Has anyone done a direct comparison of these eyepieces? I was a bit puzzled when the 20t5 came out. The 22mm and 17mm t4s would seem on paper to be the better choice with their greater eye relief. Perhaps there are telescopes that can handle the 1lb 20t5 but not the 1.5lb t4s? Perhaps the t5 is sharper at the edge in fast scopes? I do notice that my 17t4 is doesn't hold up as well towards the edge in my f4.5 reflector as it might. But it isn't bad at all, and I can't imagine replacing what for me is otherwise the perfect eyepiece with the t5 when it is more expensive and has much less eye relief. Still, I'm curious about this new t5 and haven't seem many reports about it. Anyone compared it to a t4?
22/17mm Nagler t4 vs. 20mm t5
Started by nils_schoultz, 12/20/2004 09:24PM
Posted 12/20/2004 09:24PM
Opening Post
Posted 12/20/2004 10:56PM
#1
The San Diego club ran a side-by-side comparison
in their Dec 2003 newsletter.
http://www.sdaa.org/_docs/_news/2003-12.pdf
"Eyepiece Shootout 16."
Basically they concluded that the 20 T5 had
better edge sharpness and light transmission.
Only advantage they cite for 22 T4 is better
eyerelief.
in their Dec 2003 newsletter.
http://www.sdaa.org/_docs/_news/2003-12.pdf
"Eyepiece Shootout 16."
Basically they concluded that the 20 T5 had
better edge sharpness and light transmission.
Only advantage they cite for 22 T4 is better
eyerelief.
Posted 12/21/2004 12:58PM
| Edited 12/21/2004 12:59PM
#2
I've had all of those and a 20 t2 to boot.
The 17mm t4 is one of those "special" eyepieces that seem to hit a near perfect spot in Al's line up. It's a classic for sure. The 22 t4, while an excellent eyepiece, just isn't *quite* sharp to the edge in many scopes. The 20 t5 is a nice lightweight design which is extremely contrasty and has probably become my most used eyepiece. The one drawback to the t5's is the "ring of fire" effect - but this (for most folks) is rarely (if ever) an issue.
The 20 t2 is a nice eyepiece, although light transmission is a bit lower than most of Al's current line-up. OTOH, it's a real beast size and weight wize. I preferred the 22 t4 to the 20 t2 because of the size and weight.
If weight, exact focal length, eye relief and cost aren't a concern, my preference would probably be 17 t4, the 20 t5, 20 t2 then 22 t4.
My primary line up is currently:
40mm widefield, 26mm t5 nagler, 20mm t5, 13t6, 9t6, Speers 5-8 and nagler 3-6.
I've "settled" on these after extensive use of most of the other naglers on the market as a best fit for my scope and my observing styles.
YMMV.
T
The 17mm t4 is one of those "special" eyepieces that seem to hit a near perfect spot in Al's line up. It's a classic for sure. The 22 t4, while an excellent eyepiece, just isn't *quite* sharp to the edge in many scopes. The 20 t5 is a nice lightweight design which is extremely contrasty and has probably become my most used eyepiece. The one drawback to the t5's is the "ring of fire" effect - but this (for most folks) is rarely (if ever) an issue.
The 20 t2 is a nice eyepiece, although light transmission is a bit lower than most of Al's current line-up. OTOH, it's a real beast size and weight wize. I preferred the 22 t4 to the 20 t2 because of the size and weight.
If weight, exact focal length, eye relief and cost aren't a concern, my preference would probably be 17 t4, the 20 t5, 20 t2 then 22 t4.
My primary line up is currently:
40mm widefield, 26mm t5 nagler, 20mm t5, 13t6, 9t6, Speers 5-8 and nagler 3-6.
I've "settled" on these after extensive use of most of the other naglers on the market as a best fit for my scope and my observing styles.
YMMV.
T
Funding Member
