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

Ergonomics of William Optics XWA 5mm ?

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 BoY

BoY

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2017

Posted 24 November 2017 - 11:08 AM

I’m tempted by this:

https://williamoptic...-angle-eyepiece

Some posts in eyepiece forum say the ergonomics of WO XWA series is not as good as some other brands. Is this applicable to the whole lineup? Or just 20mm ?

Any owner of 5mm or 3.5mm XWA care to share their opinions?
  • aeajr likes this

#2 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA

Posted 24 November 2017 - 01:08 PM

I bit on one of these 5mm's here on the CNC... quite pleased with it, actually. Optics seem good, on par with other 100° offerings i've had from ExploreSci (aka 'ES'). The ergonomics you're hearing about likely stem from the broad-faced top on these, requiring one to slightly cant their head in order to square-up the eye to see the entire 110° field (yeah, it's notably huge! drool.gif); so if you're a right-eyed viewer, your head ends up slightly turned *left*, and your right eye's gaze is correspondingly a skosh toward the right.watching.gif

 

But hey-- that's to net the full view circle, and i've personally found the angle to be slight enough that it's NBD (no big deal) in practice, and in practice, by holding my eye back a wee bit, i enjoy a square-on view of maybe 100 degrees? If i really want to track a drifting object all-the-way to the fieldstop, i can. But that final few degrees is where ANY eyepiece of this type will likely show at least a bit of off-axis less-than-perfection.... hence my NBD appraisal.  winky.gif

 

Plus at 5mm, my eye's normal astig is negligible, so i'm out of my eyeglasses & viewing bare-eyed; this would prob'ly NOT be your EP of choice if you needed to wear glasses! My 20mm 100° EP is made by "Lunt", where the top is nicely tapered/conical, and the ergonomics are excellent.

 

A classic, and somewhat more extreme version of this broad-top design was WO's 28mm UWAN, the use of which was somewhat akin to trying to get your face up against the lid of a 55 gallon industrial drum in order to view an 80° field. that one left the EP case literally moments after it's first-light! what.gif

 

The only other aspect to these that's a bit odd is the rather extreme *height*; if used in a scope requiring a diagonal, a moderately weighted EP with such a tall lever-arm could conceivably twist the diagonal suddenly as the EP headed south under gravity- either at the diagonal's threaded insertion tube, or in the focuser's drawtube. Things sticking waay out of telescopes in the dark make easy target for klutzs like me. So i'd make certain that these fittings were all adequately tightened, and further that any sudden rotation induced would be in the *tightening* direction, NOT the unthreading direction! Maybe lean the EP just slightly to one side, not perfectly vertical/plumb, to favor the desired twist. grin.gif

 

Happy shopping!



#3 Mike W.

Mike W.

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Washington State

Posted 24 November 2017 - 01:49 PM

what scope?



#4 Mike W.

Mike W.

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Washington State

Posted 24 November 2017 - 02:07 PM

I guess that's not really helping answer your question, the 3.5, 5 and 9 xwa all have the same diameter eye cup and they twist up, down to suit your needs.

I find them very comfortable to use vs the rubber eye cups of the other 100's out there.

The 20 would take some getting use to but like anything else once you do it's well worth the price.



#5 BoY

BoY

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2017

Posted 24 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

what scope?


A SW120ED.

Thanks. It looks like this will be fine for me.

#6 starbase25

starbase25

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2014

Posted 24 November 2017 - 05:55 PM

The Lunt is far better ergonomically.cool.gif



#7 Tank

Tank

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3568
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 24 November 2017 - 07:42 PM

i had no problem with the 9mm

it was a great EP



#8 mhinagoya

mhinagoya

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017

Posted 25 November 2017 - 02:55 AM

I bought the 3.5mm and was stunned by the size of the thing. I own a full set of ES 82* eyepieces, which means that my shortest eyepiece was 4.7mm. Hence, my purchase of the 3.5mm from WO. A few days later, I did what many of us do and followed up by buying the WO 20mm 100*. I have been using my ES 18mm and 24mm as my low power eyepieces. I suspect that unless the ergos are utterly impossible, the WO 20mm will replace them in that role.

 

As is the first law of astronomy, we haven't had a clear night since the 3.5mm arrived. In fact, the rain has been so bad that the Skagit River flooded today the worst since 2006. I'm blaming it on William Optics.

 

Bill.

 

P.s. If the sky ever clears, I'll shoot my mouth off about the 3.5mm. For the moment, it looks impressive in my eyepiece case.

 

Edited to add the P.s.


Edited by mhinagoya, 25 November 2017 - 02:58 AM.


#9 BoY

BoY

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2017

Posted 25 November 2017 - 08:34 AM

I bought the 3.5mm and was stunned by the size of the thing. I own a full set of ES 82* eyepieces, which means that my shortest eyepiece was 4.7mm. Hence, my purchase of the 3.5mm from WO. A few days later, I did what many of us do and followed up by buying the WO 20mm 100*. I have been using my ES 18mm and 24mm as my low power eyepieces. I suspect that unless the ergos are utterly impossible, the WO 20mm will replace them in that role.

As is the first law of astronomy, we haven't had a clear night since the 3.5mm arrived. In fact, the rain has been so bad that the Skagit River flooded today the worst since 2006. I'm blaming it on William Optics.

Bill.

P.s. If the sky ever clears, I'll shoot my mouth off about the 3.5mm. For the moment, it looks impressive in my eyepiece case.

Edited to add the P.s.


Bill,

I just saw the height of 3.5mm EP is listed as 168.5mm. Seriously? Is it that big? The weight seems more reasonable, at 1lb-7.2oz, still less than some heavy weights. My ES 30mm is 2.2lb, but should be much shorter.

Bo

#10 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA

Posted 26 November 2017 - 09:43 PM

 

I just saw the height of 3.5mm EP is listed as 168.5mm. Seriously? Is it that big?

Ayup! Be careful with that thing- you'll poke yer eye out!

lol.gif



#11 mhinagoya

mhinagoya

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017

Posted 27 November 2017 - 08:07 AM

 

I bought the 3.5mm and was stunned by the size of the thing. I own a full set of ES 82* eyepieces, which means that my shortest eyepiece was 4.7mm. Hence, my purchase of the 3.5mm from WO. A few days later, I did what many of us do and followed up by buying the WO 20mm 100*. I have been using my ES 18mm and 24mm as my low power eyepieces. I suspect that unless the ergos are utterly impossible, the WO 20mm will replace them in that role.

As is the first law of astronomy, we haven't had a clear night since the 3.5mm arrived. In fact, the rain has been so bad that the Skagit River flooded today the worst since 2006. I'm blaming it on William Optics.

Bill.

P.s. If the sky ever clears, I'll shoot my mouth off about the 3.5mm. For the moment, it looks impressive in my eyepiece case.

Edited to add the P.s.


Bill,

I just saw the height of 3.5mm EP is listed as 168.5mm. Seriously? Is it that big? The weight seems more reasonable, at 1lb-7.2oz, still less than some heavy weights. My ES 30mm is 2.2lb, but should be much shorter.

Bo

 

It is that big. I'll try and remember to set it next to my ES 30mm 82* tonight and take a picture of the two. It is IMPOSING.

 

Bill.



#12 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1881
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 27 November 2017 - 10:49 AM

Also, it may be hard to fit the eyepiece in your existing case. I needed to

get a bigger case when I bought the Lunt version.



#13 mhinagoya

mhinagoya

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017

Posted 29 November 2017 - 04:25 AM

Comparison of the WO 3.5mm 110 to ES 30mm 82

 

Compare


#14 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA

Posted 29 November 2017 - 10:57 PM

Reminds me of a few childhood rhymes... "Fatty & Skinny went to bed.....", or the always fond "Mutt & Jeff" remarks lol.gif




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.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics