[AZ-Observing] Re: An Eyepiece for the LXD75 10" ?

<random rustling sounds as Matt climbs into the pulpit>

Well, the 4000 series 14 and 8.8 UWAs are legendary, especially the 14. =
I
own both.

Word is out that the new 5000 series is inferior by a bit to the old =
4000s,
but I have yet to see one outside of a display case.

I would call the 4000 UWAs essentially equivalent to the Nagler line, =
but
with the Meade line stopping at 14mm if you wanted lower power and 80+ =
FOV
you were buying from Uncle Al (Leitz fans excepted).

The 5000 UWAs change this. Someone should buy one, say the 24mm, so we =
could
have a shootout with my 26 Nag T5 . . .=20

But now that I have gone to over to binoviewing, I just might let go of =
my
treasured 26.  Then again, maybe not . . .

<tripping sounds as Matt leaves the pulpit>

-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Jones
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 6:12 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: An Eyepiece for the LXD75 10" ?


You are ? Is there a kit for that?  :-)

> I'm converting my Meade
          ^^^^^^^^^
> SWA and UWA eyepieces to Pans and Naglers.
                    ^^^^^

I don't want to start a war, but have heard the opinion that UWAs are
equivalent in quality to Nags.

Jack


> I had my 14" f/4.5
> at a dark site last new moon.  The contrast improvement of the 27 Pan
> over the Meade 32 SWA wasn't subtle on things like M8, M20, ... .
> The 27 Pan is $330, but in my view (pun intended) worth the expense.
>
> Steve Bell
> Boise


--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and =
please=20
send personal replies to the author, not the list.


--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
send personal replies to the author, not the list.

Other related posts: