19mm televue panoptic

[saturn10]

Hi,

I have added one of these to my small collection of eyepieces. Does anyone know what these are like to use and on what objects in the sky they are best used for.

I have a 8" meade LX90.

thanks,

Rob

[John]

I've owned a Panoptic 24mm Rob and that was a superb eyepiece showing as much sky as a 1.25" will show and sharp stars right across the field of view even in fast scopes. I believe the 19mm is just as good. In your scope the 19mm will give you 105x and will show around .64 of a degree of sky. It would be great for many deep sky objects such as globular clusters and planetary nebulae and smaller galaxies.

[saturn10]

Hi John,

I am quite new to astronomy and are not sure what to buy.

All we need is a clear night and I will follow your advice.

Recently I have bought 9mm and 11mm naglers and 8mm & 13mm TV plossls, plus this 19mm panoptic.

Do I need a 24mm one as well?

thanks,

Rob

[Chris H]

I have a 19mm Panoptic and it is an excellent ep, nice and comfortable to use, good eye relief with no black outs. x105 is a very good power for viewing many DSO's add to that the 68 degree FOV and it could well spend a lot of time in your focuser.

[John]

You need a spread of magnifications Rob.

In your scope the 8mm plossl would give 250x which will be the max you can use on most nights. The 9mm and 11 Naglers will give 222x and 182x which are quite close together and still high powers really. The 13mm plossl will give 154x but the 11mm Nagler will show more sky than it ! (due to the Nagler's much larger field of view). You 19mm Panoptic at 105x does fill a medium power gap but I think you also should consider a 32mm plossl which will give you 63x and show as much sky as a 1.25" eyepiece can. If you decide to go into some 2" eyepieces you can get a wider field of view but you will need a 2" diagonal as well, so more £'s.

I wonder if your 13mm plossl would get much use to be honest - something around 15mm might be a little more useful (133x).

You need to consider both the magnification that your eyepieces give with your scope and the field of view they will deliver in making choices, especially with expensive items such as Naglers.

If you have not already read this, I recommend this primer:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/80772-eyepieces-very-least-you-need.html

[RikM]

A friend of mine has the 19mm Pan for use in a 6" Celestron SCT and it is a very nice combination that gets a lot of deep sky use.

[newman]

As you probably know, you calculate magnification an ep will give by dividing the focal length of your scope with a focal length of your ep. Another important thing is how much sky will you actually see in an eyepiece. You calculate that by dividing an eyepiece's apparent field of view with the magnification it gives in your scope.

For example, your scope has a 2000mm focal length. A 19mm Panoptic would give about 105x magnification, while showing 0.64 degrees of actual sky. Now, a beginner may think it's worth adding a, say, 17mm Nagler to the collection for a higher magnification of 117.6x, but let's see how much sky would it show first; a quick consultation with the calculator says it will show 0,697 degrees of actual sky. So there really wouldn't be a point in owning both of these ep's - a Nagler will show a tad more sky at a higher mangification, making the Pan redundant. It would only make sense to own one of these ep's in this case.

A lot of newcomers forget to factor in the actual field of view an ep will show and only look at magnifications - but it's a very important factor when planning your eyepiece collection. Apologies if you already knew this, hope it helps though.

[damnut]

Hi Saturn10,

Echo comments above. The panoptic will give you a tremendous mid range easy viewing eyepiece.

If you do not like it it would fit very nicely on my 10" LX:D

Cheers

[saturn10]

Hi everyone,

Thankyou for all your good advice.

I look forward to a clear night to try it out.

kind regards,

Rob

[great_bear]

That's a very nice spread of eyepieces that you have there: A 9mm Nagler for "normal" high-magnification lunar and planetary viewing on good nights, with the 8mm to "push your luck" when the air is unusually clear and still, and the 11mm to "back off" if the air conditions aren't quite so kind.

Non-planetary observers might say the 9 and 11 are too close, but I'd dismiss that view and strongly argue that you've got an optimum planetary set-up for your scope there! Well done. It's quite often that I'm in the 220x ballpark and think... "You know what? This is too optimistic, I'm dropping back to 180x"

So well done on those high-mag choices!

For DSOs, if I were to get a 24 Panoptic, I'd then swap out the both the 19 pan & 13mm Plossl together, in exchange for a 16mm Nagler. Financially it's a fair swap too.

- then I'd stop buying eyepieces

I'd say you're done at that point!

[great_bear]

- oh, forgot to add - for anyone wondering why use *both* a 16mm Nagler and a 24mm Pan, when they both show the same area of sky, it's because the 24 Pan gives you a worthwhile brightness boost for those dimmest DSOs...

[johnnyha]

Congratulations! I own two. The 19mm Panoptic is one of the few eyepieces that excels BOTH as a binoviewer powerhouse and in regular mono viewing. It is an excellent, midpower choice with a svelte profile, and comes in mighty handy if you do get binoviewers in the future.

[Charon]

As you probably know, you calculate magnification an ep will give by dividing the focal length of your scope with a focal length of your ep. Another important thing is how much sky will you actually see in an eyepiece. You calculate that by dividing an eyepiece's apparent field of view with the magnification it gives in your scope.

For example, your scope has a 2000mm focal length. A 19mm Panoptic would give about 105x magnification, while showing 0.64 degrees of actual sky. Now, a beginner may think it's worth adding a, say, 17mm Nagler to the collection for a higher magnification of 117.6x, but let's see how much sky would it show first; a quick consultation with the calculator says it will show 0,697 degrees of actual sky. So there really wouldn't be a point in owning both of these ep's - a Nagler will show a tad more sky at a higher mangification, making the Pan redundant. It would only make sense to own one of these ep's in this case.

A lot of newcomers forget to factor in the actual field of view an ep will show and only look at magnifications - but it's a very important factor when planning your eyepiece collection. Apologies if you already knew this, hope it helps though.

Thanks for this Newman, I did not know how to work it out.

[John]

- oh, forgot to add - for anyone wondering why use *both* a 16mm Nagler and a 24mm Pan, when they both show the same area of sky, it's because the 24 Pan gives you a worthwhile brightness boost for those dimmest DSOs...

Thats interesting.

I would have thought the higher magnification that the 16mm would provide would darken the background sky more, allowing low contrast objects to be seen a little more easily

Or did you find the Pan 24 brighter than the Nag 16 for some other reason ?.

I'm not disputing what you are saying, just trying to tease out why it might be that way