Hi Floyd: [written April 9th]
Thanks again for letting me keep your 22mm a couple of extra days. Went out to Brantley Lake last night to make some comparative observations between your 22mm, the 17mm, and my newly-acquired 20mm. I intended to do a lot more observing but the moon hung in until 4 a.m., hampering my views of deep-sky objects. I had a little over an hour to work between the eyepieces. To make a long story short, if money was no object, I'd keep both the 17mm and the 22mm. Each eyepiece seems to have its own "character" beyond what can be explained by varying focal lengths. For example, M27 in the 22mm was just breathtaking. The view had an almost 3D appeal to it as if the nebula was floating in the foreground, against a backdrop of stars. The views of M27 were great in the 17mm and the 20mm also, but that "3D" effect was definitely not as pronounced. Other objects, such as M11 and M57 were more suitable for the 20mm. In fact, the best view of M57 was had with my Nagler 12mm T4. I also looked at the Veil Nebula, Omega Centauri, M17, M20, and M8 before retiring for the night.
The 17mm and 22mm T4 Naglers are just amazing. They are very comfortable to look through, excellent eye relief, bright, contrasty images, and sharp across the entire FOV. Kidney beaning and blackouts were easy to induce, especially in the 22mm - HOWEVER! pulling out the click stops on the Insta-Just a couple of notches solved this problem entirely.
I regard the 20mm T5 Nagler as an improvement over the T2 from the standpoint of eye relief, brightness, and contrast. However, the 20mm T5 doesn't have the same "immersive" space walk view that you get with the 20mm T2. This is a highly subjective thing of course. YMMV. Barlowed, my 20mm Nagler outperforms the 9mm T1 Nagler in nearly all departments - brightness, contrast, eye relief, and sharpness, while yielding almost the same magnification. So, I can sell my excellent 9mm Nagler with a clear conscience. BTW, I was using the 2" TeleVue Big Barlow. But, for aesthetic reasons, I think the 17mm and 22mm Naglers are both better performers than the 20mm T5.
You're right about the Meade Series 4000 14mm - very nice EP. However, I think the 12mm Nagler T4 gave a brighter - as well as larger - image and with better contrast than the Meade - no small feat considering the larger image offered by the 12mm. The Meade was a bit more forgiving than the Naglers when it came to eye placement. Much less subject to kidney beans and blackouts. I may eventually sell the Meade 14mm just because it's so close to the Nagler 12mm, but for now, I'll keep it - at least until Al makes a 14mm Nagler! Certainly the Meade 14mm UWA fits nicely into my spread which now looks like this:
Nagler 31 T5
Nagler 20 T5
Meade UWA 14
Nagler 12
Barlowed 20mm (replaces 9mm Nagler)
Thanks again for letting me keep your 22mm a couple of extra days. Went out to Brantley Lake last night to make some comparative observations between your 22mm, the 17mm, and my newly-acquired 20mm. I intended to do a lot more observing but the moon hung in until 4 a.m., hampering my views of deep-sky objects. I had a little over an hour to work between the eyepieces. To make a long story short, if money was no object, I'd keep both the 17mm and the 22mm. Each eyepiece seems to have its own "character" beyond what can be explained by varying focal lengths. For example, M27 in the 22mm was just breathtaking. The view had an almost 3D appeal to it as if the nebula was floating in the foreground, against a backdrop of stars. The views of M27 were great in the 17mm and the 20mm also, but that "3D" effect was definitely not as pronounced. Other objects, such as M11 and M57 were more suitable for the 20mm. In fact, the best view of M57 was had with my Nagler 12mm T4. I also looked at the Veil Nebula, Omega Centauri, M17, M20, and M8 before retiring for the night.
The 17mm and 22mm T4 Naglers are just amazing. They are very comfortable to look through, excellent eye relief, bright, contrasty images, and sharp across the entire FOV. Kidney beaning and blackouts were easy to induce, especially in the 22mm - HOWEVER! pulling out the click stops on the Insta-Just a couple of notches solved this problem entirely.
I regard the 20mm T5 Nagler as an improvement over the T2 from the standpoint of eye relief, brightness, and contrast. However, the 20mm T5 doesn't have the same "immersive" space walk view that you get with the 20mm T2. This is a highly subjective thing of course. YMMV. Barlowed, my 20mm Nagler outperforms the 9mm T1 Nagler in nearly all departments - brightness, contrast, eye relief, and sharpness, while yielding almost the same magnification. So, I can sell my excellent 9mm Nagler with a clear conscience. BTW, I was using the 2" TeleVue Big Barlow. But, for aesthetic reasons, I think the 17mm and 22mm Naglers are both better performers than the 20mm T5.
You're right about the Meade Series 4000 14mm - very nice EP. However, I think the 12mm Nagler T4 gave a brighter - as well as larger - image and with better contrast than the Meade - no small feat considering the larger image offered by the 12mm. The Meade was a bit more forgiving than the Naglers when it came to eye placement. Much less subject to kidney beans and blackouts. I may eventually sell the Meade 14mm just because it's so close to the Nagler 12mm, but for now, I'll keep it - at least until Al makes a 14mm Nagler! Certainly the Meade 14mm UWA fits nicely into my spread which now looks like this:
Nagler 31 T5
Nagler 20 T5
Meade UWA 14
Nagler 12
Barlowed 20mm (replaces 9mm Nagler)
