27mm Panoptic or Nirvana 28mm

[Rustysplit]

My 14" F5 dob desperately needs to acquire a decent widefield EP.

Being in a fairly light polluted area, Merstham, near Redhill, Surrey, I have decided that the lower mag of the 27/28 ish range may help with a darker backround. I have an 18mm TV Radian, and it is a lovely ep. My first thought was go for the Panoptic. It is highly recommended and will be spot on optically. I have read of the pincushion effect, but this does not seem to worry users. At around £290 it is at the top end of my budget.

Then I got to thinking about the advantages of the 82deg fov of the Nirvana, esspecially in an undriven dob. I would love to hear peoples thoughts who have looked through either the Nirvana/William Optics UWAN.

My heart is telling me TV, my head says Nirvana???? The downside of the Nirvana, and just about all of the 82deg ep's, is the weight of them. But a little counterweight is a small price to pay for stella swathes I guess.

I suppose there is also the ES 82 range, but for now let's just keep it Pan vs Nirvana

[swamp thing]

Hi Alan

If you wish to try my 31mm Nagler to check out any balance issues you may find.you are more than welcome. I reckon the weight is close to the 28mm Nirvana.

If I was in your place.....I'd pick the Panoptic. Had one, absolutely loved it, stupidly sold it, and now regret it. Nothing against the UWAN,s but these big heavy lumps are a pain if you ask me. The faffing about with counterweights is kinda tedious.

[andrew63]

i know a lot of die hard TV folks on here - i have a few too. But this might be worth a look. I was planning on a 19 Pan but got the 20mm version. Look like unbranded versions of the Meade 5000 SWA - Pan clones - for well, prices will in no way reflect their performance.

Maxvision 68° Okular 28mm buy at Explore Scientific

TeleVue Panoptic 27mm vs. Meade SWA 28mm 5K

andrew

andrew

[scarp15]

The Panoptic will make for a very decent 68 degree wide fov ep and at F5, perform with good contrast and pin point stars across most of the field. The supposive pin cushioning is, at least in my opinion, a non issue. I think it weighs in at 18oz so is quite light for a low power ep compared to alternatives.

I to nearly considered selling this. fortunately thanks to comments in a recent thread from Steve (Swamp Thing) and others, common sense returned and its going nowhere, except the focuser of course.

[alan potts]

Firstly, one of the few Televues I do not have and have never seen is the 27mm Panoptic, though I am sure it is a superb eyepiece. I think considering your set up I would go for the 28mm Nirvana, if it is the same quality as the 28mm Williams Optic, as I have read some very good reviews for them. The wider field will also help with the Dobsonian set-up though the balance can become an issue .

Steve though knows his stuff and would select the Panoptic having owned one. This has to be listerned to!

It is very kind of him to let you try the 31mm Nagler, though very dangerous, you will want one.

Alan

[Moonshane]

I have never even seen a 28mm Nirvana but reading other comments, consider the following

• weight - Pan better
  
• resale value - Pan better
  
• eye cup / ergonomics - Pan better
  
• heart vs head - Pan better - I observe more with my heart than my head
  
• feelgood factor - Pan better
  
• price - Nirv better
  
• true field - Nirv better but can you easily see the whole field?
  

For me the Pan is the clear winner. I suspect if you get the Nirvana you'll always wonder about the Panoptic. I am not so sure the other way would apply. I have the 26mm Nagler but that's another debate.

[John]

I've used a 28mm Nirvana and compared it to the 31mm Nagler and the 30mm Pentax XW in a review I posted sometime back.

Personally I liked the big Nirvana and thought it ran the mighty Terminagler really close for a lot less dosh. The ergonomics take a bit of getting used to as Shane suggests.

I guess it depends if you want wide field or ultra wide field. They are not really competing eyepieces for me.

[Rustysplit]

All good points Guys.

Thanks for the offer of trying the Nagler Steve. As Alan and Yoda point out "humph, Danger that way lies!!" I already know balance would be an issue, It is the compromise I accepted when trying to make the primary box as minimal as possible coupled with a thin mirror.

Andrew, I briefly had a Meade 5000 UWA 24 in an F4 newt. I have to say I was dissapointed. The centre of the field was quite possibly the best I have seen through anything, but the outer 1/3 was horrendous and very soft. I may have been unlucky and copped a dud, but it went back next day and I bought the Radian, I still have it-"nuff said.

Shane, all very good points, sometimes the heart knows best, even if the wallet disagrees. At the end of the day, as you rightly point out, the Pan will hold it's value better, and the risk of edge of field softness is not an issue.

[Rustysplit]

Sorry John, typing as you posted.

True about the FOV, something I am a bit unsure of having only had the UWA for 1 night before ditching it.

[Rustysplit]

Do you guys agree that the 27mm range is correct for an F5? I am 41, so the 7mm exit pupil of the 35mm may be too much, while the 5 1/2 ish exit pupil of the 27mm would likely be better.

[RikM]

When I was looking for a low power widefield I was waiting for a SH 27mm Pan when the ES 28 68° popped up on the radar. I really don't like pincushion and am in general not a TV fan anyway. Good though they undoubtedly are, they don't seem to suit my eyes. All my other (regularly used) EP's are Pentax XW, so I wanted to stick with a very similar aFOV and the ES fills the spot very nicely. I'll be honest, the ES isn't as good at the XW's or the TV EP's that I do own, so if the pincushion distortion doesn't bother you, you would very hard pushed to beat the 27mm Pan. Not an easy choice!

[Rustysplit]

Steve, what it is you regret about selling it? Would the narrower fov bother you having grown accustomed to the Nagler?

[Rustysplit]

Rik, What is it about the ES that is not as good? Or is it just a general overall feel to it thing?

[Moonshane]

Do you guys agree that the 27mm range is correct for an F5? I am 41, so the 7mm exit pupil of the 35mm may be too much, while the 5 1/2 ish exit pupil of the 27mm would likely be better.

hi Alan to my eyes (both technically and physically - I am 46) it depends on the skies where you observe most from. if the skies are half decent then I found a 35mm Panoptic was OK with my old 12" f5.3 but at home where there's a lot of LP, the 26mm Nagler was far superior as it is with my f4s anywhere. I mostly observe from home so the 26mm wins - although technically a 21/22mm would be ideal - no plans though.

[RikM]

Rik, What is it about the ES that is not as good? Or is it just a general overall feel to it thing?

If you are slightly out of focus the stars can show as a sort of line. I am afraid I don't know the correct term for this aberration but if it was a CCD image, it would be a very very slight blooming spike. In focus, it doesn't have the spike but the stars still aren't quite as sharp as my other EP's (though to be fair, not many are!). Other things that are not quite as good as Pentax are the dust cap is too tight, so when you take it off it pops up the rubber eyecup. That's fine if you want it up, but I wear glasses, so always observe with it folded down. Finally, the body is metal and it is very cold when you rest your nose on it at 3am and -15°C

That makes it sound negative and really it is not. I love the eyepiece. I also have to contend with a fair bit of light pollution and with my old 30mm Vixen the sky was a bit washed out. Dropping to 28mm made just that extra little difference. I don't use low power very much either so I was reluctant to spend big money at this end of the scale, so I am perfectly satisfied that this was the right choice for me.

[faulksy]

My 14" F5 dob desperately needs to acquire a decent widefield EP.

Being in a fairly light polluted area, Merstham, near Redhill, Surrey, I have decided that the lower mag of the 27/28 ish range may help with a darker backround. I have an 18mm TV Radian, and it is a lovely ep. My first thought was go for the Panoptic. It is highly recommended and will be spot on optically. I have read of the pincushion effect, but this does not seem to worry users. At around £290 it is at the top end of my budget.

Then I got to thinking about the advantages of the 82deg fov of the Nirvana, esspecially in an undriven dob. I would love to hear peoples thoughts who have looked through either the Nirvana/William Optics UWAN.

My heart is telling me TV, my head says Nirvana???? The downside of the Nirvana, and just about all of the 82deg ep's, is the weight of them. But a little counterweight is a small price to pay for stella swathes I guess.

I suppose there is also the ES 82 range, but for now let's just keep it Pan vs Nirvana

if you lived closer you could of tried my 28mm nirvana, I find it great right across the fov, but im viewing at f10, if you fancy a drive pop in you can lend it

[alan potts]

I am feeling a bit left out all these offers of eyepieces, I have a 35mm Panoptic and I never care if the exit pupil is too large, it never seems to make any difference to my viewing pleasure and I am 57. The 35mm is one of my most used eyepieces and I even seem to favour it over the 31mm Nagler. I haven't had the Nagler so long so I think it's old habits with me but again the weight is creeping up with this one. If you fly over I will lend you it.

Alan.

[Rustysplit]

Thanks Rik, does not sound too bad, certainly as good as any non top end ep.

Faulksy and Alan, Thank you so much for the offers. I reckon the money spent travelling to take you up on the offers, could be spent buying both now theres an idea......

Looks like the jury is split, can I resist a little visit to my local retailer today??? I will let you know later.....

[swamp thing]

Alan

I regret selling it because it just worked without any fuss. Tack sharp right across the FOV, typical TV performance across the board, nice big eye lens, big comfy eye relief, and best of all, lightweight.

The 68 deg field is big enough for most objects. It's rare to need a bigger field, when I do a smaller scope is often a better choice than a big, heavy lump of glass.

I bought the 31mm T5 to use in a 16" scope, and don't get me wrong it's a wonderful tool, but the messing about counterweighting it all the time is a bore. So much so that I very seldom use it in my 10". I often wish I could reach for my trusty 27 pan.

Its very easy to put FOV first when picking a low power wide field, but for me convenience is the real winner in the long run. The big Nagler (like the other 82deg heavyweights) are great on paper, and really do deliver astonishing views, but they do come with drawbacks. The 27 pan has none

By all means have a bash with my 31 T5 you may indeed love the views, but trust me you won't like the faffing about with counterweights. Unless you have a heavy set of eyepieces this lump is a real shock to your scope. If I recall correctly I had to add 3.75kg to the bottom end of my 16" LB to successfully balance it. That's that plate weight I gave you plus more.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

What about the MaxVision 24 82 deg. These are a snip, and should be the same as the Meade S5K 24. More FOV than a 27mm Panoptic, and smaller exit pupil, so darker background.

http://www.explorescientific.de/maxvision-82deg-okular-24mm-p-25559.html?language=gb

It might not have the same resale value as a Panoptic, but at half the price it does not have to.

[alan potts]

Rusty,

Off to the shop with you before you change ypur mind.

I have the Meade 24mm UWA and it is a very good eyepiece, well it was when I used it, it now collects dust as I have the 26mm Nagler. For me to get rid would mean I would have to give it away thanks to the Maxvision saga. I paid 215 quid for it just before Christmas, tried to sell it for 140 now after Maxvision, must be worth a tenner.

Good luck shopping.

Alan

[Rustysplit]

Alan,

I took your advice......

Now my brain can relax and my wallet

Steve, I can offer you a view through a decent ep now!!

Thanks to all for your input, I know I will not be disappointed with my choice. Too many glowing reports from lots of users. The beeb says clear for a few hours tonight so may get a chance to try it out.

[swamp thing]

Nice one Alan, great choice.

Look forward to having a look through one again.

[alan potts]

Alan,

Many congratulations on your new eyepiece, I really hope for good clear skies for your first light.

I am sitting here turning a funny shade of green, this is I am sure a superb eyepiece and I am sure it will give you many great views. I like the Panoptics for the lowest power having the 41mm and the 35mm, some talk about pincushion in them but if mine have it I have never seen it. Now you have that you can lend it to Steve for his 31mm, but we are into balance issues with that boys toy.

Nice one,

Alan.

[Rustysplit]

Cheers Chaps!

I hope to be able to give you a brief first light report tomorrow. In order for it to have a fighting chance on these very light eves, I am off down the coast with simonfromsussex, in the hope of grabbing a couple of hours without too much LP.