Largest mm for SkyWatcher 200p

[RichM63]

My 32mm TS WA has a permanent parking space in the 200P. Great value.

[rwilkey]

Hi Ben, yes, the 32mm PanaView is a bit soft at the edges in a fast scope but a great performer in my view.  I bought the ES82 30mm to replace the PanaView but will never get rid of it, as it was my first ever upgrade.  Funnily enough, the ES82 30mm gives a wider TFoV than the PanaView, which suprised me.

[Mr Spock]

When I had a 250mm f4.8 the lowest I went was with a 22mm Nagler and that needed a coma corrector. Scopes of this fl are going to have a lot of coma with wide fields.

[bingevader]

Hi Ben, yes, the 32mm PanaView is a bit soft at the edges in a fast scope but a great performer in my view.  I bought the ES82 30mm to replace the PanaView but will never get rid of it, as it was my first ever upgrade.  Funnily enough, the ES82 30mm gives a wider TFoV than the PanaView, which suprised me.

Robin, Just out of curiosity, how do the 2 compare?

[rwilkey]

Robin, Just out of curiosity, how do the 2 compare?

Hi Ben, hard to say as I have only used the ES once, my best description is that it is a 'different experience', the eye-relief is tighter, but I was amazed at how vast the sky looked in the new eyepiece, an appreciation you don't get with the PanaView as you are directed more to the amazing central detail, in truth, the jury is still out for me, I am not quite sure what to make of it, except that I need more time on it at a dark site.  My current viewing was from our more light-polluted back garden.  But I want to test it on the Virgo galaxies and see how many I can get into view.

[bingevader]

Thanks Robin, I'd be very interested in your thoughts when you get the chance for some more time with them. Something for the OP to consider also, anyway!

I'm very happy with my PanaView. 

[russ.will]

Hi Ben, hard to say as I have only used the ES once, my best description is that it is a 'different experience', the eye-relief is tighter, but I was amazed at how vast the sky looked in the new eyepiece, an appreciation you don't get with the PanaView as you are directed more to the amazing central detail, in truth, the jury is still out for me, I am not quite sure what to make of it, except that I need more time on it at a dark site.  My current viewing was from our more light-polluted back garden.  But I want to test it on the Virgo galaxies and see how many I can get into view.

I suppose the reason that my ES82 30mm left my collection, was that it was only really truly amazing in a Coma Corrector in my (then) F4.9 Newt. It was a lot better corrected than the the SW 32mm Panaview, which was only sharp over about the central 50%of the FOV in the same scope. The ES82 only really started to fall apart at the point where the Panaview FOV ended, so the sharp FOV was much larger.

However, the tight ER of the ES82s (and the 30m is actually one of the more relaxed ones) plus the sheer weight of it (even worse with the CC) meant the MV 28mm SWA was getting used more . For one, you can access the entire FOV of the SWA without sticking your eyeball on a stalk and two; With the additional 12deg FOV clipped off, there's less coma, which is all I found that extra FOV revealed. I'm happy using the 28mm SWA CC free and so it was more convenient.

For me, the ES82 30mm and 32mm Panaview are entirely different propositions and the price differential means they seldom go head to head. The Panaview was my first EP upgrade too, so I do remember it with affection (the subsequent expenditure as a result of it's lessons, less so!) but the MV 28mm SWA is the one that really calls the Panaview to book - It is a much better corrected EP in all of the scopes I've used it in, for only a small increase in cost and it raises far fewer issues in use than the ES82.

Just my 2p.

Russell

[alan potts]

Russell,

I had the 28mm SWA from Meade which is probably the same eyepiece apart from a few very tiny tweeks here and there. Out of the six of them in the range this was my favourite and one I wished I had kept. I was never able to pressure it in a scope as fast as F4.9 though but it preformed very well at F5.26 or what ever the Mak/Newt is.

Alan

[rwilkey]

Hi Russ and Alan, we seem to be experimenting with the same ep's, I also have the Meade SWA 28mm and find it very good and quite comfortable to use, but I am still experimenting and comparing FoV etc, not getting enough clear skies though, very frustrating.

[alan potts]

Robin,

Even though I have the bulk of the Ethos range in my case I am not a FOV addict, The 28mm was a lovely eyepiece and I feel a bit of a twit for letting it go when I didn't have to. I find my most used eyepiece is the humble 68 degree 35mm Panoptic, a great finder in any of the scopes I have. It really shone with the LX with focal reducer combo.

As for getting enough clear sky, if it makes you feel better I have had 5 clear nights in April, the worse ever, and the next week looks like the month will end on that score. Oddly the last three years has scored 15 which gave very good seeing as well according to my notes. This year even the 5 nights that I had the seeing was awful on 3 of them, one night rendered no detail what so ever on Mars at any magnification and two others were bearly any better, I blame the Government.

Alan.

[bingevader]

We feel your pain Alan. We've been relying on your tales of clear skies to keep us going this last year or so! 

I guess the star party is off for a while then? 

I'm enjoying the wide field, long focal length discussion though. 

[bingevader]

Alan, did you have the 34mm Meade also? If so, what was that like compared to the others, and how was the edge correction?

Cheers.

[alan potts]

Ben,

As the rain pours down outside and there is more to come. Any tent would sink we have had so much of it.

I had the 34mm of this range and it was very good, the whole lot were really but the 28mm was my favourite, my only gripe could be they were very large at the long end, the 40mm was silly in fairness but a sharp eyepiece I think it was better in someways than the 41mm Pan as the edges are brighter.

The 34m was fabulous in the LX which is F10, likewise in the 115mm which is F7 and just starting to suffer at the very edges, though not badly in the Mac/ Newtionian. For the sort of money you can get them secondhand they are a great buy, they can be bought for about the 100 pounds mark or even less since Maxvision has impacted the S/H value. They are not as good as the Panoptic but are also not with so much pincushion, I bought one new for and lost a lot and I am not angry, very good eyepiece in my books.

Alan

[bingevader]

Cheers Alan, I was just curious, as the 34mm would be a sensible limit with regards to exit pupil in an 8" 'scope.

Sorry Russell, I missed your 2p! I know the ES and Panaview are in different leagues, just curious again. 

Your experience of the 28mm MV is interesting though. The different magnifications didn't make any difference on the whole?

[John]

Cheers Alan, I was just curious, as the 34mm would be a sensible limit with regards to exit pupil in an 8" 'scope.

Sorry I'm not Alan, but it depends on the focal ratio of the 8" scope Ben. In an F/5 the exit pupil would be 6.8mm which I tend to feel is on the large side. In an F/6 we have an 5.7mm exit pupil which might well be more effective for many. In an 8" SCT which is F/10 the exit pupil is a very modest 3.4mm which even old folks like me can cope with !

[bingevader]

Oops, beg your pardon John! Poor use of an "an". I should have put "my". After all, the OP's 'scope is the 1000mm! Sorry.

I know it's controversial anyway, as there're those who'd suggest that there's no EP in which the FL is too great.

[John]

Oops, beg your pardon John! Poor use of an "an". I should have put "my". After all, the OP's 'scope is the 1000mm! Sorry.

I know it's controversial anyway, as there're those who'd suggest that there's no EP in which the FL is too great.

There is no absolute rule about it. I've reached my conclusions by trying eyepieces of different focal lengths and comparing the differences. For me, keeping the max exit pupil below 6mm has resulted in brighter and more contrasty views of the fainter deep sky objects than when it creeps above that figure. Going by what your eye tells you is better than applying theoretical rules really

[AlexB67]

Oops, beg your pardon John! Poor use of an "an". I should have put "my". After all, the OP's 'scope is the 1000mm! Sorry.

I know it's controversial anyway, as there're those who'd suggest that there's no EP in which the FL is too great.

There is one good rule to bear in mind is to not let the exit pupil appreciably exceed you maximum eye pupil dilation size, especially in the case of reflectors.  In any case in both refractors and reflectors you will be wasting aperture once you do, but in a reflector the more serious side effect is that you can start seeing the projection of the secondary in the eyepiece when looking through the scope, something you do not want.    

My largest eyepiece has  a 5.9 mm exit pupil, I find it very comfortable to use and look through, but since I do a lot of observing from home under not great skies there are situations where there are faints objects I cannot see at all in it, but appear quite easily with an exit pupil of 2 mm say with a much darker background.  Out of town under darker skies this is much less of an issue. 

[alan potts]

I hear and understand members issues with exit pupil but I really have no problem with a 35mm eyepiece in a 1000mm scope even though it will no doubt be too large for my aging mince pies. With regard to the shadow of the seconary, yes it is there in the daylight to twilight but once passed this is is a none event. I must stress though I do not use this to look for DSO, if and when I do this I would use something around the 20mm in this scope. I have even used the larger 41mm on the same scope but this is sailing close to the wind.

Alan

[John]

I don't have any problem with using an oversize exit pupil at all Alan. It can be a lot of fun in fact 

It's only when I compare the views of DSO's with a smaller exit pupil that I notice that the view with the larger EP looks rather washed out.

I can remember Luke and Sarah reporting something similar when they compared the views with their 35mm Panoptic and their newly acquired 21mm Ethos through their 16" dob.

I guess the question is, do we mention this factor when folks are contemplating a long focal length eyepiece for use in a fast scope or not ?. I tend to do so (rather like a stuck record at times I suppose  ) but it's only a bit of information and people can take it of leave it 

[alan potts]

John,

Would the washed out effect have more impact in the likes of your scope and pushing the boat out further with a 16 inch as compared with my humble 190mm. It is something that I don't know the answer to but can imagine the extra light collection surface could well have a part to play. The other thing that may be different is the seconary size with there being a collector plate at the front at the front od the M/N, it's not really apples with apples.

Alan