Actually, Stephen,

I no longer have the 22 nagler either. Traded it back in on a 22
panoptic (what I had before I had the 22 nagler). It's a great
eyepeice, but just too much money for what it is for my current
situation. And the Pan 22 is really only a slight step back.

Fact of the matter is:

At f7.5 without the paracorr,* I* liked it enough to replace the pan
35 and put the extra $200 I got from the Pan 35 elsewhere.

I thought I would have to replace it in my f5 scope, (and with a pan
35) but *with* *the* *paracorr* in place, it's quite acceptable, and I
see no need to replace it at this time - not even really tempted
actually. I'd much rather replace my 22 pano with a pair of 24's, get
another small scope, etc...

No, it's not a nagler 31, it's you are correct - it's not even a pan
35 (although it does have a couple of obvious points over it - 1)
higher magnification, 2) wider field, 3) much cheaper, and 4) lighter)
BUT:

For a wide field finder eyepeice (or to occasionally look at large
objects) it's fantastic. IMO, $365 or (god forbid) $620 is too much
for me to spend on an eyepeice that only spends 10--20% of the time in
my focuser.

It's an individual choice. Having used both - side by side - I made
my choice, and I'm happy with it.

Tom T.



On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:24:26 -0400, "Stephen Paul"
wrote:


"Tom T." wrote in message
ws.com...

I recently purchased the BW 30mm as well, and like it so much I sold
my Pan 35.

While you go on to later explain that you really sold the Pan because you
also have a 22mm Nagler and 22mm Panoptic, you must realize that, taken
alone, the above comment threatens your credibility. :-)

Compared to the 35mm Panoptic the 30mm WideScans and clones are complete
crap. This discussion was had a while ago and the overall consensus is that
the $95 WideScans are decent, if not spectacular in scopes at F10 and above,
but are quick to end up in the crapper at faster ratios (where TV excels).