Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About astronomer2002

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Since I cannot find a 41 Pan for sale s/h I purchased an ES40 as suggested by several people here. It was s/h so would be a 'bargain' if it filled the role. The skies have not been brilliant since it arrived but I have seen enough to make comparisons. Compared to the 31 Nagler I see more sky, but the outer edges are not as sharp as the Nagler. There appears to be field curvature, which isn't apparent in the Nagler 31 and is certainly more noticeable than in the Panoptic 35. The sky background also appears brighter than in the 31 Nagler or 35 Panoptic. This may be due to the sky conditions but I have read that some ES eyepieces yield a 'dark gray' background sky so it may be a real effect. Oddly my ancient 40mm Meade SWA yielded a slightly smaller field but with a darker background. I'm trying hard to like this eyepiece but it may need a Paracorr to be a perfect eyepiece, which will defeat the advantages it offers namely cost and wider true fov. I wish I knew someone with a 41 Pan so I would know whether it's the holy grail of widefield eyepieces or not. ? Ian B
  2. Scope now gone to Steve. Yes, I am sad to see it go but I can't keep storing 14 inch SCT's ? When I've recovered from this wrench maybe I'll list the 14 RCX ? Ian B
  3. No replies so I wonder about trying a different tack? Anyone fancy trading their 41 Pan plus some money for my 40mm ES 68 degree eyepiece? Ian B
  4. Looks like the scope will be going abroad - if I can find a better box to put it in for the journey. The firm offers I have had have all been from EU countries and want the scope sent to them. I wonder if anyone here has a large box they aren't going to use? I really wanted to sell it in the UK but can't hang on to it forever, there's a large hole in my bank account made by the 16 inch ACF. Ian B
  5. All the kit we buy comes in sturdy boxes, many double ones, to keep the instruments safe on their round the world journeys. This usually works fine, but then what? I am struggling to find any supplier who can provide a box suitable to pack a Meade ACF 14 to send it to potential purchasers and just wonder what we do with the originals? I rarely throw any out, just in case it's needed, but even so I can see some have mysteriously disappeared. I even found a box for a 10 inch Meade I sold on over 10 years ago. I guess all boxes end up in recycling, which is a real pain when replacements are only made 10,000 miles away. I am reminded of the saying that "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone". Seriously, if you have a Meade 14 ACF OTA box that you are being nagged into recycling please let me know! Ian B
  6. Thankyou for posting so many pics - was the show well attended as it didn't look as busy as Astrofest? That's good for browsing but perhaps not as good for vendors. Maybe it's just the size of the venue that makes it look like there's more scopes than visitors! Looks like it was mainly visual astronomy oriented from the displays, don't see any cameras on the stands.
  7. James, They don't come up that often. I waited over a year before this one came up when I purchased it from the original buyer about 5 years ago to replace a 12inch SCT. Looks like people keep the best ones as they don't crop up very often on the s/h market. I have 'stored' it for 2 years since moving to the F8 version. As I have an old C14 this F10 was just too similar although it has a larger, flatter, field making it a better all round scope. The older C14 is basically a planetary imaging scope and the later Edge versions horrendously expensive. If you have a stalled observatory project there is nothing that galvanises the build process better than having a scope ready to install!
  8. Having moved to the F8 SCT version I have decided to sell my 14 inch Meade ACF F10 OTA. Can't really justify keeping it any longer as a 'spare'. This is just the OTA with a Losmandy plate attached, no finder or eyepieces. I used it with a Moonlite focuser, which I have repurposed, so there is just the visual back, please see the photo's. The optics are in superb condition and the tube just has a few marks on the paintwork. The first owner stuck a couple of velcro pads on the OTA for sticking accessories such as the dew heater on. The scope has always been kept in a heated observatory It is a very heavy telescope, circa 28Kg, so you will need something like an Eq8 to mount it. This really is a pick-up only, though I do have part of the original box to make transportation easier. Scope is in Maidenhead in the Thames Valley. Could arrange a part-way meet and as we often go to Devon it would be especially convenient for anyone near the M4-M5 route from the Thames Valley down to Devon. Asking £2300
  9. Sounds like the ES works for you. I am glad it does as with my f4.3 Newt I find low powers with widefield eyepieces have too large an exit pupil. There's no doubt the big Newts score when it comes to seeing faint galaxies and nebulae though. Ian B
  10. Geoff, That's an interesting story. A friend purchased an ES 82/18 and was very happy with it in a F10 12 inch SCT. I tried it in my scope and the Naglers were just so much better. I was both happy and disappointed as there was no potential saving. As a result I chose to wait for the 26 Nagler to be available s/h and continue my Nagler odyssey. I have tried other ES eyepieces but felt they weren't any better than Meades. Price performance may put ES at the top, but for pure performance there are alternatives. Ian B
  11. Paul, The 22 Nagler has an eyecup that can be extended and that makes observing with it quite comfortable. It's a shame the 26 and 31 don't have the same. I can use them as I am used to manouvering my eye to the sweet spot but when showing people objects through the scope I often find they cannot manage and I have to switch to lesser eyepieces. Scopes are all about compromises and I guess I should be happy with 0.78 degrees. This is enough for nearly every object, apart from the largest nebulae, and I am afraid those are simply not visible to the human eye in the polluted skies we have to endure. It amazes me Herschel found so many of these from Slough! I'd just like to get the maximum field that I can. Ian B
  12. Thankyou for this info. I had heard the MaxVision 40 was supposed to be a Meade SWA in a different housing. Hopefully it is just that as I already have a Meade SWA 40 which I never found as sharp round the edge as the Nagler or Panoptic. It's OK, especially at longer focal lengths, but the actual fov seems to be on a par with the Nagler 31 (despite the sums saying it ought to be about 5% more). It appears there are no really good 40mm+ eyepieces around. I should own up that I also have a Meade 56mm eyepiece which yields about the same fov as the 41 Pan would, but it is like looking through a narrow tube at an overly bright sky and still the outer regions are not sharp. At least it reminds me that going to too long a focal length is pointless in 2" format. I initially discounted the 41mm Pan due to the perceived fuzzy field stop, which to me would make it a poor eyepiece, but I just cannot find a better one. I was hoping to pick up a decent priced s/h one that someone didn't like. New price (with a bit of bargaining and not using a credit card) is around £450 so, to me, at least, a s/h one ought to be not much over £300, after all a Nagler 31 can be picked up for £350 if you are patient. At that sort of price the Pan could be moved on if it did not provide the view I am after. The cost of going to 3" would be horrendous and not financially viable for just one eyepiece. It seems most people are singing the praises of ES eyepieces, which offer cheaper alternatives to the Televue offerings, but are not quite in the same league. Ian B
  13. I thought my eyepiece collection was complete until I bought my "last ever" telescope. This operates at a native F8 and is just over 3250mm fl. I have the longer Naglers, 31, 26, 22, 17 etc and 35mm, 27mm Panoptics. I was always a little disappointed with the kidney-beaning in the Naglers in other telescopes, though they were overall better than any other eyepiece I have used, but in this one they seem to be affected less and even the 26mm is now a keeper. Before I got the Naglers (over many years all s/h) I had 35, 27 and 19 Panoptics. These were my favorite eyepieces until the Naglers came along. I kept the 35mm as stars seemed a little sharper in the inner 50 degrees than the Naglers, but trailed off in the outer regions and the 27mm as it really is an exceptional eyepiece. In any case I often wanted to darken the sky with higher magnification so the longest ones were primarily used for sweeping and finding. Given sky brightness is becoming more of an issue I thought I would never need a longer focal length. Now the Naglers seem sharper over the entire view and with the higher magnification of a longer scope the sky is darker and I hanker after the widest possible field. The issue is that the 82 degree 31mm Nagler gives me a true fov of 0.78 degrees and the 35 mm Panoptic 0.73 degrees. There is noticeably more sky in the 31mm Nagler. A 41mm Panoptic will yield 0.85 degrees, an improvement of nearly 10% over the Nagler 31. As I can readily see the difference in the amount of sky covered by the 31mm Nagler and the 35mm Panoptic I believe the time to look at a 41mm Panoptic is here. Before going into a debate on whether ES eyepieces could fill the slot all I can say is that having been able to compare my old Naglers with new 82 degree ES ones in my scopes I and convinced that, for me, there is a small improvement with the Naglers at the outer regions of the field and so I am minded to discount them. They are fantastic value and I won't deny they are very good eyepieces. The 41mm Panoptic would seem fit the bill for this long fl scope though I suspect it would be a disaster in a fast Newtonian, which I also have. My quest is to find someone willing to part with theirs and/or suggestions of an alternative that someone has used in practice. Thankyou for reading Ian B
  14. Looking for a Panoptic 41mm which should yield the widest possible field in a 2 inch eyepiece. Anyone got one of these they rarely use? Thankyou for any replies Ian B
  15. I have an AP 27TVPH which I use with my RCX 14 and it works really well visually and reduces the scope to F6. The AP reducers seem to be recommended for use with these scopes - does anyone use either the 0.75 or 0.67 with their ACF 14 or 16? A 16 inch SCT at F6 with the 2.7 inch AP reducer sounds like a perfect visual setup. Ian B
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.