Putting FOV aside, how good is Nagler?

Post by **acc** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:52 pm

I wear glasses and on the 5, 7, 9 and 13mm T6 Nagler, I can just about see the entire FOV when I press my glasses slightly against the eye-cups. I find field-curvature very annoying, and that's one reason I have not gone with the XWs despite their superior comfort in use. BTW, at any of those focal lengths, the T6 beats the plossls easily in terms of comfort-of-use

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:02 pm

The field curvature is only apparent on 14mm and 20mm Pentax. 10mm and less the EPs are pretty flat IMO.

Arief

Canopus Lim · Post by **Canopus Lim** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 am

ACC,

Did you fold down the eyecups when you are using with your glasses? I have yet to try it with glasses as I usually observe without my glasses.

Post by **acc** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:05 am

Usually I do not. But for the lower focal lengths < 9mm, I take off my glasses anyway as my astig won't intefere.

anat · Post by **anat** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:26 am

CC:

Do you think that 13mm T6 Nagler is comfortable for eye glasses with an eyecup folded down? From varouis reviews, people have mixed feelings about the 12T4 but the 13T6 impresses most people. And it is likely that the sliding eyecup (instadjust) in the Nagler T4 would bother me

Anat

Post by **acc** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:15 am

Hmm that's a tough one to answer cos' I suppose it depends a lot on the style and shape of your glasses. For me, I find it an acceptable compromise in return for the wide fov and flat field (though I eventually gave up the 13T6 for a Meade 4k 14mm UWA for other reasons)

Yes the T4 sliding eyecup is a pain in the axx. I had the 22T4 for a few months and never got used to it, plus it frequently gave me heart-attacks if it starts to slip when I lift up the ep. The 22mm showed significant coma at F4.7. Not worth the $$ IMO.

Canopus Lim · Post by **Canopus Lim** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:10 pm

My 17T4 instajust is alright. It will not slide down when you hold the barrel and there is no worry if the eyepiece will just drop off from the instajust housing. If I am not wrong newer versions of the T4, after certain year (can't remember which year) all have better instajust tension. If you buy it new, it should be the latest version. Many people who complain about it being loose is probably refering to the old batches. Actually to adjust the position is easy as it is click stop unlike other eyepieces that does not have discrete steps. I usually will turn the barrel clockwise while pushing upwards as it is smoother than pushing it up alone. It is much faster than rotating like the TMB Burgess eyepieces or any other eyepieces that has 'analog' eyeguard adjustments which has a limitation because you do not know where is the point where it gives the best comfort. I won't say the instajust is the best way of doing, but it works and is fast.

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:45 pm

Last night at Mersing, I tested the Pentax 14XL with the Meade 14mm UWA 5000 series on the 11" f/5. The UWA 14 is smaller and lighter, gives quite comfortable view up to 65deg AFOV limit with my spectacles on. However, I find that the field is not as sharp to the edge as a Nagler, and to me, the 14XL performs better (sharper) than the UWA 14 and is much more comfortable. Comfort is a very important factor for me especially for overnight sessions, and for extended observation sessions when I want to tease out minute details from an image.

Also, the 20XW has significant improvement when used with the Paracorr. 14XL does not need it. The 40XW actually works better without the Paracorr!

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:35 pm

Should've compare it against the series 4000 14mm UWA (Japanese lens). The new series 5000 UWA (chinese lens) is considered significantly inferior to the 4000 series.

Arief

Post by **acc** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:55 pm

ariefm71 wrote:Should've compare it against the series 4000 14mm UWA (Japanese lens). The new series 5000 UWA (chinese lens) is considered significantly inferior to the 4000 series.

Arief

I have experience with 3 eps with from each of the range and to say that the 5k is significantly inferior to the 4k is gross injustice (probably started by some obviously biased users' views on cloudynights). The initial batches of the 5k does have QC issues but good ones are otherwise equal to or almost on par with equivalent nagler t6s. So if you want to save some $ and support some good competition/alternative to Mr Nagler, do give the Meade 5k a well-deserved consideration

I just hope meade has solved the qc issues. Problems I encountered (in year 2005) included rattling lens and elephant-size junk in the eps: all the affected eps were happily replaced by Meade.