Well, I've looked through the 31mm Nagler before at RTMC and OPT. Annoyingly always, there was never enough eyepiece time as other people seem to always want to look through it too !@#$%. Big "mistake" looking through it ;-), pocketbook
wise I mean.
I struggled with the decision whether I should go with the 41mm Pan or 31mm NT5 for my NP127 yielding 4 degree FOV and 3.6 degree FOV respectively. I decided to go with the 31mm based on Al and David Nagler advice and that 0.4 degree FOV
was probably not a very noticeable tradeoff. Besides the 31mm give me a better exit pupil. I also considered the 35mm Pan but I felt the reduced FOV was just too much of a compromise for my NP127 ;-).
Taking the advantage of the knowledge of eminent price increase, I quickly ordered the 31mm Nagler NT5. I have to say up until before the order, my 2-4mm Nagler zoom was my most expensive eyepiece. Well, the 31mm Nagler surpasses it by a wide margin ;-), not only in price tag but also in size.
The 31mm Nagler has a nickname of the "grenade". Well, now that I have it and caressed it all afternoon today, my Light Cup rather aptly re-christened it a new nickname of the 31mm Nagler Psykter. Don't know what this it ;-)? Well, let the museum be your guide ;-). And I don't mind telling you it's quite a psych of an eyepiece ;-).
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/images/gr/images/gr1989.281.69.L.jpg
I have the 40mm Pentax XL. Although I like it just fine, it has some curvature near the edge of the FOV (a well known characteristics of this eyepiece I knew by reading Todd Gross' review before I bought it). So my first target was the
Orion belt through my NP127. All three stars (Delta, Epsilon and Zeta Orionis) all fit into the FOV. But it was quite evident that the Pentax has a slightly wider FOV due to its lower magnification also evident in the magnification and
the sky background. The sky background through the 31mm Nagler is darker due to smaller exit pupil I'm sure. What was most evident was the stars all the way to edge of the FOV were all pin pricked rather than having to be re-focus. The
natural flat field of the Nagler/Petzal design of the NP127 made the difference between the two eyepiece wonderfully obvious. When I covered my head with my jacket, it felt like I was looking through space, I guess this was where "spacewalk" come from whereas I have to admit I never got this impression from the 40mm Pentax.
Both eyepieces have plenty eye relief that wearing glasses is not an issue (with the 31mm Nagler eyecup folded down - I actually did not use it unfolded up - no need to).
Next target was the Beehive (M44) and Saturn. Wow, what a lucky night. Saturn was just at the outer edges of M44! I positioned the view so that an interesting arc of an asterism of stars starting from Delta Cancri to Gamma Cancri also reside within the FOV with room to spare. Again stars were pin
point sharp to edges. Quite a sight to see M44 sprinkled with pin pricked stars at the edge of the FOV! Here I noticed that because Saturn resides toward the lower portion of the FOV, it did not look as sharp until I refocus through the 40mm Pentax. Also because of lower magnification (16x), I couldn't
see the ring as *ring* just bulging elongation. Through the 31mm Nagler (21x), Saturn was quite crisp with space between the ring and planet clearly seen. Admittedly, this is not an eyepiece to be studying the planet with. But I can tell that the 31mm Nagler "Psykter" would make a very fine eyepiece for viewing comet with tail.
Finally, I scanned the sky around Canis Major and Puppis for a great view of many open clusters. Can't wait until the summer Milky Way returns.
On the other hand, the 40mm Pentax XL is much lighter and also more affordable. For this reason, I intend to keep my 40mm Pentax XL to continue to be used as finder eyepiece since I do not have to rebalance the scope with it. It is a very nice eyepiece as well!
I'm quite happy with my first light and felt I made a great choice.
Ron B[ee]
PS - I include a chart to let you guys visualize what I saw, though the view was much larger visually than the chart depict.
wise I mean.
I struggled with the decision whether I should go with the 41mm Pan or 31mm NT5 for my NP127 yielding 4 degree FOV and 3.6 degree FOV respectively. I decided to go with the 31mm based on Al and David Nagler advice and that 0.4 degree FOV
was probably not a very noticeable tradeoff. Besides the 31mm give me a better exit pupil. I also considered the 35mm Pan but I felt the reduced FOV was just too much of a compromise for my NP127 ;-).
Taking the advantage of the knowledge of eminent price increase, I quickly ordered the 31mm Nagler NT5. I have to say up until before the order, my 2-4mm Nagler zoom was my most expensive eyepiece. Well, the 31mm Nagler surpasses it by a wide margin ;-), not only in price tag but also in size.
The 31mm Nagler has a nickname of the "grenade". Well, now that I have it and caressed it all afternoon today, my Light Cup rather aptly re-christened it a new nickname of the 31mm Nagler Psykter. Don't know what this it ;-)? Well, let the museum be your guide ;-). And I don't mind telling you it's quite a psych of an eyepiece ;-).
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/images/gr/images/gr1989.281.69.L.jpg
I have the 40mm Pentax XL. Although I like it just fine, it has some curvature near the edge of the FOV (a well known characteristics of this eyepiece I knew by reading Todd Gross' review before I bought it). So my first target was the
Orion belt through my NP127. All three stars (Delta, Epsilon and Zeta Orionis) all fit into the FOV. But it was quite evident that the Pentax has a slightly wider FOV due to its lower magnification also evident in the magnification and
the sky background. The sky background through the 31mm Nagler is darker due to smaller exit pupil I'm sure. What was most evident was the stars all the way to edge of the FOV were all pin pricked rather than having to be re-focus. The
natural flat field of the Nagler/Petzal design of the NP127 made the difference between the two eyepiece wonderfully obvious. When I covered my head with my jacket, it felt like I was looking through space, I guess this was where "spacewalk" come from whereas I have to admit I never got this impression from the 40mm Pentax.
Both eyepieces have plenty eye relief that wearing glasses is not an issue (with the 31mm Nagler eyecup folded down - I actually did not use it unfolded up - no need to).
Next target was the Beehive (M44) and Saturn. Wow, what a lucky night. Saturn was just at the outer edges of M44! I positioned the view so that an interesting arc of an asterism of stars starting from Delta Cancri to Gamma Cancri also reside within the FOV with room to spare. Again stars were pin
point sharp to edges. Quite a sight to see M44 sprinkled with pin pricked stars at the edge of the FOV! Here I noticed that because Saturn resides toward the lower portion of the FOV, it did not look as sharp until I refocus through the 40mm Pentax. Also because of lower magnification (16x), I couldn't
see the ring as *ring* just bulging elongation. Through the 31mm Nagler (21x), Saturn was quite crisp with space between the ring and planet clearly seen. Admittedly, this is not an eyepiece to be studying the planet with. But I can tell that the 31mm Nagler "Psykter" would make a very fine eyepiece for viewing comet with tail.
Finally, I scanned the sky around Canis Major and Puppis for a great view of many open clusters. Can't wait until the summer Milky Way returns.
On the other hand, the 40mm Pentax XL is much lighter and also more affordable. For this reason, I intend to keep my 40mm Pentax XL to continue to be used as finder eyepiece since I do not have to rebalance the scope with it. It is a very nice eyepiece as well!
I'm quite happy with my first light and felt I made a great choice.
Ron B[ee]
PS - I include a chart to let you guys visualize what I saw, though the view was much larger visually than the chart depict.
Attached Image:
