19mm Panoptic or 20mm Maxvision

[Farnsworth]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to get a ~20mm eyepiece for a 10" f/5 dobsonian, mainly to observe open clusters and galaxies.

Originally I planned to pick the 20mm Maxvision, which probably is equivalent to the discontinued 20mm Meade SWA. However, I have the opportunity to get a 19mm Panoptic for around twice the price of the Maxvision.

Has anyone ever compared those particular eyepieces or maybe the panopics and maxvisions in general? Does the Panoptic provide a better image? If so, do you think it's worth the price difference?

Thanks and CS :-)

Yasin

[rowan46]

I don't have a panoptic and in truth I have never looked through one. I do have a maxvision and it's very good . eye relief is not as good as the pentax xw and televue delos I own but  the view is nearly as good. That nearly is noticable  but its definitely not twice as bad. my maxvision cost under £60 new my  pentax's were £170  2nd hand. Are they 3x better? not even close. Still, were I offered a 20mm pentax  or a  20mm maxvision and I had the money I would choose the pentax. I suspect that you will see a noticable improvement with the panoptic. However i doubt you will be disappointed with the maxvision as they are very  good. Sorry that's no help its really just to remind you that eyepieces are a personal taste thing. Good is good and better is better whether or not the amount of better is worth the extra that's your choice.

[alan potts]

Hi,

The speed of your scope is getting on towards being fast. I have not had the 19mm Panoptic though I have three of the others and I have compared them with Meade SWA of which I had the full set. In my opinion the Panoptics are better especially at the edges, Panoptics are sharp right to the very edge, Meades are not at F5. The TeleVue will hold it's secondhand value much better as well, I bought all my Meade eyepieces new and lost a lot of money on them having to sell them at less than half the new price, even then it was not easy because the Maxvisions came along.

I am doing a head to head at the moment between the 24mm from each camp and will report soon. I would buy the Panoptic though you will not regret it!

Alan.

[Qualia]

I own both the 19mm and 24mm Panoptic. Really nice eyepieces, small, light and with a decent amount of field of view. If you can pick up a Panoptic secondhand it will become one of the gems in your set. As Alan suggests, with the Panoptic you're going to have that quality Tele Vue is so famous for and it will hold its value better than many other eyepieces if you decide to sell it on. You're also going to have peace of mind from that nagging 'what if...?'

Curiously, I too have a 10" f5 and although the 19mm is used, it isn't my most eyepiece in the scope. The 19mm offers 65x and about 1º arc degree of true field of view. However, the Delos 14mm offers about 0.8º and 90x. I find the latter a lot more useful for framing galaxies and many nebulae, and the magnification seems just about perfect. On the other hand, when it comes to searching for faint fuzzies or framing open clusters, most times I prefer to use the 24mm, giving about 1.3º true field of view and about 52x.

My gut tells me that the ideal situation for a 10" f5 would be to slowly save for something like a 2" 20mm Nagler Equip this with a powermate or decent 2" Barlow with 1.25" adapter and a 14mm Delos or 13mm Ethos and as far as DSO observing goes, you're sorted for life .

If possible, let us know what other eyepieces you have.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

On a fast scope the Panoptic should edge out the MV, but the MV should still be excellent

[Farnsworth]

Thanks for your replies! I should add that I don't own the 10" f/5 yet. I'm planning on moving from my 8" f/6 Dobsonian to a bigger one. I can't handle more than 10" since the space on my car's back seat is limited ;-)

I actually own a 13mm Nagler T6 and it is indeed my most used EP for DSO. With my f/6 Dob though, I felt like the exit pupil wasn't bright enought to observe galaxies. With the f/5 Dob it might be different... For higher magnifications I use the 5-8mm Speers Waler Zoom - great eyepiece that covers the whole range with a constant AFOV of ~84°.

My overview eyepiece is the 34mm Explore Scientific, which I obviously can't use at f/5. Here the problem is similar, I'm not sure weather I should replace it with the 27 Panoptic or 28mm Maxvision. 26 or 31 Nagler would be to expensive. I should also mention that I once owned a 16mm MV and it was performing great at my 8" f/6 Dob, but as you told me it isn't that good at f/5 anymore.

CS Yasin

[alan potts]

I use a 35mm Panoptic with my M/N 190mm which is F 5.26 all the time, it's great. If you have a dark sky try it. I also had the Speer Waler eyepiece you talk of, nice it was too but a bit colourful at the edges, still you can't have it all even if you want.

Alan

[John]

I've only used a couple of Speers-Waler eyepieces but both required a lot of inward focuser movement to reach focus - somewhat more than most other eyepieces. I guess this might affect their usefulness in scopes with limited focuser travel.

[Ruud]

The 20mm Maxvision was the first one I tried (I now have four of them).

It works quite well at f/5 on a flat-field refractor. It has a touch of astigmatism at the very edge of the field, but you have to look for it to notice it. It's a very good eyepiece. Maybe the successor of the Panoptics line will beat it hands down, but in an f/5, the current Panoptics have only the slightest edge over the Maxvisions, if any at all.

[alan potts]

The 20mm Maxvision was the first one I tried (I now have four of them).

It works quite well at f/5 on a flat-field refractor. It has a touch of astigmatism at the very edge of the field, but you have to look for it to notice it. It's a very good eyepiece. Maybe the successor of the Panoptics line will beat it hands down, but in an f/5, the current Panoptics have only the slightest edge over the Maxvisions, if any at all.

Sorry Ruud, I can't agree with the statement, "if any at all", I'm doing a head to head at the moment between the Meade 24mm and the 24mm Panoptic and I can see differences that are not that slight at the edges. I have placed various targets at the edge and towards the edge in my scopes and you get; either globulars that do not resolve or doubles that are not split. Place a star there like Vega and it looks like a bright comet. In the Panoptic camp it is business as usual, so far I have done 16 hours work with two scopes on these two.

As far as I am aware there is nothing wrong with my scopes and I had my eyes tested just before Christmas. However I would say about Meades/MaxV they are excellent eyepieces for the money offering about 80% of the Panoptic performance.

Alan.

[Moonshane]

I am openly biased in favour of televue. The 19mm panoptic for me every time. That said a 17mm t4 would sit well with the 13.

[denis0007dl]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to get a ~20mm eyepiece for a 10" f/5 dobsonian, mainly to observe open clusters and galaxies.

Originally I planned to pick the 20mm Maxvision, which probably is equivalent to the discontinued 20mm Meade SWA. However, I have the opportunity to get a 19mm Panoptic for around twice the price of the Maxvision.

Has anyone ever compared those particular eyepieces or maybe the panopics and maxvisions in general? Does the Panoptic provide a better image? If so, do you think it's worth the price difference?

Thanks and CS :-)

Yasin

I would go with MV, it is great value for money really!

[denis0007dl]

...but I prefeer Exlpore Scientific design much more than MV!

[russ.will]

Sorry Ruud, I can't agree with the statement, "if any at all", I'm doing a head to head at the moment between the Meade 24mm and the 24mm Panoptic and I can see differences that are not that slight at the edges. I have placed various targets at the edge and towards the edge in my scopes and you get; either globulars that do not resolve or doubles that are not split. Place a star there like Vega and it looks like a bright comet. In the Panoptic camp it is business as usual, so far I have done 16 hours work with two scopes on these two.

As far as I am aware there is nothing wrong with my scopes and I had my eyes tested just before Christmas. However I would say about Meades/MaxV they are excellent eyepieces for the money offering about 80% of the Panoptic performance.

Alan.

I suppose you have nailed the issue the OP is looking to solve - 80% of the performance for 50% of the price. The value of that ratio is entirely subjective, even if the performance ratio is objective. Look at it another way, is a 20% increase in performance worth the extra which would buy you 80% of another MV EP? 

Russell

[John]

As I read it Tasin asked 3 questions in his post:

".....Has anyone ever compared those particular eyepieces or maybe the panopics and maxvisions in general? Does the Panoptic provide a better image? If so, do you think it's worth the price difference?...."

Alan is the only poster (including myself !) who has been able to attempt answer these 3 questions:

Q1: Yes, or at least Alan has, and is, comparing a Meade badged version of the MV with Panoptics of a similar focal length.

Q2: Yes, in Alans opinion the Panoptic does provide a better image and has sought to quantify that difference to some extent too.

Q3: Yes, in Alans opinion the additional price is worth paying, or at least that is my reading of what he is saying.

The last Q is the one where each person could well reach a different conclusion of course.

Tasin has an F/5 scope wheras Alans fastest is F/5.3 I believe and with 30% of the coma of Tasin's newtonian so the performance difference could be more than the 80% in Tasin's scope perhaps ?

Personally I think that the "is the difference worth the extra cost" type questions are for us as individuals to sort out. It's great that forums like this enable us to at least get some feedback on comparative performance, often within hours, to help us reach such decisions

Then its a case of "You pays your money and you takes your choice"

[Moonshane]

LOL fair point John. I think the rest of us either have one or the other and develop responses to justify our decisions. Human nature is a powerful force :-)

[YKSE]

Tasin has an F/5 scope wheras Alans fastest is F/5.3 I believe and with 30% of the coma of Tasin's newtonian so the performance difference could be more than the 80% in Tasin's scope perhaps ?

Is it coma or astigmatism? I'd like to think Alan's MN190 is coma-free therefore only astigmatism shows, while in a F5 newtonian, coma can be more dominant than astigmatism?

[alan potts]

Yong

If advertising is to be believed then all of my scopes are coma free zones. I have two eyepieces from the SWA Meade 5K range at the moment (16mm&24mm) and the edge aberation looks like coma but astigmatisum can manifest itself as coma making it very hard to call on a Newt without Paracorr. 

I may well have a word with the owner of these SWA's to see if I can hang on to at least one of them for a few more weeks so I can subject them to my new F4.3 Dobsonian, with and without Paracorr to see how they hold up. It will be a good one for me to have the knowledge under my belt.

Alan

[YKSE]

Alan.

That's what I believe they are, that your scopes are coma free. The edge aberations you see in the SWA Meade are mostly probably field curvature or astigmatism, coma is less likely to be seem in your scopes.

It would be very interesting to see your comparison of all your test EPs without paracorr in new F4.3.

[John]

Is it coma or astigmatism? I'd like to think Alan's MN190 is coma-free therefore only astigmatism shows, while in a F5 newtonian, coma can be more dominant than astigmatism?

My understanding is that the maksutov-newtonian design develops around 30% of the coma of a newtonian of the same aperture and focal ratio. Maybe they do better than that now ?

[rowan46]

My post was obviously too waffly. I don't know the panoptics except by reputation but I do know maxvisions as I have a few  and they are noticably not as good as the best glass. The best glass  costs 2 to 3 times  the price of the maxvisions  but don't I feel have 2 to 3 times the performance however I would pay the extra if I had the money as the difference is noticable.

[alan potts]

I will try to do this Yong if only with one of them and on a limited amount of observations, it's bit cold at the moment for spending hours at the scope, though sometimes minus 10 is a summers day to you. It was minus 12 last night when I was Lovejoy spotting and colder first thing this morning.

I checked for field curature and it is not that, it has some edges distortion but so too does the Panoptic, a touch more as it happens. I hope I can write it up in the next few days.

Alan

[jetstream]

I hear that both those eyepieces are really good, I would consider buying the one that you will lose the least money on if you sell down he road. Just a thought.

[alan potts]

Gerry,

A very good point. I had most of the Meade 5000's and many of them I bought new, I lost a great deal when I sold them. They are very good value secondhand as are all TV's though the lions share of mine were from new. A S/H TV can be more or less bought, kept for a year, used and sold for really no more than postage costs.

Bad luck I know but the 40mm SWA cost me about 280 pounds, then Maxvision laid out their wares and I sold my Meade for 125 and had to pay 24 for the courier. I agree in my case I would still have 24 quid to pay on selling a TV eyepiece but this to me is a small price to drink fine wine.

Alan