25 replies to this topic

[Derek W]

Does anyone have any experiences with that EP on a fast scope?
(f4.7)

All the reviews I've read look really good.

The eyepiece is between 5 and 8 - so does that mean every value (5.3, 6.8, 7.3 and etc..) would be available? Or does it stop just at the values between 5 and 8?

For anyone who has it... how's the eye relief? Is it good for planetary viewing? I don't want to buy othros below 10 due to the eye relief... I'm hoping this piece could solve all my needs for views under 10.

(and of course, I absolutely love the idea of the wide field views you get)

[David Knisely]

Does anyone have any experiences with that EP on a fast scope?
(f4.7)

All the reviews I've read look really good.

The eyepiece is between 5 and 8 - so does that mean every value (5.3, 6.8, 7.3 and etc..) would be available? Or does it stop just at the values between 5 and 8?

For anyone who has it... how's the eye relief? Is it good for planetary viewing? I don't want to buy othros below 10 due to the eye relief... I'm hoping this piece could solve all my needs for views under 10.

(and of course, I absolutely love the idea of the wide field views you get)

Yes, the eyepiece is quite good, as I have used it on scopes as short as a 10 inch f/4.8 Meade Dob. Its focal length is continuously variable from about 5 to 8 mm (mine is 4.9 to 7.9mm), so you basically can pick the power that you most like as you look at the object (you do have to refocus, so it isn't a true zoom eyepiece). It has fair eye relief (on the order of 12mm), so glasses wearers might have to take them off. It is also a good planetary eyepiece. I used it with a 2x Powermate and my 10 inch f/5.6 Newtonian during the Mars Opposition public night we had at Hyde Observatory, and we got great views of the planet. Clear skies to you.

[Derek W]

That's quite nice to hear.

Now I just have to find a way to justify spending 230 dollars on it..

Suppose I could start cruising the auction sites.

[Tom L]

Derek, I haven't seen one hit Astromart in a looooong time (I've been looking for a month).

[Derek W]

Ahh, that stinks.

From what I hear, they were brought back again due to popular demand.(the new models being better) Yeah, people really seem attatched to this eyepiece...

So even if one does pop up on an auction site, you'd probably want to know when it was made...

I suppose 230 is worth it, if you consider the range of quality magnification you're getting.

I had planned on grabbing a nagler t6 13mm as my first premium... but this waler is sounding awefully nice..

[Tom L]

Sounds like we are in the same boat then...I'm thinking about the 7mm Nagler T6 as my first premium but the 5-8 zoom has jumped ahead of it (I want a quality, wide FOV in high power to use with the dob).

[Oldfield]

People used to say dust will get into the zoom rather easily, not first hand experience however.

[Derek W]

With the walers, they tend to go down in quality as the magnification decreases. The 24 isn't nearly as good as the 10. (especially true in fast scopes)

Under 14mm, though, and it sounds like they're really tough to beat.

I've also heard that their newer line of 82 degree widefields are better than the older 72 degree models.

[David Knisely]

I have never heard a bad thing said about any of the Speers-Waler range of EP'S. However, I gather that they are quite difficult to track down in the US.

The only additional thing to consider is that if you live in a light polluted area, the wide angle will make things worse. For that reason, I intend to buy the Vixen LV 8-24mm Zoom. Considering I live in the UK, its a bargain at $225.

Stephen

Well, I do like the 5-8 Speers, but it would be wise to avoid the 24mm Speers Waler, as it does not do well except in moderate to longer focal lengths (read the review of it on Cloudynights). Even the 30mm WideScan III performs better. The design was obviously pushed past a reasonable amount of field, as the eyepiece really gets hammered at short f/ratios (lots of astigmatism). Clear skies to you.

[Tom T]

I'm becoming "QUITE* fond of the 5-8 that Helix sent in for review. It's a wonderful eyepiece with one caveat.

It's *not* a planetary eyepeice.

If you want to use it for DSO's I *highly* recommend it. In fact, I suspect that's going to be my next eyepiece purchase.

However if you want a wide field eyepeiece that excels both on DSO's and planets, I highly recommend the t6 naglers.

Tom T.

[David Knisely]

I'm becoming "QUITE* fond of the 5-8 that Helix sent in for review. It's a wonderful eyepiece with one caveat.

It's *not* a planetary eyepeice.

If you want to use it for DSO's I *highly* recommend it. In fact, I suspect that's going to be my next eyepiece purchase.

However if you want a wide field eyepeiece that excels both on DSO's and planets, I highly recommend the t6 naglers.

Tom T.

I can't agree with this assessment at all Tom. It can be quite successfully used as a Planetary eyepiece. It may not be quite "the best" planetary eyepiece, but it is a good one. I had some of my best views of Mars using it in my 10 inch f/5.6 Newtonian last year, and it performs quite well for both Deep-sky and for the planets. Clear skies to you.

[Tom L]

Tom, this isn't a good statement to read. I would be getting it for just that reason...planetary and lunar viewing. You made the statement, the question not answered is Why?

I would love to have a couple of T6s, but 2 of them cost as much as my scope and I just don't have money to spend like that. The orthos are great, but a little to narrow in the FOV department.

[Derek W]

I think I can agree with both David and Tom T.

I figured this eyepiece wouldn't be considered a top of the line planetary eye-piece. Most wide-fields aren't. Heck, Orthos do as well or better than most naglers on planets, at least in my research.

But I did want to know that it would be at least solid, and 'good' to use on planets. And it sounds like it is, according to David and others.

For me, it would be serving the dual purpose of providing high powered views of DSOs(which I spend more time on) and planets... with a wonderful wide field.

[Tom T]

Well sure - I suppose ANY eyepiece can be a planetary eyepiece if you want to get into semantics. Additionally what eyepieces you choose depend on a lot of things - your tolerances, conditions, wants and needs.

For some, it's wide-field may outweigh it's other minor shortcomings. Personally, I find the lateral chromatic abberation to be a little more than I like for planetary eyepieces (it is a bit worse than the naglers). And in detailed comparisions, I (and several others - including my frequent observing partner Keith) have found it's just not (quite) as sharp as say the nagler 3-6 zoom, a good ortho or a nagler t6.

No, It's not terrible - but the others are slightly better. *personally*, I'd prefer an UO ortho. IMO, it (the speers) does really shine on the wide field which can be helpful if you don't like nudging your dob. Obviously YMMV, for casual looks it's fine. For detailed critical planetary study, personally I'd prefer one of the other eyepieces mentioned.

It is a *great* compliment to the 3-6 zoom tho (and yes, there are sharper eyepeices than that as well - it just depends on what you want), and a *wonderful* widefield eyepiece. Just don't expect an 80+ deg ortho. When the seeing is so-so, you may not see a whole lot of difference. But it's there - at least in the sample I have.

Sure it does ok on planets, but there are other eyepieces I would buy first if my primary use was lunar and planetary study.

But this is really picking nits.

Like I said tho - even considering that I think I'm going to be picking one up myself - it is absolutely wonderful for DSO's.

Tom T.

[matt]

Wow. Puzzling thread. Reading Dave's statement, I thought, dang, I'm down $230. Then Tom says it's not a planetary eyepiece.
So, as I have my little idea as to what I like in a planetary eyepiece , how sharp is the 5-8 compared to other "eyepiece people use to observe planets", such as the UO Orthos, TV plossls and Radians,etc?

[Tom L]

Hmmm...that was the reason I sold my Antares W70s, although the 8.6mm was a really decent EP, not that I'm trying to compare the S-W 5-8...especially since I have never actually seen one. Thanks for the honesty Tom...sounds like I need to view through one before buying it.

[Tom T]

Tom, Matt -

FWIW, it's better than the W70's. It's just lunar and planetary is one spot where I tend to get really critical. But lemme put it this way. I've seen it and I stil lthink I'm gonna be down $230. As a matter of fact, I think several of the guys at the star party last weekend are going to be picking em up.

Compared to the others I mentioned - it's mainly a differences of inches - not miles. But IME for planetary observers, that last inch can make all the difference.

If you REALLY want exceptional planetary performance - the supermonos or the AP superplanetaries might be worth considering.... But many folks may not feel the incremental improvement is worth the extra $$$.

Remember in optics you pay $$$$ to go that last little bit - only you can tell what your price performance point is.

Don't by the zoom if you are looking for an ultimate planetary performer. Do by the zoom if you are looking for a nice compromise eyepiece that has a great FOV and is wonderful on DSO's.

Tom T.

[Tom L]

Tom, I figured it was better than the W70s and I want you to be critical when it comes to what you see, because I don't have access to EPs like you do. Seriously, the W70s bothered me enough to get rid of them and I do love my orthos. They make me happy every time I get a chance to use them...they're so cheap and perform so well!

I wish I had more cash to throw at this hobby but I don't right now...but that doesn't stop me from wanting the best view I can get considering my equipment and my sky conditions. It is in the 5-8mm range for max mag on a given night. Rarely do I get a chance to use my UO 5mm HD, but I do get to use the 7 and 9 all the time.

To me, it just pushed the Nagler 7mm T6 back to the top of the list...I still want to see what the 5-8 can do though and I have certainly not given up on it...just need to try it first.

Thanks...Tom

[half meter]

T,

Since you already have a 13mm T6 Nagler, why not get a Powermate instead?

[Tom T]

Gary,

Heck, I already have a 9mm t6, 7mm t6, the nagler 3-6 zoom, and one of the best barlows on the market (and that's just the first string - I've also got HD and classic orthos, as well as a kellner I haven't even tried yet and some other things down in those focal lengths). Bottom line is, I *really* don't need the speers-waler 5-8, but I liked it that much...

T

[David Knisely]

Tom Tuscock wrote:

For some, it's wide-field may outweigh it's other minor shortcomings. Personally, I find the lateral chromatic abberation to be a little more than I like for planetary eyepieces (it is a bit worse than the naglers). And in detailed comparisions, I (and several others - including my frequent observing partner Keith) have found it's just not (quite) as sharp as say the nagler 3-6 zoom, a good ortho or a nagler t6.

This is puzzling. I see very little or no lateral color with my 5-8 Speers Waler except perhaps at the very edge of the field of view. I see it in the Naglers however. The sharpness "difference" is a whole lot less than many seem to make it out to be (its better than the 6.4mm Meade "Super Plossl" in both field and image quality). I compared it to my 14mm Ultrawide "Powermated" to 5.6mm, and the image was noticably brighter and a bit sharper in the Speers Waler (for obvious reasons). I used to love letting the moon "sail by" with the 14mm+Powermate combination, but now, I just use the 5-8 Speers for that purpose, even if it doesn't have quite the field of view of the 14 Ultrawide. Clear skies to you.

[Tom T]

David,

1) As per lateral color - don't you have the older version? I don't know if there were any changes or not, but I do wonder. IT's also possible that some of my elements aren't aligned exactly right - but the eyepiece is so nice otherwise, I sort of doubt it. Perhaps we have different tolerances for lateral color. Additionally, "Which" naglers are you comparing it too? T1? T2? T4? T5? T6? And that leads into:

2) Which 6.4 Meade SP in particular? There were several different versions, and some are quite a bit better than others. 5 element? 4 element Japan? 4 element China? Etc...

Tom T.

[David Knisely]

David,

1) As per lateral color - don't you have the older version? I don't know if there were any changes or not, but I do wonder. IT's also possible that some of my elements aren't aligned exactly right - but the eyepiece is so nice otherwise, I sort of doubt it. Perhaps we have different tolerances for lateral color. Additionally, "Which" naglers are you comparing it too? T1? T2? T4? T5? T6? And that leads into:

2) Which 6.4 Meade SP in particular? There were several different versions, and some are quite a bit better than others. 5 element? 4 element Japan? 4 element China? Etc...

Tom T.

Hi Tom. Well, I see lateral color in the current 20mm Nagler, as well as a little on the 31mm, but that occurs only in the very outermost portions of the field and is not really much of an issue (its less color than I see in the Meade 14mm Ultrawide). The Meade 6.4mm is a 5-element version which was in production in the late 1980's (not a bad eyepiece, but not exactly outstanding either). As for the 5-8 SW, it was the first run that they made before it got temporarily "discontinued". It shows no sign of any chromatic aberration (unless I am using it in my 4 inch f/6 achromat :-)), as I verified last night. It shows only a hint of slight astigmatism at the field edge, but no other problems. I wish the eye relief was better (my eyelashes are making a mess on the eye lens), and wish that the back surface of the eye lens was not flat (causes problems with reflections from local light sources). It might be interesting to compare our two 5-8's sometime, although the coatings in both cases are lesser in quality than those of any of the Tele Vue products. Its no Tele Vue, but considering the cost difference, I suppose one shouldn't expect it to be. Clear skies to you.

[Craig L]

Gary,

Heck, I already have a 9mm t6, 7mm t6, the nagler 3-6 zoom, and one of the best barlows on the market (and that's just the first string - I've also got HD and classic orthos, as well as a kellner I haven't even tried yet and some other things down in those focal lengths). Bottom line is, I *really* don't need the speers-waler 5-8, but I liked it that much...

T

Hi Tom, all,

I have the Nagler 3-6mm, and 7mm & 9mm Nagler t6's, as well as the SW 5-8. All have their place in the kit. The SW was used very effectively on Mars during this past apparition, and it is wonderful on DSO's. I did compare the 7mm NT6 and the SW on one of the recent comets this past fall. The SW and the 7mm showed the same faint detail and very faint field stars. The SW gave up very little (if anything) to the Nagler.

As for dust getting into the zoom, well, maybe if you stored it out of its box with the zoom fully extended, you might have an issue. Common sense and proper storage should keep out andy foreign matter. Antares, like Televue, will service their products. My new one came with a small smudge on one of the internal lenses. I sent it back to Antares directly for cleaning, and they had it back to me in under two weeks.

Cheers,

- Craig