Inventory of a Visual Observer

[John]

Not great quality photos (must get a more up-to-date digital camera) but this is my little "Astro" corner of the dining room. My Vixen ED102SS and the AZ-3 mount and the Skywatcher Skyliner 200P waiting for the clouds to roll away. They are both "grab and go " scopes really :

(click to enlarge)

Both scopes are fitted with red dot finders as I much prefer those. The Skyliner came with a good crayford focusser rather than the rack and pinions that they used to have which was a nice suprise

And this is what's in my eyepiece case:

(click to enlarge)

Left to Right: Widescan III 30mm, Panoptic 24mm, UWAN 16mm, Nagler T6 13mm, Nagler T6 9mm, Nagler T6 7mm, Nagler T1 4.8mm, Hyperion 3.5mm (bigger than the 2 inch EP !). Foreground: Baader UHS-C and OIII filters, Celestron Ultima 2x Barlow (2.2x really).

I'm very happy with this setup and feel more settled with it than I have for a long while. The scopes complement each other and the eyepieces complement the scopes. :D

I've promised myself not to spend any more money ....... really

[Viking]

John,

I notice that you have been CAREFUL in the selection of your background.

It means that we have to concentrate on your toys!!!! Very nice too.

John

[Sam]

That's a nice selection you have there! I guess with the dob and refractor you've got all bases covered.

Sam

[Andrew*]

I sometimes wish I'd gone down this route. Maybe just the one scope - 16" dob or so...

very nice set-up, John

Andrew

[acey]

Nice eyepiece set! I've only used TeleVue plossls and have never dared fork out for the more expensive ones because I've heard of "kidney-beaning" with Naglers. Even with the 32mm plossl I find it sometimes hard to hold the image, maybe because my ageing pupil can no longer dilate as much as it should. You ever have any issues of that kind?

[John]

Nice eyepiece set! I've only used TeleVue plossls and have never dared fork out for the more expensive ones because I've heard of "kidney-beaning" with Naglers. Even with the 32mm plossl I find it sometimes hard to hold the image, maybe because my ageing pupil can no longer dilate as much as it should. You ever have any issues of that kind?

I've not noticed any problems with kidney beaning but I've only tried the type 1 and type 6 naglers. I understand a bit more about the importance of not having an excessive exit pupil now which is why I've not gone beyond a 30mm F/L eyepiece with the scopes that I have.

I have experienced kidney beaning with some other eyepieces though, notably the Celestron Ultima 35mm and a Meade 3000 Series 40mm plossl that I used to own.

The Tele Vue Plossl 32mm is a great eyepiece - I wish I'd hung on to mine in someways but it had to go to help fund the 24mm Panoptic which shows more or less the same amount of sky.

John

[acey]

That's interesting, John. How does the view through the Panoptic compare with the Plossl in other respects? Something that has always kind of put me off the more complex wide-field eyepieces (apart from cost!) is the number of elements, my assumption being that simpler designs put more light in my eye - but maybe I'm wrong?

Andrew

[John]

.....How does the view through the Panoptic compare with the Plossl in other respects? Something that has always kind of put me off the more complex wide-field eyepieces (apart from cost!) is the number of lements, my assumption being that simpler designs put more light in my eye - but maybe I'm wrong?

The view through the Panoptic 24mm is similar to that through the 32mm plossl in terms of pinpoint stars, very good control of scattered light etc. The extra field is noticable (actually more noticable when you switch back to the plossl as you quickly get used to 68 degrees) but the stars do stay point points right across it, as they do with the Nagler's 82 degree field as well. The additionl magnification of the Pan 24mm is helpful in my case as I have light pollution issues to cope with and additional magnification darkens the background sky somewhat. The eye lens of the Panoptic is actually a lot smaller than the Plossl which comes as a suprise to those new to the design. Some find this less immersive but personally I has not bothered me. There is a difference in eye relief as well of course - 22mm for the Plossl and 15mm for the Panoptic - I have found the Panoptic a little less sensitive to eye positioning than the 32mm Plossl.

In terms of cost, there is no doubt that Naglers and Panoptics are expensive eyepieces. For medium and longer focal length scopes there are cheaper options that will preform very well. I had a Vixen LVW 22mm before the Panoptic and that was very nice as well. The Hyperion 24mm ought to be worthy of consideration as well I'd have thought. William Optics UWAN's also offer very Nagler-like performance at a lower price (at least that's what I've found with my 16mm UWAN).

In terms of outright light transmission I reckon that simpler designs, assuming that they are well figured and have quality coatings, must transmit a little more light than the 7 element Naglers and 6 element Panoptics but I think with the recent tele Vue eyepieces the quality of coatings is such that this is negligable IMHO. Even barlowed (ie: 10 elements !) I've found the Nagler T6's give very good performance.

I'm going to try an interesting experiment shortly - I've got an Antares 9mm HD Orthoscopic eyepiece on it's way to me and I'm going to compare the sharpness, contrast and transmission to my T6 Nagler and, when barlowed, to my T1 4.8mm Nagler and see how they compare. It will be interesting to put an acknowledged good high power performer (the ortho) up aganst the more complex designs

I'll post my findings when we get some clear skies.

John

[acey]

Great info, thanks - I'll look forward to your report on the ortho.

Andrew