The ultimate 2" eyepiece for my Tak 100?

[osbourne one-nil]

Because I was going down to one scope and was going to be happy with that for the rest of my life, I've only got 1.25" eyepieces, the longest focal length being my 24mm Panoptic. 

Of course, within a few months of going down to one scope for the rest of my life, I bought another scope; a Tak FC-100 (f7.4), which has a 2" focuser. Whilst I really like my 24mm Panoptic, it does feel like I'm not making the most of what my Tak can offer. 

I've had a 35mm Panoptic in the past and got on well with it. It wasn't too heavy, was easy on eye placement and would offer an additional 1º of view compared to the 24mm Panoptic. It would give an exit pupil of 4.7mm, which for someone in their late early mid-40s sounds ideal. However, it would drop the magnification and therefore increase the brightness of the sky. 

A 21mm Ethos would darken the sky compared to the 35mm Panoptic, but would only give an exit pupil of 2.8mm; would this make it harder for others to look through it? It would also weigh a lot more (although I think the mount would take it fine), not massively increase the field of view and mean the kids have to eat cold food for a few months. Is eye placement ever a problem with the Ethos range?

I could go for something like a 26mm or 31mm Nagler, but I'm pretty sure they're quite fussy with regards to eye placement?

Finally, I could, of course, go for something a lot cheaper (but I do believe strongly you get what you pay for) or simply stick to my 24mm Panoptic; I guess there aren't that many occasions when you need more than a 2.2º field of view, but I do need to buy my wife's birthday present to me you see. 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have the Nagler 31T5 (a.k.a. Panzerfaust). It is a superb EP, and I have little difficulty placing my eye correctly. It is easier for me (with glasses) than the eye placement with the 13mm Ethos I looked through (mainly due to eye relief). For inexperienced observers, the Nagler can be a bit more difficult, but most love the view. I have also used a 26T5: lighter than the 31T5, and comfortable for me. The 31T5 is my main EP for wide field viewing. It gives a stunning 5.3 deg FOV in my APM 80mm F/6. Awesome for scanning the Milky Way

[osbourne one-nil]

Thanks Michael - that's what I'm after, as my scope is on a Porta II so is fun just to swing about. I don't wear glasses (well, I'm starting to need them for reading) but I guess eye placement come with practice anyway?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks Michael - that's what I'm after, as my scope is on a Porta II so is fun just to swing about. I don't wear glasses (well, I'm starting to need them for reading) but I guess eye placement come with practice anyway?

It does. We occasionally have star parties with a colleague and some of our students, and most people get it after one or two tries, and are comfortable afterwards

[Stu]

I agree, the 31 Nag is lovely and will give you a very nice near 3.5 degree field of view in the Tak, perfect for the Veil and NAN under a dark sky.

I find eye placement fine aswell so am sure you will be fine with it.

That's a nice birthday present! [emoji3][emoji3]

[osbourne one-nil]

That's my wife for you; she says she doesn't regret a single day since we met...without ever specifying which day that was. 

Looking good for a Nagler then. Guess I might need a 2" Deep Sky Filter for those objects too?

[alan potts]

I have had both and they are easy to use, I sold the 26mm some time back and it is only since I bought the 18 inch I fully understand the true impact of the 31mm, it comes alive in this scope. Either will serve you well and if you cannot get one of these the 30mm Meade UWA is a pretty good second best at a lot less outlay.

Alan

[Stu]

That's my wife for you; she says she doesn't regret a single day since we met...without ever specifying which day that was.

Looking good for a Nagler then. Guess I might need a 2" Deep Sky Filter for those objects too?

Lumicon or astronomik UHC and OIII are good

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

That's my wife for you; she says she doesn't regret a single day since we met...without ever specifying which day that was. 

Looking good for a Nagler then. Guess I might need a 2" Deep Sky Filter for those objects too?

I use a UHC filter most often for objects like the Veil and NA nebula

[John]

I have the Nagler 31mm and the Ethos 21mm. They both work excellenty well with my Vixen ED102 F/6.5 and the views of the Veil Nebula with the 31mm "Terminagler" and the Lumicon or Astronomik O-III filter are the highlights of the astronomical Summer skies for me

The combo gives a 3.8 degree true field so I can fit both sides of the Veil in the same FoV and the straggly bits in between. Magic stuff ! 

If you wanted to save a few £'s I believe the ES 30mm / 82 is very nearly as good as the big Nagler and the ES 20mm / 100 very nearly as good as the Ethos 21 particularly if your scope is not the fastest.

[alan potts]

John,

Slight side step, Which Olll do you favour, I have the Astronomik and yesterday the UHC came in the same brand. I see though you are now using a Lumicon Olll as well?

alan

[Stu]

Under a dark sky I find the OIII is better than UHC on the Veil and NAN in a 4" scope.

I've been very pleased with my Lumicons, not tried vs an Astronomik but it was certainly better than a Baader OIII on the Crescent at SGLX (we compared with Mike's filter). I think the Baader has a tighter bandpass but was dimmer and showed less even in the 16"

[alan potts]

I feel a few have said much the same but that is interesing about the 16 inch of yours,  I think again John was one of the first I read saying Baader Olll did show fewer stars. I tend to buy into the school of putting quality with quality and whilst they are dam expensive unless you are lucky S/H the Lumicon or Astronomik with the 31mm or 26mm Nagler seemed the way to go for me. I guess at that level they are much of a muchness.

Alan

[denis0007dl]

My choose would be Pentax XW 30mm. It is much better than Nagler 31mm in all terms except FOV. On N31 bother me ring of fire, and very bad picture on daytime objects. XW have much cleaner image on daytime, and is a tad sharper on stars, lighter also...and waterproof.

If I had to choose, XW is best eyepiece for that purpose.

[John]

John,

Slight side step, Which Olll do you favour, I have the Astronomik and yesterday the UHC came in the same brand. I see though you are now using a Lumicon Olll as well?

alan

Nothing much in it Alan. The Lumicon darkens the stars a little more than the Astronomik did but the enhancement affect on the nebulosity seems more or less equal.

[John]

My choose would be Pentax XW 30mm. It is much better than Nagler 31mm in all terms except FOV. On N31 bother me ring of fire, and very bad picture on daytime objects. XW have much cleaner image on daytime, and is a tad sharper on stars, lighter also...and waterproof.

If I had to choose, XW is best eyepiece for that purpose.

I compared the XW 30mm with the Nagler 31mm (and a Nirvana 28mm too) in my Vixen refractor over quite a few weeks a couple of years ago and all 3 were really very good I thought. The Nagler had the most impressive views though. The "ring of fire" is present in most 82 degree eyepieces and 100 degree ones as well. I don't see it at night and I'd not be using these eyepieces for daytime use.

You use the words "much better" and "much cleaner" denis but I really did not think the differences in performance were very substantial at all apart from the FoV and the eye relief. The eyepieces did things in a slightly different way and I can see that some might prefer one and others, the other though

[alan potts]

John,

I think you have just saved me 200 quid, thanks.

The sad thing is even with the 31mm Nagler and a slight larger FOV offered byt the 41mm Panoptic the new scope will never show it as one object. The OP clearly has this at heart and I have to say it does look very good in the M/N 190mm as it shows almost all of the Veil or Cirrus Nebula as Micheal at Sumerian called it to me.

Alan

[alan potts]

Denis,

I have spent ages looking through Pentax eyepieces and making comparisons with a wide range of Televue eyepieces though I agree not the 30mm XW. I never found the need to use words like; much, great, massive or clearly in any of the work i have done. I found the best I could come up with was words like ; subtle, slight and small. They are all fabulous eyepiece at this level but they just do things slightly differently. 

To get a comparable FOV the OP would really have to go for the 40mm XW as the 31mm Nagler and other Nagler fields do have a fair advantage on the this aspect over any Pentax XW's.

I always think of something John first said to me and that was  'what could Pentax have done if they tried to make a range of astronomical eyepieces" as you know the XW's were designed for daytime use.

Alan

[Dude_with_the_tube]

everyone has its own way to express they views and for many english is not they native language so calm down people

As for the topic.All candidates have been mentioned in likes of televue 31mm nagler,ExSc 30mm and Meade 5000 UWA 30mm,Panoptics 35  and obviously Pentax XW 30mm & 40mm. All these will be beautiful eye pieces to use in your scope.I can see difficulty to find a Pentax XW in 30 or 40mm due to them not being produced anymore.

I would also throw in another one to stir up the mud

Leitz 30mm 88 degree.Expensive,larger FOV then 31mm Nagler,looks like a hand granade,not very often on s/h market.

your pick?

Clear skies gentlemen.

[osbourne one-nil]

Thanks all - looks like there are plenty of choices then! I did have the ES 100º 9mm in the past and it was very impressive so ES are certainly worth a consideration too, along with Meade, of course. 

One query - ring of fire?!

[Stu]

One query - ring of fire?!

It's not what you are thinking [emoji6]

It's a bright orange effect around the very edge of the field of view, often seen on very wide angle eyepieces. It's never bothered me particularly

[osbourne one-nil]

Oh thank goodness! I never saw anything like that through my Panoptic 35mm but I guess they're not really super-wide eyepieces any more. 

[John]

Thanks all - looks like there are plenty of choices then! I did have the ES 100º 9mm in the past and it was very impressive so ES are certainly worth a consideration too, along with Meade, of course. 

One query - ring of fire?!

It's a thin band or rim of light that runs around the field stop of the eyepiece. With my Nagler 31 and Ethos 21 it's blueish in tone.  I've seen it with most of the UWA / Hyper wide eyepieces I've used. I don't see it at nighttime apart from when viewing the Moon at low power. It's much more prounounced in the daytime but still thin (I've just peeked through my Ethos and Nagler to check).

[osbourne one-nil]

That's not going to be an issue then. Price might be though, and with the Explore Scientific coming in at almost exactly half the price of a Nagler 31mm.....

[Stu]

That's not going to be an issue then. Price might be though, and with the Explore Scientific coming in at almost exactly half the price of a Nagler 31mm.....

But it's your birthday...... [emoji6]