Hello all. I was hoping to get some last minute advice. I have asked several questions lately about purchasing Nagler or Pentax eyepieces. I have a new Meade 12" LX 200 GPS UHTC. I am not a total beginner, but I have been out of the hobby for many years. I also do not have the opportunity to go to many star parties to compare scopes and eyepieces, although I have gone to a couple in the last few months. With my schedule (I am a trial attorney), I view when I can get the chance, which is not all that often. And, there ar no local telescope shops. As such, I rely heavily upon these groups and written reviews.
I have the Meade eyepiece set, which I have put up for sale. I only have used (most of) the eyepieces a few times, but they are really good eyepieces, it seems. I had a limited chance to compare them to a Televue Plossl and Radian. The Radian was better, but the Meade was not too far off.
I know eyepiece differences are often nuanced, but I was very dissappointed recetly when I purchased a UO HD Orthoscpic 18mm. I felt it was equal or slightly inferior to the Meade Super Plossls of comparable focal length.
I have read so many positive things about the Nagler and Pentax eyepieces, but I read similar positive reviews on the UO ortho eyepieces (i.e., narrow fov and limited eye relief, but contrast and sharpness approaching a Radian).
I simply may have to buy a Nagler and try it (I have decided upon a Nagler as opposed to the Pentax), but is the Nagler that much sharper and "contrasty" than a Meade Super Plossl or is it basically as sharp and perhaps slightly less contrasty (given the extra lense elements), but sharp over the much larger fov and that is what you are paying for? Essentially equivalence in sharpness and clarity, but over a much wider fov and the "porthole effect"?
Or is the image seen in a Nagler a better image, not simply placed within a wider fov?
I guess I do not want to be dissappointed again. I was thinking of geting the 22 Nagler, which would give me about 138x and perhaps a 17 Nagler which would give me about 179x (the 18 UO HD ortho at slightly less power did not give a great image). And, I also thought about a 35 Panoptic.
You all have been very helpful and I appreciate the time reading this post and any assistance you can provide.
Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine
I have the Meade eyepiece set, which I have put up for sale. I only have used (most of) the eyepieces a few times, but they are really good eyepieces, it seems. I had a limited chance to compare them to a Televue Plossl and Radian. The Radian was better, but the Meade was not too far off.
I know eyepiece differences are often nuanced, but I was very dissappointed recetly when I purchased a UO HD Orthoscpic 18mm. I felt it was equal or slightly inferior to the Meade Super Plossls of comparable focal length.
I have read so many positive things about the Nagler and Pentax eyepieces, but I read similar positive reviews on the UO ortho eyepieces (i.e., narrow fov and limited eye relief, but contrast and sharpness approaching a Radian).
I simply may have to buy a Nagler and try it (I have decided upon a Nagler as opposed to the Pentax), but is the Nagler that much sharper and "contrasty" than a Meade Super Plossl or is it basically as sharp and perhaps slightly less contrasty (given the extra lense elements), but sharp over the much larger fov and that is what you are paying for? Essentially equivalence in sharpness and clarity, but over a much wider fov and the "porthole effect"?
Or is the image seen in a Nagler a better image, not simply placed within a wider fov?
I guess I do not want to be dissappointed again. I was thinking of geting the 22 Nagler, which would give me about 138x and perhaps a 17 Nagler which would give me about 179x (the 18 UO HD ortho at slightly less power did not give a great image). And, I also thought about a 35 Panoptic.
You all have been very helpful and I appreciate the time reading this post and any assistance you can provide.
Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine
