Tele Vue Panoptic 41mm - the alternatives

[DRT]

I very recently thinned down my EP collection and one of the casualties was my Pan41. I sacrificed it because I also have a Pan35 and couldn't keep both. 

I have a C11 so would now like to look out for a 40ish mm focal length 2" EP that would fill the gap in my box and give a favourable comparison at lower cost. 

All suggestions welcome...

[Louis D]

The Meade 40mm SWA 5000 (used only), the Maxvision 40mm 68° (identical to the Meade), and the Explore Scientific 40mm 68° (supposedly the same optically as the Meade, but some argue the ES is somewhat inferior) would all be worthy successors to your 41mm Panoptic.  I have had the Meade since the great Meade SWA blowout sale several years back.  It is a wonderfully sharp eyepiece center and edge that is easy to use with eyeglasses.  You would probably want to remove the eyeguard on either the Meade or the Maxvision to reduce weight and girth.  I don't know what the usable eye relief on the ES-68 version is since the eye lens is recessed.

[Pig]

Derek,
How about this one. ... I did own one and despite being a 1.25" I don't recall any issues, especially so considering the outlay

https://www.telescopehouse.com/explore-scientific-68a-maxvision-eyepiece-40mm.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiA_eXEBRDP8fnIlJDXxsIBEiQAAGfyoZ6y27XJy4TRVea9gVe5_I9Ge7NEWS37micF_TfuYWYaAlXQ8P8HAQ

[Ricochet]

4 minutes ago, Louis D said:

The Meade 40mm SWA 5000 (used only), the Maxvision 40mm 68° (identical to the Meade), and the Explore Scientific 40mm 68° (supposedly the same optically as the Meade, but some argue the ES is somewhat inferior) would all be worthy successors to your 41mm Panoptic.  I have had the Meade since the great Meade SWA blowout sale several years back.  It is a wonderfully sharp eyepiece center and edge that is easy to use with eyeglasses.  You would probably want to remove the eyeguard on either the Meade or the Maxvision to reduce weight and girth.  I don't know what the usable eye relief on the ES-68 version is since the eye lens is recessed.

What makes the ES68 inferior? 

[Louis D]

Maybe you should state your budget, DRT.  That could change the choices dramatically.  At f10, you might be able to get by with a simpler, lower cost alternative.

[DRT]

Simple and low cost are good for now. When funds allow I would probably replace the Pan41mm so for now I'm thinking something second hand but considerably cheaper but not so cheap that I would never be able to sell and recoup most of my money. 

[Louis D]

2 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

What makes the ES68 inferior? 

Ooops, I was thinking of the 82 series based on Alan Pott's quote below from the other 41mm Panoptic thread:

Before I bought the 31mm Nagler I had a 30mm Meade UWA and I found that very good indeed, it just depends how fast is the scope you wish to use it on, It was fine in my SC Meade 12 inch but did start to show issues at F 5.3. I am of the opinon though not all agree, that the Meade versions of these eyepieces are better than the ExSc offerings.

I guess I accidentally extrapolated to all Meade vs ES comparisons (SWA vs 68 series).  I have never looked through a 40mm ES-68, so I can't say it's better or worse than the Meade SWA.

[Louis D]

5 minutes ago, DRT said:

Simple and low cost are good for now. When funds allow I would probably replace the Pan41mm so for now I'm thinking something second hand but considerably cheaper but not so cheap that I would never be able to sell and recoup most of my money. 

There are multiple good reports on the 40mm TMB Paragon II and 40mm Astro Tech Titan II when used at f10.  I'm not sure if this is the same as the discontinued ones here in the States.

[John]

I found the Skywatcher Aero ED 40mm pretty good when I had an SCT. I believe it is the same optically as the TMB Paragon and the Astro Tech Titan II. It's also pretty light for a 2" max field stop eyepiece which may be some advantage. There is a TS (Telescope Services) version of this eyepiece as well.

 

[DRT]

4 minutes ago, John said:

I found the Skywatcher Aero ED 40mm pretty good when I had an SCT. I believe it is the same optically as the TMB Paragon and the Astro Tech Titan II. It's also pretty light for a 2" max field stop eyepiece which may be some advantage. There is a TS (Telescope Services) version of this eyepiece as well.

 

Is that this one John?

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p2333_TS-Paragon-ED-40mm-2--Super-Wide-Eyepiece---68--FoV.html

looks great value with that discount!!!

[John]

Thats the one Derek. The Skywatcher version is just over £100 with FLO I think. There was a 40mm under a different branding on Astroboot recently for around £50 but, unsurprisingly, that got snapped up real fast !

 

[Pig]

That sound like the one to go for Derek.... the write up is pretty encouraging  

[catburglar]

I snapped up the Rigel 40mm eyepiece from Astroboot....

Only had a quick look, but it seems OK. Nice and sharp in the centre of the field with just a little tailing off at the extreme edge of FoV. 

Certainly looks a promising start, and at £50 worth a punt. There's the 30 and 35mm versions on ENS

[YKSE]

You've got most of the candidates.

As I see it you have the three main choices:

1. Skywatcher 40mm Aero as John has mentioned, £105 pounds at FLO, 525grams, the most lightweight alternative,  very easy eye placement.

2. Vixen 42mm LVW, somewhat heavier than the above.

3. Maxvision 40mm, the Lenzilla as @Chris Lockcalled it, you get probably most grams for your money. The £125 demo price here looks not that bad,

https://www.bresser.de/Sale/Ausstellungsware/Explore-Scientific-Maxvision-68-Okular-40mm.html?force_sid=080c95d5f554a82dba1bc1d61a2f3712

Besides, you get some DIY work if you feel for it in cloudy nights

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/262798-deeper-inside-a-see-monster-meade-40mm-5000/#entry3335337

[DRT]

17 minutes ago, John said:

Thats the one Derek. The Skywatcher version is just over £100 with FLO I think. There was a 40mm under a different branding on Astroboot recently for around £50 but, unsurprisingly, that got snapped up real fast !

 

That's great to know John - thanks!

i will see how I get on with "just" the 35mm Pan and if I get a bout of low power fever I might plump for one of these. 

...and, if I do, I promise not to post my thoughts in Shaun's Pan 41 review thread!

 

[Pig]

Now Now Dr

[Mr Spock]

I use a LVW 42mm and couldn't be more happy with it. At 72° it's wider than the others of similar focal length. Very sharp in my C9.25 but, it is right on the limit of the C9.25s field of view.

A great buy - if you can find one. Stocks must be running low by now though.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I also have the LVW 42 and it is very sharp indeed in my C8. There is some confusion about the AFOV. The barrel states 72 deg, many websites 65 deg just like the other LVWs. Looking at the field stop (some 47mm) I get 68 deg. Looking through the EP it looks more like 72, but the discrepancy with the value obtained from the field stop and the visual appearance may be the significant pincushion distortion. I do not mind that during stargazing, but it can be a bit distracting during daytime use

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I also have the LVW 42 and it is very sharp indeed in my C8. There is some confusion about the AFOV. The barrel states 72 deg, many websites 65 deg just like the other LVWs. Looking at the field stop (some 47mm) I get 68 deg. Looking through the EP it looks more like 72, but the discrepancy with the value obtained from the field stop and the visual appearance may be the significant pincushion distortion. I do not mind that during stargazing, but it can be a bit distracting during daytime use

Just put the 2" barrel in an extension tube and shine a flashlight up through the eyepiece onto a piece of cardstock.  You may need to move the flashlight back a bit until you confirm that you are seeing the actual field stop delineated image circle.  It will generally have a nice, crisp edge rather than a fuzzy edge on the card.  To keep everything in alignment during measurements, I use a miter box with wood blocks and shims to hold the eyepiece and flashlight.

Now move the card back and forth to find the eye relief which is the point at which the size of the circle is minimized.  Measure that distance from the top of the eyepiece.

Next, move the card back to maximize the circle size to minimize the effect of measurement errors.  Measure the diameter of the circle and the distance of the card from the top of the eyepiece.

Now for the math.  Subtract the eye relief measurement from the card distance measurement.  That will be the adjacent side length for the upcoming trigonometry.  Divide the diameter measurement by 2 to get the radius.  This becomes the opposite side length.  Now divide the opposite length by the adjacent length, take the arc-tangent of this value (feel free to use a scientific calculator in degrees mode instead of trig tables), and finally, multiply this half-angle value by 2 to get the actual, measured, apparent field of view.  This method is completely immune to field distortion.

I've done this for all of my eyepieces.  For the most part, most top-end eyepieces are very close to their stated values.  If anything, Televue is actually conservative with their stated AFOV.   Pentax is spot on.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

25 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Just put the 2" barrel in an extension tube and shine a flashlight up through the eyepiece onto a piece of cardstock.  You may need to move the flashlight back a bit until you confirm that you are seeing the actual field stop delineated image circle.  It will generally have a nice, crisp edge rather than a fuzzy edge on the card.  To keep everything in alignment during measurements, I use a miter box with wood blocks and shims to hold the eyepiece and flashlight.

Now move the card back and forth to find the eye relief which is the point at which the size of the circle is minimized.  Measure that distance from the top of the eyepiece.

Next, move the card back to maximize the circle size to minimize the effect of measurement errors.  Measure the diameter of the circle and the distance of the card from the top of the eyepiece.

Now for the math.  Subtract the eye relief measurement from the card distance measurement.  That will be the adjacent side length for the upcoming trigonometry.  Divide the diameter measurement by 2 to get the radius.  This becomes the opposite side length.  Now divide the opposite length by the adjacent length, take the arc-tangent of this value (feel free to use a scientific calculator in degrees mode instead of trig tables), and finally, multiply this half-angle value by 2 to get the actual, measured, apparent field of view.  This method is completely immune to field distortion.

I've done this for all of my eyepieces.  For the most part, most top-end eyepieces are very close to their stated values.  If anything, Televue is actually conservative with their stated AFOV.   Pentax is spot on.

All well known (an MSc in astronomy does help sometimes ). However, Vixen has later stated that 65 degrees is correct (it may be conservative, actually). The TMB Paragon 40mm (another alternative) specified a "true" AFOV of 68 deg based on the field stop, and and "apparent" AFOV of 69 deg based on the angle of the image circle seen through the EP. The difference is again caused by (very slight) pincushion distortion. The distortion is slight enough to use the term "orthoscopic" for this EP (it is engraved on the barrel). The Vixen LVW looks to have a disticintly wider AFOV than e.g. the MaxVision 24mm 68 deg, and very similar to the Delos 14mm, but the field stop states the "true" AFOV cannot be larger than 68 deg.

[alan potts]

I have had an American rebadge of the Aero eyepiece that John is talking about and it is very good though not as good as the Meade 40mm SWA. The only real downside of the Meade is it is rather bulky and tips the scale at over 2 pounds, it even make the 31mm Nagler look small.

Alan

[nicoscy]

Another option is the new Explore Scientific 40mm 62 degree eyepiece, just rolling out to European distributors.

I have my eye on this as a lighter weight option Vs the Pan 41mm (650gr Vs 950gr) - but will wait until our brethren across the pond report back based on actual use.

[DRT]

29 minutes ago, nicoscy said:

Another option is the new Explore Scientific 40mm 62 degree eyepiece, just rolling out to European distributors.

I have my eye on this as a lighter weight option Vs the Pan 41mm (650gr Vs 950gr) - but will wait until our brethren across the pond report back based on actual use.

Interesting option, Nicos, thanks for posting.

These are already available direct from ES: https://www.explorescientific.co.uk/en/Brand/Explore-Scientific/62-LER-Eyepiece-40mm-Ar.html

 

[John]

2 minutes ago, DRT said:

Interesting option, Nicos, thanks for posting.

These are already available direct from ES: https://www.explorescientific.co.uk/en/Brand/Explore-Scientific/62-LER-Eyepiece-40mm-Ar.html

 

22mm of eye relief and a nice soft eyecup - should be very comfortable to view though even for those who wear glasses

[nicoscy]

Derek,

I think ES UK was the first to show these. I consider the rollout of the ES 62° Series as the biggest marketing blunder by any astro vendor. 

No information provided to the astronomical community, no announcement made and certainly no Long Eye Relief!

Still, I have my eye out for the 40mm but I need reports from other users. Anyone volunteering?