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

13mm Nagler smoothie type 1 vs 13mm Nagler type 1 with rubber cup

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 photiost

photiost

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2732
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Montreal, Canada

Posted 28 March 2019 - 12:18 AM

What are the differences between these two older 13mm Naglers ?   



#2 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 06:49 AM

I bought the "original original" 13mm when it first came out. I like it so much, that I now call those "Nagler Type Zero", to differentiate them from anything later. The main difference (for me) is that Type Zeros provide even more ~effective eye relief~ than the Type 1, which comprise the rubber eye-cup abominable upgrade. In order to add that thing, the metal housing sticks back (toward the eye) to provide the machined ring/lip that the rubber thing attaches to. This adds more and more material back toward the eye, effectively reducing the available eye relief. That's a word I coined to express what actually matters. It's not from axial glass to pupil, but from posterior mechanical structure to pupil.

 

And for me, that sucks, because my Neanderthal eyes don't bulge out like average Cro-Magnons. It's all about brain capacity/volume. Our massive frontal lobes just gota go somewhere, and that is forward and sideways. That also makes for larger hats and greater interpupillary distance (IPD), exceeding 70mm. But that turns out to be advantageous for binoculars sporting two-inch eyepieces and Neanderthal-superior depth perception!

 

There may be optical differences twixt T0 and T1. Maybe better coatings on the later version.

 

The T0 are so superior to pre-Nagler eyepieces that they still define the final Quantum Leap in eyepiece performance. Everything later is just academic incrementalism. That's my story, and I'm stickin' by it.   Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 63 Toms Nagler Type Zeros.jpg
  • 62 Cro-Magnon.jpg

Edited by TOMDEY, 28 March 2019 - 06:51 AM.

  • photiost, Paul Morow, SpyderwerX and 3 others like this

#3 photiost

photiost

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2732
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Montreal, Canada

Posted 28 March 2019 - 07:41 AM

Thanks Tom.

 

I will be looking at both models on Saturday at a swap meet.

 

Good note on the available eye relief.

 

Noticed any difference/improvement of the kidney bean effect from type0 vs type1? 



#4 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 28 March 2019 - 07:51 AM

 

Noticed any difference/improvement of the kidney bean effect from type0 vs type1? 

Kidney beaning is the primary reason I like my T6 better than my T0/T1 (my early 13mm is a smoothie, is that T0?).


  • Bean614 likes this

#5 Bean614

Bean614

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Mass.

Posted 28 March 2019 - 08:44 AM

Kidney beaning is the primary reason I like my T6 better than my T0/T1 (my early 13mm is a smoothie, is that T0?).

+1 for what macdonjh said!



#6 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 09:33 AM

Just an FYI regarding the rubber eye cup.  

 

After the original smoothie Televue began manufacturing them with the eyecups.  They were properly designed and didn't suffer from what TOMDEY describes.

 

What he's talking about is the upgrade that you could get from Televue if you sent them your smoothie.  

Optically identical save possibly for coatings.



#7 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 March 2019 - 09:36 AM

I think the spherical aberration of the exit pupil was addressed in the Type 2's.

 

Jon



#8 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 09:59 AM

Just an FYI regarding the rubber eye cup.  

 

After the original smoothie Televue began manufacturing them with the eyecups.  They were properly designed and didn't suffer from what TOMDEY describes.

 

What he's talking about is the upgrade that you could get from Televue if you sent them your smoothie.  

Optically identical save possibly for coatings.

Actually, NO, Dave! The T1 definitely has far less ~available/effective eye relief~ than the original original!    Tom



#9 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 09:59 AM

I think the spherical aberration of the exit pupil was addressed in the Type 2's.

 

Jon

It was and I believe that the Type 2 was the design that Meade used as a model for there Series 4000 UWAs.

 

While sharp and well corrected, I always found the Type 2s to be just a bit duller/dimmer than the Type 1s.  The "kidney bean" effect never bothered me.



#10 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 10:02 AM

Actually, NO, Dave! The T1 definitely has far less ~available/effective eye relief~ than the original original!    Tom

Tom, there is only one type 1 optically.  I've owned both the smoothie and the later ones with the rubber eyecup added.  If you remove the eyecup your looking at the same physical barrel.  

 

Again, you are probably thinking of the modified models that I spoke of.



#11 25585

25585

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5927
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 28 March 2019 - 10:11 AM

I bought the "original original" 13mm when it first came out. I like it so much, that I now call those "Nagler Type Zero", to differentiate them from anything later. The main difference (for me) is that Type Zeros provide even more ~effective eye relief~ than the Type 1, which comprise the rubber eye-cup abominable upgrade. In order to add that thing, the metal housing sticks back (toward the eye) to provide the machined ring/lip that the rubber thing attaches to. This adds more and more material back toward the eye, effectively reducing the available eye relief. That's a word I coined to express what actually matters. It's not from axial glass to pupil, but from posterior mechanical structure to pupil.

 

And for me, that sucks, because my Neanderthal eyes don't bulge out like average Cro-Magnons. It's all about brain capacity/volume. Our massive frontal lobes just gota go somewhere, and that is forward and sideways. That also makes for larger hats and greater interpupillary distance (IPD), exceeding 70mm. But that turns out to be advantageous for binoculars sporting two-inch eyepieces and Neanderthal-superior depth perception!

 

There may be optical differences twixt T0 and T1. Maybe better coatings on the later version.

 

The T0 are so superior to pre-Nagler eyepieces that they still define the final Quantum Leap in eyepiece performance. Everything later is just academic incrementalism. That's my story, and I'm stickin' by it.   Tom

I had the smoothie 13mm T0. Chose it for its better effective eye relief. Alas kidney bean, still too little eer, and torturous exact eye placement need made it ripe for sale. I never returned to Naglers again, but it showed me how great 82° AFOV is. 

 

My ES92 12mm is its replacement. 30 years later, a big FoV 12-13mm has been made with comfortable use in design. 



#12 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 10:18 AM

Tom, there is only one type 1 optically.  I've owned both the smoothie and the later ones with the rubber eyecup added.  If you remove the eyecup your looking at the same physical barrel.  

 

Again, you are probably thinking of the modified models that I spoke of.

NO, Dave! Look at the picture I included there! The T1 has added metal behind where the original T0 (pictured) ends, And that's even with the rubber thing pulled entirely off!  It's up at the dome now, otherwise I would take a picture of it and measure the effective eye relief on both. The difference is only a few mm, but that's enough to affect my use, big brain and all...

 

The textbook "eye reliefs" are the same, of course, but that is measured from the axial intercept of the last glass surface to the center of the paraxial exit pupil. With the concave last glass and added metal posterior to that... traditional "eye relief" is an optimistic, even deceptive metric. My pragmatic definition of "functional eye relief" is from the mechanical back of the eyepiece to the center of the exit pupil (even more functionally, to the center of the aberrated pupil's beam-waist).

 

Upshot (for me) is that the T0 is comfortable but the T1 (even with rubber removed) I can't get in close enough to see the edge of the field stop!

 

I'm guessing that this is not problematic for 95% of users. Kinda like the opposite affective, where I can use fat 2-inch eyepieces binocular, because my pupils are 71mm apart...     Tom


  • 25585 likes this

#13 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 10:34 AM

NO, Dave! Look at the picture I included there! The T1 has added metal behind where the original T0 (pictured) ends, And that's even with the rubber thing pulled entirely off!  It's up at the dome now, otherwise I would take a picture of it and measure the effective eye relief on both. The difference is only a few mm, but that's enough to affect my use, big brain and all...

 

The textbook "eye reliefs" are the same, of course, but that is measured from the axial intercept of the last glass surface to the center of the paraxial exit pupil. With the concave last glass and added metal posterior to that... traditional "eye relief" is an optimistic, even deceptive metric. My pragmatic definition of "functional eye relief" is from the mechanical back of the eyepiece to the center of the exit pupil (even more functionally, to the center of the aberrated pupil's beam-waist).

 

Upshot (for me) is that the T0 is comfortable but the T1 (even with rubber removed) I can't get in close enough to see the edge of the field stop!

 

I'm guessing that this is not problematic for 95% of users. Kinda like the opposite affective, where I can use fat 2-inch eyepieces binocular, because my pupils are 71mm apart...     Tom

Tom, The later models that added the eye cup still had the eye lens positioned with the same amount of recess as the smoothie that you show in your photo.  

I still think you are confusing the modified models with the manufactured ones.  Here's a photo of a 9mm showing the manufactured model on the right and the modified one on the left.  Notice that the modified one has a raised lip where the rubber eye cup attaches.  

Nagler.jpg

 


  • Paul Morow likes this

#14 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:20 AM

Tom, The later models that added the eye cup still had the eye lens positioned with the same amount of recess as the smoothie that you show in your photo.  

I still think you are confusing the modified models with the manufactured ones.  Here's a photo of a 9mm showing the manufactured model on the right and the modified one on the left.  Notice that the modified one has a raised lip where the rubber eye cup attaches.  

attachicon.gif Nagler.jpg

 

See, Dave... my Originals are not modified and therefore enjoy the full original ~functional eye relief~ Tom   >>>

Attached Thumbnails

  • 65 early Naglers.jpg


#15 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:25 AM

See, Dave... my Originals are not modified and therefore enjoy the full original ~functional eye relief~ Tom   >>>

 

Exactly.  The original ones, the smoothies are better, have better eye relief than the "modified" models.   But...

 

The later manufactured ones (the one on the right in my photo) which added the rubber grip ring and eyeguard also have the SAME eye relief. 

 

That's my point.



#16 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:31 AM

Exactly.  The original ones, the smoothies are better, have better eye relief than the "modified" models.   But...

 

The later manufactured ones (the one on the right in my photo) which added the rubber grip ring and eyeguard also have the SAME eye relief. 

 

That's my point.

And a fine point it is!    Tom



#17 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:38 AM

PS: While we're at it... Who's on first, What's on second...?    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 66 whose of first whats on second.jpg


#18 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:38 AM

And a fine point it is!    Tom

Back several years ago, when I had a 12" Dob, I had as my eyepiece lineup, a 22mm Panoptic, and the 13, 9, 7 and 4.8mm Type 1 Naglers.   I know everyone complains about the kidney bean effect but under dark skies, with dark adapted eyes, I really didn't notice it.  I found them to be extremely sharp and quite comfortable (well, except for the 4.8mm - that one had real short eye-relief).


  • photiost likes this

#19 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:40 AM

PS: While we're at it... Who's on first, What's on second...?    Tom

 

LOL  Good one.   And...

 

 

 

Hu.jpg


  • rowdy388 likes this

#20 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 28 March 2019 - 11:48 AM

Back several years ago, when I had a 12" Dob, I had as my eyepiece lineup, a 22mm Panoptic, and the 13, 9, 7 and 4.8mm Type 1 Naglers.   I know everyone complains about the kidney bean effect but under dark skies, with dark adapted eyes, I really didn't notice it.  I found them to be extremely sharp and quite comfortable (well, except for the 4.8mm - that one had real short eye-relief).

Yes! My 13mm Nagler was by far my most used eyepiece. But the 4.8mm had virtually no eye relief, because all three were exactly scaled optically... so the eye relief was proportional to focal length!    Tom


  • photiost likes this

#21 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 28 March 2019 - 01:01 PM

I have a nearly full set of Tele Vue smoothie Plossls (anyone have a 32mm he is willing to part with?) that I use every time I take my drive way scope out.  Perhaps I should take my 13mm T0 Nagler and 24mm Widefield out to my observatory for some time in my main scope.  I didn't like using either at the house, but maybe under darker skies...  I have to admit, even though the 13mm T6 is tiny an compact and easy to use in comparison, there's something cool about the original 13mm that's as big as a soda can.


Edited by macdonjh, 28 March 2019 - 01:02 PM.


#22 25585

25585

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5927
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:39 PM

The 12mm T2 had shorter effective/functional eye relief than 13mm T0. I compared both and chose the latter, perhaps wrong decision.....



#23 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 March 2019 - 06:54 PM

It was and I believe that the Type 2 was the design that Meade used as a model for there Series 4000 UWAs.

 

While sharp and well corrected, I always found the Type 2s to be just a bit duller/dimmer than the Type 1s.  The "kidney bean" effect never bothered me.

 

My understanding is that Meade copied the Type 1s but made an improvement that corrected the spherical aberration of the exit pupil.  This improvement was incorporated in the type 2s.  

Jon



#24 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 28 March 2019 - 07:38 PM

For the record, so as not to propagate mis-misinformation...  There is no "Type 0", never ever, Tom just made it up.  They are both Type 1, the only difference is the housing.

 

Here is a good reference.



#25 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 28 March 2019 - 07:41 PM

Here's a little Type 1 eye candy, I do not have the 13mm, but I do have the 7mm but cannot for the life of me find an image...

 

4.8mm Type 1

48mm Nagler T1-small.jpg

 

9mm Type 1

9mm Nagler T1-small.jpg

 

11mm Type 1

11mm Nagler T1-small.jpg




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