Piero

More praises to the 24 Pan!

My recent purchases have been: - 30mm APM-UFF - 32mm TV Plossl (for my h-alpha project) - 110mm Baader D-ERF (same as above) when FLO will start selling Quarks, I'll get one from them. ? Meanwhile, this summer I will visit the post office to dispatch a few things ! ?

@Lockie Owning a TV-60, which has similar specs to the Tak-60, I have to agree with Jeremy... the 24 Pan works VERY well with that scope. ~4.3 deg of sky at ~15x at ~4mm exit pupil. It also works well on many other telescopes.

Well... it's a great eyepiece! Here's mine!

Congratulations Jeremy! In my opinion the 24 Pan is one of the best eyepieces ever made, considering its specs, optics, and ergonomics. To the two other eyepieces you already mentioned, I would add the new APM-UFF 24mm. It seems a great rival to the 24 Pan, apart from the size/weight where the 24 Pan wins hands down. I recently bought a TV 32 Plossl for my h-alpha solar project and as a potential replacement for my 24 Pan. The TV 32 Plossl is another very fine eyepiece, but I feel it misses that "trilling factor" that the 24 Pan offers. The 24 Pan is a keeper.

Congratulations, Derek! It looks like a great upgrade to your telescope! Glad to hear that it works very well!

Congratulations on your new telescope and eyepieces. I look forward to read how you find the 30mm UFF.

Currently saving for it!

And same here too! A solid mount head can really make the difference. First of all, it is a pleasure to use (and not an effort!). Secondly, it allows you to forget about vibrations (assuming you don't observe during a hurricane!). Third (A) if the mount is Alt/Az, it's like moving an excellent dobson; (B) if it is equatorial, you only need to care of moving one axis. Personally, I do not use slow motion controls, but just gently push the giro mounts and this moves sooooo smoothly, without any form of backlash or blockage. Balancing can also be resolved easily and with little money using one or two wrists weights attached to the dovetail, if you do not want to slide the latter along the saddle. A good tripod is also worth it to me. --- If one day I get the Quark, I will use the TV60 for h-alpha obs and mount this on the other side of the AYO. Mmm.. ? hang on... this might lead to the purchase of an ERF for the Tak.... LOL!

I agree, 100x with the Tak is quite limiting for planetary observation. I use that mag with my TV60. With the Tak 150x-250x is my usual range and that is exceed when the seeing and transparency are particularly good. The Ayo + Berlebach combo is a rock with the Tak on top. No problem with tracking at all. And here the Boss....

Awesome!

^^^^ very true! And yours (Chris) is also an excellent light setup!

I also prefer the 24 Pan to the ES_82 or Vixen LVW I bought, in terms of FOV performance and at the edge.

I mean that the 24 Pan shows a lot of rectilinear distortion (RD). TeleVue consciously introduced it in order to control astigmatism and angular magnification distortion (AMD) at the edge within a certain threshold (which I believe is 1%). RD does not cause issues when observing a large star field, and one can notice it when spanning along the Milky Way (pincushion distortion) or when large targets (e.g. Moon, Sun) are moved near the edge (they appear like ovals). Personally, and by some criticised, my preference for eyepieces is: - a trade-off between RD and AMD (the two are inversely proportional); - zero astigmatism. The Docter UWA is an example of these kind of eyepieces. There is this long-lived belief that terrestrial eyepieces should minimise RD, whereas astronomical eyepieces should minimise AMD. Essentially, this is what TeleVue has done. To me this is down to one's preference and not something biblical. I prefer to see the moon as a sphere near the edge rather than an oval; whereas others prefer to see the separation between 2 stars to be constant within the field of view. One cannot have both for reasons concerning optical physics, but I just don't see anything wrong with having some AMD in an eyepiece used for astronomical purposes. Just my 2 pennies. p.s. hope this does not start an AMD vs RD war, with an army waving TV flags!

The 24 Pan is a good eyepiece but with a lot of RD. With the TV60, it works well when observing a large open cluster. Due to RD, planetary targets look like ovals at the edge. At 15x this is not really an issue, though - apart from poetic observations of the Moon / Sun coming up from the surrounding trees.

When I saw the first photo I thought the blue in the telescope and tripod is a nice match! Anyway, as long as it works well, colours are secondary.

I agree about the TS head. It's a nice and light mount. Great equipment BTW. I thought about the Neewer carbon fiber tripod for a while, but eventually got the Manfrotto, as you know. Looking forward to reading your thoughts about it.

Great report Jeremy. I've always used a 24 Pan as wide field eyepiece with my TV60, although I'm considering a Plossl 32mm as addition or replacement. You could also consider the new 24mm APM ultra flat field.

I must admit that I have recurrent thoughts about replacing my 24 Pan with a 32 Plossl for similar reasons. 32mm is also more distant from 21mm (the longest f.l. of my nikon zoom)... thoughts thoughts thoughts...

See here:

In my DF a 1.5mm metric Hex key can unscrew them.

It's an interesting adjustment. To add a comment, I'd suggest to regulate the screws holding the brass box with the telescope on the mount and pointing to the zenith using the heaviest eyepiece. Doing so, it is possible to make the coarse focuser as smooth as possible but still within a level that does not cause image shift. Anyway, here are some pictures showing the green box (left) covering the brass box (right). There is no need to unscrew the Philips screws, but I was curious to see how it looked like inside... (bottom)...

Really great post, Aki! I agree with you about the points you listed to remove that spongy feeling. Looking forward to trying it under the stars now.

Thanks @Axunator I found this out just 1 hour ago. After adjusting it, the touch feeling is much better now. The Tak focuser reminds me of a Fiat 500 of the '70. It's cute, very simple, it works, but it's also a bit old fashion. Anyway, I'm glad that it works better now.