Hi Chris,

I read your post with interest...thanks. Would you please compare this
eyepiece with the 35mm Panoptic. By the way, I also own a 10" LX200.

Al
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 1:52 AM
Subject: [M]: Nagler 31mm was: OT: Dob comment


> I've used the 31mm Nagler on my 10" LX200 and it is nothing short of
> amazing! It's like a whole new telescope! The full moon easily fits in
> the field, and M42 is jaw droppingly fantastic. It is a monster eyepiece,
> but actually weighs less than the old 20mm Nagler. The 31mm focal length
> (about 81x with my 10" f/10) is perfect for about 90% of the visual
> observing I do with my scope. From my 4 years of very heavy use of my 10"
> f/10 LX200, I'd say that this is the ONE eyepiece that a LX200 owner
should
> have. The only other eyepiece that I would like to have eventually now is
> the 16mm Nagler to fill in the gap between the 31mm Nagler and the 7mm
> Nagler. My Meade Plossls's don't get much use any more.
>
> At 06:21 PM 12/15/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
> > The Televue web site has a chart giving the parfocality characteristics
> >of the various eyepieces--wonder why the new 31mm is not in the chart
> >since it might take, perhaps, 5 minutes to add the entry?? And, the 31mm
> >has precipitated a redesign of the Paracorr coma corrector by Nagler. It
> >may all be worth it--I'm anxious to try my 31mm in the 10" LX.
>
> Chris Vedeler
> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/cvedeler/space.htm
> Tucson, AZ
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Nagler 31mm was: OT: Dob comment, Chris Vedeler
Next message: Re: [M]: I CAN'T STAND IT!, Email address hidden
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Nagler 31mm was: OT: Dob comment, Andy Wallace
Previous message in thread: [M]: Nagler 31mm was: OT: Dob comment, Chris Vedeler