Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

82 degree Nagler alternatives ??

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 rms59

rms59

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 06 May 2012
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:37 PM

I need some feedback / advice from any who own, or have had experience with William Optics, Celestron Luminos and or course, Tele Vue Nagler EPs. I know the Nagler is in a class of its own....I own 3 of them (and am now in the poor house ! ) My question is WHAT DO YOU THINK regarding William Optics vs. Celestron Luminos for a "cheaper" 82 degree EP ? I am focused on the 7mm and 15/16mm in particular. THANKS...looking forward to your responses !

#2 CosmoSat

CosmoSat

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,553
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Bharat, 19N 73E

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:52 PM

Hve a look at these too... Explore Scientific 82° Series.

Clear Skies!

#3 youngamateur42

youngamateur42

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,098
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2012
  • Loc: La Verne, CA

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:56 PM

Why about used Explore Scientific? The 82 line can be had for under $100 used. If your ok with 68 degree, here's a 16mm. I am not the seller.

http://www.cloudynig...ct=98193&sor...

#4 Dennis53121

Dennis53121

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2012

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:57 PM

What scope / focal ratio are you going to be using them with?

Dennis
  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#5 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 59,317
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

Well, lower priced eyepieces typically suffer from several problems:
--more scattered light in the system. This can cause something minor, like a slight brightening to the edge of the field, or major, showing a reduced contrast over the entire field, or even severe, with spikes from bright objects all over the field or even outside the field.
--more edge of field astigmatism. This is where the best focus for the stars is a small blur and the star image elongates radially on one side of focus and circumferentially on the other. Some inexpensive designs even suffer from this in the center of the field.
--more field curvature, where, if you focus in the center, the edge is out of focus, or vice-versa.
--more chromatic problems at the edge of the field, and/or in the exit pupil.

It looks like Explore Scientific is a decent low-priced alternative. There aren't as many choices in focal lengths or eye relief, but they are way ahead of the really low-priced imitators. They are not the equal of the TeleVues, but they aren't bad.

Now, this is if your scope is, say, f/5 and longer. If your scope is shorter than f/5, the difference between the TeleVues and other brands grows. But, in all honesty, coma becomes the dominant aberration below f/5 and a coma-corrector is really desirable. There are good coma correctors from TeleVue, Explore Scientific, Astrotech/GSO, and Baader, so coma correction is becoming more and more common as the availability of sub f/5 scopes is becoming more common. Coma correctors also help at f/5, and, in correcting coma and providing a modicum of field flattening, help reduce the negatives of lower-priced eyepieces, except, of course, in astigmatism and light scatter.

You can find on-line reviews of the eyepieces in question, both in review form and simple long posts. Reading a few of them should answer your questions more fully. You will find a lot of recommendations for ES, as CosmoSat exemplifies.
  • Jon Isaacs, sopticals, CAAD9 and 1 other like this

#6 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 5,104
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:26 PM

I agree with the Explore Scientifics. I have 5 of these EP's from 14mm, 11mm, 8.8mm, 6.7mm and 4.7mm. I like them all very much and are a cheaper alternative to the 82* naglers by price. I really can't say that they are not equal to Televue, but they are darn close. I got mine all for $99 each when they were on sale for the Comet ISON phenomena. Best purchase I could have made. Now to grab just one more Explore Scientific 82*...
  • Darph Jimbo likes this

#7 CosmoSat

CosmoSat

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,553
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Bharat, 19N 73E

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:49 PM

Now to grab just one more Explore Scientific 82*...


This one? [LINK] :)

Clear Skies!

#8 Tank

Tank

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,478
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:49 PM

Love the WO UWANs!
28
16
7
4
For the price they cant be beat
  • paul hart likes this

#9 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,934
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:40 PM

I had/used the following:
Axiom
Meade 5000 Series UWA
Explore Scientific
William Optics

Of all of these, the explore scientific are the closet to Naglers overall.

The 15 and 23MM Axiom were also very good.

The 8.8 MM Meade UWA was a good as a 9MM Nagler T6, but it was sold to fund the 100* series.

The 6.7 MM Meade UAW is also as good as a Nagler.

The WO series were also good, but a step down from the Explore Scientific.

Now, I haven't used the new Waterproof Meades and the Luminus (axiom replacement) was a disappointment.

So if buying new, I would only recommend the Explore Scientific. If buying used, the Meade 5000 Series and Axiom are also good.

#10 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,717
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Big Valley, CA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:28 PM

The WO series were also good, but a step down from the Explore Scientific.


:thanx: This is the first i recall hearing of a direct comparison b/t the WO "UWAN" series & one of the other "mainline" Nagler alternatives. A very interesting datapoint.

In that vein i'll nominate the Speers-Waler ultrawides (series II) as an almost-there Nagler alternate, perhaps a half-notch down (like the UWANs?) from the Meade s.5000 & ExploreSci variants. Very good, strangely tall, moderate for ER (the 9.4mm of the series had a skosh more than its brethren, at maybe 14mm ER)... still available afaik, just not so popular. Canadian made :waytogo:.... Glenn Speers.

#11 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,934
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:55 PM

The WO series were also good, but a step down from the Explore Scientific.


:thanx: This is the first i recall hearing of a direct comparison b/t the WO "UWAN" series & one of the other "mainline" Nagler alternatives. A very interesting datapoint.


Just to clarify, I never compared all 3 at the same and I only had access to the 7,16 and 28.

The 28 was too hard to compare to the 31MM. I felt it was just a little lacking. The 30MM ES was so close that for most veiwing and my telescopes, I would be happy with either. Since the 30MM was so good, I put the 28MM a step down.

The 17MM was compared to a 17MM T4 and I really think the T4 is a great eyepiece, one of my lost liked Naglers.

The 7 was compared to 6.7MM Meade UWA and I liked the UWA slightly more, this was on a day of great seeing. We were looking at the Trapezium and it just seemed better framed in the 6.7 than the 7.

So based on my sujective rating, I think overall:
1) Naglers are best
2) ES is a very close second
3) Meade UWAs 5000 series in the 6.7 and 8.8 range are as good as Naglers.
4) The 23MM Axiom and 15MM Axiom are a slight step below.
4) The WO are comparable to the Axiom in subjective rating.

Not to say that the WO are bad, just for what I looked through the ES were slightly better.

#12 Tank

Tank

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,478
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:31 PM

Funny how people have different opinions
I found and looked thru most of those EPs you mention my take is slightly different
The Meade UWA 5000 are harder to look thru eyeplacement thing. I really liked the newer 5.5 thou!
The Naglers are wonderful and maybe a bit ahead of the UWANs but felt the UWANs are great in comparison at least the 4 and 28 the 7 and 16 i dont have but a 7 is on the way
The ES 82 i like but i think there more below the other two
one major thing is the bright backround they show vs the WO and the Naglers they tend to put up a pale sky backround vs a velvet black backround like the WO and Nags.
Do a side by side and see what im talking about
The Axion i havent tried but i tried other WF designs from celestron and i wasnt impressed
This is IMHO :slapping:
  • Nicu Barbieru likes this

#13 kevint1

kevint1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 804
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2011
  • Loc: West Michigan

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:37 PM

Love the WO UWANs!
28
16
7
4
For the price they cant be beat


I've been very happy with my UWAN 4 & 16mm eyepieces Very sharp and contrasty.

#14 russell23

russell23

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,810
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:38 PM

Funny how people have different opinions
I found and looked thru most of those EPs you mention my take is slightly different
The Meade UWA 5000 are harder to look thru eyeplacement thing. I really liked the newer 5.5 thou!
The Naglers are wonderful and maybe a bit ahead of the UWANs but felt the UWANs are great in comparison at least the 4 and 28 the 7 and 16 i dont have but a 7 is on the way
The ES 82 i like but i think there more below the other two
one major thing is the bright backround they show vs the WO and the Naglers they tend to put up a pale sky backround vs a velvet black backround like the WO and Nags.
Do a side by side and see what im talking about
The Axion i havent tried but i tried other WF designs from celestron and i wasnt impressed
This is IMHO :slapping:


I think Meade has made improvements to the design with the new WP versions. The 5.5mm and 20mm FL both have a very different field presentation than the older version - much flatter in my opinion. I'm considering picking up an 8.8mm WP just to see if that too is different since the 8.8mm is the FL I had for the older version.

I've considered picking up the WO versions to try but the eyecup design worries me. It seems to be a very broad flat top. In the cold weather I worry about too much contact with eyebrow ...

Dave

#15 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,934
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:43 PM

I think that telescope used in makes a difference. For example a fast scope would probably show major differences between brands while a slow scope like an SCT probably not so much.
  • Jon Isaacs and lsiqueira like this

#16 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,938
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: SW England

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:29 PM

I found the WO UWAN's / Skywatcher Nirvana's very close to the Nagler equivalents in scopes down to F/5.

I've not tried any ES 82's so I assume that they must be very, very, very close to Naglers from the feedback on here :)

The ES100 20mm (which I have owned) was very close in performance to the Ethos 21mm (which I now have) so I can see that ES have done a great job in emulating Tele Vues masterpieces.
  • 25585 likes this

#17 Albie

Albie

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,540
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Alberta,Canada

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:02 PM

I have owned Uwan,Speers Waler and Meade 5000 UWA.I have also had a set of Naglers.Uwan,Speers Waler and Meade 5000 UWA all come pretty close to Nagler performance at a fraction of the price.They all work well in fast scopes, I used them in f/4.7 and f/5 scopes.

#18 Illinois

Illinois

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,461
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Dixon, IL. Bortle 2 land in Wis.

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:04 AM

I am happy with Explore Scientific! I have ES 82 degrees 24, 14, 11, 8.8 and 6.7 also ES 68 degrees 20mm. View is great, sharp and clear! View would be poor if you have best eyepiece on poor telescope!

#19 karstenkoch

karstenkoch

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,595
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:46 AM

I have the 82 degrees ES 4.7, 6.7, 11, and 18. My opinion of these eyepieces has evolved. I thought they were great when I first bought them. Then fell in love with various ~70 degree and 100 degree alternatives. However, I've brought the ES 82s back out for my last two observing sessions, and have a rekindled respect for them. I thought for a while that I might sell them, but I've changed my mind. The 4.7 is amazingly well corrected from edge to edge in my f/6 AT72, the 6.7 and 11 have decent eye relief with my glasses off and really present the whole 82 degree field all at once very well, and the 18 is a relatively light weight wide angle eyepiece.

#20 PowellAstro

PowellAstro

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,111
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Tennessee

Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:04 PM

I think for the money there is no better than the ES eyepieces! Even money aside, they are still a top runner!!

#21 Lew Zealand

Lew Zealand

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,392
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Pasadena, CA

Posted 01 March 2014 - 12:39 AM

It seems to be tough to compete with the ES82s at the price but I bought all my Nagler alternatives before the ES82s became available. Oh well— bad timing, impatience, crystal ball not back from the cleaner's yet??

All bought for f/6 and later, f/5 use:

31mm Axiom - wonderful, very well corrected views but heavy! and that huge flat surface...
18mm Meade UWA - max your 1.25" 82° TFOV, sharp almost to the edge (a bit of FC), dark background sky, but not enough ER for glasses so I never use it due to my eye's astigmatism
13.4mm Speers-WALER - well corrected but not perfect to the edge at f/5, dark sky background and just barely enough ER for glasses use if you push in a bit
9.4mm Speers-WALER - very well corrected to the edge, even at f/5, dark sky background. More ER than the 13.4. A very nice EP.
5-8mm Speers-WALER Zoom (original w/orange lettering) - one of a kind, odd zoom ergonomics, longer than a garden hose, great edge correction at f/5, "feels" a bit dark in that maybe it has a bit lower transmission (and I could be wayyy wrong about that).
7mm WO UWAN - excellent EP, dark sky background, edge correction perfect at f/5
4mm WO UWAN - same as the 7mm

And then I got some Naglers (3.5T6, 5T6, 12T4, 17T4, 22mmT4). What did that do to the above?

31 Ax - nothing at all, a perfect complement to the Ns.
18mm UWA - surpassed by the N17T4 because of eye relief advantages and the N17 simply doesn't get used in my few 1.25" scopes
13.4mm S-W - surpassed by the 12T4, eye relief again.
9.4mm S-W - a good complement to the Naglers but recently displaced by an 8mm Delos. The next Delos in the stable will be a 10mm which will be the 9.4's real replacement
7mm WO UWAN - complemented the 3.5 and 5nT6s perfectly though it was replaced by 8mm and 6mm Delos for eye comfort reasons and ultimately lack of space in the primary EP case
4mm WO UWAN - complements the 3.5 and 5nT6s and the only one of the above still in the case

I've wrangled with the 5-8 SW off and on for many years, preferring the 7mm UWAN for it's petite size but the *real* reason I never fully warmed to it was that I never used it's focal lengths in my most-used scopes. That has changed with new scopes and I use 5-8mm a lot more now but I also have more ergonomic, and frankly, better EPs in the Delos in that range.

For those curious about replacing of ~80°EPs with 72° EPs, the first reduction in AFOV in my primary EP set since getting into astronomy, I do not miss it at all. The other benefits to viewing with the Delos do, in my opinion, completely compensate for the missing 10° at the edges.
  • CAAD9 likes this

#22 ibase

ibase

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,827
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Manila, Philippines 121°E 14°N

Posted 01 March 2014 - 12:53 AM

ES-82 price had gone up to $139 so not as cheap as before ($99). 82 degree Nagler alternatives ?? Consider these (although only available in the used mart)

Posted Image
82-deg. EP's:Meade Axiom LX-23mm (ES82-24mm), Meade UWA 6.7mm Series 5000 (ES82-6.7mm), ES82 14mm (non-waterproof)

These EP's all came from the JOC factory and are predecessors of the ES lines, viable alternatives to the Nagler line.

Best,
  • Van Huynh likes this

#23 tjay

tjay

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,934
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2007
  • Loc: just outside of Toronto

Posted 01 March 2014 - 01:10 AM

I have an ES 11mm, and Meade UWA 18mm and 24mm. All are wonderful eyepieces.

#24 BGazing

BGazing

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,833
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Belgrade, Serbia

Posted 08 September 2016 - 09:22 AM

Just to revive this old thread instead of starting a new one in order to see whether the perception of those 82 deg alternatives changed...

How do various mid-priced (not Vixen and Pentax) 82 deg eyepieces compare to each other?

A lot of them look like clones, but of a different kind. WO UWA SW Nirvanas and these from TS look absolutely identical. Then again ES 82 and a different type of TS 82 look identical, but here the focal lengths differ (this version of TS eyepieces also 82 sticks to the WO UWA type of focal lenghts).

All of them seem to be of same tight Nagleresque eye relief, but I hear complaints about ES 82 recessed lenses, which effectively cut the ER. That would suggest that the WO/SW type is more comfortable to use. Other than that, has anyone used them and found them to be different when it comes to quality?


  • 25585 likes this

#25 havasman

havasman

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,590
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:47 AM

My highest power ep's are 2.5T6, 3.5T6, 4mm WO UWAN, 4.7mm Ethos, 6mm Ethos. I use the UWAN w/o any consideration that it is limited in performance versus the others. If the magnification seems appropriate, it goes in the focuser.

I had and replaced the ES82 4.7 and 5T6. The ES82 6.7 remains in my outreach kit.

Whereas I didn't find the wide twist-up eyecup of the WO XWA series pleasant, the narrower one on the 4mm UWAN is my favorite interface.

Note - there were 4mm & 7mm UWAN's on Astromart at low prices a day or so ago.


Edited by havasman, 08 September 2016 - 11:49 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics