29 replies to this topic

[droid]

opinions, regarding these eyepieces.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[droid]

This set includes a 38mm , 32mm , 26mm ,20mm , 15mm , and lastly a 10mm

 

the eye relief on these is 28,24,20, 16, 13, and 10

 

I've been testing and playing around with these for going on a year.

 

I asked Agena if they could tell me who made them , they politely declined.

 

They are very well made, nice hefty feel to them, rubber eye guards 

 

Theyre all 5 elements, so an Erfle or a derivative of one?.

 

Scopes used during this testing......My modified Made 2102, and my Celestron C102HD...f8 andf9.8 respectively.

 

 

[vtornado]

I have the 32 and 26.  In a typical f/5 or f/6 dob,  I think retail pricing is too much for the level of performance that you get.  Compared to a nearly perfect APM UFF 30mm for $200.00  I purchased mine used for $60.00 and $25.00 respectively.  The outter 30% of the field show astigmatic stars (look like line or seagulls)  Maybe they perform well at f/10?

Edited by vtornado, 07 June 2023 - 05:54 PM.

[droid]

Ok , how did they work.....I know inquiring minds want to know, lol

 

Well, honestly, they performed very well.

 

Yes the outer 15 to 20 percent was out of focus, mildly at first then gradually, the seagull wings didn't really appear until about 90 percent out.

 

But my goodness, that central 80 plus percent, was really super sharp , the moon was crisp, very contrasty, and was a blast to observe.

 

In my opinion, the 38mm is a specialty eyepiece, used essentially, by me, for really large extended objects.

 

You may have noticed he eye relief gets less and less with each focal length? anything lower than 10mm and it would have been in the 4mm. Huygenian range.

as it was my eyelashes were constantly hitting, the eye guard. And yet like the rest of this set the image was gorgeous.

 

My favorite of the set??, the 20mm , I think that might be a mental thing though, I tend to land on or near that focal length no matter what set I'm using.

[Mike Q]

I think the 38, 32 and 26 are the same as Orions Q70 line.  If so they do a reasonable job at F5 but the outer edges are not all that well corrected.  On axis they are fine.  I run them with a GSO coma corrector and it does seem to help. 

[droid]

OK....Would I recommend these????

 

Yes, with a caveat. If you are a edge of field person, then the edges on these will most likely drive you bonkers.

 

I believe these are targeted more towards beginners or intermediate observers.

 

I have zero problems with these eyepieces, it takes me back to my first erfle,  a war surplus sold by edmund scientific, iirc?

 

my first falling into the eyepiece experience.

 

anyways.....if you're a beginner, looking to upgrade from the eyepieces that came with your scope, absolutely

 

If you're an intermediate level observer, absolutely, especially if you're on a budget.

 

If you're an experienced observer, Umm... well that would of course be something you would have to think on. Naglers they aint...

 

overall despite having a first string kit that much better than these. 

 

I like these, a lot, they're a lot lighter, lol

 

And they're just fun, to play with , if you drop it, it's not an Ethos hitting the ground, 

 

I am in no way affiliated with Agena astro, just saying, lol

[droid]

I have the 32 and 26.  In a typical f/5 or f/6 dob,  I think retail pricing is too much for the level of performance that you get.  Compared to a nearly perfect APM UFF 30mm for $200.00  I purchased mine used for $60.00 and $25.00 respectively.  The outter 30% of the field show astigmatic stars (look like line or seagulls)  Maybe they perform well at f/10?

at f8 and f9.8, both 4 inch refractors, they do show some at the edges, the seagulls appear at about 10 percent in from the edges.

[Bean614]

And the FOV is............????

[droid]

70 degrees, sorry, my bad

[sportsmed]

I have the 20mm and really like it in my 127mm Mak but thats f/12. But yea in my faster scopes I have better options. But if using a slower scope I think the Agena SWA set would be a nice cheap upgrade from the eyepieces what usually come with scopes and have more FOV. If I ever finally pull the trigger on a 180mm Mak then I might try the 38mm for lower power.

[RFeaster]

I have the 26 and have had it apart to blacken the lens edges.  It's an erfle 2-1-2.  The 38 & 32 are 5 in 4 groups if I remember correctly, so a little different.  I also own the 20 & 15. These are konig derivatives I believe.  Field stop -1-1-2-1.  I also have the 17 which is a WA as opposed to a SWA,  It has an AFOV of 65°.   Build quality is just as good - hard to tell them apart.  I think they (20, 17, 15) do fine in my F4.7 dob when combined with my 2x focal extender.  Super light. 

 

A year ago I bought 2 additional 15's with the intention of permanently attaching a screw in barlow.  That didn't work out so well as it vignetted the edges. 

 

EDIT:  5 in 4 groups

Edited by RFeaster, 07 June 2023 - 07:36 PM.

[Dave Mitsky]

The Astronomical Society of Harrisburg has a 38mm Agena SWA in its collection of eyepieces.  It works quite well with our f/10 SCTs and f/15 classical Cassegrain.  It displays some astigmatism when used with two of our f/6 Newtonians but I don't find it to be horrendous. 

[GrassLakeRon]

They seem to love my f/12 CC.  As far as i have researched, it looks like KUO makes them.  I have not used them in my f/5.  For the price they seem to be a good EP.

[Jon Isaacs]

I have a generic 32 mm Q-70 as well as the 34 mm 72 degree Svbony. Optically and mechanically, they are identical, their weights are identical down to a gram. They're perfectly parfocal and exhibit identical aberrations.

 

My main scopes are all fast, F/6.2 or faster. These eyepieces are sharp on-axis but show significant off axis astigmatism. I consider them usable but the sort of eyepiece that one thinks about upgrading at some point.

 

Regarding pricing: I think they are reasonably priced, around $100. That's where they've been and represent a good value.

 

Comparing them to the 28 mm UWA and the 30 mm UFF is a reasonable thing to do but no Eyepiece other than the XWAs can survive that comparison, they are amazing values.

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 08 June 2023 - 08:53 AM.

[Doug Culbertson]

The 34mm 72 degree Svbony is my favorite eyepiece when using a Daystar Quark with built in 4.3x telecentric barlow in a 102mm f/7 refractor. The telecentric barlow makes the refractor f/30, or f/15 when using a .5x reducer. It is sharp and clear with a nice wide field, and it's almost half the weight of my ES68 34mm. 

[Dave Hederich]

I still use the original Astronomics version of the 38mm (Astro-Tech Titan) that I bought more than 10 years ago on closeout sale for $59.95. I thought it performed quite well for the price in my f/9.8 C4-R that I recently sold. Today it resides in my f/5 ST80 for richest field use. Performance at the edge obviously trails what it did in the C4-R. However, I happen to be among those who can accept less than stellar performance at the edge in return for widest possible view. My brain tells me that my peripheral vision lacks sharp focus just like this EP at the edge and I'm almost always focused on the center anyway. If I were to ever replace it I would likely go with a 28mm UWA. But this inexpensive 38mm 70° EP is really comfortable and relaxing to view through. In the comfort and ease of use respect the 30mm UFF is probably more similar but with less FOV.

[droid]

Yeah it took me over a year to collect them all, I started last year.

 

Bought specifically for the 2  102mm scopes.

 

They aren't perfect to the edge, but good to about 80 percent at f8, and tad better in my my C102 f9.8 

 

Weights half or better compared to my first string kit.

[deSitter]

I have the 26 and have had it apart to blacken the lens edges.  It's an erfle 2-1-2.  The 38 & 32 are 5 in 4 groups if I remember correctly, so a little different.  I also own the 20 & 15. These are konig derivatives I believe.  Field stop -1-1-2-1.  I also have the 17 which is a WA as opposed to a SWA,  It has an AFOV of 65°.   Build quality is just as good - hard to tell them apart.  I think they (20, 17, 15) do fine in my F4.7 dob when combined with my 2x focal extender.  Super light. 

 

A year ago I bought 2 additional 15's with the intention of permanently attaching a screw in barlow.  That didn't work out so well as it vignetted the edges. 

 

EDIT:  5 in 4 groups

Yes I have the very similar Meade 4000 QX series and they are Erfle derivatives. The good here is that the eye position is the most forgiving of all wide angle designs. For that reason they are really great is long refractors and Maks. My 20mm is my favorite eyepiece to use with my classic f/15 refractors. Of the QX series, the worst performer is the 26mm, but even that one is fine at f/15. For me, eye comfort is far more important that absolute performance at the edge. I always use driven scopes anyway so I'm not worried about the edge for the most part. I have an entire set of UWAs and they get the least use of all my eyepieces, unless they are required (at f/4.5) because they are so picky about eye position.

 

-drl

[Astroyesmer]

The 20mm SWA are my most used binoviewer eyepieces for birding. They are not just good for binoviewing but excellent. I do own a pair of 25mm paradigm and a pair of 16mm UWA, respectively above and under the SWA, but the SWA just hit the sweet spot.

[cimar]

I have a pair of 15mm SWas and use it with my binoviewer, 1.7x glas path corrector and Lunt 80 DS.

[GrassLakeRon]

I would love Ernest to bench test these and see what his numbers are.

[Astroyesmer]

Well he somehow did: the agena SWA are basically clones of the WO SWAN (and Orion Q). There are a couple SWANs that made it to his bench.

[vtornado]

I was just fooling around the other night with the 32mm QX in an f/6 dob.

Stephenson 1 looked beautiful to me.  I know there are better corrected eyepieces.

[Astroyesmer]

I wonder if the 10mm SWAs would be a better pair for BV than my current 10mm Ultima Edge (aka APM UFF). The Ultima Edge has a 60° afov vs the 70° afov of the SWA which is why I would consider them (and the fact that the 20mm SWA is so good for BV). If anyone has compared them to the 10mm UFF? The latter are super comfortable to use though; maybe the 10mm SWA eye placement is not so good?

Edited by Astroyesmer, 22 June 2023 - 12:31 AM.

[CollinofAlabama]

David Knisely of Nebraska did a nice write-up of the series, the William Optics version, in his 2005 article.  A good read.  He thought the 20mm, 32mm & 38mm models were the best of the line, and like the OP Andy Miller, considered the 20mm the best of all.

Edited by CollinofAlabama, 24 April 2025 - 11:10 AM.