57 replies to this topic

[RichA]

The series 4's are new, and they are excellent performers for the money.

My buddy has a few.

Definitely improved the esthetics over the original 1990's units.

[RichA]

I have 13.4mm, 4.9mm Speers Waler Series II (82 degree I think). I had no idea that there are Series III and Series IV now available.

 

The original Speers Waler series was in competition to Naglers. 90%+ of the performance at less price from old reviews.

 

Good viewing,

 

Dave

And little to no distortion, comparatively, for those who care.

[BillP]

The 25mm looks interesting.  With its 75 deg AFOV would make a nice 2" compliment to the Morpheus line.

 

The 6mm also would be interesting for me as that always works out to be my preferred higher magnification focal length for most of my most used scopes.

Edited by BillP, 24 May 2020 - 09:01 PM.

[saemark30]

The company is still there in Canada. The Gen 4 eyepiece are made in same factory as Televue (Taiwan) so they should be similar quality. Someone should try them. Has anyone posted the specs for them? 

[Starman1]

The company is still there in Canada. The Gen 4 eyepiece are made in same factory as Televue (Taiwan) so they should be similar quality. Someone should try them. Has anyone posted the specs for them? 

They are in the 2020 Eyepiece Buyer's Guide posted on the top of the Eyepieces Forum with the specs available.

Field stop figures had to be calculated, as they are posted nowhere.

[Starman1]

And little to no distortion, comparatively, for those who care.

Distortion is a function of apparent field.

 

The wider an apparent field, the more the distortion in the eyepiece.

The type of distortion is a design element.

 

Rectilinear distortion, RD,  (pincushion, barrel) is reciprocal to angular magnification distortion, AMD.  If one is suppressed, the other goes up.

It would be possible to leave some of each in an eyepiece, and some modern eyepieces do.

 

It is generally conceded, though there are exceptions, that angular magnification distortion (visible as globe, or rolling ball, distortion) is the least desirable type for astronomy,

so generally, RD is left in and AMD is suppressed.

In daylight use, RD, which results in straight lines being curved, is considered less desirable, so it is suppressed, leaving AMD in the field.

Since a large amount of AMD isn't great in the daylight either, daylight use eyepieces usually have narrower fields of view, where overall distortion is lower.

 

A certain amount of RD (up to 6-7%) is seen by the eye as undistorted, so that is yet another reason RD is typically left in while AMD is suppressed.

 

So, these eyepieces are ultra-wide, so they have a fair amount of distortion.  If the solution is for astronomy, it will be in the form of RD, and probably pincushion (positive RD).

That would be OK, and make them quite appropriate for astronomy purposes.

 

It is possible to make an eyepiece almost free of distortion (the term is 'orthoscopic'), but the field will be narrow, like 40° or narrower.

[Starman1]

If I may resurrect this thread: is anyone here qualified to interpret the technical parameters of these eyepieces? Starman1? I'm wondering if it is possible to gauge the performance of these oculars with respect to edge correction, transmission/scatter, etc. based on the advanced specs provided. 

No.  The listed specs cannot provide that information.

It will require use in telescopes of varying f/ratios to figure that out.

[VanSciGuy]

Strange, Speers Waller have been around some time, bought one in Vancouver about 12-15 years ago.

Then they more or less disappeared, as did Antares eyepieces - have their W70's.

 

Last I read and best I recall they either were bought up by someone in the far east or they moved out to somewhere.

 

They were Canadian. And the information would say these are from Alberta.

My guess is that they moved to somewhere out East. Have a feeling the details were a bit vague. Maybe they split off the astronomy side of the business from whatever.

 

Reads that the astro aspect has returned and they (whoever they are) are using both Canada and Alberta and the Antares and Speer Waller name/products/designs.

 

The Speer Waller eyepieces were reckoned to be good, at least for the price.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Glen Speers is still based in the Vancouver (British Columbia) area.  He has stepped up his game in the past year and has a new website at He had previously allowed his internet domain to lapse but he is now back at it.  I've seen his ads in the last two print editions of Skynews magazine in Canada.  He sells via stores ... here in Vancouver they are available at https://markarianfineoptics.ca
 

[VanSciGuy]

Glen Speers is still based in the Vancouver (British Columbia) area.  He has stepped up his game in the past year and has a new website at He had previously allowed his internet domain to lapse but he is now back at it.  I've seen his ads in the last two print editions of Skynews magazine in Canada.  He sells via stores ... here in Vancouver they are available at https://markarianfineoptics.ca
 

for some reason CN is stripping the web address out of my post.  His website is antares dot space (NOT dot "com") https://antares.space

[VanSciGuy]

https://www.all-star...n_description=0

 

Looks like the Series 4 to me...

Glen Speers new website for Antares website is (dot space, not dot com)

[VanSciGuy]

Glen Speers new website for Antares website is (dot space, not dot com)

https://antares.space CN keeps stripping this address out  antares dot space

[junomike]

https://antares.space CN keeps stripping this address out  antares dot space

Link works.

IMO he shouldn't be allowed to list prices in USD as he store and the places that sell his products are all in Canada.

[SeattleScott]

Wow, that’s an amazingly bad website. Obviously a small business with limited resources.

[Hugh Peck]

Link works.

IMO he shouldn't be allowed to list prices in USD as he store and the places that sell his products are all in Canada.

Many sites that ship internationally use $US as it's the main international currency. The Canadian $ isn't. It's why most international news sites also convert whatever currency used in the news artilce to $USD. Many site will list prices if the computer accessing the site is in the US or list the $USD price in parentheses after the price in £ or €.

[VA3DSO]

Wow, that’s an amazingly bad website. Obviously a small business with limited resources.

Psssht! I've seen worse. Heck... I've made worse!

[SeattleScott]

Psssht! I've seen worse. Heck... I've made worse!

True maybe not the worst. By comparison it is clean and organized compared to Seibert. But on the Seibert site it doesn’t take 24 clicks to find the product I’m looking for. Ok maybe the first time, but once you find your way around it isn’t bad (just busy and cluttered). The Antares site seems to have zero search or categorization. They assume you want to scroll through their entire product inventory. Unless I’m just not understanding how to use the site.

Edited by SeattleScott, 16 September 2020 - 12:23 AM.

[VA3DSO]

True maybe not the worst. By comparison it is clean and organized compared to Seibert. But on the Seibert site it doesn’t take 24 clicks to find the product I’m looking for. Ok maybe the first time, but once you find your way around it isn’t bad (just busy and cluttered). The Antares site seems to have zero search or categorization. They assume you want to scroll through their entire product inventory. Unless I’m just not understanding how to use the site.

I do agree that it's not a great site design and has a variety of usability problems.

[RalphMeisterTigerMan]

FYI, there was a 16mm Nagler type 2, as well as the 12mm Nagler type 2 and the 20mm Nagler type 2. I believe they made their debute in 1986. I owned both the 20 and the 12 Nagler type 2's and unfortunately sold them...boy do I miss them.

 

Clear skies and keep looking up!

RalphMeisterTigerMan

[Mike B]

The original Speers-WALER eyepieces had more eye relief.

And now you know what WALER stood for.

No, 10mm is not long--I think the acronym's original meaning has been lost.

Sad, as these EPs really wanna be loved…. The 25mm-74* EP in the CNC right now is looking at me with puppy dog eyes   But 10mm ER   You gotta be kiddin me, Glenn!?

What the heck?     
Do I look to you like I need another implant!? 
 

Upon reflection… don’t bother answering that question…

[saemark30]

These eyepiece series need some love.

Anyone try the new series 4?

[Refractor6]

  Not me.....I still have my Series 1 7.4mm from 2001. Outstanding eyepiece for this non eyeglass wearer who's kept the rubber eye guard folded down on it from day one. Best lunar views of the terminator at higher power have been with the combo of this ep and my various refractors...edge to edge in focus in the FOV and very good contrast with just enough eye relief to take in the full view.

[ClayDavies]

Okay, I'm an eyepiece junky.  Especially in the 5mm to 8mm "planetary" range for my f/6.3 and f/8.5 dobs.  So you might calibrate my observations as justifications for more toys in my toybox...

 

I got the Antares 13.4mm Series II with public outreach in mind.  I didn't want my class glass getting mucked up with mascara, or vanishing into a crowd.  Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

 

As it turned out, at f/6 through f/8.5 this eyepiece performed way beyond my expectations.  II was so encouraged that I bought the 6mm and 32mm W 70, which seem sharp at these focal ratios, but the coatings leave something to be desired.  They show bright internal reflections.  But they're great for public outreach. 

Now I'm seriously considering the 6mm Spears Waler Series IV for the moon and planets.  This 6mm is advertised to have 12mm eye relief so it's less likely to get fogged up than a 6mm Orthoscopic, which performs wonderfully on planets when it's clean, but it never stays that way for long due to it's short eye relief.  

 

So... the 6mm Antares (actually 6.1mm, I read), is just the right focal length, and the 86 degrees advertised apparent field of view is particularly appealing for the moon.  With the 10"f/6.3 that would be 258x and 0.97mm exit pupil with 0.33 degrees field of view that's about ideal for planets with typical seeing around here.  And for "lunar orbit" I could even double that magnification with a 2x barlow.  

The thought of that makes a binoviewer enticing, too.  But then I might need an eyepiece case with wheels...

[Starman1]

Okay, I'm an eyepiece junky.  Especially in the 5mm to 8mm "planetary" range for my f/6.3 and f/8.5 dobs.  So you might calibrate my observations as justifications for more toys in my toybox...

 

I got the Antares 13.4mm Series II with public outreach in mind.  I didn't want my class glass getting mucked up with mascara, or vanishing into a crowd.  Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

 

As it turned out, at f/6 through f/8.5 this eyepiece performed way beyond my expectations.  II was so encouraged that I bought the 6mm and 32mm W 70, which seem sharp at these focal ratios, but the coatings leave something to be desired.  They show bright internal reflections.  But they're great for public outreach. 

Now I'm seriously considering the 6mm Spears Waler Series IV for the moon and planets.  This 6mm is advertised to have 12mm eye relief so it's less likely to get fogged up than a 6mm Orthoscopic, which performs wonderfully on planets when it's clean, but it never stays that way for long due to it's short eye relief.  

 

So... the 6mm Antares (actually 6.1mm, I read), is just the right focal length, and the 86 degrees advertised apparent field of view is particularly appealing for the moon.  With the 10"f/6.3 that would be 258x and 0.97mm exit pupil with 0.33 degrees field of view that's about ideal for planets with typical seeing around here.  And for "lunar orbit" I could even double that magnification with a 2x barlow.  

The thought of that makes a binoviewer enticing, too.  But then I might need an eyepiece case with wheels...

Just a note: for public outreach, make sure all eyepieces have 19-21mm eye relief and are glasses-compatible.

[Procyon]

Okay, I'm an eyepiece junky.  Especially in the 5mm to 8mm "planetary" range for my f/6.3 and f/8.5 dobs.  So you might calibrate my observations as justifications for more toys in my toybox...

 

I got the Antares 13.4mm Series II with public outreach in mind.  I didn't want my class glass getting mucked up with mascara, or vanishing into a crowd.  Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

 

As it turned out, at f/6 through f/8.5 this eyepiece performed way beyond my expectations.  II was so encouraged that I bought the 6mm and 32mm W 70, which seem sharp at these focal ratios, but the coatings leave something to be desired.  They show bright internal reflections.  But they're great for public outreach. 

Now I'm seriously considering the 6mm Spears Waler Series IV for the moon and planets.  This 6mm is advertised to have 12mm eye relief so it's less likely to get fogged up than a 6mm Orthoscopic, which performs wonderfully on planets when it's clean, but it never stays that way for long due to it's short eye relief.  

 

So... the 6mm Antares (actually 6.1mm, I read), is just the right focal length, and the 86 degrees advertised apparent field of view is particularly appealing for the moon.  With the 10"f/6.3 that would be 258x and 0.97mm exit pupil with 0.33 degrees field of view that's about ideal for planets with typical seeing around here.  And for "lunar orbit" I could even double that magnification with a 2x barlow.  

The thought of that makes a binoviewer enticing, too.  But then I might need an eyepiece case with wheels...

I thought I was going to read about a series 4 somewhere in there.  

 

I had the same eyepiece a long time ago, 13.4mm Series 2, hated it in my 10" f/4.7 dob. No paracorr though, still, it looked kinda mushy or like you said, poor coatings, took me about 2 years to sell that one.

 

I have a Series 2 31.5mm 90º it's not bad at all in my refractor f/6....but that eye relief of 10mm...makes you not want to keep it in the diagonal for too long, nice big field though. Was about to order the series 3 31.5mm 94º but with 10mm eye relief, I'll pass. I need at least 12mm...even 11 would have been better. Still very viewable though, I just have other options.

 

Someone give the Series 4 some love lol....... https://antares.space/eyepieces

 

There's also some Series 3 84º 

 

Speers-Waler Series3 eyepieces offer edge correction superior to series2 that can be appreciated by experienced observers. The Series3 1.25" 12.8mm has (8) elements, 80 degree AFOV, 14.5mm eye relief and negative achromat compensation. Rubber grip, fold-down eyeshield and full multicoating are features. Performance specifications on request.

Edited by Procyon, 19 May 2025 - 10:14 PM.

[PKDfan]

I thought I was going to read about a series 4 somewhere in there.

I had the same eyepiece a long time ago, 13.4mm Series 2, hated it in my 10" f/4.7 dob. No paracorr though, still, it looked kinda mushy or like you said, poor coatings, took me about 2 years to sell that one.

I have a Series 2 31.5mm 90º it's not bad at all in my refractor f/6....but that eye relief of 10mm...makes you not want to keep it in the diagonal for too long, nice big field though. Was about to order the series 3 31.5mm 94º but with 10mm eye relief, I'll pass. I need at least 12mm...even 11 would have been better. Still very viewable though, I just have other options.

Someone give the Series 4 some love lol....... https://antares.space/eyepieces

There's also some Series 3 84º

Speers-Waler Series3 eyepieces offer edge correction superior to series2 that can be appreciated by experienced observers. The Series3 1.25" 12.8mm has (8) elements, 80 degree AFOV, 14.5mm eye relief and negative achromat compensation. Rubber grip, fold-down eyeshield and full multicoating are features. Performance specifications on request.

Hi Procyon...Pro !

Its rare to read of anothers experience of the Speers waler [[wide angle LONG eye relief]]lol nope-- series2 31.5mm 90degree'r.

I'm glad you thought well of it as it does have that super wide window and its very light besides the easiest exit pupil you'd ever imagine-- i could wildly slew my F/9 around by hand with it and not lose the field.

I haven't dare try it in my Evolux... nope not a great idea after 30XW.

With recent success using a Nebustar2 in my 16.5XW i had really hoped to screw an OIII filter to it but transparency was getting gauzy so shelved the plan.

I had no clue there was a series three never mind four ??!

I have said before that if you had a very SLOOOW scope like F/15 or F/20 Cassegrain it'd really shine.

Its form of astigmatism seemed far less severe than a 38SWA 70° had, that made my eyes hurt so bad i couldn't get rid of it quick enough, and it was a shame as everything else about it was very good.


Cheers !!

Lance
CSS