Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Looks like clear night tonight. I'll setup Vixen VMC260L from now. I'll let you know how it goes, Ethos 17, Nikon NAV SW 17.5 and Leica Zoom shoot out.
The results are for sure most interesting for me. Can't wait to hear about them.
Andreas
Hi Andreas,
After 3 hour cool down, I had high hope but seeing was horrible. Mars was just a bright orange blob. All 3 eyepieces showed just a blob 
Only enjoyable view was with Takahashi LE 50... Keep trying.
Tammy
|
Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
|
The second set delivered today. It is NAV SW 7mm, weights 285 grams, measured field stop 8.86mm, calculated AFOV 72.5 degrees.
Size comparison: TMB Supermonocentric 7, NAV SW 7, NAV SW 17.5.
Tammy
|
BillP
Postmaster
Reged: 11/26/06
Loc: Vienna, VA
|
|
Waiting for that 7mm TMB vs 7mm Nikon vs 7.5mm LE compare on Mars 
|
DDon
sage
Reged: 07/27/09
Loc: France, Montpellier
|
|
This thread is quite pornographic!
Nice Eps!!!
D.Don
|
Paul C-I
super member
Reged: 03/23/08
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
Hi Tammy,
The 17.5 would fill a hole in my run of sizes. Any comments on its performance, particularly compared with the xw's?
Thanks
Paul
|
Arizona-Ken
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/31/08
Loc: Scottsdale, Arizona
|
|
Yeah, the 17.5 would fit real nicely between a XW20 and an XW14!
Arizona Ken
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
|
Tammy:
You've become a popular guy.
Do you happen to have an XWs to compare the new Nikons to?
I am tempted to pre-order the 10mm Nikon rather than picking up a 10mm XW or 10mm Ethos, but wanted to have a feel for how the Nikons stack up to the XWs in other focal lengths like...er...7mm for instance. 
- Jim
|
Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
|
Quote:
Tammy:
You've become a popular guy.
Do you happen to have an XWs to compare the new Nikons to?
I am tempted to pre-order the 10mm Nikon rather than picking up a 10mm XW or 10mm Ethos, but wanted to have a feel for how the Nikons stack up to the XWs in other focal lengths like...er...7mm for instance.
- Jim
Hi Jim,
I had the first light with NAV SW 7 last night. I left TMB 130SS f/7 about an hour outside for cool down and observed Mars for half an hour but I didn't compare with other eyepieces just a pair of NAV SW 7, Tak TOA 1.6x and 1.25x Glasspath Corrector Baader MarkV, it yields about 250x.
Humidity was bit high, seeing was about average, probably thin clouds on and off. When seeing settled, Mars popped up very nicely, very high contrast, a lot of details seen. Since seeing changed rapidly, I was not able to study features.
From the impression, NAV SW 7 is very darn good eyepiece.
This morning, I compared NAV SW 7 against Ethos 8 viewing terrestrial objects. One thing is very obvious with NAV SW 7 comparing to Ethos 8 is lack of pincushion and well controlled lateral color toward edge.
I start noticing lateral color about outer 20% with Ethos 8, NAV SW 7 has much less lateral color, noticeable last 5% of outer edge but you have to look for it to see it.
Color rendering of NAV SW 7 is very natural. Comparing to Ethos, I feel NAV SW 7 is cooler color tone. I would like to compare against the Moon.
I don't have XW 7 to compare head to head. Well, I filled the 7mm wide eyepiece gap with NAV SW 7 The same goes to 17.5mm between Denk 14 and XW 20.
Next week, I'll do 7mm-ish shootout, A-II 6, TMB SM 7, NAV SW 7, Tak LE 7.5, Ethos 8 with FLT 152 f/8 on Mars.
Tammy
|
Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
|
Quote:
Hi Tammy,
The 17.5 would fill a hole in my run of sizes. Any comments on its performance, particularly compared with the xw's?
Thanks
Paul
Hi Paul,
I would take NAV SW 17.5 over XW 20. You'll like it the very flat, very little distortion view with NAV SW.
XW 20 gives wider TFOV but NAV SW 17.5 gives wider flatter, cleaner view than XW 20. One thing though, NAV SW 17.5mm has 26mm eye relief. It is possible for some people not to like the long eye relief. I took some time to get used to it in fact.
Tammy
|
Tamiji Homma
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/24/07
Loc: California, USA
|
|
Quote:
Waiting for that 7mm TMB vs 7mm Nikon vs 7.5mm LE compare on Mars
Yup, I am looking forward to it myself
Serial numbers of four NAV SWs that I bought are 30, 40, 41, 49. Not selling that well? I just wonder since I heard (read) they are selling like hotcakes...
At any rate, they are very good eyepiece as far as I can tell so far.
Tammy
|
Paul C-I
super member
Reged: 03/23/08
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
Thanks Tammy,
I was hoping you came to that conclusion. Looks like my collection of eps is never yet complete!
Appreciate your feedback.
Cheers
Paul
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Tammy,
The 17.5 would fill a hole in my run of sizes. Any comments on its performance, particularly compared with the xw's?
Thanks
Paul
Hi Paul,
I would take NAV SW 17.5 over XW 20. You'll like it the very flat, very little distortion view with NAV SW.
XW 20 gives wider TFOV but NAV SW 17.5 gives wider flatter, cleaner view than XW 20. One thing though, NAV SW 17.5mm has 26mm eye relief. It is possible for some people not to like the long eye relief. I took some time to get used to it in fact.
Tammy
|
vahe
sage
Reged: 08/27/05
|
|
Quote:
At any rate, they are very good eyepiece as far as I can tell so far.
I would like to hear your impressions of NAV 7mm, although I am not currently in the market for yet another pair of expensive eyepieces those look awfully tempting.
My main planetary eyepiece with AP155EDT F/9 is the Tak 7.5 LE, almost as good as Pentax Orthos but a lot more comfortable, with a binoviewer I get 232x with that eyepiece, enough power for Jupiter but not enough for Mars, the Nav 7 will get up to 250x with the same setup, how is the eye relief, feel and comfort?
The NAV17.5 is also bugging me, this one would be an ideal planetary glass with my 8” Mak producing 285x with binoviewer, currently the Pentax 18-O is my favorite planetary with that scope.
Vahe
|
russell23
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/09
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I can't wait to recieve my 17.5mm NAV and put it against my 20mm XW. It was supposed to arrive yesterday, but when I opened the package the wrong eyepiece had been sent to me. Fortunately, the company found the NAV and shipped it out the same day. It was one of those things that can happen. The eyepiece I recieved had a pair of numbers transposed with the Nikon 17.5mm I was supposed to get.
But man I wish I had it yesterday because I had crystal clear, dark skies.
Dave
|
gnowellsct
Post Laureate
Reged: 06/24/09
|
|
I priced a Nikon NAV SW shipped from Japan and came out with $517. This includes about $50 shipping and Japanese sales tax and foreign exchange fees.
My gut says that the U.S. price will have to be lower: Nikon *might* be able to price higher than the XWs, but only maybe. The XW and Nikon series are identical at fls 14mm on down. There are no 30 and 40mm Nikons (at least not yet).
I think the prices will have to be lower than $518 because on the high end that's too close to Ethos territory. I'm also thinking that someone who orders a hundred of these things will have better treatment with regard to taxes, foreign exchange fees, and shipping costs. But I'd like to know who's going to get them first...
Greg N
|
russell23
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/09
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
I priced a Nikon NAV SW shipped from Japan and came out with $517. This includes about $50 shipping and Japanese sales tax and foreign exchange fees.
My gut says that the U.S. price will have to be lower: Nikon *might* be able to price higher than the XWs, but only maybe. The XW and Nikon series are identical at fls 14mm on down. There are no 30 and 40mm Nikons (at least not yet).
I think the prices will have to be lower than $518 because on the high end that's too close to Ethos territory. I'm also thinking that someone who orders a hundred of these things will have better treatment with regard to taxes, foreign exchange fees, and shipping costs. But I'd like to know who's going to get them first...
Greg N
I think you're probably right. I'm anxious to receive mine so I can see how it compares with my 20mm XW. If they are better than the XW's then they should be marketable at a higher price.
|
CounterWeight
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/05/08
Loc: In A Silent Way...
|
|
Interesting, I find the XW's really very nice ep's in my ~f8's, what exactly do you see as an improvement on them, staying at fl and fov? Not that I've had that much time with them this winter...
|
gnowellsct
Post Laureate
Reged: 06/24/09
|
|
Quote:
Interesting, I find the XW's really very nice ep's in my ~f8's, what exactly do you see as an improvement on them, staying at fl and fov? Not that I've had that much time with them this winter...
I have difficulty imagining that the 72 degree Nikons will walk away from the 70 degree XWs, and I'm dubious the eronomics will be superior as well.
But I am interested in the 17.5.
I also worry that Nikon will decide they can't market the eyepieces because of the XWs, but I guess they're competing against Pentax in Japan, so they can compete here too.
Greg N
|
russell23
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/09
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I haven't recieved my 17.5mm NAV yet. It is hard to imagine a dramatic difference between the NAV and the 20mm XW. However, Tammy has pointed to several things that I might see when I compare the two eyepieces -- or when the NAV's in general are compared with an Ethos:
1. Cleaner and flatter FOV than a 20mm XW.
2. Lack of pincushion and better lateral color control than an Ethos.
3. Natural color tone and cooler than an Ethos.
Obviously these comments are just initial impressions but they hint at how these NAV eyepieces might compare with the best premium eyepieces currently available on the US market.
So what does one do if the Nikon's come in at $449-499 on the US market? That is more than an XW but less than an Ethos. If the NAV eyepiece has better lateral color control, is better due to lack of pinchusion, has a more natural color tone (cooler), has better eye relief than an Ethos and is at least as good in sharpness and contrast then which is the better buy?
I think each person would have to decide that for themselves.
Dave
|
russell23
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/09
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Tammy,
The 17.5 would fill a hole in my run of sizes. Any comments on its performance, particularly compared with the xw's?
Thanks
Paul
Hi Paul,
I would take NAV SW 17.5 over XW 20. You'll like it the very flat, very little distortion view with NAV SW.
XW 20 gives wider TFOV but NAV SW 17.5 gives wider flatter, cleaner view than XW 20. One thing though, NAV SW 17.5mm has 26mm eye relief. It is possible for some people not to like the long eye relief. I took some time to get used to it in fact.
Tammy
Tammy, I'm used to using very long eye relief eyepieces (48mm Brandon, 35mm Parks gold, 32mm Brandon) so I do not think the 26mm of eye relief on the 17.5mm will bother me. But do these Nikon's have a twist up eyecup mechanism like an XW?
Dave
|
vahe
sage
Reged: 08/27/05
|
|
Quote:
I think the prices will have to be lower than $518 because on the high end that's too close to Ethos territory. I'm also thinking that someone who orders a hundred of these things will have better treatment with regard to taxes, foreign exchange fees, and shipping costs. But I'd like to know who's going to get them first...
If these eyepieces are so popular I bet someone is going to offer them here in US, so I will wait and see.
Regarding 70-72 degree wide angles, personally that is as wide as I like my eyepieces to be, I am not comfortable with Nagler 80 degree fields and Ethos is not for me.
Since I am strictly into binoviewing, somehow the standard 45-50 degree planetary eyepieces feel much wider when used in pairs than when used in mono mode, 70 degree is about as wide as I can see without having to move my viewing position to see the edges of super wide Naglers.
As for very long eye relief, I am used to that since I use very long focus Maks for planets and planetary eyepieces used with these Maks range from 18 to 25mm in focal length, comfortable and nice.
Vahe
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
