Panoptic 41mm and Meades 40mm SWA

[alan potts]

Panoptic 41mm and Meade 40mm SWA.

This is very much a battle of the sumo wrestlers of the eyepiece world, they represent two of the three that I have owned, the other being the same as the Aero 40mm but from America. I have to say when I saw it this was the biggest eyepiece I had seen so far but it pales into insignificance against the other two offerings. Lets see if live up to the advertising hand-outs.

Meade 40mm SWA 5000 Series.

This is one of the heaviest eyepieces that I have come across at 1250 grams on my Argos specials and in my view could and should have been put on a diet before it went to market. It is backed up by the fact that it comes in a box strong enough to stand a telescope on, but I don’t suggest you try it. There is plenty of eye-relief for anyone using glasses but requires careful eye placement as I will enlarge upon later. These big boys have limited appeal as the scope needs to have a long enough focal length so as not to get a massive exit pupil. I got into this early doors as I wanted a wide field of view in my LX 200 12 inch which has a focal length in excess of 3 meters. Even this whopper only gives you a magnification as low as X76 and a field of view of 0.9 of a degree, it is also usable on some of my other scopes where it delivers a wide field over 2 degrees, more of that later too.

This was a fairly costly eyepiece when it was made, if I recall correctly it was 269 pounds so about twice the price of the Aero 

]

41mm Panoptic,

[attachment=106113:IMG_0086.JPG

This is of course from the house of Televue and has been on the market for some years, it is a cat-walk model compared to the Meade at a slim 940 grams, like many Televue eyepieces it is simply designed, some say boring, and simply packaged. It has the flip up rubber eye-guard which I prefer to use in the down position and of course the standard caps to cover the precious glass lenses. This eyepiece also has plenty of eye-relief so will not cause problems to a wearer of spectacles. With the focal length being a little bit like the amplifier in the film, Spinal Tap, going not to 11 but one more to 41mm, this offers me a massive reduction on the LX 200 with the magnification going down to X73 and the field of view at .91 of a degree. Keeping this 68 degree FOV this is in my opinion about as low as you can get for a 2 inch eyepiece, Vixen do make a 42mm but I never saw the outcome of the debate as to whether it was a 65 degree field or not. So if this is not the widest field we can get in a 2 inch eyepiece, I will stand corrected.

This is one of the most expensive eyepieces from Televue and mine was 400 pounds when new but prices have just come down but they are still not free with Cornflakes.

Observations

Observations were over a three week period, using notes from10 different nights and a total of 16 hours at the eyepiece.

I kept a score on something that I will reveal later, 92 – 8 was the final outcome.

I have tested these two on three of my scopes, really the only three I can use them on. They are as follows,

LX 200 12 inch, F 10

GSO 150 RC, F 9

115mm APM, F 7.

I have tried to use targets that you view with these eyepieces, e.g. I have not used the APM at X20 to view a globular cluster, there would be little point.

LX 200. Fitted with a Moonlite focuser.

Messier 22.

This globular is without doubt one of my favourites and I have used it before in my reports, it is a fairly large cluster and does show well in smaller scopes. The magnitude is 5.2 but try as I have done I can’t see it from my fairly dark site with the naked eye.

I started with the Panoptic and the first thing that struck me was a vignette around the very outer field edge. This I would best described as a wooly look, not any old wool, maybe cashmere. I could see the field stop but it was not as distinct as I thought it should be. However the eyepiece delivered and showed a very sharp field right up to the wool.

Something that I have started doing is moving the object that I am looking at to the very edge of the field, I know this would not be done under normal viewing conditions in a guided scope but this must be of interest to anyone with a Dobsonian telescope, doing this showed me that there is pincushion distortion there as I saw the cluster stretch out as it moved from view. However when the cluster was in the centre of field the view was very pleasing indeed, lovely contrast and as sharp as a tack, which I was informed was used as part of the advertisement of this when launched. Many of the stars in the globular cluster were showing as separates but even in this scope for me it needs a little more power to bring out its best.

Moving on to the 40mm SWA from Meade, if the Panoptic was at the limit of what you can balance with ease in a Dobsonian scope, this will be the straw that breaks the camels back. On the LX of course with an ADM balance system it was not problem at all and the Moonlite held it fast and true.

The first thing that jumped out was the sharpness of the field stop and there was no sign what so ever of any wooliness around the edge, focus was a mere half turn from the Panoptic, so no exact copy here. The strange thing was I was sure this eyepiece was giving me a wider field of view than the Panoptic, which I have to say didn’t make a whole lot of sense. I switched back and forth for some time checking this out but because of the weight difference it always moved the scope a little and I have to say that in the end I was not sure but just had a feeling that my first impressions were correct. The stars around M22 were sharp but did loose just a little sharpness at the very edge near to the field stop, I am talking the last 2-3% of field here and there was again a little pincushion distortion but not so I really noticed and I don’t believe it was as strong at that on the Panoptic. I just feel the Panoptic was showing a better definition in the centre of the cluster helping separate out those tightly packed stars but the Meade was by no means bad.

After looking at this object of over 40 minutes it was getting a little too low even from Bulgaria to really carry on though the sky was very clear and there was little in the way of air turbulence. I did feel the Panoptic offered a little better contrast than the Meade and was somehow just cleaner with its rendition of this Messier object.

Messier 11, (the cluster I called the wide duck the other day)

Another beautiful cluster and one that I am sure gets a great deal of viewing around the world. This is a cluster that has a magnitude of 5.8 and I am sure I have seen this but it could just be an over active imagination. Both eyepieces did a very nice job of showing all the stars in this open cluster within the compass of the scope, though where the wild duck comes in, I am not sure. Again I just had the feeling of a tad more contrast from the Panoptic and a cleaner showing though as far as I could see the Meade showed the same amount of stars, I was not even trying to count them.

Messier 8, the lagoon nebular.

I know this is low down in the sky now but it is a target that I enjoy and for an hour after dark even yesterday it was still visible. I had removed the Moonlite focuser at this point so I had changed the focal length of the scope a little, not that I noticed though. The Panoptic was still showing a little cashmere vignette but this was not as bad as it was, so this clearly makes a difference. I guess the next port of call is to try the same eyepiece without the diagonal to see if it goes away altogether.

This was another win for the 41mm Panoptic it was just better than the Meade, showing the nebulosity that little bit clearer and the stars that bit sharper. It is an interesting point that Meade also used the words ‘tack sharp’ in their adverts, they must have had a different brand of tacks though.

Albireo.

Not a tight double but one of the best that the Northern sky has to offer. I used this only for the colour rendition and to see if the distortion of both eyepieces stretched the gap at the edge of field.

I just got the feeling that the Meade was giving me a more pleasing colour, with the yellow showing a bit more golden but I couldn’t see any differences in the blue star.

This is a lovely part of the sky with hundreds of stars visible in a largish scope with a wide field of view, well wide for this scope. As far as I could see the edge distortion was a bit more evident in the Panoptic, especially if you slewed and viewed at the same time but even to the extreme the Televue was sharp where as the Meade did have this little fall off in the outer limits. I find though at F 10 this is not the end of the world and was very happy with this massive eyepiece for a long time.

Venus.

Now I know this is a planet that needs a bit more than X73 but I could see the phase with ease at about half. I was more interested in the light shatter around this very bright object. This planet has been hard work this year with it being very low down and many of my trees getting in the way, time to get the chainsaw out.

I could have really used a reference here but I do not have a 40mm orthoscopic eyepiece to match against. In my opinion both eyepiece showed the same amount of light scatter around Venus and I don’t really think one was better than the other, however turning up to Vega I believe the Panoptic was better on axis and much better off axis. I believe Venus whilst very bright was just too low and there was too much atmospheric turbulence to judge correctly.

     

115mm APM.

This scope can only offer very wide field views and low magnification with both these eyepieces, with as near as makes no difference X20 on both and 3.45 degrees of field we will not be separating stars from tight globulars.

Messier 17 The Omega nebular.

I have also seen this called the ‘swan nebular’ but only on my hand set for the Meade, maybe this is an American name for this emission nebular. I picked this object just to see how well the nebulosity showed, and it was nowhere near as bad as I thought, both eyepieces showed a nice small but clear plume of gas cloud. This is only a 4 1/2 inch scope and it just goes to show that if you get to a dark site just what can be seen, with a little more magnification it was really rather splendid. This scope is really sharp.

I just had the feeling the Meade was worse at the edges (outer 10%) than it was in the larger and slower LX, here though I found I could re-focus the stars and they were sharper but this threw the centre of field out of focus. I am not sure what this was caused by but the Panoptic was not showing anything but wall to wall points of light showing it was not astigmatism in the scope. The scope is now kept outside and I am sure had cooled, if indeed it even needed it.

I was also finding that I was doing a great deal of this viewing sitting down in a none adjustable chair (which is older than me), the spin off here was I was stretching a little and not looking through the eyepiece square on, I found that I could induce some aberrations into some of the brighter stars by moving my head slightly, I paid special attention to this after I found out, the odd thing is, standing I seem to square myself up better.

I am getting repetitive the Panoptic was better but not by miles, it was this edge problem that put the final nail in the coffin for the SWA though what is was I am unsure as it didn't show the night before in ant way shape or form, albeit on a different scope.

Andromeda galaxy, Messier 31.

This in my opinion looks its best with a wide field and a low magnification. It is almost overhead for me at this time of year so we do not have to worry about any heat rising from land, walnut trees or excessive amounts of atmosphere to see thought. The night I viewed this, seeing was very good indeed and with being able to pick up the milky way right down to the mountains, transparency must have been good too.

In the Meade it was quite beautiful with a bright centre hub and the surrounding dust lanes coming through very well, I could not see any detail in the dust lanes but it was a lovely sight.

The Panoptic still showed a little wooly vignette around the field stop, I did not believe it would in this scope, it cannot be a vignette caused by the scope. I noticed the exact same thing on another Televue eyepiece, the 55mm Plossl, though this always went with the diagonal removed. If this is  normal then why don’t they just reduce the focal length and do like Meade have done, the SWA ‘s field stop is a sharp as a razor. I would not say I could see any difference in the contrast here but again the Televue was so clear and sharp it made you want to stay on an object longer just to take it all in, with Andromeda there is plenty to take in. There is little question when an eyepiece is sharp you want to use it longer.

Messier 20 and Messier 21, same field of view.

This, I always believe makes a lovely sight and it makes me yearn for a big reflector with a short focal length that I can see both at the same time with, a bit like the double cluster. Messier 20 is of course the Trifid nebular and has nebulosity, I could see some but it was not well defined, even though it was very dark by now, maybe these targets are just getting too low. It must be very difficult to see these well from England and at this time of year I would imagine they are all but gone from view.

Messier 21 is a nice little open cluster that I sometimes over look as it sits in a part of the sky where there is so much to look at, I have only scratched the surface in this report.

The Meade made a very nice job of this with the defined field stop helping the cause, even at this magnification I still had the feeling it was giving a wider field of view and after considerable checking I am sure it was but only very slightly and then I would not stake my life on it.

The Panoptic was again showing what every other Televue I have does, wall to wall sharp stars with excellent contrast, it is a shame about the vignette though.

GSO 150.

This scope has a focal length of 1370mm so is in keeping with many site members scopes, at F 9 it is fairly slow but offers nice views and I really rather like it and it cost less than one of the eyepieces. This scope also has to be used with an extension tube of 37mm to reach focus.

Messier 16, the eagle nebular.

This is a lovely collection of stars and again I can’t see an eagle anywhere but then seeing the nebula with a 6 inch scope is not at all easy though I could see just a hint of it. The first thing I noticed was the cleanness of view from the 41mm but there was still that cashmere sweater around the field stop, maybe it is cold. It does spoil it for me as the field stop to me just help frame things that bit better, even with the Ethos I tend to look for the field stop and can see them all well, though I know many don't want this.

I struggle to see that there is any other eyepiece on the market would show a wide field any better than this and from memory the Meade performs better than the 40mm Aero. However the Aero had something that the Meade has not, a slim waste line at half the weight.

The 40mm SWA being something of a ‘Billy Bunter’ was it’s un-doing in this case, it was showing stars at the top and bottom edges as very small lines. The weight was so much it was bending the focuser and extension tube from the optimum optical path, don’t forget the diagonal as well. The same or similar thing must have been happening on the Panoptic to a lesser extent but I couldn’t see any image deterioration as a result. When I gave a helping hand and lifted the eyepiece things got better but this was not stable enough for me to pass comment on quality of view. I thought it only fair to stop the report on this scope here.

I tried the GSO with the Meade 40mm in a more elevated position and things did improve a little but not enough to continue, this scope clearly would be screaming out for the slim-line cat walk model “Aero” from Sky-Watcher. I had one for almost two years and let it go for peanuts, how silly we are sometimes.

Conclusion

I think it is clear from my observations that the Panoptic is the eyepiece I would choose here but it is not without fault, the vignette, and I am assuming it is not the fault of 3 different scopes, could annoy many people. Even with the price having been cut it is still a very expensive eyepiece, but it is an excellent very expensive eyepiece even with the problem. It is unlikely as a result of what I say you are going to run out and buy one, most don’t even need one but for an owner of a longer focal length SC it is worth its weight in gold.

The Meade was also a very good performer and would see off many of its rivals, I do feel it was rather costly when it was new and I know now you can buy much the same as this under the Maxvision banner, at these prices it is very good value for money and comes highly recommended from me.

Something else came to light here as well, I know it is unlikely that anyone buying a GSO 150 would then buy a Meade 40mm SWA, I ended up at this as a result of having a mound of equipment. It did though high-light the shortcoming of some cheaper focusers, but then again this lump was never intended for this little scope. The scopes it was made for have much stronger visual backs or Feather-touch focusers and those you can just about swing from. 

Towards the top I stated a score 92 – 8 ,I counted this as 5 bar gates  as I went along.

Spare a thought for our astro-photographer friends, while I was at the eyepiece 92 satellites and 8 aircraft went through the field of view, keep in mind I was also viewing some of the most photographed deep sky objects.

Clear skies,

Alan     

    

  

                

            

[YKSE]

Thanks for another great write up, Alan, a really joy to read the short novel 

I was a litte suprised by your intro where AERO was mentioned belong to this Sumo league, until I read "However the Aero had something that the Meade has not, a slim waste line at half the weight", with its 520gram, it's just a dwarf among the two giants.

[RikM]

Smashing write up as usual Alan

[John]

Excellent stuff again Alan 

[swamp thing]

Great review Alan, very nicely written. Thanks for sharing.

[Damo636]

Another cracking report Alan, thanks for sharing.

[Mr Spock]

Vixen do make a 42mm but I never saw the outcome of the debate as to whether it was a 65 degree field or not.

This should settle things

[alan potts]

Does it vignette? Mr Spock.  I see you have an SC but not the same make. I can only imagine that the edge distortion is greater to get the extra 1mm and additional 4 degrees.

Alan

[Mr Spock]

No vignetting, but it is right on the limit for a C9.25. The edges are ok but not perfect. I don't get that in my refractors so it's probably the C9.25 falling away at the extremes.

[russ.will]

Nice review Alan, as ever.

I must confess, I bought the the MV 40mm, even though I didn't need it, simply because once they're gone, they're gone! I figured it would be handy in the frac, but the recent purchase of an F6 Newt has made it borderline usable and I must say, I don't regret it. If nothing else, at MV prices, it's awesome material value!

Russell

[alan potts]

Russell,

At the prices that you can get the Max for it ticks the right boxes for me. I don't think I was being unfair when I made the point about the size and weight, why so heavy. I also as I tried to bring out do believe these were over-priced on the UK market when they were sold. I think you will be OK in the F6 Newt myself as long as you know the light is leaking a little, so what. I would have thought dark sky was more the issue.

Mr Spock,

As much as I would like to try the Vixen I think I have spent enough on eyepieces, so I will just have to wonder. I think it would be nice if at a star party members could do a collective review of a number of eyepieces, I don't mean the 40mm big boys, something a bit near mid-range would be nice. 

Alan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Great report as ever, Alan. This is a very useful kind of EP for people with slower scopes like my SCT. I sold my Paragon 40mm after I got the 31T5 and found I used it only once in an entire year, and then only to let somebody else look through the scope (because they had difficulties with eye placement. I occasionally have slight twinges of regret, as the FOV is a bit larger than that of the 31T5. Maybe I should get an MV 40mm, or the LVW 42.

[kenny k]

Great post Alan,thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

I'll be pestering a few freinds at Galloway Sp next week for a view thru their longer focal lenghts EPs as its next on my wishlist and report back my findings. Thanks again

Kenny

[alan potts]

Michael,

I really don't think you can go wrong with this Maxvision, by all accounts it is the same as the Meade SWA but without the green band. I am still a little puzzled by the poor edge in the refractor. Now most would say well it's faster, but I don't ever remember seeing it before, and I have used that eyepiece a good bit in the APM. There was nothing on the Televue to suggest it was the scope, so I sort of blamed the eyepiece. At F10 though I would say it was better than the Aero 40mm, but alas I have never seen a Vixen 42mm.

Alan

[Adrian]

Michael,

I really don't think you can go wrong with this Maxvision, by all accounts it is the same as the Meade SWA but without the green band.

I slid the rubber eye guard off to clean up some of the grease- the plastic appeared to be green underneath! Just silver coated. These are closer & closer to Meade's

Sent from my magic talk box

[alan potts]

My understanding was the whole lot on offer by Maxvision was a cancelled order as Meade got into finanicial problems, it stands to reason it was just a cosmetic fudge in covering up the truth , I am just a bit shocked they hit the market so cheap, sort of adds to the remark I passed about them being overpriced, I mean Telescope House still have the 28mm at over 200 quid.

Alan

[Mr Bond]

Great post Alan, thank you.

I loved my Pan 41, but it was just so......massive.

A change of scope direction forced my hand to sell but I miss it. So did the chap I bought it off as I sold it back to him!

[John]

I think "Maxvision" is just another brand name used by the manufacturer JOC.

There have been clones of Meade stuff around for years for example the 127mm F/7.5 triplet refractor was announced, to some excitement, by Meade but then there was a delay of around 18 months before any were actually shipped with the Meade branding due, allegedly, to Meade not being satisfied with the quality control of initial production runs.

In the meantime of course the scope started to appear here under a number of other brandings, and some unbranded. By the time Meade did actually put some with their branding on the market they had to counter the unbranded, and slightly cheaper, competition by stating that the Meade branded ones had been individually tested in Europe prior to shipping to the UK.

Whether there actually were any quality control issues with the early runs and Meade's specifications being higher / tougher than the units offered under other brandings is a matter of conjecture though.  

Sorry, this is a bit off topic from Alan's excellent review though 

[alan potts]

Mr Bond,

Lovely story, I wish I had not sold my 10mm Delos, it would have given me another thing to write about, as I have the 10mm Ethos.

John,

That is a nice story too, this seems to happen a fair bit with Meade, as to whether the truth had been broadcast we will never know. I am not sure what happens now with them. I worked for an outfit that had 5 different brands of the same thing on a world wide basis, I am not sure this is really choice as JOC seem to be holding all the cards. I think you have the right idea, Vixen and Orion Optics, I know you have at least two other scopes but I don't believe that comes from JOC.  On a different subject the Radian has arrived so next week I will go to Sofia and collect, I like to see my friend there and it keeps me away from the concrete mixer.

Alan.

[John]

Hope you enjoy the Radian Alan 

I've nothing against JOC or GSO or Synta for that matter. They bring a wide range of very decent equipment to us at affordable prices, which is great. It's just that the branding and who produces what for who can get confusing at times !

[Joves]

Great post Alan.

Out of curiosity, how does the 41mm Panoptic compare with the 31mm Nagler? I believe you have experience with them both??

I'm looking to add one more wide field EP above the 21mm Ethos and possibly one more higher power between the 10mm Ethos and 3-6mm Nagler zoom. Well, maybe not between... I'm liking the looks of the 3.7mm or 4.7mm Ethos. Both of these would be limited to only being useful in the TV-76, but would be nice in this scope, I think.

I'm thinking it would make more sense to probably get the 4.7mm Ethos with either the TV Big Barlow or 2x Powermate, which would give me 102x with 1.08 degree FOV or 204x (the recommended limit of th scope) with .54 degree FOV.

Then I'd have:

31mm Nagler

21mm Ethos

13mm Ethos

10mm Ethos

4.7mm Ethos

3-6mm Nagler Zoom

The 2x Powermate or Big Barlow would nicely bring the 31mm down to 15.5mm to cover that gap, the 13mm down to 6.5mm and the 4.7mm to 2.35mm.

This looks to me like it could be about all I'd really ever require, unless I'm missing something important? Sorry to hijack your thread here, but you clearly have a tonne of experience in the EP department!

[alan potts]

Joves,

I have both and I don't use them together, I know that sort of sounds a bit daft. I tend to use my 41mm solely on the LX and I see you have one as well, which is a little shorter in focal length (2532mm, I think). I would say that unless you have skies as good as mine you would be better off with the 31mm from a contrast point of view, though that is not giving you a low magnification (x81). Now I have been to Sydney albeit a few years back and it is not a village so you are going to have a big light pollution problem in town. Now I am sure you go away with the scope to somewhere nice and dark, in these conditions I would have thought you would be fine with a true low power for the scope of about X61 and 1.1 degree FOV.  The other thing is you can always use a focal reducer, I wrote a report on it last week which is in the eyepieces section but is now a little buried.

It is the FOV that would sell it for me as you get 10% more with the Panoptic.

On the high power I keep stopping myself from getting the E 4.7mm it is a great eyepiece I am sure. I would have thought you would be better off and in pocket switching to Delos at the short end and may going for the 6mm, which is superb or the 8mm which you could also use in the LX, on a good night.

Hope this is some use to you. If you want anything specific testing let me know I will see what I can do.

Alan

[alan potts]

John,

I sort of forgot about the others which is silly of me I have a GSO scope.

The 3mm Radian will be in a head to head with the 3.5mm Delos and I may as well do the 4mm Radian and the 4.5mm Delos as well. It will not be such a novel as the others as the list of targets is not so long, as I see its Jupiter The Moon and and Venus if I get up early Saturn and Mars. I am also limited with the scopes, not much point using the LX with its 3 meters.

Alan

[swamp thing]

The 2x Powermate or Big Barlow would nicely bring the 31mm down to 15.5mm to cover that gap,

That will be a very heavy combination

[John]

That will be a very heavy combination

Indeed. I tried using the 2" 2x Powermate with my Nager 31 and ES 20 / 100 and it was just to long and heavy a combination to be comfortable for me. The 13mm Ethos was more practical in the 2x PM.

The ES 20 / 100 combination looked like a baseball bat