XF vs. XW: Worth the price difference? (1 Viewer)

I'm considering a wide-angle eyepiece in the neighborhood of 30x for my 65mm ED Pentax scope.

Before I shell out the $$, I'd really like to know what the essential difference would be between the XF (very much in my budget) and XW (stretching the budget) eyepieces.

Tell me all you want about the quality of the glass, ED vs. non-ED. I appreciate the aesthetics of the argument. BUT, will it make a difference in my birding in the field?

I already have the 20-60x zoom. If I'm going to duplicate the magnification I already have, then the performance had better be worth it in order to justify the expenditure. I don't have a lot of money to throw around. Is it worth the extra $160 or so to get the XW?

Also, I'm not always satisfied by the view I get through the 20-60x, as the screw-up eyepiece ring sometimes vignettes. I'm hoping to avoid that in whatever new eyepiece I get.

If you respond, please stick to the in-the-field aspects of things; the specs of the glass are of little interest to me compared to the actual birding impact.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Steve, what's you're use in the field? Do you want to do a little digi-scoping? Do you hike around alot? What distances do you do most of birding at? I own and use all but XW20 on my PF65ED-A and could help but all have there place and use! You might want to be a little more precise in what you want! If it is just to compare between the two, then my answer would be yes the XW's are worth the extra $'s. At the same given magnification the XW's have a wider fov, are brighter and a touch sharper. Now is that enough for you to justify the extra cost? You will have to determine you're uses and what is best for you! I know I like each for it's use and I have a place for every one that I use. I'm sure other's will chime in and be able to help you. It just helps when you know how they will be used, then one can give you there thought's as well. I will help any way I can!!! Stereo...

I have the 10mm, 14mm, 20mm XWs & the 8.5 XF. Which i use in Takahashi astro & Pentax spotting scopes .I believe the XWs are the best EPs you can buy .
I sold my Televue naglers to buy mine.
You cant go wrong with them .
They also give you back 80% of your money back if you ever sell them.
Brian.

Steve

Here's my experience. On the advice of other BF members I recently purchased the Baader Hyperion 13mm for my Pentax PF65A. I'm delighted with the lens. It's HUGE which is not good - but the walk in field of view is wonderful and very relaxing with no kidney bean effects. Eye relief is really good which is important to me as a glasses wearer. Last week I had the heart stopping moment of watching the lens roll off the shelf in a hide and drop 3 foot onto the concrete floor. With great trepidation I picked the lens up and shook it. No sound. I then dusted it off and put it back into the scope - with not a mark to be seen on the heavily rubber coated body. By coincidence later that day I was in the visitor centre at Cley where they had a XW13mm in a PF80 scope. I approached with great excitement having read so many good things about the lens. I must say that I was really surprised at how tunnel like the field of view was compared to the Hyperion. I am in no position to comment on the relative performance of the two lenses but I went away feeling very happy that I'd spent less than £70 on the Hyperion rather than nearly £300 on the Pentax lens.

Your mileage may of course vary but if you can get hold of the Baader I'd recommend giving it a go before committing yourself to the Japanese glass...

Unless you get a response from someone who has compared the XF and XW eyepieces in similar focal lengths on the same scope, you'll have to interpret these answers.

I agree with Brian that the XWs are among, if not THE best eyepieces available. I've used them and the XLs on astro scopes for years and led me to buy a PF80ED so they'd have a use terrestrially. I keep an XW14 on the spotting scope and the view is flawless. Haven't used the XFs though, so I can't speak to them.

I have a Baader Hyperion in 8mm though and have a few comments about them. It is quite sharp and field flatness is good, though not XW good. The Baader has less contrast than similar XWs and is slightly prone to flare, where the XW has none. Though the weight of the Baader is only about an ounce heavier than the XW14, it is larger and IMO would be a bit of a beast on the PF65. The Baader has plenty of eye relief but because of it's non adjustable eyecup design, it's not as quick to find the full field.

Which leads me to a point you made about "vignetting". I believe you probably meant to use the terms black-out or kidney-beaning as unless you are digi-scoping you should not be seeing any vignetting. The Pentax' infinitely adjustable eyecup allows one to dial in just the eye relief they need and (in my case) completely eliminates any black-outs. In fact the XL/XW eyepiece are the friendliest to use eyepieces I've ever used.

The Baaders have an apparent FOV of 68 degrees and the XW has 70. I mention this as John's comment about the view through the XW looking narrower doesn't make sense to me and doesn't jibe with my experience.

So, are the XWs worth the extra cost over the XFs? Only you can answer that I suppose. I do believe that in the XW eyepiece you will be getting out of your scope all that can be had however.

Photos depict the relative sizes.

I have the 5, 8, 13, & 17mm Orion Stratus EP,S Which i believe are the same as the Hyperions .I agree they are very good & a bargain when on sale at Orion .[i paid $94 for mine] But still prefer the XWs .Especially because of the turn up adjustable eye cups.
I dont think you can beat a XW on the Pentax
But the Orion [hyperion] is a very good lower cost EP.
The tunnel vision you experienced was caused because you probably didnt have the adjustable eye cup screwed in or out to suit your eyes.
By the way there isnt a 13mm XW .It was prob a 14mm
Brian.

Brian
You are of course, right - it would have been the 14mm and I wasn't aware of the adjustment on the eyecup so that would explain the (puzzling) tunnel vision effect....

Unfortunately its a 500 mile plus round trip to Cley so I'll not be able to test the XW14 properly any time soon!

John

Hi John my moms family are from Sth Shields.
Ill be in the UK in may & will be near Whitby Yorks & the lake district for a couple of days
I remember Marsden rock & grotto when i was a kid.
Ill have one of my scopes with me .Lots of seabirds around Straithe where i stay.
If you like your pf 65 you would love the 80 & 100PFs
Brian.

Steve Gross said:

I'm considering a wide-angle eyepiece in the neighborhood of 30x for my 65mm ED Pentax scope.

Before I shell out the $$, I'd really like to know what the essential difference would be between the XF (very much in my budget) and XW (stretching the budget) eyepieces.

Tell me all you want about the quality of the glass, ED vs. non-ED. I appreciate the aesthetics of the argument. BUT, will it make a difference in my birding in the field?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is worth the difference. As with all things, there are tradeoffs between cost/quality and only you can really decide it it's worth the budget "stretch".

I have tried the XF12, XL14, and XL10 and directly compared all three. The XL's are the predecessor to the XW and extremely similar, except the XW's are a teensy bit brighter/sharper and have a wider field of view. My thoughts on the XL should apply to the XW pretty well.

When I tested the XF12 vs. XL14 vs. XL10, I ended up keeping only the XL14 and selling the other two. Do some searches on this forum and you can dig up some of my older posts comparing them, this has been discussed a few times before.

My thoughts in brief:

1. In the center of the field, there is very little difference between any of them as they are all excellent, excellent eyepieces. The XF has a slightly different color cast (a little cooler?) but it's not significant. The XL is maybe a hair sharper in the center.

2. As you move to the edge of the field, the XL dominates the XF. The XF starts to get blurrier and has increased chromatic aberration out in the outer 20-30% of the FOV. An XL stays sharp and well-resolved almost to the edge.

3. The wider field of view is significant, and perhaps it's a perceptual thing but the XL always felt significantly "brighter" than the XF.

Now, don't get me wrong, the XF is an EXCELLENT eyepiece.

However, the XL was clearly superior: wider field of view, brighter, sharper, and held the image out almost to the edge. And this has practical implications for birdwatching. The wider field of view makes scanning for your bird much easier. On a seawatch, I can be focused in on one bird and catch a different bird zooming by at the edge of the field.

The sharpness out to the edge is very helpful when, for example, scanning a flock of shorebirds or gulls. I can just set the scope on group of birds and move my eye around to examine the flock, and the bird out at the edge is just as sharp as the one in the middle. With the XF, I would have to reposition the scope more frequently.

The XF's biggest advantages are that it is tiny and light, and I found it to be extremely comfortable and easy to position the eye. The screw-up eyeguard is exceptionally comfortable, moreso than the XL.

The only thing I have heard with regards to the XW (as opposed to my thoughts on the XL) is that the XW is a little less forgiving with eye placement, easier to get "kidney beaning" or "blackouts". This seems to be true of most super-wide-angle eyepieces, as in order to get that much apparent FOV resolved at the same spot involves a few compromises. Naglers (with 80 degree + AFOV's) are notorious for being highly sensitive to eye position.

So in summary: the superior brightness, sharpness to the edge, and wider field of view of the XL/XW make it a superior all-around birding eyepiece over the XF. If I could have only one eyepiece for a PF-65, it would no doubt be an XL or XW 14mm. The view at 28x is exactly in the sweet spot of the scope, and it's still wide enough for general use.

However, if you don't want to shell out for an XW, there are several options:

1. The Baader Hyperion or Orion Stratus 13mm that others have suggested is an excellent option. They are bulky, but give a wider field of view than the XF with equal sharpness. I briefly compared my scope with XL14 to a friend's PG-65 with Stratus 13mm, and the views were very similar. These are considered the #1 "bang for the buck" wide angle eyepieces.

2. A used XL14 can be had for $180-200 or so. Check the classifieds at Astromart.com and ebay. The XL is almost as good as the XW, just sacrifices a little bit of AFOV.

3. A used XW14 will save you 15-20% off the new price, although people do not like to let go of these!

And, as others have said, the XL/XW as higher-end eyepieces will hold their value better.

Hope that helps!

Does the XL-14 have a 43mm thread like the XW-14 for digiscoping ?