294 replies to this topic

[RCLARK28]

Does anyone know how long the sale is on these AT-UWA's?

[Starman1]

Does anyone know how long the sale is on these AT-UWA's?

Are they on sale, or is that just the regular price?

[RCLARK28]

I think that is the regular price. Not a sale price. Either way a good value.

Have a great day.

[Dave Bush]

Are they on sale, or is that just the regular price?

Their site says $20 off.  Regular $119 now $99.  

[Tangerman]

Their site says $20 off.  Regular $119 now $99.  

It's been like that for over a year. Their price has never actually been $119, it's always been "on sale." I would guess that it's marketing: by putting it on sale, you help people feel like they're getting a good deal and drive up demand. Plus, if you do feel the need to raise the price in the future, it's more palatable to see that it's no longer on sale than seeing a permanent price increase, even if they're functionally the same thing. And even at $119 these would be very good value.

[droid]

My overall view on these eyepieces is straight forward.

 

Are they Naglers, nope. But they're really good eyepieces. 

 

Are they perfect, nope. But they're really really good.

 

Are they worth 99 dollars, absolutely

could One build a first string kit, they would be an outstanding start, you would have to fill in several gaps in the focal lengths.

 

Would I recommend them, absolutely

 

With the understanding that if you wear glasses they may not be your cup of tea.

If your a long time observer and more demanding of perfection...these may not be your cup of tea.

 

I love these eyepieces,  and at 99 dollars , doubt I'm gonna find anything better. As always your usage may vary.

Edited by droid, 05 October 2023 - 01:41 PM.

[Princess Leah]

What is the eye relief of the 28mm? Are the two inch the same as the 1.25 inch?

[RoofMonkey911]

According to the specs listed, the 28mm UWA has 18mm of eye relief.

https://www.astronom...e.html?___SID=U
 

What is the eye relief of the 28mm? Are the two inch the same as the 1.25 inch?

[Jon Isaacs]

According to the specs listed, the 28mm UWA has 18mm of eye relief.

https://www.astronom...e.html?___SID=U
 

 

I think someone measured it, it's definitely less than 18mm, maybe 15mm. Longer than the 1.25 inch UWAs but shorter than the 31mm Nagler.

 

Jon

[scout]

I think someone measured it, it's definitely less than 18mm, maybe 15mm. Longer than the 1.25 inch UWAs but shorter than the 31mm Nagler.

Don's eyepiece guide says 15.5mm 

[Princess Leah]

Sounds pretty promising. Thanks for your help folks.

[Starman1]

What is the eye relief of the 28mm? Are the two inch the same as the 1.25 inch?

15.5mm eye relief.

There is only one 2" UWA in that series.  The 16mm, 13mm, 10mm, 7mm, and 4mm are all 1.25".

No, they don't all have the same eye relief.  The 1.25" ones have eye reliefs from 10-12mm.

Try downloading this spreadsheet:

https://www.cloudyni...ide/?p=12473522

[Exnihilo]

I finally went over to the dark side and got the 28mm, its really nice!

[RCLARK28]

I finally went over to the dark side and got the 28mm, its really nice!

The AT-UWA 28mm is really nice!

It has been almost a year since I started out with the 28mm. I really have enjoyed it and since acquired the full set. My goal was to just settle on these until I can budget for more expensive EP's.

*I do not feel like I settled now. I really have good views with my scopes. I can research and get what works for me now when I need. They are very impressive and not just for the price. These are under rated in my opinion and worth the time and effort to use.

[GeneT]

 

Started with the 28mm , I saw very little difference in performance in either scope. Very sharp, inky black sky, nice sharp stars, it's definitely a keeper.

With my 12.5 inch, F5 Portaball, I went from 31Nagler to a 22Nagler to a 13Ethos to a 10 Delos, 8, 6 and 4.5 Delos. I am a visual observer. I found going up to shorter focal lengths, say from 31 to 27 and from 22 to 17 to be a waste. A 22 to a 13 for me was just right. However, when moving to shorter focal length eyepieces and higher power, I found it helpful to use shorter increments. Like going from a 13 to a 10, then 8, 6 and 4.5. 

[RCLARK28]

With my 12.5 inch, F5 Portaball, I went from 31Nagler to a 22Nagler to a 13Ethos to a 10 Delos, 8, 6 and 4.5 Delos. I am a visual observer. I found going up to shorter focal lengths, say from 31 to 27 and from 22 to 17 to be a waste. A 22 to a 13 for me was just right. However, when moving to shorter focal length eyepieces and higher power, I found it helpful to use shorter increments. Like going from a 13 to a 10, then 8, 6 and 4.5. 

I find this very helpful. I intended on getting a 22Nagler and a 13Ethos. I have a club buddy that is going to spend some time with me and let me use his on some planned outings. My knowledge is limited at this point and my budget was set for a set of Delos EP's. But after trying the Nagler 22 and the Ethos 13 last month I am going to test and research more.

Thanks for the timely reply and feedback!.

[saemark30]

How do the AT 82 degs eyepieces compare with ES 82deg eyepieces made by JOC?

Are the Angeleye 82 deg eyepieces the same as the AT ones optically?

Edited by saemark30, 25 April 2024 - 10:20 AM.

[Starman1]

How do the AT 82 degs eyepieces compare with ES 82deg eyepieces made by JOC?

Are they Angeleye 82 deg eyepieces the same as the AT ones optically?

KunMing United Optics makes almost all the 82° eyepieces that aren't Tele Vue or Explore Scientific (also sold as OpticStar and MaxVision)

Barsta (BST) has their own line of 82° sold under a few labels.

Download the 2024 Eyepieces Buyer's Guide at the top of the Eyepieces Forum.

In the spreadsheet, there is a column of manufacturer and you can compare.

Right now, the KUO 82° eyepieces are sold under the following labels:

Angeleyes

Astrotech

Auriga

Lacerta

Meade

OVL

Sky Optic

Sky Rover

Sky Watcher

Stellarvue

Tecnosky

Telescope Service

Not every brand label has the entire set of 4, 7(8), 10, 13, 16(15), and 28mm focal lengths.

 

The number of actually different eyepieces out there is a much smaller number than the huge proliferation of brands would indicate.

Private label marketing is taking over the astronomy eyepiece market.

[SeattleScott]

In general I would say the ES have a little better reputation (just look at prices, new or used) but AT have a little more effective ER.

Ernest’s bench tests show the ES consistently outperforming the other series. I would even argue the “good” AT’s bench test around the same or a bit better than the “weak link” 14mm ES 82. Three of the ES were deemed to have excellent edge correction by Ernest but none of the other series. Of course if you have a slow scope this won’t matter much.

Ultimately the ES were really for people who wanted near TV performance for a fraction of the cost and could live with the tight ER. The AT’s are more a bargain value brand that offer good edge correction and a very wide field with more typical ER for a surprisingly low price. But they aren’t really targeting Naglers. They are good for the price but they won’t generally be mistaken for Naglers.

Edited by SeattleScott, 25 April 2024 - 10:22 AM.

[saemark30]

Look at the Maxvision line on Aliexpress for a cheaper version of the same ES line, or Angeleyes which seem to be the cheapest all around.

[Jon Isaacs]

How do the AT 82 degs eyepieces compare with ES 82deg eyepieces made by JOC?

Are they Angeleye 82 deg eyepieces the same as the AT ones optically?

 

It's been a while since I looked through an ES 82° and when I did, I was comparing them to the 31 mm Nagler and the 1.25 inch type 5 and Type 6 Nag.

 

I still have the Naglers and now have a complete set of XWAs. The 1.25 inch UWAs are variable with the 10 mm and 7 mm (8mm) being the best. They all feel much like the Naglers. I think the more eye relief than ES's but the ES's are somewhat sharper.

 

The 28 mm UWA is different. It's sharper and some say it's sharper than the 30 mm ES. I don't know. 

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 26 April 2024 - 02:43 AM.

[Starman1]

It's been a while since I looked through an ES 82° and when I did, I was comparing them to the 31 mm Nagler and the 1.25 inch type 5 and Type 6 Nag.

 

I still have the Naglers and now have a complete set of XWAs. The 1.25 inch XWAs are variable with the 10 mm and 7 mm (8mm) being the best. They all feel much like the Naglers. I think the more eye relief than ES's but the ES's are somewhat sharper.

 

The 28 mm UWA is different. It's sharper and some say it's sharper than the 30 mm ES. I don't know. 

 

Jon

You meant UWA in your 2nd line, where you typed XWA.

[Princess Leah]

In general I would say the ES have a little better reputation (just look at prices, new or used) but AT have a little more effective ER.

Ernest’s bench tests show the ES consistently outperforming the other series. I would even argue the “good” AT’s bench test around the same or a bit better than the “weak link” 14mm ES 82. Three of the ES were deemed to have excellent edge correction by Ernest but none of the other series. Of course if you have a slow scope this won’t matter much.

Ultimately the ES were really for people who wanted near TV performance for a fraction of the cost and could live with the tight ER. The AT’s are more a bargain value brand that offer good edge correction and a very wide field with more typical ER for a surprisingly low price. But they aren’t really targeting Naglers. They are good for the price but they won’t generally be mistaken for Naglers.

I'm I a simple mortal? I find the 14mm very pleasing.....

[SeattleScott]

I'm I a simple mortal? I find the 14mm very pleasing.....

And most people find the “good” AT UWAs very pleasing. The ES 82 series is good enough that even the “weak link” is quite respectable.

In this case, weak link means it is detectably worse than a TV Nagler in something like a F5 Dob. But if you aren’t spoiled by Naglers, the ES 14 will likely seem just dandy. As long as you are fine with the somewhat tight ER.

Edited by SeattleScott, 25 April 2024 - 11:01 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

You meant UWA in your 2nd line, where you typed XWA.

 

 

 

Thanks for catching my error.  I changed it to UWA.   I now also have a complete set of XWAs but that is irrelevant to this thread.

 

Jon