I tried this eyepiece tonight on the 24" RC at work (Biosphere 2) and
looked at the moon, Jupiter and Saturn. I looked for even the slightest
hint of color fringing on the edge of the moon and couldn't see any. Ric,
if you are seeing color with this eyepiece then either your eyepiece is
defective, or like John is suggesting, using it on such a short focal
length scope is producing the color not the eyepiece itself.

Also, through an optical system as awesome as the OGS 24" the 31mm showed
pin point stars across the field with no noticeable optical artifacts of
any kind (and tonight I was looking for them). The view through this scope
made my 10" LX200 look like a 60mm Tasco.

At 10:07 PM 12/18/99 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 12/18/99 10:00:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>
><< John--
>
> The tests you are familiar with were done on a photo???? Something a
> little more rigorous might be in order don't you think for a $600
> eyepiece?? :)
>
> Andy >>
>
>Plenty of test I'm "familiar with" on the eyepiece involved experience
>observers and stars. It's just that none of those were by me personally.
>
>My only look through one in person was indeed indoors during the day, in the
>presence of Al Nagler himself at the public unveiling. I do agree with you
>that it's not a sufficient test, so that's why I didn't buy one that day
>despite the $10 discount or something like that, which Pocono was
>offering...and they weren't in stock either.
>
>But testing for color and off-axis sharpness using a small (probably smaller
>diameter tube than the eyepiece has, literally!!!), short-focus refractor
>also isn't a valid test. THAT's the point I was making, not that an
>astrophoto on the wall 8 feet away looking sharp would justify spending $595,
>or even $585 for that matter. My wallet agreed with you for the time being,
>but I'm sure one or more of my scopes will wind up being good enough with the
>eyepiece that Al's net worth will eventually include more of my own....again.
>
>I don't remember any other complaints about color fringing in the 31mm, and
>I've read hundreds of posts on s.a.a. on the eyepiece. The main complaints
>are: distortion made obvious by panning, just as with more conventional
>Naglers and Panoptics; and not being able to see the whole field at once,
>with claims of some "blackout radius" which I personally didn't notice at
>all. In fact, I thought I could view the whole field more easily than with
>other Naglers. The daytime test was better for this purpose than stars would
>have been.
>
>John

Chris Vedeler
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/cvedeler/space.htm
Tucson, AZ

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Nagler 31mm was: OT: Dob comment, Email address hidden
Next message: [M]: Screaming Keypad!, Chuck Brown
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Nagler 31mm, Ric L Ecker