A Skeptic Converted...

As you may know from Floyd's earlier "ocularholic" thread, my name is Jim and I too am an ocularholic.

For years the addiction manifested as a penchant for good "value-priced" eyepieces. Plossls, Ultimas, Orthoscopics, etc. During this time I was convinced that there really wasn't any reason to spring for pricier glass. For the price of one Panoptic (the "P" word) I could get three Ultimas afterall, and besides Todd Gross says that Ultimas are one of the best deals in eyepieces.

But as I got older, my tastes matured a bit too. I still loved my Plossls and Ultimas, but re-aquaintance with an old 20mm Meade research Grade Wide Angle (Erfle) tempted me to branch out. It's contrasty 70 degree field of view hinted at the mystic transcendence from merely "looking at" to "going there" promised by the uber-glass. Not a spacewalk, mind you, but rather a window rather than aisle seat. I mean one or two wide angle eyepieces couldn't hurt, right?

Now open to the possibility of more modern, better corrected wide field eyepieces, still that old frugality intruded. I reasoned that one did not need to buy the most expensive wide field eyepieces to get the big picture. Panoptics and NAGLERS (the "N" word) be cursed! So I dabbled. A Meade Super Wide Angle here, and a University Optics MK-70 there. Oh, and an Ultima Wide Angle (later Axiom) thrown into the mix for good measure. A notch or two up the price ladder from my beloved Plossls and Ultimas, but definitely not in the price stratosphere occupied by the dreaded, overrated, marketing invention, the Nagler. I mean, who in their right mind needs 82 degrees? 65-70 degrees is wide enough for any sane individual, right?

But then there was that damned Pentax XL 21mm. I wish I had never laid eyes on her. Sitting there in the store, rainbow multicoatings agleam and build quality like a battleship. I couldn't resist, so I promised myself that I would buy "just one." Just one premium eyepiece. One eyepiece at nearly twice the price of my elite Axioms and Super Wide Angles, and I would be satisfied. Or so I thought.

Then it happened. "Panoptic". There. I said it. I can now say "Panoptic" without even blinking. I bought one. A 2" 27mm Panoptic to be precise. The agony of the small fortune paid to the merchant was replaced the very night of the acquisition with the ecstasy of more nebular detail than I has seen in my life. The little elves at the Televue factories worldwide put a lot of photon-o-philic pixie dust in the multi-coating vats. There's no other rational explanation. The throughput and subtle details visible with the "Fish's Mouth" of M42 centered was pure magic. Panoptic, Panoptic, Panoptic! I am even willing to overlook the less than perfect edge correction at f4.9.

But the Panoptics are so good, never would I want ot need to buy a Nagler. Still, maybe I could dip a toe in the water, so to speak. Those aging Meade Series 4000 Ultra Wide Angles are knock offs of an earlier generation of Uncle Al's Nefarious Naglers. So I bought one. 84 degrees rather than that anemic 82 degrees promised by Televue's priciest creations. I bought a 14mm. Boy is it tall. Heavy too. And looking through it was more like wading in a star-filled pool than looking through a piece of glass. No match for the black-magic coatings on the Panoptic in the contrast and subtle detail department, but W-I-D-E A-N-G-L-E heaven nonetheless. It is one of those "wow" eyepieces. I doesn't matter what aperture you are using or what object you are viewing. Anyone looking through the eyepiece will involuntarily say "wow". Very cool.

Then a few weeks ago it struck me. Maybe I do understand the Nagler after all. Marry the 80+ degree "bowl of night" effect to the supernatural coatings from the Panoptic, shoe horn the result into a physics-defying moderately sized Type 6 package, and you might have something.

So I bought one. A 7mm Type 6. And used it last week for the first time. Simply sublime. A time machine. Galaxies like M51, M104 and M82 screaming "Look at me! Look at my mottling. Leave your averted vision at the door." M3 looking like a well-aimed photon snowball on its way to my front yard. Jupiter giving up belts and festoons aplenty, moon discs, transit shadows. Unbelievable. Saturn's ring system (ring system; not rings mind you) daring you to say "spoke" or "Enkce". And I thought Naglers were for faint DSOs only. P'shah.

I'm not saying chuck your Ultimas, Televue Plossls, Ultrascopics or University Orthos. Nor am I advocating eschewing TMB Monocentrics or Zeiss Orthoscopics in favor of Naglers for the moon and planets. What I am saying is that the Naglers are really, truly amazing. Don't let your skepticism exclude you from the experience as I did for many years.

Okay, with that as background, I have a question. Certain of the older Naglers (*cough* 20mm Type 2 *cough*) are quite collectible and often raved about. Various reviews tout the coatings on the newer Type 5s and 6s as being superior to the coating son the older units, and the better size efficiency of the Type 6 in particular is undeniable. There is no comparison in contrast and throughput between my old Nagler knock off 14mm UWA and my new 7mm Type 6. How do the newer Naglers stack up against the old favorites? Is there any reason other than sentamentality to own the older designs?



- Jim

“ . . Okay, with that as background, I have a question. Certain of the older Naglers (*cough* 20mm Type 2 *cough*) are quite collectible and often raved about. Various reviews tout the coatings on the newer Type 5s and 6s as being superior to the coating son the older units, and the better size efficiency of the Type 6 in particular is undeniable. There is no comparison in contrast and throughput between my old Nagler knock off 14mm UWA and my new 7mm Type 6. How do the newer Naglers stack up against the old favorites? Is there any reason other than sentamentality to own the older designs?”

Hi Jim,
Due to a ‘trade deal', I have recently acquired several of the “older”/“original” Naglers. Before shipping them off I wanted to add them as baseline of a comparison test I’m working on. I have tested several 4.8mm, 7mm, 9mm, and the 20mm Naglers in the last couple months. As an example I have tested at least 2 each of the 4.8mm with ring & ‘Circle-N’ trademark, the 4.8 smooth side with ‘Circle-N’ trademark, the smooth side from Japan without the ‘Circle-N’ trademark, the early 4.8mm from Taiwan, and the current manufacture 4.8mm, T1. Similar tests were made with the 7mm & 9mm Naglers and the 4.8 & 7mm, T1 against the 5mm & 7mm, T6. Regarding your specific question about the 20mm T2 versus the T5, I have both but not matched pairs for Binoviewing. *Cont*

Some general impressions without going into detail:
The Earlier T1 eyepieces do seem to give better through put. The light transmission overall is consistently better although there were a few cases where those from ROC seemed to at least match a specific 1980’s manufacture. Reading the first part of your post I could use similar adjectives about being able to see & feel the nebulas a little better.
The current manufacture eyepieces do better in Light Pollution & with bright sidelight. They seem to hold up better with a bright object near the object observed. I’ve taken them into parks in Denver and found the current manufacture at least equal the original T1’s & T2’s when the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale is Class 7 and higher. When viewing a DSO on a brightly lit night (Full Moon, etc.) I found the same thing. Interestingly, I also found viewing a DSO within a degree+ from something like Jupiter equaled the playing field. So if you usually observe from a Bortle Dark-Sky Scale Class 5 to 4 or better site, you’ll probably see a difference as long as the Moon cooperates and there isn’t a planet next to the DSO you’re after.
I can also tell you the quality of the optical chain plays a part in defining the differences observed between the two models. In a quality f/8 refractor the early manufacture Naglers just tend to perform a little better assuming the viewing and transparency conditions allow for very good seeing. *Cont*

With an achromatic like a C4R it’s hard to see much difference. There was no doubt for 3 of us using a 12.5” StarMaster & binoviewer that the early 4.8 thru 9mm where more pleasing than their current T1 & T6 counterparts. We all had the same reaction to the 20mm T2 & T5 EPs but also agreed the ergonomics of the T5 out weighed the hassles of the T2 for average viewing.
To directly answer your question, “Yes”, there are reasons beyond sentimentality for seeking out a well cared for original Nagler in several of the focal lengths. But that’s only if you have a scope, site, and conditions that will make use of their traits. For most people they’ll never see a difference.

Your narrative implies that your observing habits & capabilities have grown to a stage where you can appreciate the nuances of high quality optics and their interplay with conditions. That also means you’ll start noticing differences between combinations of optics and conditions. That leads to multiple telescopes & eyepieces and many hours of observing to determine which combinations work best on what objects under the existing conditions. Hopefully your budget will allow you try a few of the ‘Oldies’ and make your own decision. I would suggest that you do a side by side comparison with the same telescope on the same night. The differences between a 7mm, Smooth Side & a 7mm, T6 are subtle and can be dependant on other factors. *Cont*

Good luck, have fun and most of all Enjoy!

Clear Skies, Bill

For the record, the Nagler eyepieces mentioned were compared over a period of a couple months mostly at a Bortle Class 4 to Class 3 site @ 6,600’ El. using the following scopes/equipment:
TAK 60mm FC-60E
Meade 277 Refractor
Vixen 80mm MCT
Vixen BT-80M-A
TV Genesis – 102mm
AP Traveler – 102mm
Meade ETX-125
Vixen BT-125 HFT
TV NP-127
AP 152mm StarFire (Super Planetary)
7" f/15 MCT
Celestron C9.25 SCT
12.5” Starmaster w/ZOC
Celestron/Denkmeier, Nikon, and Baader MaxBright Binoviewers
The eyepieces are just a sample I snapped a pic of for John D. one night before going out to observe with the BT-125 HFTs.

Attached Image:

James,
I have the old 20mm T-2 and the new 22mm T-4 and they are both great. The old 20mm T-2 though heavy as a hand grenade, is a great EP. I will not sell it because I love it, not just because it is a collector's item.
The older EPs did not have the eye releif of many of the newer models and that is, I believe, as much of a difference as there really is between them. The newer coatings are marvelous of course. But the old ones were not bad, they were also excellent, just there have been advances in the last 20+ years.
You would like any of the Naglers, there is no bad Nagler in my opinion.
I also like the Radians and Panoptics too. They are all great.
Here is my pathetic collection, which includes Nalger, Panoptic, Radian, Pentax XL-XL and Meade UWA EPs and a WO Binoviewer.

Attached Image: