which 32mm EP

[Daniel-K]

ok so i may be jumping the gun but im already think about a 32mm EP i have always liked them and feel i will be lost with out one.

currently i have the 8mm Delos and 24mm Pan and i have a 12mm nag and 10MM Delos in sale pending . do i need a 32mm? or maybe a 27mm?? i like the low power so what would you guys recommend? so far you have helped me out in choosing green

thanks

Dan

[Tinker1947]

Really depends on how much you want to part with,,,My Pentax XW 30mm is really nice and the 31mm Hyperion while cheaper telling the difference between them when viewing isn't that easy.....well for my eye's anyway....

[Daniel-K]

had a look at the XW'S there out of stock with FLO budget about £300 i had considered the 30mm 82deg ES but that too is out of stock doh!

[John]

28mm Nirvana / UWAN ?.

Gives a more reasonable exit pupil of 5.9mm with your f/4.7 scope than a 32mm. Nice optics too

Heavy eyepiece though so balance might be an issue.

[Daniel-K]

28mm Nirvana / UWAN ?.

Gives a more reasonable exit pupil of 5.9mm with your f/4.7 scope than a 32mm. Nice optics too

Heavy eyepiece though so balance might be an issue.

hummm.... never considered these i will have a look thanks john

[Stargazer_00]

If you're deadset on continuing to get TVs then the 31mm Nagler "hand grenade" gets amazing reviews.

[Daniel-K]

If you're deadset on continuing to get TVs then the 31mm Nagler "hand grenade" gets amazing reviews.

SWMBO would kill me! i dont think i could ever pay over £300 for an EP saying that though i havent looked through one yet

[JamesF]

27mm Pan?

If they all look the same she'll never realise how many you have

James

[Stargazer_00]

Great tactic, works for Zebras - never thought it'd apply to televue eyepieces!

[swamp thing]

Danny, after having had the giant 31mm T5 in my eyepiece case for a few years now, I reckon your money would be better spent on a RFT.

Scopes like a 10" f4.5 Dob don't really benefit from them IMO. Very few objects benefit from the huge FOV they offer, and the ones that do are just as easily seen in a smaller RFT with a cheaper eyepiece.

These huge heavy lumps serve best in large scopes that really need the extra FOV they provide.

Don't get me wrong they are lovely to have, but for how often they are actually what the doc ordered I would get (and have) a small RFT.

Your 24mm pan coupled with a rich field scope would be a great combo for big faint fuzzies, and IMO better than a 10" Dob with even a 31mm nagler.

This is of coarse only my take, others may differ.

[Doug]

Hi Daniel

I have been on the site www.opt.com where I buy my eyepieces in th USA and they have a Explore Scientific 30mm 82fov in stock if your interested $249.00 =£164.87 plus the normal extra's

+20%VAT + handeling charges + airport tax

if wait is not a problem you could consider Meade 30mm UWA 82 fov work great in a 12"Dobsonian f/5

hope this helps

Doug

[alan potts]

Dan,

For me there are two in the frame

I would consider a 35mm Panoptic. If you wait and look on a regular basis you will get one from the secondhand market for about 200 pounds. It is a brilliant eyepiece and sharp to th every edges. If you are makinf a collection of Televue, which would appear to be the case then you cannot go wrong with this one. I believe the 27mm is too close to the 24mm Panoptic to be of value to you, it is one I don't have, and don't want, unless I find one in a Corn-Flakes packet.

The other one you could go for is very expensive new and that is the 31mm Nagler, I want one myself, this is most likely the ideal eyepiece for you to cover wide field. Sadly they do not come up too offen secondhand which points to how good they are as many have them.

So Dan for me it comes down to one of those two fine Televues, either way they will empty yours pockets but will give you years of very fine viewing if the weather allows you.

Alan.

[alan potts]

Just in case you are thinking of another brand I have the Meade 30mm which is a very good eyepiece and Telescope House have these in at 255 pounds, and I believe they may even discount that price if you ask them.

The 30mm has been around for a long time now and has been put against the 31mm Nagler in a Cloudy Nights review and did very well, in fact the reviewer choose it as the better over the Nagler because it was cheaper, now it is cheaper than it was then. It was said though the Nagler was better but at what price and was that extra really worth it.

Alan

[Stargazer_00]

Swamp thing makes a valid point. The same reason i bought my st120 and my largest uwa is a 24mm

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Danny, after having had the giant 31mm T5 in my eyepiece case for a few years now, I reckon your money would be better spent on a RFT.

Scopes like a 10" f4.5 Dob don't really benefit from them IMO. Very few objects benefit from the huge FOV they offer, and the ones that do are just as easily seen in a smaller RFT with a cheaper eyepiece.

These huge heavy lumps serve best in large scopes that really need the extra FOV they provide.

Don't get me wrong they are lovely to have, but for how often they are actually what the doc ordered I would get (and have) a small RFT.

Your 24mm pan coupled with a rich field scope would be a great combo for big faint fuzzies, and IMO better than a 10" Dob with even a 31mm nagler.

This is of coarse only my take, others may differ.

Don't quite agree: I use the 31T5 "Panzerfaust" in my C8 and in my little rich field scope (APM 80mm F/6). In both cases it is a killer EP. I had a cheaper Paragon 40mm in the RFT, but that gave slightly washed-out views, whereas the 31T5 gets darker backgrounds with a massive 5.3 deg FOV, awesome on the Veil and the like. In the C8, at 2000mm focal length, the 31T5 gives a really useful 1.25 deg FOV, which is handy on many objects.

In a really fast scope F/4-F/4.5 or faster) 32mm may be an issue any way, but at F/5 or F/6 you have a 6mm or 5mm exit pupil which should be OK. Shorter focal lengths like the 28mm UWA, or the 26T5 are better for the really fast scope, I find. I used a Nagler 26T5 in Olly's 20" F/4.1 and it was awesome.

[swamp thing]

I see your point Michael, but Danny isn't gonna be using a 40mm paragon. He already has a 24mm Panoptic, this isn't gonna give washed out views. Far from it, it will give superb contrasty views.

[Daniel-K]

sorry but whats an RFT? lol and if it mean rich field telescope do you mean a refractor ?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

sorry but whats an RFT? lol and if it mean rich field telescope do you mean a refractor ?

Rich Field Telescope (any fast scope that shows a serious amount of sky: 3 deg + or so)

[swamp thing]

Yep a rich field telescope. It can be either a frac or a newt. My ones a newt

[Daniel-K]

like a 130p PDS ?

[Stargazer_00]

ST120 with 2" can show 4.5 degrees. Yum!

[Stargazer_00]

130P (assuming F5 and therefore 650mm FL) can show 4.14 degrees with a 2", has a central obstruction though

[Daniel-K]

but the ca is what puts me off. i use to have a WO66 that was a sweet little scope i might buy somthing like that on a skytee as i want a 150mak for planets

[Stargazer_00]

CA would be an issue for planets and moon sure but it's hard to beat an ST120 on widefield for star clusters the ST120 punches above it's weight in terms of performance, in my opinion.

[rwilkey]

Hi Dan, can't imagine anything that would top the 24mm Pan to be honest. All you would end up with is a larger exit pupil with your fast scope.