30mm APM UFF vs. 27mm Panoptic vs. 30mm ES-82 opinions

[Louis D]

How does the new 30mm APM UFF compare to the venerable 27mm Panoptic and 30mm ES-82 eyepieces?  I've never liked the tight eye relief with eyeglasses of the Panoptic and stars are just not pinpoints across the ES-82's field.  I'm thinking of getting one, but would like to hear others' opinions of it first.  The biggest gripe about it on CN is that it seems to attenuate the red end of the spectrum slightly.

[25585]

The 35mm Panoptic is OK for eye relief (as is the 41), if you want a thirtysomething ep by TV with suitable eye relief, the Pan and Plossl are the only ones they do.

For 65 deg, a Vixen NLVW 30mm, but hard to get.

Brandon do a 32mm 82 deg ep with long eye relief.

[GavStar]

4 hours ago, 25585 said:

The 35mm Panoptic is OK for eye relief (as is the 41), if you want a thirtysomething ep by TV with suitable eye relief, the Pan and Plossl are the only ones they do.

For 65 deg, a Vixen NLVW 30mm, but hard to get.

Brandon do a 32mm 82 deg ep with long eye relief.

What about the 31mm nagler? Plenty of eye relief imo.

[25585]

1 hour ago, GavStar said:

What about the 31mm nagler? Plenty of eye relief imo.

Not for me as a spectacle wearer, based on the TV figure - absolute lower limit is 20mm. I would like to try a 31 though.

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, GavStar said:

What about the 31mm nagler? Plenty of eye relief imo.

It's way too expensive for an infrequently used eyepiece.  If I used my 15" f/5 dob more often, then I might reconsider.  It is probably just as tight on eye relief as the 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s I own since they all have 30mm eye lenses, 82 degree fields, and identical eye cup designs (with the Instajust pushed all the way down on the T4s).  I measured around 14mm to 15mm of usable eye relief on the T4s making them a bit uncomfortable with eyeglasses.  I've already replaced them with ES-92s with 17mm of usable eye relief.  The ES-92s have a wider AFOV, longer eye relief, and are better corrected across the field than the T4s.

7 hours ago, 25585 said:

The 35mm Panoptic is OK for eye relief (as is the 41), if you want a thirtysomething ep by TV with suitable eye relief, the Pan and Plossl are the only ones they do.

For 65 deg, a Vixen NLVW 30mm, but hard to get.

Brandon do a 32mm 82 deg ep with long eye relief.

The 35mm Panoptic is on my list to pick up as well someday.  I've looked through several and find them to be extremely sharp across the field and comfortable to use with eyeglasses.

How does the 30mm Vixen NLVW compare to the 27mm Panoptic eye relief and field correction wise?  The Panoptic is sharp nearly to the edge at f/6 with pinpoint stars across the field, but it only has 14mm of usable eye relief compared to 18mm in my Morpheus, Delos, LV, XL, and XW eyepieces.  That 4mm difference tremendously reduces comfort when observing with eyeglasses.  The eye lens looks to be pretty far recessed on the NLVW.

The 32mm Brandon is a 48 degree design as far as I've been able to ascertain.

Masuyama makes a 32mm with an 85 degree field.  Again, way too expensive for a seldom used eyepiece with poor outer field correction to boot.  It's supposed to be sublime in the center due to superior polish, though, which might be useful on a long focal length scope.  I already have a 30mm KK Widescan clone with an 80 degree field which is quite nice in the center but rapidly falls apart after the inner 50 degrees, so I don't really need another similarly corrected 5 elements in 3 groups eyepiece.

If Baader made a 2" 30mm-ish Morpheus with correction similar to their 1.25" offerings, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.  Same goes for Delos.  I can't afford the 30mm Pentax XW on the used market.

A high quality, 1.3x to 1.4x, telecentric barlow would be handy to use with my 40mm Meade 5000 SWA.  It makes for a terrific 20mm eyepiece when used with a 2x telecentric barlow.  It's just very long and heavy.

Then there's the 30mm Leitz 88 eyepiece.  Again, I can't justify the sky high price.

[25585]

 

[GavStar]

6 hours ago, Louis D said:

It's way too expensive for an infrequently used eyepiece.  If I used my 15" f/5 dob more often, then I might reconsider.  It is probably just as tight on eye relief as the 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s I own since they all have 30mm eye lenses, 82 degree fields, and identical eye cup designs (with the Instajust pushed all the way down on the T4s).  I measured around 14mm to 15mm of usable eye relief on the T4s making them a bit uncomfortable with eyeglasses.  I've already replaced them with ES-92s with 17mm of usable eye relief.  The ES-92s have a wider AFOV, longer eye relief, and are better corrected across the field than the T4s.

Ok I agree the T31 type 5 is expensive so not appropriate for an infrequently used eyepiece.

However it has more eye relief than the type 4 12mm and 17mm (19 mm vs 17mm as per televue). I have the t31 and ES 92 17 and 12mm and would say eye relief and comfort is very similar. 

The t31 is also well corrected across the field. I have had a Pentax 30xw but preferred the t31.

I have the apm uff 15mm and 10mm which I use for binoviewing. They are nice but I think the pan 24mm and 19mm show better quality when binoviewing.

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, GavStar said:

I have the t31 and ES 92 17 and 12mm

Nice eyepieces Gavin- how does the ES 92's compare to other similar eyepieces?

[GavStar]

18 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Nice eyepieces Gavin- how does the ES 92's compare to other similar eyepieces?

I think the closest competitors to the ES 92 are the ethos range. For comfortable viewing the ES 92 beat the ethos imo. I have the 6, 8, 17 and 21 ethos. I think the edge correction is a little better in the ethos but there is very little in it. Apparently ES are launching a 25mm, 8.5mm and 6mm ish in due course. If they do I can see me selling some of my ethos since viewing comfort (and ease of seeing whole of the fov is important to me).

However, my recent foray into NV is turning all my eyepieces choices on their head. I’ve just purchased a 55mm, 40mm, 32mm plossl and 18 delite since fov is not important for NV viewing.

[jetstream]

A 25mm ES 92! Exactly what I need... I heard those ES 92's were VG. The NV looks extremely good and I'm watching closely... maybe someday.

[Louis D]

As an eyeglass wearer, I'd say the nearest competitor for the 12mm and 17mm ES-92s are the Nagler T4s.  Having compared them repeated side by side, the only advantage the Naglers have is size and weight.  The ES-92s have better eye relief, an easier to hold view, and a sharper view across the field.  There is no astigmatism or field curvature at the edge in the ES-92s unlike the Naglers which have slight amounts of both.  I tried looking through an Ethos once, but could only see about 70 degrees with eyeglasses, so I took them off and saw seagulls everywhere thanks to my strong astigmatism.  It was not a good tradeoff (field for correction).

[Louis D]

To bring this back on topic, I picked up a 30mm APM UFF recently and have been waiting for the weather and skies to clear to test it out.  Here are my thoughts:

All results in an 8" f/6 Dob (Newtonian) on Jupiter.  I compared a 30mm APM UFF, a 27mm TV Panoptic, a 30mm ES-82 original style, and a 30mm generic 80 degree Wide Scan III clone.

With a GSO coma corrector:

APM UFF is flat of field, or at least so close as to be difficult to complain.  It focuses to a nice sharp, color fringe free image in the center with only slight color halos of yellow/purple at the edge.  Detail on Jupiter is evident even at the edge.  Very slight astigmatism and chromatic aberration at the edge.

Panoptic has slight field curvature, but not much.  Again, nice and sharp focus in the center.  Color fringing builds in quicker toward the edge than in the APM UFF.  Detail on Jupiter is slightly harder to see at the edge.  Slightly more astigmatism and chromatic aberration at the edge.

ES-82 has slight field curvature, but it is hard to distinguish due to edge issues.  Achieving sharp focus in the center is a struggle because red and blue focus on either side, so pinpoints of light appear rather magenta in color.  Detail can be made out near the edge, though it isn't good or easy to see.  It falls apart at the edge with loads of astigmatism and chromatic aberrations as well as field curvature.

80 WSIII clone has loads of field curvature.  Focus in the center is as sharp as the APM UFF and Panoptic.  Color fringing, astigmatism, and field curvature all pile up quickly and strongly past 50% out to the edge.  No detail visible in the outer 50%.

Without a CC:

All perform similarly except for the 80 WSIII clone which desperately needs the field flattening effect of the CC.  All deal quite well with the coma at the edge with the APM UFF probably in the lead.  The center focuses a bit sharper without the CC in all.

With a 2x barlow and TV PBI and no CC:

All improve at the edges.  All have a slight bit of exit pupil fussiness.  The 80 WSIII almost becomes acceptable at the edge.  All show significant Jupiter detail in the center with the ES-82 falling noticeably behind the other three.  The Panoptic and APM hold most of that detail to the edge.

With a 2x barlow and no PBI or CC:

Exit pupil is more fussy in all.  The ES-82 is nearly unusable due to difficulty finding and holding the exit pupil as well as the field stop being indistinct.  The 80 WSIII probably handles the fussiness the best with the APM close behind.  The APM field stop remains sharp while the Panoptic has lost a bit of field stop sharpness.  The 80 WSIII field stop is actually a bit more distinct than without the barlow since it has no physical field stop.

The APM UFF has several more millimeters of usable eye relief than the Panoptic as well as a field about 4 degrees wider.  I plan on measuring all in a telescope using light projection to get solid numbers.

None had significant ghosting or stray light issues that I could see.

The APM UFF is a strong contender at 30mm, especially given its price.  Unless you really need the extra 10% magnification, there is no reason to choose the Panoptic over the APM.  The ES-82 is only awesome for its ultra wide field.  The WSIII clone is more than usable in the center 50%.  It is quite sharp there where the ES-82 is not.

I'll post more as I try them in other telescopes on other targets.

 

 

[25585]

Louis, which ep of those has best usable eye relief? 

Are you able to try them in your F5? A CC would be needed there more I expect. 

[Louis D]

On 28/06/2018 at 14:41, 25585 said:

Louis, which ep of those has best usable eye relief? 

Are you able to try them in your F5? A CC would be needed there more I expect. 

The 30mm generic Wide Scan has the most usable eye relief of the four, but it is the worst at the edge.  The APM UFF is maybe 1mm less and so much better corrected at the edge that it is easily worth twice the money.

I just re-injured my back at work, so it's now even less likely I'll be pulling out that 100+ pound behemoth any time soon (the f5 15" that is).

[Louis D]

I was out last night with the 72ED with field flattener and the 127 Mak looking at Jupiter with the four eyepieces again.  More or less the same results as far as axial sharpness, field flatness and edge aberrations with the following notes:

1. The Panoptic might be slightly sharper in the center than the APM, but it loses that sharpness edge to stronger chromatic aberration and field curvature at the edge than the APM.  It's not much, but it's there.
2. The ES-82 just doesn't focus sharply even at f/12 in the Mak even in the center.  Edge chromatic aberration and astigmatism doesn't really improve at f/12 over f/6.  It was a miserable performer last night.
3. The ES-82 field is more difficult to hold in the Mak than in the 72ED.  It also displayed edge vignetting.  None of the others displayed any differences like this.  I couldn't figure out what was causing this.  I thought it might be the extreme field getting cut off by the small exit aperture of the Mak, but the 40mm Meade 5000 SWA was easy to hold the entire view and had no edge vignetting.  Same thing with the 40mm Meade 5000 Plossl, no edge issues.
4. The APM appears much wider than the Panoptic not just because of its wider field, but also because of its longer eye relief making it much easier to see it with eyeglasses on.
5. The Wide Scan III clone improves at the edge quite bit in the f/12 Mak.  When I added the refractor's field flattener for fun, the edge was much more usable than in the ES-82 because the WSIII mostly suffers from strong field curvature and some astigmatism but very little chromatic aberration.  Given that the center is much sharper in the WSIII than in the ES-82, I'd have to give the win to the WSIII under those conditions.  If the WSIII was reworked with an integrated field flattener, it could be a real contender.
6. The APM would have to be the overall winner with the best center to edge performance, flatness of field, and lack of strong chromatic aberration or astigmatism at the edge.

I measured and remeasured the eye relief and apparent field of view for each by shining a Cree LED flashlight into the 72ED with the eyepiece in the diagonal projecting a circle onto a table and came up with the following numbers:

Eyepiece                     Measured AFOV     Measured Usable Eye Relief

27mm TV Panoptic                69                                     14mm

30mm APM UFF                     73                                     16mm

30mm Wide Scan III Clone     77                                     18mm

30mm ES-82 Original             82                                     18mm

I will add that the APM eye relief feels more like 17mm while the ES-82's feels more like 16mm.  I remeasured where the exit pupil is narrowest, and those are the numbers above that I consistently got.  I can't explain the discrepancy between the measurement and the "feels like" eye relief.  For reference, the ES-92s have 17mm of usable eye relief while the Delos and Pentax XL/XWs have 18mm of usable eye relief, and those match up with "feels like" quite well.  The APM UFF felt like it had just slightly less eye relief than the latter and about the same as the former, so I'm sticking with 17mm of usable eye relief for the APM UFF.

[Mr Spock]

That APM looks very tempting. I like a nice flat field with little in the way of aberrations and 'comfortable' to look through.

I note they state 22mm as eye-relief on their website - interesting that they only measure 16mm.

[Louis D]

14 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

That APM looks very tempting. I like a nice flat field with little in the way of aberrations and 'comfortable' to look through.

I note they state 22mm as eye-relief on their website - interesting that they only measure 16mm.

The problem is that the eye lens is recessed a bit below the metalwork that holds the eyecup.  Add on the folded eyecup and you lose a bit more.  Add on that the eye lens is concave, and you lose a bit more.  All told, losing 5mm to 6mm of eye relief is not unusual.  The 27mm Panoptic is spec'ed at 19mm of eye relief, but there is definitely no more than 14mm of usable eye relief.  I really have to cram my eyeglasses into it to see the whole field.  I've even scratched an eyeglass lens on the top retaining ring.

Here's the optical diagram of the 30mm APM UFF.  Notice the eye lens recession and concavity.  If you want to have a bit of fun with a ruler, I measured the exposed eye lens diameter at 32mm on the actual eyepiece.  From that, you should be able to figure out the eye lens recession from the top of the rubber eyecup's folded position.  Since the eyecup doesn't fold flush, figure another 1/2mm to 1mm of recession unless you remove the eyecup altogether.  I measure about 5.5mm of eye lens recession to the center of the lens using this method.  Thus, 22mm-5.5mm=16.5mm, right in between the measured and "feels like" eye relief.

[Louis D]

I realized I should throw in a few photos of the contenders since not everyone has first hand experience with all of them.  The first two photos are with the eye cups up and the last two with them down or removed since that is how I use them with eyeglasses.

Left to right: 30mm Explore Scientific 82 original style decloaked, 30mm Agena UWA (Wide Scan III clone bought as the 20mm version with the removable barlow element), 30mm APM Ultra Flat Field, and 27mm Panoptic

 

Eyepiece                           Eye Lens Diameter     Weight as used

27mm TV Panoptic                     25mm                      464g

30mm APM UFF                          32mm                     548g

30mm Wide Scan III Clone          38mm                     476g

30mm ES-82 Original                  30mm                     973g

 

[Louis D]

I was out last night observing Saturn, Mars at opposition, and the full moon with many different eyepieces including those listed above in my 8" Dob with GSO CC.  Here are my impressions:

30mm APM UFF: Definitely flat of field and sharp to the edge.  There is very little to no astigmatism or chromatism at the edge.  Stray light is very well controlled.  The exit pupil is easily held even when the eye's pupil contracts.  Thus, it seemingly lacks SAEP.  It is very sharp on axis and gave pleasing views on all targets, especially the moon.  The one down side to this eyepiece is the slight coffee color imparted to the moon due to the reported use of high index glass and/or rare earth elements.  I swapped back and forth with some other eyepieces which definitely do not contain exotic glasses to confirm this.  I did note a spec of dust just out of focus on the moon's surface.  Apparently, one of the lens surfaces is very close to the focal plane, and dust control is an issue during manufacturing that needs better control.  The moon barely stretched into an egg shape as it reached the edge.  I had to swing it through the field stop several times to detect the slight distortion, I mean slight.  It has very little color fringing on the edge of the moon as it is moved to the edge.

27mm Panoptic: A close runner up.  The lack of eye relief was notable.  I had to keep rotating my head to take in the edges despite have a narrower AFOV than the APM.  Again, I suspect it might be a tiny bit sharper on axis than the APM, but that could also be due to having 10% more magnification.  Stray light is also well controlled.  Besides tight eye relief, its field curvature was a big issue.  I had to keep refocusing the edge to check for correction, so much so that it got to be annoying.  It also has a bit of a coffee color like the APM, so I suspect it also contains exotic glass.  The moon was noticeably stretched into an egg shape at the edge.  If this distortion bothers you, take a pass on this eyepiece.  There is slightly more color fringing on the edge of the moon as it is moved to the edge than in the APM, though it is no where near as bad as in the ES-82.

30mm ES-82: Abysmal planetary eyepiece center and edge due to lack of crisp focus anywhere as discussed in previous posts.  Actually pretty good on dim stars where the lack of sharp focus is not noticeable.  It's not bad on the moon if you're not trying to study fine detail.  Stray light is well controlled.  It is a bit hard to hold the exit pupil with the observer's pupil contracted, so I suspect there's a bit of SAEP.  It's not as bad as in the 17mm Nagler T4 which is atrocious on the full moon when it comes to seeing the edge.  Eye relief was a bit tight, but not bad to take in the whole field.  The moon appears neutral in color, so I suspect ES skipped exotic glasses to keep the price down.  This possibly explains the poor exit pupil color correction that leads to indistinct focus.  There is all sorts of color fringing going on at the edge due to chromatism out there.  Mars was split into several images of different colors at different positions at the edge.  On the positive side, the moon is barely distorted in shape as it exits, though.  Probably an amount similar to the APM.

30mm Wide Scan III Clone: Great on the moon in the center.  Nice and sharp with surprisingly good control of stray light.  I did note one lens has a reflective edge if I tilted my head enough to look past the edge while the moon was split by the edge of the field.  I don't say field stop because it doesn't have one.  The last 2 degrees of the field edge just fades to black because of this.  The previously noted extreme field curvature is its biggest downfall.  Once refocused at the edge, the image was sharper and less chromatic than the ES-82 despite the astigmatism.  The chromatism at the edge of the ES-82 is that bad.  The distortion in this eyepiece is the opposite of the Panoptic.  The moon is squished into the edge as it approaches it rather than being stretched toward it.  It reminds me of some fisheye lenses that reach 180 degrees by using the inner 75% of the field to display the central 50% of the view and then progressively squish the remaining 50% into the outer 25% of the image.  The moon appears neutral in color, which makes sense that there would be no exotic glasses used at this price point.  Eye relief is excellent thanks to the giant eye lens.  Again, if a field flattener was fitted to this design along with a distinct field stop, this design would be genuine contender at 80 degrees (78 degrees with a field stop).

Overall, the 30mm APM UFF is cementing it's place in my eyepiece arsenal.  The Panoptic has been demoted to the B-team case alongside the Nagler T4s which were dethroned by the ES-92s.  The ES-82 is strictly a niche performer for when you want more than 80 degrees of field at 30mm despite bad correction everywhere.  The WS III clone is a very serviceable 60 degree eyepiece stretched to 80 degrees, and a bargain on the used market as a result.

Eyepiece technology marches forward, though it takes decades rather than years as in electronics for noticeable improvements.

[DRT]

Thanks for the detailed reviews @Louis D - I've never looked through the ES versions you have but have owned the Pan 27, 30mm WS III Clone 30mm (in APM livery) and now have the APM 30mm UFF and I agree with your view that the latter is a great performer, especially considering its price.

[Piero]

I have the APM 30mm UFF, and had Maxvision 40mm, Vixen LWV 42mm, ES 30mm 82, and Vixen NLV 30mm previously. I did not run an exhaustive comparison as Louis did, but the quality of the APM 30mm UFF at the edge is remarkably better in my Tak 100 and 8" dob. It is also very sharp on axis in my opinion. To be honest, it is the best long focal length eyepiece I've ever tried, and its AFOV is more than enough for my tastes.

In addition, its modest size is more than welcome. This UFF 30mm, Docter 12.5mm +/- VIP barlow are a great combo in my opinion.