I have a C-14 and need to fill in the gap between my 12mm and 26mm Naglers. I can afford ONE more. What do you think - 17mm? 20mm? Any reason to prefer one over the other in terms of eye relief, "kidney bean," etc. Thanks for your advice! - Chuck
Best Nagler Between 12mm and 26mm?
Started by TheDesertSage, 02/17/2006 01:37AM
Posted 02/17/2006 01:37AM
Opening Post
Posted 02/17/2006 03:40AM
#2
20mm T-2 is my choice. Heavy, but really one of the best. I have used it and a 20mm T-5 and I prefered the look in the T-2.
[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue
Amateur Imager
Posted 02/17/2006 05:27AM
#3
Lotta votes for the 20 mm T-5 here. I can't really speak to that one as I've not had the pleasure of trying it, but I DO have the 17 mm T-4, and I don't EVER plan on selling it. Much better eye relief than the T-6's, along with a bigger eye lens, marvelously flat field in my f/6 scope, and a very nice field in my f/4.7...great contrast, too. A real keeper!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico
Posted 02/17/2006 03:57PM
#4
Hi Chuck,
OY, tough call. Too bad the 17 and 20 are too close to buy both without feeling kinda guilty...
Haven't tried the 20, but that 17T4 is one of my most beloved EP's. Comfortable eye relief and less difficult to avoid kidneybeaning than the 12T4, which I also have.
My only gripe with the 17T4 is that it makes me nervous, with that big bubble field lens on the bottom. I always feel like I have to be ultra-careful when handling it.
Mike
OY, tough call. Too bad the 17 and 20 are too close to buy both without feeling kinda guilty...
Haven't tried the 20, but that 17T4 is one of my most beloved EP's. Comfortable eye relief and less difficult to avoid kidneybeaning than the 12T4, which I also have.
My only gripe with the 17T4 is that it makes me nervous, with that big bubble field lens on the bottom. I always feel like I have to be ultra-careful when handling it.
Mike
Posted 02/17/2006 04:22PM
#5
The 17T4 is parfocal (or so close it doesn't matter) to the 26mm T5. It is a nice step up in mag right between the 12 and 26. It was Uncle Al who pointed that out to me, though, at the time, I had the 17T4 and was looking to get the 26T5. That comment ended up sealing the deal.
They are all excellent eyepieces in any case and I enjoy them all regularly.
David Moody
They are all excellent eyepieces in any case and I enjoy them all regularly.
David Moody
Posted 02/17/2006 04:37PM
| Edited 02/17/2006 07:13PM
#6
Hi Chuck,
Oh, and another thing, if you go by the square-root-of-two magnification step rule, 17mm fits rather nicely between 26 and 12:
26/(2^0.5) ~ 18.41
17/(2^0.5) ~ 12.06
The magnification jump from 26 to 17 is a little large but the jump from 17 to 12 is perfect.
Mike
Oh, and another thing, if you go by the square-root-of-two magnification step rule, 17mm fits rather nicely between 26 and 12:
26/(2^0.5) ~ 18.41
17/(2^0.5) ~ 12.06
The magnification jump from 26 to 17 is a little large but the jump from 17 to 12 is perfect.
Mike
