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

APM XWA vs Televue Nagler set

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 27 October 2021 - 10:02 PM

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

Edited by YeloSub, 27 October 2021 - 10:04 PM.


#2 ihf

ihf

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,300
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 27 October 2021 - 10:18 PM

I would take the 22mm and 31mm Nagler and throw away the rest. Yes I wear glasses.

 

The question is, what is really important to you and your scopes.


Edited by ihf, 27 October 2021 - 10:23 PM.


#3 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 27 October 2021 - 11:12 PM

Sorry... this is for an 8 f/6 dob and 12 f/5 dob.

Is the quality jump to the Nagler that big of a difference from the XWA to sacrifice the FOV?

I have read of many folks keeping the XWA over ethos because of price and weight. Noting quality to similar to justify the price. I am perfectly happy with a few of the ES82s but like the XWA better than those. Other than FOV I notice slight increase in sharpness and contrast as well. But have never tried a Nagler. Hence the question.

No glasses, so the shorter eye relief doesn't bother me. Although compared to the ES, the XWA is more comfortable ER wise.

Maybe I just need to try a Nagler for myself...

Edited by YeloSub, 27 October 2021 - 11:15 PM.


#4 havasman

havasman

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,302
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 27 October 2021 - 11:53 PM

Is the quality jump to the Nagler that big of a difference from the XWA to sacrifice the FOV?

Maybe I just need to try a Nagler for myself...

Umm, yeah. You should if you want to know what they're like.

I have 31, 20, 13, 5, 3.5 & 2.5 Naglers and 13, 7 APM HDC's that fit around 21, 10, 6, 4.7 & 3.7E's. For me in my scopes for observations I like they are all very high performance eyepieces. I never think of a qualitative difference when selecting one. It's just a matter of conditions, session goals, magnification, framing or whim. I like the great large fields the hyperwides enable. But sometimes the 44o Tak's are the right tool.

 

A-B comparisons of eyepieces can yield conclusions that are difficult to apply to one's own situation that may differ significantly from the tester's.


  • doctordub, alnitak22, YeloSub and 1 other like this

#5 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 52,770
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 28 October 2021 - 12:11 AM

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

Get one of each and try for yourself.  That's the only way to know for sure.

I think you would be happy with either.


  • Jon Isaacs, esd726, doctordub and 4 others like this

#6 markb

markb

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,858
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Arizona at last, goodbye NY. Light pollution still awful though

Posted 28 October 2021 - 12:12 AM

+1 on havasman.

 

I keep using my naglers (4.8, 7, 11, 13, all smoothies) because they are sharp, contrasty, wide enough and comfortable. I've grown used to the short ER on the 4.8 and 7, the ones I use most.

 

I also use the APM UFF 30 a lot, another comfortable yet sharp EP. The buy in was just a bit too high on the 31 Nagler and the UFF 30 suit me and my scopes well, although I'd love the extra field.

 

Apples and oranges, sure, bit we make those kind of selections every time we observe. What the APM XWA and Naglers share is quality and sharpness, as do my other EPs, so those two qualities are ones I don't consider in picking what to use at a given moment.

 

I like the APM XWA 100s, but I'm not particularly comfortable swiveling my head or eyes to take in the edges of the view. My set is essentially new, but, consequently, very under used (so I may sell them).

 

Comfort in use has been the issue, and the reason the APMs are last up, give my limited scope outings since I got them. I think sharpness is comparable but circumstances prevented an A-B to date.

 

Weight is a factor, but I use slinging CWs so adjustments are very fast. The weight and bulk of the APM XWAs is limiting getting them to and from the scope more than when using them.

 

They are just as good as every review says though. I'm likely give me them one more solid shot as I start to get dark sites on the area.

 

The FOV issue is a bit complicated by my scope choices, 6" f5 Jaegers (the UFF is a killer with that curved field limitation), and my GPS11 with the Alan Gee plus true 2" diagonal mod running about f4.9 or so. The inherent scope FOV reduces my desire for more EP AFOV once I get to 70 to 80 degrees AFOV.


Edited by markb, 28 October 2021 - 12:22 AM.

  • YeloSub likes this

#7 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,344
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 28 October 2021 - 12:16 AM

I hear the 20XWA isn’t quite as sharp as the others, but generally speaking I hear the others are all outstanding. As said I doubt there are real quality differences, other than maybe reports that the XWA don’t have as good of baffling for handling glare from Moon and planets. I think the biggest issue is the size and weight difference between XWA and Naglers, and how hyperwides work in your F5 scope. Generally if you don’t use a coma corrector, hyperwides will show more coma, which might kind of defeat the purpose if the last 18 degrees is just full of coma anyway. Fortunately it sounds like you have a XWA so you can judge how well it works and if it is better than UWA. Generally speaking the ES 82s perform similar to Naglers. Apparently the 14mm isn’t as good though, and the new longer eye relief models might not be on par. But otherwise the performance is very similar. Especially if you don’t have a coma corrector, the main abberation you will see with either is coma from the mirror.

Scott
  • YeloSub likes this

#8 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 28 October 2021 - 02:51 AM

I hear the 20XWA isn’t quite as sharp as the others, but generally speaking I hear the others are all outstanding. As said I doubt there are real quality differences, other than maybe reports that the XWA don’t have as good of baffling for handling glare from Moon and planets. I think the biggest issue is the size and weight difference between XWA and Naglers, and how hyperwides work in your F5 scope. Generally if you don’t use a coma corrector, hyperwides will show more coma, which might kind of defeat the purpose if the last 18 degrees is just full of coma anyway. Fortunately it sounds like you have a XWA so you can judge how well it works and if it is better than UWA. Generally speaking the ES 82s perform similar to Naglers. Apparently the 14mm isn’t as good though, and the new longer eye relief models might not be on par. But otherwise the performance is very similar. Especially if you don’t have a coma corrector, the main abberation you will see with either is coma from the mirror.

Scott

Nothing to do with the 20mm EP. It just needs a coma corrector. I own both the 20mm and 13mm versions and BOTH need a CC to get the best performance out of them in my 10" Orion XTi.

 

Both are also excellent on the moon, no glare issues that I can see. There is slight ghosting when viewing Jupiter on the 13mm + Orion barlow tho.

 

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

 

I was out observing last week with a friend and he tried my 20mm and 13mm APM eyepieces. He said he liked the APM's more than the Ethos comfort-wise, but said the Ethos were a bit sharper, but not $400 sharper , lol.

 

I now own the 20mm + 13mm APM's and I also own a William Optics 9mm 100 degree which also is as good as the APM's.
 


Edited by Miranda2525, 28 October 2021 - 02:53 AM.

  • CeleNoptic, SeattleScott, YeloSub and 1 other like this

#9 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,686
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 28 October 2021 - 07:37 AM

Are you sure that the ghosting in the 13mm is from the eyepiece and not the Barlow ? I mean , by checking the Barlow with other EPs .. 



#10 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,068
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 October 2021 - 08:04 AM

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

 

Jake:

 

Lots of ways to go here.  I don't own any of the XWAs. I have set of Naglers 31mm, 16mm, 13mm, 11mm, 9mm, 7mm, 5mm, and 3.5mm.  I also have four Ethos eyepieces, the 21mm, 13mm, 10 mm and 8 mm.  With my Dobs, I use a Paracorr 2.  

 

They are all very good and from what I hear, the APMs are also very good eyepieces.. All very good but very different eyepieces..

 

The 31mm Nagler is a big eyepiece, the rest of my Naglers are 1.25 inch eyepieces and quite compact eyepieces, the heaviest is the 3.5 mm which weighs 8.5 ounces.  Eye relief is acceptable for me, a not glasses wearer but I wouldn't want any less eye relief.  Very sharp and I can take in the entire field quite easily.

 

In comparison, the Ethos's are large, tall eyepieces that are relatively heavy.  They have somewhat more eye relief, it's possible to take in the entire field but it's more difficult. But the Ethos have more field, more expansiveness.  

 

I use the 1.25 inch Naglers a lot, they are just so handy. I have a tripod setup with racks so they are right there at my fingertips, I love that.  

 

I think Don's advice is spot on, try one of each.. or borrow one of each if possible.  I think I would go with the 13mms.. 

 

On the other hand, not having used the APMs, if I were starting over, a complete set of APM's certainly seems attractive. I like the Naglers because they are parfocal and closely spaced, helpful for the planets and double stars.

 

Jon


  • doctordub, oldphysics and YeloSub like this

#11 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 28 October 2021 - 10:30 AM

Are you sure that the ghosting in the 13mm is from the eyepiece and not the Barlow ? I mean , by checking the Barlow with other EPs ..

 

There's no ghosting with the barlow when using with my Baader Morpheus. Prob because the APM's have 9 elements?

 

I dunno lol



#12 Frenchy

Frenchy

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Battle Ground, WA

Posted 28 October 2021 - 10:31 AM

It depends on your eyes. I used meade 5000 swa 68's and uwa 82's for a long time before going with more premium eyepieces. I started getting a couple panoptics followed by a couple naglers. Bought 3 apm xwa and my eyes didn't work as well with these compared to the tv's. Just becuase they get a lot of praise doesn't mean they are for everyone. I sold them and the panoptics and finished my set with naglers. Ideally a side by side comparison would be nice, I didn't have that option so It did cost me a little bit of extra money by reselling to figure out what I liked best.


  • YeloSub likes this

#13 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 28 October 2021 - 11:01 AM

Thanks all for the quick response!

I mostly use the ES82s and bought the 13 and 7 XWA to try and I do like them. The size and weight are manageable, but do take extra steps in the observing routine to balance.

Trying to decide what to keep I noticed that if I am venturing into the price range many naglers seem to come up used for. I'll just have to buy one to try out I guess .

The smaller form factor is definitely convenient though. But now that the XWAs are more expensive it makes the decision harder. So thankful for the classifieds!

Clear skies all!

Jake
  • Miranda2525 likes this

#14 alnitak22

alnitak22

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,949
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Posted 28 October 2021 - 12:58 PM

Umm, yeah. You should if you want to know what they're like.

I have 31, 20, 13, 5, 3.5 & 2.5 Naglers and 13, 7 APM HDC's that fit around 21, 10, 6, 4.7 & 3.7E's. For me in my scopes for observations I like they are all very high performance eyepieces. I never think of a qualitative difference when selecting one. It's just a matter of conditions, session goals, magnification, framing or whim. I like the great large fields the hyperwides enable. But sometimes the 44o Tak's are the right tool.

 

A-B comparisons of eyepieces can yield conclusions that are difficult to apply to one's own situation that may differ significantly from the tester's.

The last sentence here should automatically appear at the top of any eyepiece review on any astronomy site.


  • YeloSub likes this

#15 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 52,770
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 28 October 2021 - 01:24 PM

Forms of light scatter in an eyepiece:

1) near on-axis scatter.  This is when a small bright star has a strong glow around it.  It is hard to discover whether this is the atmosphere, dust/oils on the optics, rough surfaces on the lenses,

bad coatings, a large number of lenses, or just what, except by comparison with another eyepiece.

2) Ghosting.  This is when a fainter "ghost" of the bright object drifts into the field from the opposite side that the bright object drifts in, moving in the opposite direction, and crosses the bright object in the center of the field, leaving the opposite side of the field when the bright object exits the field.

3) Edge of field brightening (EOFB).  This might have various causes, including the distortion type in the eyepiece (all eyepieces have distortion) or bright spacers and lens edges.  

4) general field scatter.  We see this as a reduction in contrast, or as a scatter of light from the Moon into the black space beside it.  It can determine how easily you can see some faint objects or details in objects as it relates to contrast.  The predominant causes are poor baffling and blackening internally and/or rough lens surface polish on the lenses, or the level of coatings applied (fully multi-coated works best to suppress this).

5) Glow from outside the field.  If a bright star is just outside the field, and you can see a glow in the field of the eyepiece telling you there is a bright object outside the field, there is someplace in the eyepiece light is not being properly suppressed.  It could be all the previously mentioned issues, but it can also be reflection from baffles and eyepiece barrels if not adequately blackened.

6) Glare from outside the field.  This can be a bright loop or multiple spikes or a combination of bright lines and glow.  If the bright star or object outside the field causes this, it is usually a sign you are getting a strong reflection somewhere inside the eyepiece, and the only cure is to dismantle the eyepiece and blacken everything internal that can scatter light (except the lens surfaces themselves, of course, LOL).

 

IMO, #2, #3, #6 are design flaws.  #1, #4, #5 can be improved with better execution (read higher cost) of the design.

To date, however, I have not seen 1 eyepiece that completely passes every test.  #5 seems to be the hardest one to completely eliminate.


  • esd726, doctordub, markb and 3 others like this

#16 mark379

mark379

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,151
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2009
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 29 October 2021 - 01:31 PM

I've had Ethos, Naglers and APM's at many Fl's,and have compared many times head to head.. The APM's come close to TV and good for the price. The only minus would be slightly less light throughput as seen through my eyes compared to TV.

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

 


  • markb, CeleNoptic, StarDust1 and 1 other like this

#17 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 29 October 2021 - 08:48 PM

Naglers I have owned: 12mm Type 4, 22mm Type 4, 9mm Type 1, 12mm Type 2, 20mm Type 2, 17mm Type 4. Dislike the 12mm and 17mm Type 4, (12mm T4 eye placement is super-critical, 17mm T4 had too much FC),  22mm is good, but field curvature was bothersome after some time, 9mm Type 1 I liked, 12mm Type 2 is good, but er too short, 20mm Type 2 is excellent, er on the short side. Looked through all the Type 6, which are excellent, also looked through 17mm Ethos, fave Ethos, 21mm Ethos, was excellent and tried a 4.7mm Ethos, did not like the 110°.

I own : 20mm APM XWA, 13mm APM XWA and a 9mm William Optics 100°. I like the APM's over the Ethos and Naglers. More of a comparison to the Ethos 100°, because of easier eye placement and better eye relief.

 

I removed the eyecup on the 9mm WO 100° for more nose room. I used all three in a coma corrected 10" Orion IntellIscope only three times so far.
 

 

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

 

Prefer the APM's over any Nagler sets, but disliked the 4.77mm APM 110 degree. Just too wide to take it all in. Reminded me of the feel of the 4.7mm Ethos.

 

That's just my own personal preference, which does not mean others will have the same experience as I did. Different eye sockets fit all eyepieces differently.


Edited by Miranda2525, 30 October 2021 - 02:08 AM.

  • CeleNoptic and YeloSub like this

#18 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,181
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 31 October 2021 - 07:31 AM

I tried searching and only came up with specific comparisons on a couple of the eyepieces.

My question though is which set would you prefer. With the APM XWAs getting high praise close to the Ethos I was curious what others think.

With both options being somewhat close in price new and especially used... For same price would you take the (probably) better corrected Nagler at 82° or the 100° view of the XWA?

Jake

The Naglers I’ve used are the 22mm, 17mm, and 12mm T4’s and the 7mm T6.   The 22mm was probably the one I liked the most and the 7mm was certainly my least favorite.  The 7mm T6 was very hard for me to use.  The eye relief was just a little too short for my tastes and it was hard for me to take in the field of view without blackouts.  In contrast to that I found the APM XWA and Ethos are much easier to look through. 

 

But realistically it is splitting hairs to tell the difference in sharpness between many of these premium eyepieces in most cases.  A recent exception for me - The other night I had a chance to borrow a friends 12.5mm Nikon HW.  With the barlow that comes with the eyepiece (10mm FL) it was incredibly sharp and easily bested the 18.2mm DeLite and Nikon 1.6x barlow (also ~10mm).  The comparison was not close by the standards of modern eyepieces. 

 

If you find the T6 Naglers comfortable they are certainly sharp. It’s is doubtful that they would be clearly sharper than the APM XWA.  The 7mm APM XWA is as sharp as any eyepiece I have used - with the possible exception of that Nikon HW. 


  • sportsmed, StarDust1, areyoukiddingme and 1 other like this

#19 sunrag

sunrag

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Carmel, Indiana

Posted 31 October 2021 - 09:48 AM

I had a TeleVue Nagler 20mm (Type 5, 82 degrees FOV), a StellarVue Optimus 20mm (100 degree FOV) and a Meade Series 5000 20mm (82 degrees FOV). I could not tell much or any difference in the images except for the increased FOV of the StellarVue.


  • YeloSub likes this

#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,068
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 31 October 2021 - 11:20 AM

The Naglers I’ve used are the 22mm, 17mm, and 12mm T4’s and the 7mm T6.   The 22mm was probably the one I liked the most and the 7mm was certainly my least favorite.  The 7mm T6 was very hard for me to use.  The eye relief was just a little too short for my tastes and it was hard for me to take in the field of view without blackouts.  In contrast to that I found the APM XWA and Ethos are much easier to look through. 

 

But realistically it is splitting hairs to tell the difference in sharpness between many of these premium eyepieces in most cases.  A recent exception for me - The other night I had a chance to borrow a friends 12.5mm Nikon HW.  With the barlow that comes with the eyepiece (10mm FL) it was incredibly sharp and easily bested the 18.2mm DeLite and Nikon 1.6x barlow (also ~10mm).  The comparison was not close by the standards of modern eyepieces. 

 

If you find the T6 Naglers comfortable they are certainly sharp. It’s is doubtful that they would be clearly sharper than the APM XWA.  The 7mm APM XWA is as sharp as any eyepiece I have used - with the possible exception of that Nikon HW. 

 

Just a comment:

 

Those who observe with faster scopes may see differences unseen by those observing with moderate and slower scopes. I think you're aware of this.

 

I've not used APM XWAs and talking to Don, he's told me they're top notch in faster scopes, that's good enough for me. 

 

I'd probably buy some XWAs but the specific focal lengths don't quite mix with the 21 mm, 13mm, 10 mm, 8 mm Ethos series that I already have.

 

Jon


  • mark379, sunrag and YeloSub like this

#21 sportsmed

sportsmed

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Hot Springs, AR

Posted 31 October 2021 - 03:12 PM

I have not used any 100o EP's yet but the APM's are becoming very interesting to me and have thought about the 3.5mm and the 9mm for higher mag eyepieces in my scopes. But reading the post from russell23 along with others in the past its got me thinking of the Nikons. But it just all matters on what you personally like for eye relief and FOV. I think optically these are all premium EP's and you would be pretty happy.




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