30 replies to this topic

[Scorn54321]

Dear all,

 

I have just received a new Nagler 22m. This is hopefully not an issue, but I've noticed that the metal bottom half (the section below below the green and black) seems to twist round and round in both directions. It doesn't seem to tighten to anything, or to loosen. I've stopped trying because I'm worried about doing some sort of damage to it. The instajust function seems fine.

 

Is this normal for this eyepiece? Or should I be worried about something? I've noticed the bottom half of other eyepieces sometimes can move in a similar way, but they all then tighten quickly with a few turns. 

 

I haven't been able to test the N22m yet - and might not for a while - due to some unrelated issues with my focuser. So if there is an issue with it, I don't want to leave it hanging until I can eventually use it.

 

Thank you, and sorry if this is a stupid question.

[Daveatvt01]

If you pull the instajust all the way up, does the silver metal barrel on the bottom spin in relation to the black barrel just above it? That would be abnormal as far as I know.

The instajust part (on the outer, upper portion) should spin freely in relation to the rest of the eyepiece.

[SoCalPaul]

Hey Scorn,

 

I checked my 22t4, and it tightens.

 

But I think you may be twisting the wrong portion.

 

The upper, black barrel is divided into two parts.

 

There is a thin band where it says TeleVue 22mm Nagler type 4 in green, with double sets of green lines above and below. That band twists separately from the barrel above it, and is what locks things in place. (Not the chrome barrel, that will not lock it.)

 

Let us know if this solves the issue.

 

Clear skies,

Paul

 

EDIT - I may have misunderstood. Even when my upper barrel is fully tightened, the chrome lower barrel still rotates. I don't think this is an issue or problem, at least for me?

Edited by SoCalPaul, 15 March 2025 - 06:08 PM.

[Scorn54321]

Thank you. On closer inspection, if I pull the instadjust all the way up, the part that is rotating freely is the lower chrome barrel, and the last part of the black section which is attached to the chrome and which is immediately beneath the thin band with the Televue print .

 

I've attached a photo which makes this clearer, identifying the part that rotates in yellow. 

 

Edited by Scorn54321, 15 March 2025 - 07:06 PM.

[Daveatvt01]

Yes, that is normal. 

[Scorn54321]

Phew! Thank you very much.

[Daveatvt01]

You're welcome!

Here's what the instajust looks like inside: https://www.cloudyni...ajust-question/

If you ever need to adjust it, you'll see firsthand why it spins freely (if you can't tell from the photos in the link above). It's interesting to see how things work inside

[Scorn54321]

Thanks, looks v useful - will check it out! 

[TayM57]

I got my N22T4 earlier this week, and it was tighter than the N22T4 I had several years ago. I took it apart anyway just to get an idea of how everything works.

 

I won't get a chance to first light it for at least a few weeks as rain is forecast for the foreseeable future. Might as well anyway, since I've been working on getting the under-correction on the edge on my 17.5" f/3.4 anyway.

[Starman1]

They do get looser with time.  Then, unscrew the ring with the focal length on it and use an old tooth brush to rough up the felt.

When you return the ring to the eyeguard, the up/down motion of the eyeguard will now take more effort.

 

The eyeguard will always rotate relative to the body of the eyepiece, and I think that was the OP's concern.

 

Of all the ideas Tele Vue has had over the years for eyeguard height adjustment, this one is the most amenable to outreach.

It can be adjusted to maximum for people who don't wear glasses, to minimum for people who do, with one hand in one second.

Instadjust was a good name.  I was always surprised how much people hated it.  The 22mm is the last one with the design.

All 10 of the others that had the eyeguard design are long-discontinued.

[vrodriguez2324]

I still have all of the T4s despite also having the 17.5 and 12.5 Morpheus. 

 

I've taken them apart, squeezed the ring to make it more elliptical than circular and then reassembled. Doing this increased the friction enough so that any changes to the height are now purposeful vs. accidental. 

 

As an observer that doesn't wear glasses I really appreciate the Instadjust feature. I will click up/down until I find a suitable position. What other eyepieces had the instadjust? I thought it was just the T4s. 

Edited by vrodriguez2324, 19 March 2025 - 01:27 PM.

[Starman1]

I still have all of the T4s despite also having the 17.5 and 12.5 Morpheus. 

 

I've taken them apart, squeezed the ring to make it more elliptical than circular and then reassembled. Doing this increased the friction enough so that any changes to the height are now purposeful vs. accidental. 

 

As an observer that doesn't wear glasses I really appreciate the Instadjust feature. I will click up/down until I find a suitable position. What other eyepieces had the instadjust? I thought it was just the T4s. 

All the 8 focal lengths of Radians.

[RichD]

I always liked instadjust. I find it works in practice better on the 2" T4s compared to the Radians, but it might be my examples.

[spencerj]

22mm Nagler T4 is an awesome eyepiece.  Very comfortable.  Very immersive.  I gave up my 17mm Ethos (which was incredible) a few years ago when I started wearing my glasses full time at the eyepiece.  I don't regret the decision.  For me, it is a better viewing experience.

[25585]

22mm Nagler T4 is an awesome eyepiece.  Very comfortable.  Very immersive.  I gave up my 17mm Ethos (which was incredible) a few years ago when I started wearing my glasses full time at the eyepiece.  I don't regret the decision.  For me, it is a better viewing experience.

My 17mm ES92 has a slightly narrower FoV, better/easier eye positioning and relief, and is more immersive, so I use that and my 22T4 has gone.

[Starman1]

My 17mm ES92 has a slightly narrower FoV, better/easier eye positioning and relief, and is more immersive, so I use that and my 22T4 has gone.

POV: I found the 17mm 92° excessively heavy (2x the weight of the 22mm T4), and with more SAEP than the 22mm T4, but equally sharp.

So I sold the 17mm 92° and kept the 22mm T4.

 

I think the 92° series is ES' best, and that they need to pare down the weight significantly more.  They are also very expensive now--$800, and that was before any new Chinese tariff.

They are out of stock everywhere now, and I wonder if they will simply be gone as a series.  I doubt they'd sell at $1000 each.

[SoCalPaul]

POV: I found the 17mm 92° excessively heavy (2x the weight of the 22mm T4), and with more SAEP than the 22mm T4, but equally sharp...

SAEP?

 

Clear skies,

Paul

[Starman1]

SAEP?

 

Clear skies,

Paul

Spherical Aberration of the Exit Pupil:

https://www.handprin...O/ae4.html#SAEP

 

It is sometimes referred to as "Kidney bean blackouts".

Bruce's illustrations explain it well.

[SoCalPaul]

Spherical Aberration of the Exit Pupil:

https://www.handprin...O/ae4.html#SAEP

 

It is sometimes referred to as "Kidney bean blackouts".

Bruce's illustrations explain it well.

Thanks!

 

Paul

[Highburymark]

22mm Nagler T4 is an awesome eyepiece. Very comfortable. Very immersive. I gave up my 17mm Ethos (which was incredible) a few years ago when I started wearing my glasses full time at the eyepiece. I don't regret the decision. For me, it is a better viewing experience.

I replaced an APM 20mm XWA 100 degree with the Nagler 22mm. Nothing wrong with the APM, it is something of a bargain. But the Nagler is slightly better corrected in my scopes, and I like the Instadjust. For me it is the classic, archetypal TeleVue eyepiece. I suspect the Type 7 range will lead to its discontinuation before too long, so I’m happy to have one.

[Highburymark]

POV: I found the 17mm 92° excessively heavy (2x the weight of the 22mm T4), and with more SAEP than the 22mm T4, but equally sharp.
So I sold the 17mm 92° and kept the 22mm T4.

I think the 92° series is ES' best, and that they need to pare down the weight significantly more. They are also very expensive now--$800, and that was before any new Chinese tariff.
They are out of stock everywhere now, and I wonder if they will simply be gone as a series. I doubt they'd sell at $1000 each.

Twice the weight of a Nag 22? Wow. There have been a couple of different ES 92s on UK classifieds recently at very cheap prices - £250/$300-ish. And they were around for a long time. Optically, from what I read in reports, they are highly rated. So perhaps we have reached the end of the behemoth eyepiece era?

[TayM57]

My 17mm ES92 has a slightly narrower FoV, better/easier eye positioning and relief, and is more immersive, so I use that and my 22T4 has gone.

 

 

POV: I found the 17mm 92° excessively heavy (2x the weight of the 22mm T4), and with more SAEP than the 22mm T4, but equally sharp.

So I sold the 17mm 92° and kept the 22mm T4.

 

You are both right. 17ES92 is easier than the N22T4, but has more SAEP to boot. The 17ES92 is also very heavy, which is one of the main reasons why I sold mine. It's just too heavy with a stack involving the P2, and worse, the 2x TV PM. For me, the weight was attributable to the moonlight focuser loosing axial alignment with the focuser axis. It didn't cause balance issues unless I also put the 2x TV PM in the stack. 

 

In a feathertouch focuser, I may be OK with the 17/12 ES92 in a stack with the P2 and the 2x PM. 

 

Another very minor annoyance with the 12/17 ES92's was the fact I had to look through the eye lens at a very slight tilt, because of the big barrel. 

[25585]

POV: I found the 17mm 92° excessively heavy (2x the weight of the 22mm T4), and with more SAEP than the 22mm T4, but equally sharp.

So I sold the 17mm 92° and kept the 22mm T4.

 

I think the 92° series is ES' best, and that they need to pare down the weight significantly more.  They are also very expensive now--$800, and that was before any new Chinese tariff.

They are out of stock everywhere now, and I wonder if they will simply be gone as a series.  I doubt they'd sell at $1000 each.

I do not experience SAEP with either ES92, but did with the 22T4 (and 31T5), in all cases wearing glasses.

[TayM57]

I do not experience SAEP with either ES92, but did with the 22T4 (and 31T5), in all cases wearing glasses.

I found the 12ES92 to have more SAEP than the 17ES92. Don found the opposite to be true.

 

I've never experienced SAEP that I can recall of in the N31T5. That's surprising to me, considering I have that EP.

[areyoukiddingme]

I found the 12ES92 to have more SAEP than the 17ES92. Don found the opposite to be true.

 

I've never experienced SAEP that I can recall of in the N31T5. That's surprising to me, considering I have that EP.

 

My experience too. The 17 ES had too little spherical aberration to be a concern, whereas with the 12mm I find I have to be quite careful with eye placement. It's quite tolerable, but noticable. 

 

I don't see spherical aberration in the 22 or 31 Naglers, but then I don't wear glasses to view.