Quote:

---

I've owned both, and my T5 lasted one week. IMO the 16T5 is just not in the same league with the 17T4!

I now own all of the T4s, and I just won't put up with the short eye relief and small eye lenses of the T5 and T6 Naglers.

Bob

---

Hmm. I just did an extensive comparison between the 16T5 and the 17T4 in my 12.5":
--the 16 was sharper everywhere in the field of view. I expected to see more seeing issues (because the magnification is higher), but saw tinier, more pinpoint stars.
--the 16 was uniformly illuminated to the edge of the field, while the 17 did not seem so. The edge of the 17 seems to have a different shade of gray in the background of the star field.
--the 16 showed no astigmatism at the edge, and no field curvature, while the 17 had both (small quantities compared to cheap widefields, but there nonetheless)
--the 17 needs to have the eyecup pulled up a bit to avoid having your eye drift accidentally too close to the lens (producing blackouts or kidny beaning), while the 16 is just fine exactly as is.
--I could see color in star images more easily in the 16. This could be magnification.

Having seen that, I'm keeping the 16 and selling the 17 (see S&S Forum). I should note I do not wear glasses, and the distance vision in my observing eye is 20/15, and I have zero astigmatism in that eye.

I agree they are not in the same league--the 16 is better.

--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie

Post Extras