK, well with a CPC 1100 having a 19 and a 24mm is quite interesting (at least it would for me!), especially that the 19 is a great EP in stellarvue finderscopes as well!!
It would be quite close in my 8" SCT (without FR-FC).
--------------------
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).
|
|
15 registered and 16 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: 940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
