Hyperion 21mm V's 24mm Panoptic V's somthing else ?

[John]

Up to now my plan has been to end up with 4 premium quality eyepieces and a quality barlow rather than the 10+ EP's that I have now. For my 102mm F6.5 refractor I have been heading for:

24mm Panoptic

13mm Nagler

7mm Nagler

5mm Nagler

Ultima 2x Barlow.

Bearing in mind the cost of the Panoptic I'm now wondering about keeping my TV 32mm Plossl and getting something like a 21mm Hyperion AND a niceish 30mm - 40mm 2inch for really low power. Any thoughts on how the Hyperion would fare in my scope compared to the Panoptic (the fact that the Panoptic is over 3x more expensive is one factor I can think of !) ?

Maybe there are other options as well ? - but lets assume that I'm keeping my current 3 Naglers

All views welcome !

Thanks,

John

[The Warthog]

It looks like a great set of eps, but I'd question your telescope math when it comes to the Barlow. With a 2x Barlow you have your Barlowed 24mm and 13mm almost overlapping the unbarlowed 13mm and 7mm. Better to either get a 20 and a 32, with that barlow, or get the 2.5x Powermate and have a range of 2mm, 2.8mm, 5.2mm, 7mm, 9.6mm, 13mm and 24mm with the eps you have.

[James]

I have both the 21mm Hyperion and the 24mm Panoptic and use them in an f/8.3 refractor and an f/4.7 reflector.... surprise surprise the Panoptic is better. It has a wider FOV (the 21mm FOV seems to be less than 68 degrees but I've never actually tested to see exactly how wide) and is an all round beter performing eyepiece.... but....

... as you've pointed out it is considerably more expensive. In my f/4.7 newt I'd say the difference is considerable but in the refractor, whilst there is still a difference its not as great. Is the difference worth 3x the cost? Only you can really answer that although from the comfy position of already having one I'd be hard pressed to justify the expense of the Pan over the Hyperion were I to go back in time to when I didn't have the Pan.

Don't forget that the Hyperion can also be used with fine tuning rings to create a different focal leength eyepieece (17mm I think) and by removing the bottom section of the eyepiece you can get a 2" 32mm eyepiece (although in my Newt the performance suffers). I'm considering getting a 30mm Paragon when (if) they come out - I don't know if thats something you've considered?

HTH

James

[Macavity]

A first thought is that (as "everyone" notes) the 21mm Hyperion is a little short of the canonical 68 Deg AFoV - More like 60 Deg, IIRC. Not pathological, but perhaps making it more equivalent to a 18-19mm eyepiece, if it is compared with other 68/70 Deg examples. More expensive, but I believe a Vixen LVW 22mm (of which the above is cloned) is better and more on-spec?

For the Hyperion minded, the new Aspherics would seem to be the natural choice. (Available in 24, 31 & 36mm) But I am a little bit "puzzled" by the performance of my 31mm. Not quite as good as I (misguidedly) hoped - and some would claim? :?

I have long THOUGHT about the TMB Paragon range. CN's Tom Trusock compares e.g. a 40mm with the (usual!) Televue offerings. I think I know TT's style, and trust his opinion, so perhaps one can infer/extrapolate something useful for 30~40mm?

[GordonCopestake]

The Pan24 is probably one of the best eyepieces out there, but it is expensive (about £140 s/h). The Hyperion is much cheaper for 90% of the performance. At the end of the day, like all things, you get what you pay for and it depends how deep your pockets are and how much the extra performance is worth to you.

[Macavity]

The Hyperion is much cheaper for 90% of the performance.

I believe GC! (sic). Seriously though, I wonder if there CAN be any quantitative measurement of this? "Sharp to the edge" etc. seems quite a variable concept! I see "Teleskope service" (may) have retracted such statements in their advertising of their Aspheric Hyperions, due to "user pressure"? I hasten to add that IMO, they are honest (better than many?) in their advertising...

The Ronchi (Raunchy?) Test - Or maybe, with so many variables and(genuine) subjectivity thrown in, it has to remain largely hit or miss?

[John]

Thanks for your views folks

I've taken The Warthog's advice and re-done my maths - I'm now thinking that a 19mm Panoptic would fit in better and hang on to the 32mm Plossl. The 19mm Pan is supposed to be a very nice EP and barlows well - plus it's a few quid cheaper than the 24mm !. It will also be par-focal with moy other EP's which is handy.

I feel a "wanted" ad coming on but people tend to hang on to their Panoptics

John.

[The Warthog]

Thanks for your views folks

I've taken The Warthog's advice and re-done my maths

You are wise, grasshopper. 8)

[russ]

John, head over to Astromart. I missed out on a 19mm Pan earlier in the week. $165 before delivery (which seems to be $23) and then there's the tax man. But all in (if you are unlucky) that approx $220 or £110. Cheaper on average than the UK SH price, even with the tax.

I had the 19mm Pan with the ED100 and used it with a 2.5x Powermate. Easily my best eyepiece to date. Although the f9 of the ED100 would not have stretched it. It did barlow extremely well.

Another one to consider maybe the one I went for, the Pentax XL series. Performance practically identical to the Panoptics. Picked mine up for £90 delivered from Astromart.

Russ

[John]

I went for "something else" in the end - a Vixen LVW 22mm.

The concensus of reviews and comments that I have read about them is that they are very good eyepieces, probably on a par with Panoptics more or less. The field of view is 65 degrees as opposed to 68 degrees for the Pan.

Here's a pic of one:

Can't wait to try it out

John