It begins, the LVW, Panoptic, Plossl comparison.

[rwilkey]

13 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Then there's the even cuter (though discontinued) 15mm Panoptic - not quite on a par with the sublime 24mm but nifty nonetheless.

Would be interested in trying an LVW 22 - so many good reports - but weight would rule out me buying one.

Hi Mark, I have always fancied trying the Pan 15mm but so far have not come across a second-hand one. 

[rwilkey]

20 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

I have both 1.25" Panoptics, including a 19mm bino pair. I would say it's difficult to say which was the best 1.25" Panoptic, although I believe the 24mm was TV's best selling eyepiece at one time. The 19mm Panoptic is probably my favourite eyepiece of all time, principally as it is used in almost every telescope I own. It Barlows and reduces well, I find its eye relief virtually perfect and basically it just feels right. The 24mm Panoptic is a stunning eyepiece to use, but the 19mm is a real gem.

It's not unlike the 16mm T5 Nagler in size. The Nagler is a superb EP but for long sessions I find the 10mm eye relief a bit tiring.

So I tend to use this 14mm ES. I find it as good as the Nagler, if not better in some respects. I also have the 25mm TV Plossl. I can think of no conceivable reason to get rid of it!

Hi Mak, I love the 14mm ES, I bought it to replace the 13mm LVW, but don't think there is any difference in the quality, both are superb ep's and if I really had to choose between the two I think it would be the 13mm LVW!

[Mak the Night]

10 minutes ago, rwilkey said:

Hi Mak, I love the 14mm ES, I bought it to replace the 13mm LVW, but don't think there is any difference in the quality, both are superb ep's and if I really had to choose between the two I think it would be the 13mm LVW!

I bought the 14mm ES predominantly because it was small and light (for my ST80/AZ5 grab'n'go). The 13mm LVW looks really nice but it's about 400g. It would be ideal for my 102mm refractor on a Vixen mount though. Oh no, I want a 13mm LVW now lol.

[25585]

Eye relief is 10mm max for the 15mm Panoptic. For slightly smaller fov, the 15mm Delite is a neat ep with 20mm eye relief. 

https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/astronomy-eyepieces-and-barlows-tele-vue-eyepieces-barlows-and-powermates/tele-vue-delite-eyepiece-3

[rwilkey]

16 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I bought the 14mm ES predominantly because it was small and light (for my ST80/AZ5 grab'n'go). The 13mm LVW looks really nice but it's about 400g. It would be ideal for my 102mm refractor on a Vixen mount though. Oh no, I want a 13mm LVW now lol.

The big advantage of the ES is that it is both light and compact and this is what I have in my ep case now.

[Saganite]

42 minutes ago, Alan White said:

A queu is forming, darn it!

Yep, circling round like hungry vultures.

[Mak the Night]

4 minutes ago, rwilkey said:

The big advantage of the ES is that it is both light and compact and this is what I have in my ep case now.

I think it's slightly heavier than the T5 Nagler but it does the job on a modified ST80 on an AZ5 mount. 

Either way the ES 14, the T5 Nagler and the 19mm Panoptic are all small enough not to cause balance issues on the light AZ5 and an ST80.

[25585]

 

Maybe Alan will keep his LVW and squirrel it away for use later. 

[iPeace]

54 minutes ago, Alan White said:

A queu is forming, darn it!

 

10 minutes ago, Saganite said:

Yep, circling round like hungry vultures.

Alan, if I do eventually get one, I'll send it to you for testing.

[Saganite]

2 minutes ago, iPeace said:

 

Alan, if I do eventually get one, I'll send it to you for testing.

Best of luck with that one ! I have been after a second 16mm T5 for 2 years and not seen one for sale.

[iPeace]

1 minute ago, Saganite said:

Best of luck with that one ! I have been after a second 16mm T5 for 2 years and not seen one for sale.

Well, if you have a 15mm Panoptic, maybe we can work something out.

[Saganite]

Afraid not ,just 24 & 19's 

[iPeace]

2 minutes ago, Saganite said:

Afraid not ,just 24 & 19's 

Then I will keep you in mind should I otherwise wish to pass on the 16 T5.

[Saganite]

Very decent of you..

[Moonshane]

I preferred the 15mm Panoptic to the 16mm Nagler as it suffered no CA on the moon which I found the 16mm Nagler did. That said I sold the 15mm Panoptic as I actually preferred the 15mm Plossl and bought a pair for binoviewing. You cannot go far wrong with any of these good quality oculars.

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, iPeace said:

I would certainly expect as much from a scaled design by TeleVue.

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?return=Advice&id=78

Not exactly scaled.  The 24mm Panoptic was the last to be introduced and was reworked to make it more compact and possibly sharper.  If it was truly a scaled design, the 24mm would be roughly halfway between the 22mm and 27mm versions in size.  In fact, the 24mm is smaller than the 22mm Panoptic.

[Stu]

I may just be an odd one out here, but I still find it a little strange to say the 24mm is sharper than 19mm (for instance) because they are giving different mags. All kinds of variables come into play as soon as you change this, not least seeing. A lower mag can often look a little sharper just because it is lower mag!

[martinl]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Not exactly scaled.  The 24mm Panoptic was the last to be introduced and was reworked to make it more compact and possibly sharper.  If it was truly a scaled design, the 24mm would be roughly halfway between the 22mm and 27mm versions in size.  In fact, the 24mm is smaller than the 22mm Panoptic.

This is what I have heard as well. The 24mm was apparently Paul Dellechiaie’s (of Ethos, Delos and DeLite fame) first design for TV. Compared to the rest of the Panoptic range the 24mm also has slightly shorter eye relief as a percentage of the focal length.

[Saganite]

17 minutes ago, martinl said:

This is what I have heard as well. The 24mm was apparently Paul Dellechiaie’s (of Ethos, Delos and DeLite fame) first design for TV. Compared to the rest of the Panoptic range the 24mm also has slightly shorter eye relief as a percentage of the focal length.

Timing is everything isn't it !

I was talking to David Nagler on Saturday at Astrofest 2018 and I could probably have settled this point 

My own view FWIW is that they are both superbly sharp and effective eyepieces for binoviewing and I have never felt that one was better than the other, but merely different focal lengths available to suit target and conditions.

[Alan White]

5 hours ago, iPeace said:

 

Alan, if I do eventually get one, I'll send it to you for testing.

That’s a very decent offer,if you do get one I may hold you to it.

[Piero]

20 hours ago, Stu said:

I'm sure there is no optical difference between the 19mm and the 24mm, they are both as good as each other. The difference you see will likely be a result of differing mags or exit pupils in your scopes so it's a matter of which one suits the scope better.

 

Actually, I am not sure I would take this for granted. I owned three naglers T6 in the past: 13mm, 7mm, and 3.5mm. The 7mm consistently gave a slightly better presentation than the other two, followed by the Nagler 13mm. Of course no major differences but there were some slightly detectable differences in terms of CA and star shape at the very edge. I often preferred the views given by the 7mm + Bresser SA 2x (a telextender) rather than the 3.5mm. 

My 24mm and 35mm Panoptics are consistently good, optically speaking. One interesting difference between the two is that the 24 Pan + TV60 (=4.00 mm e.p.) gives an image (nearly) "as bright as" the 35mm Pan + Tak 100mm (=4.73 mm e.p.), making me wonder whether the thicker lenses in the 35 Pan could be responsible for a marginal decrease in light transmission compared to the lighter lenses in the 24 Pan. (p.s I do not believe any of these eyepieces have a transmission nearly 100%.). Also my previous 30mm ES (82 deg) was slightly "less" bright than the 30mm Vixen NLV that I used to have.

Maybe the concept of exit pupil that we regularly use is a bit too much theoretical for longer focal lengths and other parameters should be added to the model for achieving a more accurate solution? 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

I may just be an odd one out here, but I still find it a little strange to say the 24mm is sharper than 19mm (for instance) because they are giving different mags. All kinds of variables come into play as soon as you change this, not least seeing. A lower mag can often look a little sharper just because it is lower mag!

It could very well be that the reworked design tightened up the "spot diagrams" so to speak.  The 19mm was the third to last to be issued (1996), so it may have benefited from experiences learned from the first Panoptics to be released.

I checked the TV chronology page and stand corrected.  The 24mm was second to last (2002).  The 41mm was the last (2003).  Still, it's been 15 years since the 41mm was released.

[TheLookingGlass]

Or, throw this into the mix.....22mm Ultima LX. 2 inch / 70 degree. Nice long eye relief now.

[TheLookingGlass]

[Alan White]

What have either of the last posted eyepieces got to do with my 3 eyepiece comparison that I posted about??

I keep finding long eyerelief postings all over the place, which is great, but when only one of those in the mix has it and is the most endangered, I am lost how this links, sorry.

I don’t wear glasses at the eye piece and like mid eye relief personally.