| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Nagler 16mm T5 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.163.50) Date: 09/23/2005 02:01:53 pm PST This eyepiece is a little jewel. It is an eyepiece for the ages. Impressive views with a FLAT field---stars are pinpoints all across the field in my f4.5 scope. Contrast is inherently better than that grizzled monster the 17 Type 4, and I think it is brighter, too. No one can give me an argument refuting that the T5 is a lot easier to deal with than the 17 in any size scope because it is SOOO much smaller and lighter. OK, so eye relief is a lot tighter in the 16, but eyepieces are all about compromise, and since I don't need glasses to observe I'll gladly take the shorter e.r. in trade for the smaller and lighter wonder of it all. I was a little concerned about the shorter e.r. before I tried the 16, but found that--if you don't need glasses to observe--even tho you do need to press your ol eye right up to the eyeguard, you probably won't get eyelash grease or tears all over that eyelens. At least I don't (and I thought I would, for sure.) Not nearly as much hype about the 16 T5 as with the 17 T4 though, and I wonder if it isn't because people are turned off by the 10mm of eye relief. I get a true field of 2.1 degrees with the 16, vs. 2.3 with the 17 T4. It's a no-brainer for me... Subject: Re: vote by schung By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.69.162) Date: 10/07/2005 09:26:41 pm PST >I use a 16mm Type II on my 16-inch Newtonian. See my web page:- http://www.chess-dictionary-chesmayne.net/Index-Constellations.htm --- for an extensive discussion of my telescope(s) and accessories? I also have the 9mm Type I as well and a 2-inch Tele-Vue coma corrector. Yes - the 16mm is really excellent - pricy - but worth it due to the 82d wide-field and the flat-field when used with the coma corrector. Now - how much did you say I needed for a Denkmeir binocular viewer! Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
