Any point to a 2" EP for a f/4.7 scope?

[great_bear]

One question you might like to ask yourself is whether you will actually like very wide field eyepieces.

I don't - or rather, I find that 68 degrees is the most I care for. Artistically I just like to see the subject framed within a nice razor-sharp field stop. To be honest even 68 degrees feels a bit much to me - to the extent that I'm wondering if "1 Radian" (mathematically speaking) - i.e. just under sixty degrees - is perhaps a kind of "magic value" that feels just about right for me.

Realising that not only do I not have to follow the crowd, but that I don't even want to follow the crowd, has saved me rather a lot of money!

P.S. D'oh - just realised how Tele Vue "Radians" got their name... Talk about "elephant in the room" !!

P.P.S. I know it's not a 2" eyepiece, but the Meade 24mm SWA is a cracking eyepiece for £100 which will work in both the 130P and the 250PX. Not sharp to the edges but nothing short of a Tele Vue will be.

[cs1cjc]

There is a case for sticking to 1.25" particularly if you have a range of telescopes, some of which cannot do 2". The field stop is limited to 27mm or so. In this case the wide angle options include:

Vixen LVW, 22mm: good reports, but expensive;

Baader Hyperion 21mm: Baader fine tuning table gives field stop of only 22.5mm;

Baader Hyperion 24mm: very mixed reviews;

Baader Hyperion Aspheric 31mm: has a 1.25" and 2" fitting, but limited AFOV at 1.25";

Meade 5000 SWA 24mm: old end of line one referenced above has very good reviews and is currently affordable, but new one is expensive and is it the same?

Explore 68: similar optics to old Meade (?), newly available in US at about $170 so about £170 landed in UK;

Explore 70: an old design, apparently not good in fast telescopes;

Barsta ED ("TMB Designed" from Sky's the Limit): field stop 26.4mm, tight eye position, pincushion distortion, edge astigmatism, but cheap and what I currently use;

Ediit: thanks great_bear, Meade UWA corrected to SWA.

[great_bear]

Meade 5000 UWA 24mm: old end of line one referenced above has very good reviews and is currently affordable, but new one is expensive and is it the same?

The SWA, not the UWA is the 1.25" 24mm eyepiece.

Disappearing off the shelves fast unfortunately (gone from many shops) and in the USA completely unavailable. There's no replacement, although - as you point out - there's good reason to suppose that the new Explore Scientific 68 degree eyepieces are rehoused, waterproofed version of these Meade SWAs.

[iamjulian]

What does confuse me is the praise for the Panaview. Based on price it should be less capable than the Aero, for example, but I have seen a few people sing its praises as though it is the next best alternative to the Televue/UWAN/Nirvana. So is the Panaview a hidden gem?

[great_bear]

is the Panaview a hidden gem?

Nice review by Andrew here.

[rwilkey]

Hi Russ, my Skywatcher Panaview 2" 32mm is also my most used ep.

[Mr Spock]

I used to have a 250mm f4.7 Newt. My most used deep sky eyepiece was a 13mm LVW.

To go wider I used a 22mm T4 Nagler, but at 1.5° coma became a problem.

[John]

Nice review by Andrew here.

That is a good review and a pretty accurate assessment I reckon. The Panaviews are well finished and reasonably priced wide field eyepieces but don't work miracles in fast scopes.

This does not mean they are in any way "poor" eyepieces of course and I'm not surprised that they are popular.

[Damo636]

It was Andrews review that convinced me to buy the 35mm Aero. I am starting to wonder now if the one i had was defective. Andrews review would suggest it should have been excellent in my f6 dob yet i found it average at best. Another curiosity with the one i had was that it had a twist up eyecup, unlike the review example which was fixed

[great_bear]

They're meant to be twist-up; Andrews review sample must have been jammed.

[John]

It was Andrews review that convinced me to buy the 35mm Aero. I am starting to wonder now if the one i had was defective. Andrews review would suggest it should have been excellent in my f6 dob yet i found it average at best. Another curiosity with the one i had was that it had a twist up eyecup, unlike the review example which was fixed

I've used the 30mm and 40mm Aero ED's. I think they are a step up from the Panaview's and I found them sharp across most, but not all, of the FoV of the F/5.9 newtonian that I had at the time. They are lighter than many 2" eyepieces and their light transmission seemed very good.

The Aero ED's are reputed to hold the same optics as the TMB Paragon's had. Those were well thought of eyepieces but not quite in the Panoptic sharpness league.

[Damo636]

I've used the 30mm and 40mm Aero ED's. I think they are a step up from the Panaview's and I found them sharp across most, but not all, of the FoV of the F/5.9 newtonian that I had at the time. They are lighter than many 2" eyepieces and their light transmission seemed very good.

The Aero ED's are reputed to hold the same optics as the TMB Paragon's had. Those were well thought of eyepieces but not quite in the Panoptic sharpness league.

It may be that at the time i was expecting too much from it. I suppose in hindsight it was unfair to compare it to the 35mm Panoptic which costs twice as much new.

[Admiral Crispy]

Found a good deal out in the shops today, an Aero 30mm ED for £80 new! I thought that given its cheaper than a lot of places do the Panaview, and also with it normally costing well over £100, so I went ahead and bought it!

Thanks all for all the advice, I feel I got to make a well informed decision compared to what I went in knowing at the start of the thread!

[Damo636]

Wow!, that's a great price for the Aero Chris, well done. Don't forget to post your thoughts on it when you get to use it.

[Admiral Crispy]

Will do Damo, though it won't be til Christmas Day (weather permitting of course).