24mm Panoptic and 24mm Meade S5000 SWA

[alan potts]

The 24mm showdown,

Can I start by saying that I feel there are many followers of these two eyepieces on site and it is my opinion the Meade version has had a great deal more talked about it since it was knocked out in a slightly different swimsuit and called Maxvision. This by all accounts was the result of a cancelled order when Meade sadly had financial problems and the Maxvision brand name was born, I believe it will be a short lived affair and was only to clear surplus production from an uncompleted placed by Meade, I feel we must assume the quality to be the same though without tests we cannot really be sure.

I personally believe this was rather an odd thing to do as the whole sale, which is on going now, was overseen by Explore Scientific, selling similar if not the same 68 degree eyepieces for a smaller amount than their 68 degree brand which may be the same as well. In any case the sale is being conducted on their web-site and many site members filled their boots or maybe eyepiece cases as prices were irresistible.

I owned all of the Meade SWA range and whether they are exactly the same I would not like to say but it is generally believed that at least the glass elements are the same with a possible coating difference, though in a recent test I didn’t feel that the Ex-Sc version of an Ultra wide eyepiece (4.7mm) was as good, but this was only from memory. Still on this test it is a Meade 24mm SWA from the Series 5000 range that I have to put into bat with the Tele-Vue 24mm Panoptic, another eyepiece that is very popular and has it’s followers though I have seen criticism on site as to how good it really is with particular regard to it’s light transmission properties.

I feel the other thing we have to consider here is that both eyepieces were placed in the premium glass category but the Tele-vue had a more premium price tag. I believe the Meade was around the 170 pounds mark when it was marketed and the Panoptic around the 240 pounds mark though the price has gone up and down a little over the last few years for a number of reasons.

Meade 24mm SWA.

This is a fairly heavy 1.25 inch eyepiece that tips my scales at 360grams which being on my now 21 year old Argos specials could be subject to plus or minus 360 grams. This without doubt looks and feels quality with its metal and rubber exterior and comes in a box that would grace jewels bought from Asbury’s. The full range of Meade’s came in these lovely black flocked boxes which look as if you could drop them with the eyepiece inside from a first floor window and escape damage, impressive but really a little overkill in my opinion. The eyepiece comes with caps as you would expect though I was never a fan of the design of the top eye cap as it always came off far too easily for my money and should have been better. The eye-guard is taken care of with a twist up affair where the whole rubber part of the barrel moves away from the eye-lens, a system that some like and others don’t, I do not really mind which I use however I would say that that on two of my own versions of this range there was rather a lot of grease used in the manufacture, though not the case on this example.

The recorded eye-relief on the spec is 18.4 but this has to be looked at with the fact that there is a fairly large recess that I feel is all of 5mm to the centre of the eye lens inside the solid rubber housing, that lens being concaved. Not that I require them for viewing but I was unable with my reading glasses to see the full field with this eyepiece, which can vary of course depending on frame design. Though you have to say a lovely looking eyepiece and I wonder if the black and green attire was by accident or design.

Tele-Vue 24mm Panoptic.

I have had this eyepiece for a few years now and did have another but forgot to buy the bino-viewers to fit them in, still the desire went away and one has moved on. This is an eyepiece that some seem to think has had its day but I still see many wanted adverts for them on the various secondhand sites. It is quite a bit smaller than the Meade and at 240grams is a clear winner of Slimmer of the Year. I have to say I wonder if the Meade needs to be so big when you look at the Panoptic as many feel that the one was the clone of the other. There is little pretentiousness about the caps and box from Tele-Vue, the caps fit nicely and snug over the ends and the box is strong enough with a simple thick plastic bag holding the eyepiece, oh and the Powered By Tel-Vue sticker, must not forget that. The eye-guard is taken care of by a simple flick up rubber guard to shield from the stray light, not a problem I really have and not something I use very much at all. All in all the eyepiece looks much the same as any other Tele-Vue offering, simple but business like. The eye-relief is stated at 15mm on the site and again I was unable to use my glasses with this one but it was better than the Meade in this regard, it could also be said it was more comfortable to use as well if guards were deployed. An interesting thing here for me is that both Companies use the words “Tack Sharp” in there advertising handouts and on website, we will have to see which tack is the tackiest. 

Scopes,

I am only going to use two scope for this test which will be the fairly slow 12 inch LX at F10 from the maker of one of the eyepieces and the quicker but not Olympic 100 meters gold medal material, the Sky Watcher 190mm F5.26 Mak/Newtonian. This pair gives ranging powers from the two scopes, a low power X41.6 from the Sky Watcher and a creeping up to higher power X 127 in the Meade. For some people the 1.25 inch fitting may well represent their widestt eyepiece and as such, a finder eyepiece as a larger field is not possible. With long scopes like SC’s and Maksutov’s it could well be knocking on the planetary eyepiece door but for me is more a general purposes mid-high eyepiece, useful on many targets.

Targets,

Now I have read a good deal from site members about these eyepieces and I can’t say now I have carried out extensive testing I can agree with some of it. I have put over 28 hours of scope time into this review over more than two and half months, when I started Vega was almost overhead, now it is almost setting behind the hill to my north shortly after dark.

Targets.

Vega

Rigel

Messier 42

NGC 1073. a galaxy Mag 11.0 size 4.9’

Messier 77, NGC 1068, brigher at Mag 8.9 and 6’ large.

NGC 1090, Mag 11.9 and small at 3.8’

Messier 35

Messier 37

Messier 45

Comet Lovejoy

Hubble’s variable nebula Mag 10

This is a fair section of objects as there is a large difference in the magnification from the two scopes, there is little point trying to view the whole Pleiades (M45 ) with the LX and it’s 3m of focal length as all you will see is a fairly small area of it and its beauty would be lost. Likewise at just over X40 on NGC1087 with the M/N 190mm you will do well to tell it from a faint star or even see it if you have any light pollution.

Meade 12 inch SC.

Vega,

Now the first time I checked this the star was very close to being overhead, I believe Vega is circumpolar here but I am not absolutely sure, if it goes below the horizon it is only for a very short time, though hills behind my house prevent me seeing it very much past 12 degrees above the cut off point, 11 degrees if I climb on a roof and jump up and down.

Vega is of course a very bright star and ideal to check for scatter and edge performance of the like eyepieces. The scatter in the Panoptic on axis was just a little more than I would expect to see in a decent orthoscopic and again a little worse at the very edge. At the extremities I could see a tiny amount of astigmatism but nothing to be worried about, all in all the eyepiece handled bright point sources very well indeed. It may be worth the mention that I was using the eye-guard raised to aid eye placement.

Swapping over to the Meade 24mm only gave me the feeling that on axis Vega was a little more blue than in the Panoptic, scatter control was as good but not better. Moving the star to the edge of the field of view showed more scatter than in the Tele-Vue and more astigmatism that became apparent earlier in the short slew to the edge. This was really typical of the type of performance I have come to expect from the Series 5000 range, not as good as some eyepieces but a lot better than most.

The strange thing about the astigmatism was it appeared as a coma effect, Vega looking like a little but very bright comet with a short tail. Being as I was not totally sure of what I was seeing prompted me to check my collimation and I found it to be fine. I noticed that the Meade eyepiece was a little fussier about eye placement than the Panoptic; I found I could induce odd star astigmatic effects by moving my eye position around and not looking square on into the eye-lens, something I was careful about from then on, though I have seen this effect before.

NGC 1068 or Messier 77.

I have to say that I put my heart and sole into the selection of faint fuzzes though I confess it is not my favourite pastime. How people do this with Dobsonians I do not know, lots of patience’s must be a prerequisite as I found this difficult enough with a goto system and a laptop, no doubt Dobsonian owners would have me put down for such heresy.

There are 3 nights in these observations and two of them were excellent and the location of all of the objects was fairly easy, though I have to say that even with a 12 inch scope M77 does not exactly stop the traffic. This is in my opinion one where Messier's catalogue of objects to avoid makes sense to me, this could be said to look like a comet but M45, I think not.

I spent a long time on this on one of the nights to make sure my eyes were as dilated as they could be, with having a laptop nearby even in red mode I do not believes helps one bit.

On axis there was not any difference to my eyes between the two contestants and the Panoptic only showed it’s real class when you moved the galaxy to the edge where it did look better all together, objects in the centre are great in both eyepieces. For me the importance of the extremes of a field area cannot be over stated as I truly feel the edge comes into its own if you are employing the eyepiece as finder in a Dobsonian or a scope where the goto system is not so accurate. I must stress here I am only talking or the last 5% of the covered field. Although the Tele-Vue performed better the Meade was by no means bad and in any case would a massive step up from the stock type offerings that are sold with most telescopes today.

    

Comet Lovejoy.

This is something that was a dim and distant snowball not really visible in my scopes when I started work on this comparison, I felt though I should include it as I found it was visible before Christmas and due to not very good weather I was still collecting information. Now when we mention the word comet my mind goes back to Hale Bopp and what a sight that was in the night sky, Lovejoy has not lived up to such high standards but it still well worth a look as for me at least it is a naked eye comet and that deserves a mention.

I don’t feel the 12 inch is the world best instrument for comets with this amount of power but it did give a very bright image of a stellar like core with fairly equal light radiating out in all directions, it pretty much filled the field of view. I could not see a tail of any type at this magnification (X127) but I always got the feeling it was a little brighter at the 3 o’clock position. On axis again there was nothing to choose between these eyepieces but the Panoptict was a little better at the edges with the Tele-Vue showing background faint stars, at F10 though this was no reason not to like the Meade or dare I say the Maxvision variant.

Hubble’s Variable nebula.

Now this is a first for me and I have to say if it were not for having a laptop coupled to the scope would probably never known about it. This really does look like a small comet tail and would have been a good one to include in Messier’s catalogue, maybe he missed it. As to the word variable, whether this is the magnitude of the object or the size I don’t really know but my software rated it at magnitude 10 and that is getting towards the difficult to spot with light pollution faintness. Both eyepieces gave very alike renditions on axis and I was very pleased that I had finally found this nebula, if you have not viewed this beforehand, look it up I don’t think you will disappointed.

I could see no difference in the brightness of the target with either ocular; the Meade/ExSc/Maxvision lens combination allegedly has better transmission. If indeed this is the case it was a measurement obtained by means of electronic equipment rather than by human eye and then of course all our eyes are different. I actually went to the trouble of having mine tested about two weeks before Christmas as I would never like to mislead anyone that reads reviews I write. I firmly believe that a couple percent differences in transmission between players is impossible to detect and I would jump at overall image sharpness and contrast every single time. For me it is the same as another site member and my other love, HiFi, maybe he is like me, I buy loud speakers by what I hear and listen to, not on a printout of statistical information. 

NGC 1090, galaxy Mag 11.9

I believe this was the faintest object that I have I have used in a review and I was not expecting to have to don sunglasses to look at it through the scope that was if I could even find it in the first place. As luck would have it the goto of the scope seems to work very well with a laptop and it placed bang in the centre of the field of view, though I still had to compose myself and concentrate to see the small faint patch, I think more power would have helped here and whilst not part of the test did as I lifted the power up to X304 with the 10mm Ethos, this was mainly to see that I had found the galaxy. I am not even remotely skilled at spotting these faint objects but did get a joy from seeing something so far away. This was again the same old story that a scope of a speed of F10 is not going to show up obvious faults in anything but the worst eyepieces and neither of these would or should be labeled that. I would have said the galaxy looked the same in both eyepieces with the exception of the odd star at the very extreme of field and even that was not really an issue especially on this type of target.

Sky Watcher Maksutov/Newtonian 190mm, F 5.26.

This is not the fastest scope that ever hit the market place but I feel a good one for doing these eyepiece reviews as it is reported to be coma free. The quality of the optics whilst not 1/10PV Orion Optics quality are also not supermarket special offer either. My feeling is the star test is close to APO quality and has the added advantage of a shorter focal length of 1000mm, I have found it very good at all magnifications from X24 right though to over X300.

Vega.

Now I choose Vega because it is bright which serves for a good test on scatter and edge aberrations and it is also two presses of the button for alignment stars that I don’t have to look up in a star atlas. Star names and where they are is something that for all the years I have been in the hobby still come second to the late Sir Patrick Moore's pet cat.

I was treated to an occultation that can’t happen too often and a few miles either side of me would not happen at all. That was that the International Space Station crossed exactly in front of Vega from my viewing position. It was not a near miss but a complete covering, I was so taken aback with it that it took me a split second to even understand what had just taken place, this was follow by a totally pathetic rendition of how not to try and follow a satellite with an EQ mount, that was the last I saw of it through the scope. I was a little sorry the scope was not the LX where the power would have allowed me to see more, albeit for a few seconds. As I was in the setup of the scope at the time I then had to go back to pointing at the pole star and staring all over again, but it was worth it.

With these eyepieces being stated as the same focal length and field of view I will assume they are the same, I could not see any obvious differences in use. The power from 24mm in this scope is X41.6 and that equates to a 1.63 degrees actual field of view, which is fractionally over 3 Moon widths, so a decent wide field eyepiece and popular choice.

Viewing Vega placed in the centre of the field both eyepiece gave a clean and fairly scatter free image with the Panoptic being just a tad sharper and better controlled. Moving the star towards the very edge of the field still gave a very sharp star in the Tele-Vue with just a touch more scatter and a tiny amount of chromatic aberration when the star was exactly on the edge, not a fair test really. The Meade showed more noticeable lateral aberrations starting around 20% of the distance from the extremity getting slightly worse the closer you got to it. The aberration which was astigmatisum showed itself coma like, making Vega look like a very small bright comet  but worse than in the larger scope. There was also edge distortion visible in both eyepieces which was maybe better handled with a smoother transition by Tele-Vue, though at the same time I thought the distortion was greater in this eyepiece. I would not like to use either of these to view the Moon as it is something that I just do not like.        

Rigel.

This was a test to see if I could see the double at a smaller magnification and also to conduct basically the same tests as on Vega. The first thing that was evident was the star was no where near as well controlled in both eyepiece, this was entirely due to the elevation from the horizon and amount of atmosphere I was looking through. When I view Rigel at this time of year I am looking towards the town which is about 5 miles away, the air in this general direction always seems to be more active and now with a little light pollution that never used to be there, where as Vega is much higher, or was when I was observing it.

I didn’t manage to see the double star on the first two visits with the M/N 190mm but I did just get a sure sighting two nights ago when Orion was much higher and away from the direction of the town, I could see the split in both eyepieces but better in the Tele-Vue. I  believe that knowing exactly where a double star sits in relation the primary is an advantage as Rigel like Sirius in much brighter than the secondary component and you can see ghost doubles many times on both these stars, the latter being the more demanding. The other thing I have to add to memory is the scope I use as some of these different optical systems show upside down and inside out views, this of course has no effect on the main star but changes the position of the secondary star, it makes the Moon interesting as well with me never really sure where east and west are.

Messier 42.

I was not hoping to be able to split the ‘E’& ‘F’ stars from the trapezium at this power but just wanted to view the nebula in its entirety, as it happened I was able to view the whole of the sword of Orion including the area known as ‘the running man’, something that is only visible with the aid of long astrophotography exposures, beautiful they are too. There are also some NGC numbers for two clusters that are part of the group, NGC 1980/1. On axis there was really little to see in the way of any difference both giving a lovely clean central field view, it was only when I moved things around and saw in the Meade the trapezium almost unresolved near to the edge. There is also a fairly nice double star in NGC 1980, that is an easy split, this was not easily visible when the trapezium was place centre field where as it was clearly visible with the Panoptic in any position. This was a lovely choice of eyepiece size in this scope to view the sword, in the Panoptic everything just looked so crisp with lovely contrast.

Messier Clusters, 45, 37, and 35.

This really was a test of different clusters that I have probably looked at over a hundred times to see how the different magnitude of the star within them reacted to placement in the field of view.

M35.

Now I believe it was Pete Lawence on the Sky at Night that said that M35 could look like the Space Shuttle, it does thought upstide down it looks like the bud of a bluebell to me. What ever it happens to resemble I don’t think spaceships were around back in Messier day and it a lovely cluster rich with stars many that seem to have similar magnitudes. On axis with both eyepieces there was little to split them and it was only when you moved the cluster to the side of field when the Panoptic came into its own.

M45,

This fits into the full view of view though personally I would like a little less power or wider field to just frame it that much better. Here using the Meade SWA the outer stars, being brighter took more of a hammering from the astigmatism, again looking like little comets. This is about the only target where for me the Meade gave a less than acceptable view, but as M45 or the Pleiades is the only cluster of this size and brightness I guess it would not be a major selling point for the Panoptic.

M37,

I really like this cluster as it gives that diamonds on black velvet appearance that we all love to see, that is if we are lucky enough to have a dark sky, I can only imagine that a load of orange light pollution would not do it any favours. On this cluster with the stars being so delicate and much fainter than the Pleiades the Meade actually made some of the fainter stars disappear; this was again placed at the edge of field but the same treatment is offered to both eyepieces.

For me this would not be the end of the world as at the moment all of my scopes are driven, however I could be more concerned if I, as I will have soon, owned a Dobsonian. When I owned the full set of these Meade eyepieces I simply used the goto and then centred the target  and then set about looking at it, the scope keeping it bang in the middle. I have to admit that I do now pay more attention to the outer field of view than before and there are slight aberrations even with Tele-Vue eyepieces but I do mean slight and you really have to look for them.

Messier 77 and NGC 1073.

Whilst I was looking in the general area on Cetus there are a number of faint galaxies in and around this location, all were not that easy to see with the 12 inch but there was at least enough magnification from the eyepieces to set them apart from stars. I set about finding these two using high precession locating with the goto system, I fully believe that if it were not in the centre of the field then that would be game over. As it happened the scope did place it somewhere near the middle and, 6 arc minutes is not very much at X41, at least with Rigel, thought the gap it much smaller it is point source, always easier to see. I had the Panoptic in the focuser as I was not sure where the faint patch would end up in the field of view and knew there was no way I would be able to see the full size of it. Changing over gave as far as I could see the same view on axis but was again a different story when place the fuzzy patch to the side. I am not at all sure I would have seen it had the goto placed it there with the Meade eyepiece, this again would be of greater detriment to the Dob Mob.

My hunt for NGC 1073 was only confirmed with the M/N 190mm after cheating and using a different eyepiece to make sure I was not looking at a star, this is smaller than M77 and somewhat fainter, I was fairly pleased I even saw it with the smaller scope. Repeating the same, place at the edge test there is no way I would have seen it and was very easy to over look, this for me was where the Tele-Vue Panoptic came into its own and goes some way to explaining why many on site Dob owns use Tele-Vue of one type of another.

Comet Lovejoy.

As said before I have seen the Meade/ExSc, and we will assume they are the same being placed above the Panoptic in the light transmission tables and I am not questioning that one bit. What I do question though is does it really matter in day to day use as we are talking about very small differences that my friend who is an eye surgeon tells me are impossible to detect. Whether that is right or wrong I do not have the knowledge to debate and matters little.

Whilst I was doing the observations on Lovejoy, of which there were 4 sessions,  I saw on one night that the comet had occulted a very faint star (maybe magnitude 10-11) and had moved away from it enough so it could now be seen through the dust thrown off. This was much easier to see with the Panoptic as I had just changed eyepieces and had not noticed it with the SWA, now this could be purely down to the eyepiece being what I had felt all along, a little sharper but an interesting observation nonetheless.

Conclusion.

I have read a few reports in various places on the Meade/Ex-Sc/Max-vision 24mm eyepieces and the people that have them are very happy with them as indeed I was myself some years back. People report they are sharp at the edges in a large array of telescopes, this is where I disagree. My fastest scope at the moment is only F 5.26 and with my eyes, yes I use both, this is enough to show that Meade’s advertising using the words ‘Tack Sharp’ missed the words ‘in slow telescopes’. I was more than pleased with the performance of any from this range in the F10 SC or my even slower F15 Mak, however I wonder what an F3.9 quality mirror would do to it, soon I will part way to finding out. As it is though I can only report my findings as best as I can make them with the equipment I have.

I have tried to rule out my eyes, having had them tested very recently, but I do believe my years of working in the quality assurance field have made me both more observant and more critical, not always such a good thing.   

This does not mean it is not a good eyepiece, far from it for the amount you can pick one up for now they must be viewed as superb value for money and if I had stayed a one scope man then I very much doubt I would have emptied both wallet and bank account on the black and green addiction.

I feel the word addiction is a little harsh as they are: very well made; extensively tested to F4;  perform better than most on the market and can be said to be a market leader, however you have to pay for this. I believe Tele-Vue’s are great secondhand buys as you are never likely to loose a massive amount in obtaining them this way, many of us have including me, you can sell them for the same amount if you wish to change to something else. There is no doubt to me that the 24mm Panoptic is a better eyepiece especially at faster scope speeds, it would also appear that few part with them once acquired too. The burning question as to whether you should buy one is impossible to answer, this can only be addressed by the individual, but I feel for me it was money well spent and I am not on my own in believing this either.

I now await the Meade and Ex-Sc inquisition sitting in my comfortable chair with pillows at the ready.

Hope you enjoyed it

Alan.                                         

[Qualia]

This is a cracking report, Alan and thank you so much for taking your time to not only test the eyepieces but also to write up the report. Outstanding work .

I don't own any Meade eyepiece, so obviously cannot comment but I do have the 19mm and 24mm Panoptic. Needless to say they are really nice eyepieces. Their weight, size, build quality, eye relief, field of view and outstanding performance make them a pleasure to use in any of the scopes I've got.

[John]

Super report Alan

My experience with Meade eyepieces is limited to the older 3000 and 4000 series plossls and SWA's. The 5000 series SWA's seem to be somewhat better than the 4000 ones from your description. They seem to be more reasonably priced as well. 

Another very interesting eyepiece in this niche is the Vixen LVW 22mm. Well worth having a go with if one ever comes your way

Thanks for another excellent contribution to the forum

[jkwhinfrey]

I don't have a Meade or Televue, but I do have the Maxvision version, and they do look very similar to the Meade. I've been wondering whether it was just me that wasn't finding it sharp across the whole field since it's so popular.

They are good for the money, but I'm finding myself asking what the point of wide field is if it's not good across pretty much the whole view. We all have our particular buttons that shouldn't be pressed, and this is one of mine.

Of course this raises the question of whether I'd appreciate the Panoptic more, as you say the difference is noticeable but not huge. I thought about buying the Panoptic, but even second hand the price difference is significant and I assumed I wasn't that tetchy ;-)

Lots to think about. Thanks for all the effort that must have gone into this report, it's much appreciated.

James

[alan potts]

James,

The line you put into your post with regard to why show it if it's not sharp is basically the Tele-Vue moto, I was meaning to put it into the piece but at 2000 words plus I started to remove parts. I even did a number of observations on The Rosette nebula but left them out as the results were becoming too much the same, also I am not good enough at Englisg to dress it up any other way.

I think you said it all in that line that I took many more to get across. On the subject of taking the step to buy one, remember they do not change lives and it is only a hobby, but it's nice to treat yourself sometimes if you really feel you want one I am sure you will not be disappointed..

[YKSE]

Alan, thanks for a very detail comparison, that was a lot of scope time, I wish I've had that many opportunity to take my scopes out.

Moving the star to the edge of the field of view showed more scatter than in the Tele-Vue and more astigmatism that became apparent earlier in the short slew to the edge. This was really typical of the type of performance I have come to expect from the Series 5000 range, not as good as some eyepieces but a lot better than most.

The strange thing about the astigmatism was it appeared as a coma effect, Vega looking like a little but very bright comet with a short tail.  

Have you tried to refocus the Meade when Vega is in the edge? I've noticed that there's some field curvature in MV 24mm in my scopes, I need to refocus to get tighter stars when looking at the edge.

[hgjevans]

Terrific piece of work, Alan - many thanks. Though I must admit to feeling a little uneasy as I read it, having just ordered a Maxvision 24mm the other day! I thought I'd done my 'due diligence' pretty well, but as it happens this is the second not-quite-so-positive write-up I've seen since placing the order. Everything else I found was gushing with praise. Ho hum.

OTOH, at my level of (in)experience with telescope optics, I should think it will still be good enough to keep me happy for years to come. And having just seen the price of the Panoptic      , I rather suspect I'll be able to cope with any disappointment. 

[Bart]

I don't believe you will be sorry you bought the MV. It is a very good eyepiece Sometimes the differences between the very good and the excellent eyepieces are very minor and will only bug you if that kind of thing bugs you. I found very little difference indeed between an EsSc 11mm 82* and a TV 11mm Nagler , and believe me, I was looking for it. Maybe I'm a Mr Magoo!.!.!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hgjevans]

Thanks Bart. I think, on reflection, both the more critical reports I've now seen do seem to have been... well, not splitting hairs exactly, but as you say separating the excellent from the merely very good. I can live with that - for now. 

[Bart]

That's ok. I wasn't just being nice[emoji2] I own one and like it a lot[emoji1] Re the Nagler and ES, I actually preferred the ES, as I could discern no difference visually and found the Nagler suffered from kidney beaning much more than the ES. To my shame, I sold the ES and kept the Nagler, just because it was a Nagler.........

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul73]

Thanks Alan

Slendid piece of work.

As you can see from my signature, I am a MaxVision fan but am also partial to a bit of Delos flavoured green.

As you clearly say, the 24mm Maxvision/Mead is a good eyepiece (my most used eyepiece) but the more you use it the more you notice the seagulls at the edges when you look closely. This is only really an issue when you are viewing bright big clusters such as M45. In fact, I take the FOV hit and drop to the 20mm for these targets as this effect is much much reduced. For most objects the outer 10 to 15% of the field is "context" whilst you focus on the main object, so you do not notice the seagulls.

Whilst it is disappointing that the Panoptic won out (because I own the other one). It does go some way validating the already stellar Televue reputation and the associated price tag. The MV is an out and out bargain, but for a lot more money you can get a bit better across the board.

Might be worth popping them in your new dob when it arrives to see how the MV keeps up sub f5.

Paul

[Dave In Vermont]

Great report indeed, Alan - thanks!

I, too, haven't had much experience with any Meade EP's other than their Plossl's. But I do have the TeleVue 24mm Panoptic. One evening I was about to buy a 24mm Hyperion. I had completely forgotten I had the Panoptic, and I'd just used it the night before! It was then and there that I decided I had enough EP's.

Over here, the TV 24mm Panoptic has been holding steady at $299.00.

Clear Skies,

Dave

[alan potts]

Bart,

The only things I would say are these, I was not making a comparison on the 11mm ExSc and the 11mm Nagler, a focal length that Meade did not have in the bag, this could have been developed as a special to make their range different All other focal lengths are the same in the range and even at 18mm though the size of fitting is different the feeling is the glass is the same.

 I would also add it would appear from postsI am not the only one to notice that these eyepieces are not as good as some claim , don't forget I had a full set of these. I did read what you had to say about the 11mm but cannot comment as I do not have one of these but did have the Nagler at the time but believe what you say. I don't recall having kidney bean problems but it was a while ago but I did use it a fair bit.

Something else that is of importance when using wide field eyepieces is do you use a Paracorr with your scopes, I cannot recall, I would have thought without one you would have coma at F4.5 and an 82 degree FOV?  

Yong,

I did try try the refocus and it was no different, for me this fault is not field curve, both eyepieves have edge distortion which as I am sure you know is different. I think one of the poster summed it up well with the word seagulls. I would have thought field curvature would be out of focus stars that snap back into focus when you make a move, the words seagulls or as I used comets is not this indicative of this fault.

Alan.

[Bart]

Alan

Fair points all.

I didn't in any way mean to shoot your review down, you have significantly more experience than I in these things.

No more than you say, there will often be a difference, but maybe not a big one.

Re the parracor, I use a coma corrector sometimes, but only sometimes, yes I see coma, but it bothers me less and less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alan potts]

Bart,

I don't think that you ever had any intention to shoot the review down and as I see didn't. We are all different and I like to get to bottom of all observations after all your scopes are at the moment the one type of mainstream production that I do not have and it is only fair to assume will turn up slightly different results. I want to encourage debate.

My biggest gripe is some of the adverts we all get fooled by, at least some of the time, tack sharp, at least the Panoptic is as claimed in most if not all scopes. Maybe I am a bit sore from spending about 2000 pounds on Meades eyepieces and getting about half of that when I sold them, I try not to let that cloud my judgement though

I put a piece together a while back on EX-Sc and asked was the 11mm UWA their first turn the back on what Meade ( biggest JOC customer at the time I guess) offer, after this we had the 25mm 100degree,  9mm 120 degree and of course the 3 inch monster, all ground breaking really. The 25mm is an eyepiece I may well buy.

Alan

[YKSE]

Alan,

Thanks for the clarification, Seagulls is the word I associate with astigmatism nowadays, and cometic with Coma. But there were times when I named all the aberations as coma   It was interesting though I learned the differences in my C8, which has all kinds of aberations because of inherent standard SCT design.

[John]

That's ok. I wasn't just being nice[emoji2] I own one and like it a lot[emoji1] Re the Nagler and ES, I actually preferred the ES, as I could discern no difference visually and found the Nagler suffered from kidney beaning much more than the ES. To my shame, I sold the ES and kept the Nagler, just because it was a Nagler.........

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little tangent here (sorry Alan) -  Bart, which version Nagler was it ?

The Type 1's and 2's were prone to kidney beaning if the eye position was not "just right" but the later T6's seemed to deal with this much better.

[Bart]

Good question john. Don't think it's a 1 or 2. It's either a 4 or 6, sound right? I'll check. Apologies as well to Alan

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John]

Good question john. Don't think it's a 1 or 2. It's either a 4 or 6, sound right? I'll check. Apologies as well to Alan

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably the Type 6 if it's a 1.25" format barrel. I have read elsewhere that the ES 82's are very close to the Naglers in performance though.

[alan potts]

No need for anyone saying sorry, I am the worst on site for drifting. I have read many accounts including the one from Bart that the 11mm is a superb eyepiece.  It is also rated as best in class by people that have a few of them. 

It is of couse one I have never seen though I had most of the Meade UWA all of which appear in the ExSc line-up. As I said in another thread I started they are cheaper than the Meade variants once were and oddly cheaper than thier own 68 degree range when it's available, or at least they are on the TS site.

Alan. 

[YKSE]

 As I said in another thread I started they are cheaper than the Meade variants once were and oddly cheaper than thier own 68 degree range when it's available, or at least they are on the TS site.

Alan. 

Alan,

My 2 cents wild guess:

ES has run the same the tools for Meade for many years, they have already made money on these old tools. Yes, each eyepiece adds more raw material, both old, soon-to-be-scraped tool is essential free to use.

For big indutries, the raw material of products themselve usually are much, much lower than the sale prices, the admin/tooling etc add many times more cost to the products.

[alan potts]

Maybe Yong,

My take on it would be different: Meade can' t pay for an eyepiece order, fall out with JOC, ExSc take over and then turn the knife in the wound, could have legs?

Alan

[John]

This is quite interesting for those interested in Meade / Explore Scientific recent history:

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/05/17/548235/10033342/en/Meade-Instruments-Corp-Announces-Merger-Agreement-to-be-Acquired-by-Jinghua-Optics-Electronics.html

Looks like ES was to manage Meade operations, at least in 2013, both companies being owned by JOC. I'll bet the Meade executives were thrilled at the prospect 

[jetstream]

I think Ningbo Sunny now owns Meade. JOC (ES owner) made the Celestron Axioms but I think quit supplying their EP's to a competitor (Celestron), hence the Ningbo Sunny copies (Luminos).

I believe that JOC (ES) also stopped the supply to the now competitor Meade (Ningbo) for the Meade EP line. As Yong says JOC most likely finished off this run with paid for tooling at a very high profit. Even though very good EP's the giveaway prices of the Meade associated Maxvisions, may have called the whole Meade EP line into question.... JOC sounds pretty smart actually.

[alan potts]

Nice bit of digging John, I think with the first new launch of the so called 100 degree eyepieces if this is an example of more to come I don't see them lasting too long.

Alan.