ES 40mm MaxVision eyepiece

[Piero]

I was curious to try one of these for a long time, and I finally found one in the s/h market. Rumours say that it is essentially (optically and ergonomically) equivalent to the Meade 40mm 5K, and (optically) equivalent to the current ES 40mm 68 degrees. 

Needless to say that the eyepiece is huge, actually HUGE. It is even larger and possibly slightly heavier than the other big buddy ES 30 82 degrees. The MV 40mm and the Meade branded one can be de-cloaked which substantially decreases the size and the weight of the eyepiece (MV: ~887g, 35Pan: ~726g). 

( Thread containing the above image: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/262798-deeper-inside-a-see-monster-meade-40mm-5000 )

 

Tonight I wanted to compare it against the TV 35mm Panoptic. The telescope used for this comparison was a Takahashi FC-100DF f/7.6 combined with a 2" Baader BBHS mirror diagonal.

Eyepiece             Focal length [mm]    Apparent FOV [°]    Field Stop [mm]    Eye Relief [mm]    Magnification   Exit pupil [mm]    Field Stop FOV [°]    Power per in Aperture
TV Panoptic 35mm                      35.0                           68                      38.7                          24                      21.14                      4.73                          3.00                                   5.37
ES 40mm Maxvision                    40.0                           68                      45.5                          31                      18.50                      5.41                          3.52                                   4.70

Targets: M45, Hyades, Orion's belt, Orion's sword, Meissa in Orion, M35, star fields around M35, and the Satellite cluster.  

The 40 MV showed a rather nice and clean field, better than what I thought, I have to say. The eyepieces are almost parfocal. On axis the two eyepieces were very close, with the 35 Pan providing very slightly more contrast. The difference was minor though and could be due to the 15% difference in magnification and larger exit pupil in the 40 MV. These on axis minor differences were just detectable on rather faint stars (e.g. in the core of M35). These stars were just slightly easier to spot with the 35 Pan than the 40 MV. Airy disks of stars were nearly identical between the two eyepieces on axis, which could suggest that the ability of better detecting faint stars on axis was possibly due to the modestly darker background sky in the 35 Pan. Star colours were very similar if not identical between the two eyepieces. To my eye, the 40 MV showed a bit more field curvature than the 35 Pan when used with the Tak FC100. I found very helpful to just focus the stars at around 50% the field of view, and this was sufficient (to my eye at least) to reach focus throughout the FOV. The 35 Pan was a bit less demanding regarding FC, even though it still showed some with the Tak FC100. Judging only from spanning the star field around M35, it seemed to me that the 40 MV had a bit less rectilinear distortion than the 35 Pan. I want to check this again when the Moon is out though. Off axis using this scope (f7.4), the 35 Pan FOV was marginally more corrected. To my eye there was a slightly presence of astigmatism in the 40 MV which was absent (or at least more controlled) in the 35 Pan. This astigmatism was mainly detectable on bright stars placed near the very edge, whereas smaller stars were just pin-points. Because of the longer eye relief in the 40 MV, I found that eye placement is somehow a bit more critical than the 35 Pan, although this can be dealt with some care and practice. After finding the right position I was able to detect the minor blue fringe of CA visible on bright stars placed right at the edge. The amount and width of colour was comparable between the two eyepieces. As M42 was well visible, I tried my NPB filter with both these eyepieces. The 35 Pan showed slightly more contrast, but to be fair, my sky is too light polluted for observing this target at these exit pupils. My 20mm Lunt HDC trounced both of them on this target. Also, I feel that the visible increase in contrast in the 35 Pan could be due to the dimmer background sky, rather than other factors.

After this first session I have to say that I am quite impressed with the optics of this 40 MV. At f/7.4 it seems to work reasonably well in my opinion. At shorter focal ratios, I would expect the Panoptic to outperform the 40 MV particularly at the edge, although a 40mm eyepiece is not something that one would normally use at f/6 and below, really. At f/6 it already gives an exit pupil of 6.77mm. Regarding the size, the "native" 40 MV is quite horrific in my opinion. Its eyecup design seems completely wrong and increases a lot of weight for no reason. Holding it in one hand also requires some care. However, from a potentially faulty design of the eyecup, the ability to slim is certainly an advantage for this eyepiece. I plan to decloak mine this weekend. This is a reversible modification which does not affect the lenses. It reduces the size and weight of the eyepiece as the above picture shows.

[Louis D]

I really love my 40mm Meade 5000 SWA that I picked up for $125 during the closeout sale a few years back.  I decloaked mine immediately and never regretted it.  It far outperforms any other 40mm eyepiece for that money.

[Piero]

Decloaking makes sense for these eyepieces I think! I've just ordered a lens cap for the top lens.  

[alan potts]

I had one of these for a long time, fine eyepiece but sold it on when I got the 41mm Panoptic, wish I hadn't now as the only scope that I really use it in the Meade is F10 and the Panoptic vignettes slightly where as the Meade SWA doesn't.

[Louis D]

8 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I had one of these for a long time, fine eyepiece but sold it on when I got the 41mm Panoptic, wish I hadn't now as the only scope that I really use it in the Meade is F10 and the Panoptic vignettes slightly where as the Meade SWA doesn't.

There are rumors that the 41mm Panoptic has a fuzzy field stop.  Have you noticed that the field stop is fuzzy despite the vignetting?  The Meade SWA has a a nice sharp field stop.

[alan potts]

52 minutes ago, Louis D said:

There are rumors that the 41mm Panoptic has a fuzzy field stop.  Have you noticed that the field stop is fuzzy despite the vignetting?  The Meade SWA has a a nice sharp field stop.

I took the trouble to remove the diagonal and Moonlite then place it direct into the SC visual back and the field stop is sharp but it should really work with the other bits in place, it's very sharp but for the money a bit disappointing for this issue. It is so long since I tried it any other scope i can't remember if it is the same in my APO, the Exit Pupil will be about 8mm or so.

alan

[Piero]

I didn't know that the 41mm Panoptic could vignette. On the Tak, the 40mm MV doesn't. 

[Piero]

Decloaked!

If now I change the barrel and add a couple of horizontal green lines, it could tease a few TV lovers!  

 

 

[25585]

I have kept my MV 40 dressed! Its awesomeness is lost when stripped, so kept as a mascot. Have an Antares 40mm Erfle and Vixen 42 LVW as working wf eps.

@alan pottsreview of the 41 Panoptic v ....

 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, 25585 said:

I have kept my MV 40 dressed! Its awesomeness is lost when stripped, so kept as a mascot. Have an Antares 40mm Erfle and Vixen 42 LVW as working wf eps.

@alan pottsreview of the 41 Panoptic v ....

 

Thanks for pointing out this report.  I had missed it.  Based on it, I don't think I'll be trading in my Meade SWA for the Panoptic which now costs over 4 times what I paid for the Meade.

[alan potts]

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

Thanks for pointing out this report.  I had missed it.  Based on it, I don't think I'll be trading in my Meade SWA for the Panoptic which now costs over 4 times what I paid for the Meade.

Louis, I actually wrote quite a few reviews on Meade and Televue eyepieces as I was changing from them to the green and blacks after catching a very bad case of TV fever, not sure I am cured even now. On reflection the Meades and no doubt the ExSc's, many of which have the same elements are very good value. It is really when you start to put them in fast scopes that you can see a difference, some more than others. The Meade UWA and SWA ranges were superb at F10 and faster but at close to F4 the edges fail somewhat.

Alan 

[alan potts]

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

Thanks for pointing out this report.  I had missed it.  Based on it, I don't think I'll be trading in my Meade SWA for the Panoptic which now costs over 4 times what I paid for the Meade.

Not sure I would pay that either though when new the difference was much less, I think from Telly House it was something like 268 for the Meade and 380 for the TeleVue, though both were often given a 10% discount by them just for being on their mailing list.

[Piero]

I agree with all the above considerations. My 40 MV was bought for £134 (including delivery and the new 72mm dust cap for the top lens after decloaking). I could not justify £498 (excluding delivery) for a new 41 Pan.

I believe in a fast scope when a coma corrector is used, the off axis field in the Panoptic is noticeably more corrected than the MV or equivalent ES. However, a 40-ish mm eyepiece would hardly be employed in sub F6 telescopes. 

In my case this 40mm will be used for spanning the milky way, and for very large open clusters. The 35mm Panoptic is also adequate for this task, but it has a tough rival to compete with: the 20mm Lunt HDC which shows a smaller field of just 0.3 deg and almost twice the magnification. Optically, it's even sharper throughout the FOV. 

[25585]

6 hours ago, alan potts said:

Louis, I actually wrote quite a few reviews on Meade and Televue eyepieces as I was changing from them to the green and blacks after catching a very bad case of TV fever, not sure I am cured even now. On reflection the Meades and no doubt the ExSc's, many of which have the same elements are very good value. It is really when you start to put them in fast scopes that you can see a difference, some more than others. The Meade UWA and SWA ranges were superb at F10 and faster but at close to F4 the edges fail somewhat.

Alan 

Panoptics still need a coma corrector in fast scopes to give their best. 

[25585]

 

Telescope House still have the 40mm https://www.telescopehouse.com/eyepieces/explore-scientific-68a-maxvision-eyepiece-40mm.html few others in UK. 

I was lucky to get mine from Bresser for €125 + postage.

[F15Rules]

On 16/02/2018 at 18:12, Piero said:

Decloaked!

If now I change the barrel and add a couple of horizontal green lines, it could tease a few TV lovers!  

 

 

Piero, that looks SO much better decloaked, IMHO!

Very cool in a minimalist way. It just shows how much wasted material was used in their construction ! 

Save the planet!! 

Dave

[25585]

The Meade SWA green was smart. And green & black.

[Piero]

41 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Piero, that looks SO much better decloaked, IMHO!

Very cool in a minimalist way. It just shows how much wasted material was used in their construction ! 

Save the planet!! 

Dave

LOL!

Yeah, that armour was quite ridiculous.. it's much easier to handle the eyepiece now that is decloacked. 

The current weights I have are completely fine to balance the scope with this eyepiece now.

[Louis D]

And, it takes up much less space in the eyepiece case once decloaked.  I also love wrapping my hand around my decloaked 40mm SWA as I pull it out of the case.  It just feels so old-school due to its heft, bulk, and cool metal exterior.  No frou-frou rubber grip or rubber eyecup here, folks; just pure metal and glass the way God intended eyepieces. 

[25585]

Like the original Naglers. It looks like my old 13mm T1. Need to watch your glasses lenses now though. Some grip could be stuck on the side, such as is used for racquets, hockey sticks etc, a felt washer on top.

 

[JeremyS]

I have to say I still like these eyepieces in their full suit of armour.   Maybe it'll wear off, though.

But I'd certainly be wary about buying them on the used market if there is a chance they've been pulled apart.

[Piero]

10 hours ago, Louis D said:

And, it takes up much less space in the eyepiece case once decloaked.  I also love wrapping my hand around my decloaked 40mm SWA as I pull it out of the case.  It just feels so old-school due to its heft, bulk, and cool metal exterior.  No frou-frou rubber grip or rubber eyecup here, folks; just pure metal and glass the way God intended eyepieces. 

TRUE!  

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

But I'd certainly be wary about buying them on the used market if there is a chance they've been pulled apart.

I've actually bought other used, "decloaked" eyepieces with full disclosure.  They were sent along with the original boxes and carapaces just for completeness sake.  It's nice not having to do the job myself.

[Piero]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

I have to say I still like these eyepieces in their full suit of armour.   Maybe it'll wear off, though.

But I'd certainly be wary about buying them on the used market if there is a chance they've been pulled apart.

Hi Jeremy,  

decloaking does not affect the lenses at all. The process is straight forward: 

1. the top rubber eye cup can be removed manually. I read that there was a bit of glue in some models, but I believe this is between the ring (part 2) and the eye cup (part 1). Note that the ring and the eye cup are not glued with part 4. If you feel that you cannot detach part1+part2 from part 4 manually, you can follow the procedure as described here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/262798-deeper-inside-a-see-monster-meade-40mm-5000/ 

2. Once the rubber eye cup and the ring are removed, the only thing that keeps part 4 attached to the eyepiece is a screw, which is the one that enables the mechanism to lift the eye cup. After unscrewing that screw, part 4 comes out from the bottom. 

..and that's it! The process is completely reversible. 

Once the armour is removed, you will see that there is some lubricant on the body of the eyepiece. A couple of tissues are completely sufficient to clean this.

 

I totally agree with Louis. After decloaking it feels like a very different eyepiece: easier to handle, much less space is used in the eyepiece case, less balancing issues, and (to me at least) a prettier appearance.

If you decide to decloak yours, you will need a new dust cap for the top lens. Mine is the 71mm model, bought from here: http://www.nipon-scope.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=47 . The eyepiece diameter is more like 72mm, but the 71mm dust cap works fine because the rubber is very soft. You might want to make a small hole (~1mm diameter) on it so that the air does not get trapped inside the dust cap when this is fitted on the eyepiece.

[Louis D]

14 minutes ago, Piero said:

If you decide to decloak yours, you will need a new dust cap for the top lens.

I just lay the original dustcap over the top of the eyepiece (stored upright) in my case to keep the foam from touching the eye lens.  In use, I never put dust caps on and off eyepieces during an observing session.