Panoptic 24mm wins

Chris wrote:

before I toss more money out!


Is money an issue? Do you know how much these cost?


Martin

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:13:57 -0700, "Doink"
stepped up to the plate and batted:

Looks like consensus has it for the Panoptic 24mm....

Can someone explain what a Panoptic eyepiece is? It doesn't seem to have
huge eye relief, so why is this particular eyepiece so good? Trying to
learn this stuff before I toss more money out!

Chris


The Panoptic line of eyepieces by TeleVue features a 68 degree
apparent field of view and are reputed to be "tack sharp" accross the
whole field of view. They are preferred by many over standard plossls
because of the higher mags you get for a given FOV while retaining
a sharp field all the way across.

If there is something in the above statement that you're not familiar
with, stop right now and hold on to your money.

The 24 pan goes for 295$ and for that kind of money you can get a set
of decent eyepieces of a different desing

From your original thread:

I want good eye relief. And I want quality. I
have bought a few eye pieces and am tired of the eye strain trying to "peep"
through such small field of views....

What kind of eyepieces do you already have? What do you define as a
"small field of view?"

The panoptics aren't so hot if eye relief is a consideration for you.

For a good, all-purpose low power eyepiece with adequate eye relief,
you can't beat a good 32mm plossl.


G../0

The Panoptic line of eyepieces by TeleVue features a 68 degree
apparent field of view and are reputed to be "tack sharp" accross the
whole field of view. They are preferred by many over standard plossls
because of the higher mags you get for a given FOV while retaining
a sharp field all the way across.

If there is something in the above statement that you're not familiar
with, stop right now and hold on to your money.

The 24 pan goes for 295$ and for that kind of money you can get a set
of decent eyepieces of a different desing


The price you pay for that tack sharp fov is some pin coushion effect. That
is, the image is distorted toward the edges. I took my 24 Pan out for
daytime viewing and pointed it at a road sign nearby. The post was severely
curved when you put it about 75% of the way out towards the edge of the FOV.
This manifests itslelf as a curved image when you are panning around at
night in a star field. Some find it annoying, I do not. Wouldn't want to
use it for terrestrial viewing , though.

Clear skies,

TOm

I took my 24 Pan out for
daytime viewing and pointed it at a road sign nearby. The post was severely
curved when you put it about 75% of the way out towards the edge of the FOV.
This manifests itslelf as a curved image when you are panning around at
night in a star field. Some find it annoying, I do not. Wouldn't want to
use it for terrestrial viewing , though.

Clear skies,

TOm

I have built ep's with a severely curved field on the edges when held over a
piece of graph paper, but they don't give curved images.

I'll through in my $.02...

I recently jumped on the TV EP bandwagon after spending countless
dollars on "bargain" eps. There are some decent ones out there, but my
experience was that as I developed my oberving skills, I became more
annoyed by the narrow fields of view, and the fuzzy, distorted stars
at the edge of the field. I came to the realization that it was better
to own a couple of really good EPs than a case full of so-so ones. I
now own:

9mm UO Ortho
13mm Nagler
19mm Panoptic
24mm Panoptic
35mm Panoptic

Now that is a few bucks of glass, but here is another point. I bought
all of these used on Astromart for about 65%-75% of their retail
value. They are all in superb condition, save for a few set screw
marks. However, two years down the road, I'll bet you that I could
sell them for close to what I paid for them, if I take excellent care
of them. My experience in selling my other eps is that I am lucky to
get 50% of their retail value, even in excellent condition. Consider
this very carefully. If you have the $$$, by the 24mm Pan. BTW, I am
aware of the pincushion, but I have yet to notice its effects in the
dark. I don't do daytime observing.

Matt

"Matt" wrote in message
om...
annoyed by the narrow fields of view, and the fuzzy, distorted stars
at the edge of the field. I came to the realization that it was better
to own a couple of really good EPs than a case full of so-so ones. I
now own:

9mm UO Ortho
13mm Nagler
19mm Panoptic
24mm Panoptic
35mm Panoptic



Matt,
Same here wrt reasons I splurged on eyepieces. What are your thoughts on
owning both the 19 and the 24 Pans? I selected the 24mm to complement the
35mm. For a time I was considering the 27mm, with the 19mm as a complement.
If I had it to do over, I might..., ermm..., well..., anyway I'm not really
unhappy with my final choice. Just curious if you find you use them both a
lot in the same session, or if one tends to see significantly more use than
the other.

(I actually need to go up a notch and get a 5mm before I fill anything in
below, but the 19mm has its allure for use with the 8' SCT.)

--
Stephen Paul
Main Scopes:
- XT10
- C8
Eyepieces:
- 35mm Pan
- 24mm Pan
- 13mm Nag T6
- 9mm Nag T6
- 7mm Nag T6

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message ...
Matt,
Same here wrt reasons I splurged on eyepieces. What are your thoughts on
owning both the 19 and the 24 Pans? I selected the 24mm to complement the
35mm. For a time I was considering the 27mm, with the 19mm as a complement.
If I had it to do over, I might..., ermm..., well..., anyway I'm not really
unhappy with my final choice. Just curious if you find you use them both a
lot in the same session, or if one tends to see significantly more use than
the other.

(I actually need to go up a notch and get a 5mm before I fill anything in
below, but the 19mm has its allure for use with the 8' SCT.)

--
Stephen Paul
Main Scopes:
- XT10
- C8
Eyepieces:
- 35mm Pan
- 24mm Pan
- 13mm Nag T6
- 9mm Nag T6
- 7mm Nag T6


Stephen -
I have a very similar eyepiece set to you - 35 pan, 24 pan, 18
radian, 13 nagler T6, 8.8 UWA, 7 nagler T6, 5 radian. I am about to
sell the 18 radian because it doesn't get used - the TFOV is too
similar to the 13 Nagler, and I prefer the view at higher mag. The 19
pan has a bit more field, but I still think it will be redundant with
a 13 nagler. I would recommend you spend your money on a 5mm before
you fill in around 20 (unless you want to trade the 24 pan for
something like a 20 or 22 nagler, but I like having the 24 pan for use
in my smaller scope with only 1.25" focusers...).

Jarad

Matt,
Same here wrt reasons I splurged on eyepieces. What are your thoughts on
owning both the 19 and the 24 Pans? I selected the 24mm to complement the
35mm. For a time I was considering the 27mm, with the 19mm as a
complement.
If I had it to do over, I might..., ermm..., well..., anyway I'm not
really
unhappy with my final choice. Just curious if you find you use them both a
lot in the same session, or if one tends to see significantly more use
than
the other.

(I actually need to go up a notch and get a 5mm before I fill anything in
below, but the 19mm has its allure for use with the 8' SCT.)

--
Stephen Paul
Main Scopes:
- XT10
- C8
Eyepieces:
- 35mm Pan
- 24mm Pan
- 13mm Nag T6
- 9mm Nag T6
- 7mm Nag T6



Stephen-

I use the 19 more on Globs and the 24 with a UHC filter on nebulae. The
wider field without the need of buying 2" filters is nice. The 35 is great
for extended galaxies, nebula and especially star clusters. The Pleiades
(sp) is unbelievable. I don't feel that the 13mm Nagler and the 19mm pan are
redundent as suggested in an earlier post. They are about .15 degree
difference, which doesn't sound like alot, but its about 112% more total
field in the 19. The 13 is great for small, bright GCs like m15, as well as
planets and luna. I have kicked around getting a 27mm Pan to fill in the gap
I have between 24mm and 35mm. There is about a .36 degree gap there, or 168%
more field in the 35mm. Or maybe I should save up for a 26mm
Nagler....yummy!

Matt