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

17 ES92 vs 17 Nikon NAV-HW. Anyone do a comparison?

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted 05 August 2021 - 09:34 PM

I currently have the 12.5mm Nikon NAV-HW, and the 17mm ES92. I really like both, but I'm on the fence about replacing the 17 ES92 with the 17 Nikon NAV-HW.

 

Some considerations running through my mind (both pros and cons)

 

1. Nikon is a smidge lighter than the 17 ES92

2. The ability to convert it to 14mm is tempting as there are a couple of targets I feel that 14mm would be more optimal for (magnification/exit pupil balance)

3. The Nikon cannot be optimized in the Paracorr 2.

4. The immersion of the 17 ES92's wide field and eye relief is hard to beat, though the 12.5 NAV-HW comes real close (I do not use glasses when looking through eyepieces)

 

What I'd like know from anyone who has done a comparison:

 

1. Which eyepiece did you feel was more immersive and comfortable? If you switched from the ES92 to the Nikon, did you feel you lost anything in the translation?

2. Which eyepiece did you feel offered better overall clarity (contrast, sharpness etc)?

3. If you do have a Paracorr'd newt, did you find the lack of optimum Paracorr setting to be troublesome?

 

Note that the 17 Ethos is not on my radar. I like my Ethos, but I don't find them anywhere near as comfortable or immersive as the NAV-HW or ES92.


Edited by CrazyPanda, 05 August 2021 - 09:35 PM.

  • 25585 likes this

#2 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,841
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 05 August 2021 - 11:24 PM

I compared both for a while, and chose the Nikon.

 

In the end, the stars are just sharper in this eyepiece than anything else I have tried. I also like the comfort and immersion of the 102 degree field.

 

But I also find that it gives the impression of being vignetted at the edges in my Parcorr 2. 

 

I like the eyepiece so much, that I have since tried Paracorr 1, the ES paracorr, the GSO, and a weird .95x skywatcher. 

 

The P1 performs the best of the lot with the Nikon in 17mm mode. The vignetting is something that may be tolerable to people, but it something that really bugs me.

 

Otherwise, with F5 native there's no issue with coma correction. It is fine. Probably about the same as 31 Nagler or 21 Ethos in a P1, which I've never heard anyone complain about.

 

As for the 17 ES, part of the reason I sold it was that it was so heavy that it was the only eyepiece that upset the balance on my 12.5" Portaball. I would say it's a slightly more comfortable and immersive eypeiece than the Nikon 17, but there's really not much in it. I'd only go for the ES if I needed glasses to observe.

 

I mostly use the 12.5 Nikon in my 12.5" scope, and use the 17mm nikon in my refractors. The views in Televue 101 in particular, as well as Stowaway are unbeatable. I also love using it in my 8" F7 reflector.

 

Also, I see no sign of the "vignetted" edge when I use it in paracorr in 14mm setting, but almost always just got for the 12.5. 


  • CrazyPanda and 25585 like this

#3 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted 05 August 2021 - 11:57 PM

Interesting note about the vignetting. I experience that in my 21E and Paracorr. Doesn't bother me much, but it's there.



#4 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,841
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 06 August 2021 - 12:25 AM

Yes, and it's there with the 17 Ethos in P2 too. And replicated that effect in a second scope with a different P2.

 

The same effect in the Nikon is more pronounced, however. But i am not sure how many people see that, or are bothered by it. I like a crisp field stop.


  • CrazyPanda likes this

#5 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,164
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 06 August 2021 - 10:14 AM

I use the 17mm Nikon HW with a Paracorr 2 in my Dobs and find the lack of an optimal setting to be a nonissue.  The Paracorr 2 is still doing its job and the stars look pinpoint out to the edge.


  • CrazyPanda, areyoukiddingme and 25585 like this

#6 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,841
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 06 August 2021 - 04:21 PM

I use the 17mm Nikon HW with a Paracorr 2 in my Dobs and find the lack of an optimal setting to be a nonissue.  The Paracorr 2 is still doing its job and the stars look pinpoint out to the edge.

Rob, what F-ratio are you working with?

 

I've yet to hear anyone with a fast ratio who feels that the P2 is not correcting the 17 Nikon well, but good to document it.



#7 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,164
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 06 August 2021 - 07:44 PM

Rob, what F-ratio are you working with?

 

I've yet to hear anyone with a fast ratio who feels that the P2 is not correcting the 17 Nikon well, but good to document it.

 

Good point.  My 18" is f/4.3 and my 12.5" is f/4.5.  


Edited by turtle86, 06 August 2021 - 07:45 PM.

  • areyoukiddingme likes this

#8 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted 06 August 2021 - 07:53 PM

Ok, so that's the same as my F/4.5 dob, so shouldn't be an issue.

 

Though I do wonder how well the 17 would do below F/3 in a P2. My long term plan is a big 24-25" F/2.75 scope.



#9 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,164
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 06 August 2021 - 08:36 PM

Ok, so that's the same as my F/4.5 dob, so shouldn't be an issue.

 

Though I do wonder how well the 17 would do below F/3 in a P2. My long term plan is a big 24-25" F/2.75 scope.

 

I'm not sure, but it would be fun to find out.  My own dream scope would be something like an f/3 24".


  • faackanders2 likes this

#10 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,841
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 07 August 2021 - 12:59 AM

Ditto. I'd like to get a retirement scope somewhere in the 20-24" ~ F3 range. So I am also interested to hear about ultimate performance there with the 17 Nikon.



#11 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,909
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 07 August 2021 - 12:10 PM

I currently have the 12.5mm Nikon NAV-HW, and the 17mm ES92. I really like both, but I'm on the fence about replacing the 17 ES92 with the 17 Nikon NAV-HW.

 

Some considerations running through my mind (both pros and cons)

 

1. Nikon is a smidge lighter than the 17 ES92

2. The ability to convert it to 14mm is tempting as there are a couple of targets I feel that 14mm would be more optimal for (magnification/exit pupil balance)

3. The Nikon cannot be optimized in the Paracorr 2.

4. The immersion of the 17 ES92's wide field and eye relief is hard to beat, though the 12.5 NAV-HW comes real close (I do not use glasses when looking through eyepieces)

 

What I'd like know from anyone who has done a comparison:

 

1. Which eyepiece did you feel was more immersive and comfortable? If you switched from the ES92 to the Nikon, did you feel you lost anything in the translation?

2. Which eyepiece did you feel offered better overall clarity (contrast, sharpness etc)?

3. If you do have a Paracorr'd newt, did you find the lack of optimum Paracorr setting to be troublesome?

 

Note that the 17 Ethos is not on my radar. I like my Ethos, but I don't find them anywhere near as comfortable or immersive as the NAV-HW or ES92.

I use NIKON 17 Hw (and 14mm EIC) with Paracorr II.




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