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

Nagler 22 T4

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 Messyone

Messyone

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 02 May 2012

Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:30 PM

I'm after experiences with this eyepiece.

 

A little history....been after that perfect set that really doesn't exist for long fl refractors and Newts at f4.5 with a coma corrector. I use the ESHRCC in reflectors and am happy with it.

 

My pefect set for my long FL Refractors is Panoptics and Morpheus...love 'em....all set.

 

Never was happy with the same in reflectors with the ESHRCC... too much adjustment of the turntable top.

 

So I have been using ES 68's 34 28 24 and 20 with Naglers 16T5 and T6 11 9 and 7 with my 16" f4.5 SW GOTO Dob....very nice until the day not so long ago I bought a used Nagler 31 oh dear...which threw a spanner in the works. There is something special about the view in the 31 that the ES 34 and 28 can't match.

It seems to me that my current line up of 34 28 24 and 20 could be repaced by  the 31 and  22mm T4 Nagler.

 

Thoughts?

 

Matt 

 

 


  • Paul G and Tyson M like this

#2 Messyone

Messyone

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 02 May 2012

Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

I forgot to say: No astigmatism in my eyes or glasses, but I do like the ease of long ER...its all about comfort smile.png



#3 NiteGuy

NiteGuy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:12 PM

The 22 Nagler is a nice eyepiece. You probably wouldn't need anything in between it and the 31mm. The adjustable eyecup is pretty funky, not your typical TeleVue engineering at all, quite the opposite. If it bothers you, just drill and tap a hole and put a set screw in to lock it in your favorite position. Don't try to tighten the adjustable eyecup yourself. I did exactly that, after my 3rd adjustment to the metal ring, I seriously almost could not get the eyepiece back together again...TeleVue says it takes a special tool...I say it takes a ton of patience.

 

The 22 plays well with short focal ratios if used with a coma corrector. It also has  80+% of the immersiveness of a Morpheus. That's close enough to the Morpheus to keep me happy. It's odd that my 14mm Morpheus AFOV feels so close to my 22 Nagler that they almost feel like they're from the same family. I too don't observe with glasses but I appreciate decent, comfortable eye relief and the 22 Nagler delivers. All that said, if you really nitpick, it's not a perfect eyepiece but I really do love it and, in all fairness, I'm don't think I've ever experienced a perfect eyepiece. Hope my 2-cents will be of help.



#4 Tank

Tank

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 05 August 2017 - 06:04 AM

i would rather have the combo of the 22t4 and the 31t5 vs those ES Eps you mention

i would take it a step futher

the 31t5 and the 21 Ethos

pretty much a perfect combo for WF in Dobs, coma corrector will help 



#5 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9295
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 05 August 2017 - 08:19 AM

I bought a 22mm T4 early in the year to pair with my Morpheus eyepieces.  It is a very good eyepiece but I just was not engaged by it so I sold it.  As crazy as it will sound to some, I prefer the 26mm ES62 to the 22mm Nagler.   Although the better choice would be the 27mm Pan because it has almost the same field stop as the 22mm Nagler.

 

I feel like the 20mm to 28mm focal length range is really tough for ultrawide eyepieces.   If you go with long eye relief and great edge correction you end up with an expensive and heavy glass sandwich.  If you sacrifice sharp to the edge performance you can get a lighter eyepiece.   The best compromise of weight and performance in this FL range may be the 27mm Pan.


  • jjack's likes this

#6 SteveG

SteveG

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7367
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 05 August 2017 - 02:59 PM

The 22T4 is my all time favorite eyepiece, and my most used eyepiece. I "fixed" the Instadjust easily by removing the outer barrel, tightening the spring, and placing a small amount of electrical tape about half way around the barrel, directly over the spring. I then reinstalled the outer barrel by pressing it down firmly. Mine is now locked in the fully down position. I need it that low because I have a Dioptrx fitted to it. No tools at all were required. There is a web page out there that shows how to easily tighten the spring.

 

For you lower powered option, you should consider the ES30/82.



#7 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 4308
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Garran, Australia

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:43 PM

Hello Matt,

I had the N31T5 and N22T4 combo for some time and only relinquished the 22 to Phil when an Ethos 21 was offered to me at a bargain price.

I see no need for anything between the 31 & 22. The 22 is an excellent eyepiece.  I used mine mostly in the 18" F5.5, Phil now uses it in the M300 with equal success.

 

I can't compare to ES eyepieces as I haven't ever used ES. 



#8 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:42 PM

I also like my N22T4.  I agree with the others who have posted that there's not much reason to have another focal length between 22mm and 3xmm.  I do find; however, that I skip the 22mm Nagler for the 17mm Nagler more often than not.


  • Richard Whalen and Tyson M like this

#9 Messyone

Messyone

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 02 May 2012

Posted 06 August 2017 - 03:30 AM

Thanks all. Ethos 21....way out of my price range I'm sad to say. I did have the ES 20 100 a few years ago....heavy sucker and in the end I sold it. 100's are not my preferred AFOV. 

 

17mm....reminded me of the ES 82 30 to 18 jump I used when I owned that set....really good mags. I should hang out with the 30-16 Nagler pair before spending more and see how that goes, thanks for the suggestion. I am on a wait list for the Morpheus 17.5 when it turns up. 

 

30 16 11 9 7....not bad 

 

Is there a difference in coatings on new and older Nagler T4's? .....just in case I find one used.



#10 SimonLowther

SimonLowther

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 06 August 2017 - 04:08 AM

I recently bought the entire T4 lineup; the 22mm is fantastic and the 17mm is my all time fav.  The 12mm gets a little use.

 

I needed a bit of practice before I really appreciated and liked the EPs; but no doubt you have already read all about that on these forums.  my only regret is that I sold my ES68's as these are so easy to view through on nights I am a little tired; I may buy another 24mm ES68 for this and also for when others are looking through the scope.

 

I have no problem with the instadjust thing; I like it the way it is.



#11 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:08 AM

Thanks all. Ethos 21....way out of my price range I'm sad to say. I did have the ES 20 100 a few years ago....heavy sucker and in the end I sold it. 100's are not my preferred AFOV. 

 

17mm....reminded me of the ES 82 30 to 18 jump I used when I owned that set....really good mags. I should hang out with the 30-16 Nagler pair before spending more and see how that goes, thanks for the suggestion. I am on a wait list for the Morpheus 17.5 when it turns up. 

 

30 16 11 9 7....not bad 

 

Is there a difference in coatings on new and older Nagler T4's? .....just in case I find one used.

All new TeleVue eyepieces have tuned coatings, a different multicoating for each element based on the index of the glass, like the Zeiss Abbe orthos. Not sure when they made that change, doubt they would tell anyone.

 

I thought the Ethos would replace the T4's in my eyepiece case, but they do not, there is a subjective something in the view that makes me keep the T4's even though I use the Ethos more. The Instadjust has a couple minute learning curve, after that no problem. When the T4's first came out I called Al Nagler about the Instadjust, he said I was the first person to suggest it was too loose, it was set so dob users could adjust it without moving their scope. New ones aren't as loose as the early ones, and if it's still too loose for your taste TeleView has instructions on how to adjust the tension yourself, I found it very easy to make the adjustment. No need to mar your eyepiece with holes and set screws.


  • SteveG and Messyone like this

#12 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:56 AM

All new TeleVue eyepieces have tuned coatings, a different multicoating for each element based on the index of the glass, like the Zeiss Abbe orthos. Not sure when they made that change, doubt they would tell anyone.

I'm not aware that Tele Vue asserts this is "new." They may, but if they do, can you point to it? Otherwise, it's just marketing terminology to me.

 

The reason that I react to comments about TV and "newer coatings" references is because, fairly consistently, in lots of comparisons that I've made between brand new and older same model EPs, I've found the older examples superior and more consistent. I've had oodles of opportunities to replace older T6s with newer ones, but always found the older ones to be better performers. Of those I compared, the only EP I felt I saw an improvement on, with regard to transmission, was Pan 24s over time.



#13 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 06 August 2017 - 09:59 AM

 

All new TeleVue eyepieces have tuned coatings, a different multicoating for each element based on the index of the glass, like the Zeiss Abbe orthos. Not sure when they made that change, doubt they would tell anyone.

I'm not aware that Tele Vue asserts this is "new." They may, but if they do, can you point to it? Otherwise, it's just marketing terminology to me.

 

The reason that I react to comments about TV and "newer coatings" references is because, fairly consistently, in lots of comparisons that I've made between brand new and older same model EPs, I've found the older examples superior and more consistent. I've had oodles of opportunities to replace older T6s with newer ones, but always found the older ones to be better performers. Of those I compared, the only EP I felt I saw an improvement on, with regard to transmission, was Pan 24s over time.

 

Well, it's a more expensive process and its use sets TV eyepieces apart from their lower price competitors, so wrt "marketing terminology" it wouldn't make sense not to mention it once they started using them and given the large number of older TV eyepieces out there it wouldn't make sense to make a big deal about it and trumpet it as new. They weren't using them when the ZAO's were introduced. That info, Google, and a modicum of common sense and you will find your answer, and from an unimpeachable source.


  • AxelB likes this

#14 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 40453
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 August 2017 - 01:24 PM

I'm after experiences with this eyepiece.

 

A little history....been after that perfect set that really doesn't exist for long fl refractors and Newts at f4.5 with a coma corrector. I use the ESHRCC in reflectors and am happy with it.

 

My pefect set for my long FL Refractors is Panoptics and Morpheus...love 'em....all set.

 

Never was happy with the same in reflectors with the ESHRCC... too much adjustment of the turntable top.

 

So I have been using ES 68's 34 28 24 and 20 with Naglers 16T5 and T6 11 9 and 7 with my 16" f4.5 SW GOTO Dob....very nice until the day not so long ago I bought a used Nagler 31 oh dear...which threw a spanner in the works. There is something special about the view in the 31 that the ES 34 and 28 can't match.

It seems to me that my current line up of 34 28 24 and 20 could be repaced by  the 31 and  22mm T4 Nagler.

 

Thoughts?

 

Matt 

The 31 to 22 is the set I used for many years.

The 22mmT4 is a special eyepiece.  I owned one from 1998 to 2010 and may never have gotten rid of it but for the 21mm Ethos.

And, in truth, the 22mm T4 was easier to use.

I found it the best of the 3 focal lengths in the T4 lineup.

In 2014, I had occasion to use one again for a few nights, and found the experience similar to putting on an old, well-broken-in, shoe.

There is something indefinable that makes that eyepiece special and extremely comfortable to use.

 

As for coatings, Tele Vue HAS changed the coatings over the years on several of their eyepieces.  They don't announce it when it happens, for obvious reasons.

They used to have a little colored Avery dot on the plastic bags enclosing the eyepieces to let them know the generation of the eyepieces if they ever serviced one,

so they could pin down a particular batch if there was a problem, but also to identify the coatings generation of the eyepiece.


  • Messyone likes this

#15 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 15356
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:42 PM

 

I'm after experiences with this eyepiece.

 

A little history....been after that perfect set that really doesn't exist for long fl refractors and Newts at f4.5 with a coma corrector. I use the ESHRCC in reflectors and am happy with it.

 

My pefect set for my long FL Refractors is Panoptics and Morpheus...love 'em....all set.

 

Never was happy with the same in reflectors with the ESHRCC... too much adjustment of the turntable top.

 

So I have been using ES 68's 34 28 24 and 20 with Naglers 16T5 and T6 11 9 and 7 with my 16" f4.5 SW GOTO Dob....very nice until the day not so long ago I bought a used Nagler 31 oh dear...which threw a spanner in the works. There is something special about the view in the 31 that the ES 34 and 28 can't match.

It seems to me that my current line up of 34 28 24 and 20 could be repaced by  the 31 and  22mm T4 Nagler.

 

Thoughts?

 

Matt 

The 31 to 22 is the set I used for many years.

The 22mmT4 is a special eyepiece.  I owned one from 1998 to 2010 and may never have gotten rid of it but for the 21mm Ethos.

And, in truth, the 22mm T4 was easier to use.

I found it the best of the 3 focal lengths in the T4 lineup.

In 2014, I had occasion to use one again for a few nights, and found the experience similar to putting on an old, well-broken-in, shoe.

There is something indefinable that makes that eyepiece special and extremely comfortable to use.

For many years, the 22mmT4 was my most used wide angle eyepiece, with the 31 Nagler second. I bought a 21 Ethos, and sold the 22 Nagler. I also sold the 31 Nagler. I am sorry I did so. I wish I had both the 21 Ethos and 31 Nagler in my collection. I agree that the 22 Nagler is very easy to use. It is fairly small and light, making it easy to insert and remove from the focusser. 



#16 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:25 PM

 

 

All new TeleVue eyepieces have tuned coatings, a different multicoating for each element based on the index of the glass, like the Zeiss Abbe orthos. Not sure when they made that change, doubt they would tell anyone.

I'm not aware that Tele Vue asserts this is "new." They may, but if they do, can you point to it? Otherwise, it's just marketing terminology to me.

 

The reason that I react to comments about TV and "newer coatings" references is because, fairly consistently, in lots of comparisons that I've made between brand new and older same model EPs, I've found the older examples superior and more consistent. I've had oodles of opportunities to replace older T6s with newer ones, but always found the older ones to be better performers. Of those I compared, the only EP I felt I saw an improvement on, with regard to transmission, was Pan 24s over time.

 

Well, it's a more expensive process and its use sets TV eyepieces apart from their lower price competitors, so wrt "marketing terminology" it wouldn't make sense not to mention it once they started using them and given the large number of older TV eyepieces out there it wouldn't make sense to make a big deal about it and trumpet it as new. They weren't using them when the ZAO's were introduced. That info, Google, and a modicum of common sense and you will find your answer, and from an unimpeachable source.

 

To clarify, you wrote: "All new TeleVue eyepieces have tuned coatings..." That implies that older TV eyepieces did not. Hence my response.

 

Don then added that TV has changed coatings (I don't doubt this, but I don't think the coatings are likely to be what sets the better of two same exact models apart, no matter when made, due to the performance consequence of other factors being more likely obvious.)

 

Anyway, in response to the "all new" comment, and in support of my previous response, I would point out that Tele Vue's Eyepiece Specifications form/page states: "All Tele Vue eyepieces listed have proprietary tuned full multi-coatings..." That list includes older, discontinued models.



#17 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 40453
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:55 PM

Any optical designer knows the coatings on a lens are chosen, materials-wise, based on the refractive index of the glass being coated.

We are many years from having simple magnesium fluoride coatings on eyepiece lenses except in the very cheapest eyepieces that often come with scopes.

What changed in the 70s and '80s was adding broadband coatings on cemented surfaces and experimentation with different indices of refraction in cements.

I had an interesting conversation with a Nikon optical engineer a few years back in which he described to me how some recent coatings Nikon employs in their

professional camera lenses transmit 99.95%+  per glass surface.  It's what makes 20 element camera lenses possible.  He didn't think any such coatings would make it to commercial

astronomy stuff due to cost.  But it's a sign of where the state of the art is going.  I have seen coatings with better than 99.5% transmission employed in the astronomy world.

We see it when Plössl eyepieces are tested with over 98% transmission.

 

But, as we know, coatings are only a part of the story.  Superior polish and the closeness of the actual eyepiece to a theoretical design parameter matter just as much.

Over the years, I've gotten an eyepiece every now and then that came out with dramatically, and visibly, better polish on the lenses, and I knew it when I used them.

Often it hasn't made me keep the eyepiece when it no longer suited a observing style or parameter.



#18 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:12 PM

But, as we know, coatings are only a part of the story.  Superior polish and the closeness of the actual eyepiece to a theoretical design parameter matter just as much.

This has been my point in several threads, and I usually only comment when someone asserts that the newest this or that EP is better because it has the latest coatings. My experience in comparing lots of older and newer T6s, and mostly preferring the older ones, does not mean the newer ones are less good; but it does demonstrate that newer coatings doesn't mean a better EP; there's too many other variables. 



#19 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8286
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 07 August 2017 - 11:24 AM

I have very fond memories of my 22T4 Nagler. I used that eyepiece in 8" and 10" Dobs to get my A.L. Messier Certificate.  It was also my eyepiece of choice for a couple of Messier Marathons when I was young enough to do such things.

 

I loved the immersive feeling I got looking through it, plus it was a very comfortable eyepiece to use.  And I might be one of the few people on this planet who was okay with "Instajust". lol.gif   The 22T4 finally lost its place in my eyepiece case when I broke the piggybank to get the 21mm Ethos.

 

It's gone, but will never be forgotten.

 

Ron


  • Starman1 and Phil Cowell like this

#20 Jim Nelson

Jim Nelson

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Joined: 10 May 2005
  • Loc: SE Michigan, USA

Posted 07 August 2017 - 08:13 PM

 

 

. I agree that the 22 Nagler is very easy to use. It is fairly small and light, making it easy to insert and remove from the focusser. 

 

My, how times have changed when a 24 oz. eyepiece is "fairly small and light"!  

 

While I'm commenting, I'll say that, as much as I love my 24mm Panoptic (and I've waxed poetic about it over the years), I haven't used it in my main scope from the instant I first tried out my 22mm T4.  I still like the 24mm Panoptic ergonomically in my small refractor and for traveling.



#21 checcocpb

checcocpb

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2017

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:35 AM

I own it and let me say that between the T4s it is my favorite!

cheers



#22 Messyone

Messyone

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 02 May 2012

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:37 PM

Sooo....have put a wanted add for the 22NT4 over here on Ice In Space and will see what happens, most likely nothing. I did have a brief look at the Lunt 20mm 100º but I'll stick with the Nagler. Too many times I have gone for the cheaper thing only to work out later that the premium eyepiece was in fact better foreheadslap.gif In my own defence though I know by trial and error what I like and why graduate.sml.gif

 

In the meantime my Pan 22 with a barrel extender (for use in the ESHRCC) will suffice...love the Pan 22.

 

Matt



#23 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23514
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:54 PM

I like the eye relief of the 22mm, but I came to believe that the field curvature characteristics were not a great match for the telescopes I was using it in.

 

For example, in my EdgeHD 8" and my 6" Astro-Physcis Apo, I did not think the outside of the field was quite as in focus as the center (and I know that the telescope and eyepiece field curvatures interact, so these were the scopes I had and this is the result I got).

I sold the 22mm and replaced it with a 20mm T5 Nagler,  The 20m T5 was dead sharp and in perfect focus across the field of both the EdgeHD 8" and the 6" Apo.

 

So, some may depend on the scope, but I found that the 20mm T5 was sharper at the edge of the field due to not showing defocus in the scopes I was using but with different scopes, this condition might be different because of the way the curvature of the scope and eyepiece add/subtract to the defocus at the edge of the field.



#24 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 40453
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 09 August 2017 - 12:44 AM

The field stop of the 22mm T4 is 31.1mm.

The field stop of the 20 T5 was 27.4mm, only 88% as wide.

It's possible the narrower field made all the difference.

I seem to recall the same issue in my 8" SCT, which did not have as flat a field as the Edge.

It might explain why I found it better with the f/6.3 focal reducer, which had a significant field flattening effect.


  • Tyson M likes this

#25 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 09 August 2017 - 02:23 AM

In the meantime my Pan 22 with a barrel extender (for use in the ESHRCC) will suffice...love the Pan 22.

I believe the Pan 22 is a true classic. (I would not apply that title to the 22T4.)


  • Tyson M likes this


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