Looking for the best widest field 2" eyepiece

[astronomer2002]

I thought my eyepiece collection was complete until I bought my "last ever" telescope. This operates at a native F8 and is just over 3250mm fl.

I have the longer Naglers, 31, 26, 22, 17 etc and  35mm, 27mm Panoptics.  I was always a little disappointed with the kidney-beaning in the Naglers in other telescopes, though they were overall better than any other eyepiece I have used, but in this one they seem to be affected less and even the 26mm  is now a keeper. Before I got the Naglers (over many years all s/h) I had 35, 27 and 19 Panoptics. These were my favorite eyepieces until the Naglers came along. I kept the 35mm as stars seemed a little sharper in the inner 50 degrees than the Naglers, but trailed off in the outer regions and the 27mm as it really is an exceptional eyepiece.  In any case I often wanted to darken the sky with higher magnification so the longest ones were primarily used for sweeping and finding. Given sky brightness is becoming more of an issue I thought I would never need a longer focal length. Now the Naglers seem sharper over the entire view and with the higher magnification of a longer scope the sky is darker and I hanker after the widest possible field.

The issue is that the 82 degree 31mm Nagler gives me a true fov of 0.78 degrees and the 35 mm Panoptic 0.73 degrees. There is noticeably more sky in the 31mm Nagler. A 41mm Panoptic will yield 0.85 degrees, an improvement of nearly 10% over the Nagler 31. As I can readily see the difference in the amount of sky covered by the 31mm Nagler and the 35mm Panoptic I believe the time to look at a 41mm Panoptic is here.

Before going into a debate on whether ES eyepieces could fill the slot all I can say is that having been able to compare my old Naglers with new 82 degree ES ones in my scopes I and convinced that, for me, there is a small improvement with the Naglers at the outer regions of the field and so I am minded to discount them. They are fantastic value and I won't deny they are very good eyepieces.

The 41mm Panoptic would seem fit the bill for this long fl scope though I suspect it would be a disaster in a fast Newtonian, which I also have.

My quest is to find someone willing to part with theirs and/or suggestions of an alternative that someone has used in practice.

Thankyou for reading

 

Ian B

 

 

 

 

 

[Louis D]

If the rear port is large enough, you might try the 3" 30mm ES-100 with their 3" diagonal.  You'd have to locate a 3" visual back on your own.

ES also does the 2" 25mm ES-100 which reportedly vignettes a bit at the edge and falls off a bit in sharpness.

Another option is to keep a lookout for the 2" 30mm Leica 88 degree eyepiece.  It would probably look pretty good at f/8.  Some folks prefer it for various reasons over the 31mm Nagler.

The 41mm Panoptic is supposed to be very sharp edge to edge but lacks a sharp field stop (it is reportedly a bit fuzzy) which is a bit off-putting for some folks.

Personally, I use a 40mm Meade 5000 SWA.  It is nearly sharp across the field at f/6, so it should be pretty good at f/8.  It does have a sharp field stop.  The 40mm Maxvision is the same thing.  The 40mm ES-68 is optically the same, but lacks a bit of eye relief due to the recessed eye lens.

[Ben the Ignorant]

In my limited experience it is the Maxvision 34/68.

[Moonshane]

You are entitled to your view Ben but did you read the original post?

[Paul73]

The Leica 88° is a new one on me. Has anyone tried one?

The write ups for the ES 100° 25mm aren’t great. The 30mm 100° is heroically expensive and given that most manufacturers don’t push their 100° past 20mm ish, it would be one hell of a risk. I’m sure that their are some reviews on CN.

Could be that you are asking your scope to be something that it isn’t. Maybe a. Dedicated wide field scope would give better views for similar outlay. Although, I’d be tempted to try the 41mm Panoptic anyway.

Re. The kidney beaning mentioned earlier. Televue make extenders to raise the eyecup for the longer eye relief eyepieces which may help.

Paul

[estwing]

Yeah agree on the es 25..the 20mm is a really good ep tho.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have the Nagler 31 T5, and if I need a bit more FOV, I switch to the Vixen LVW 42mm. A lot less hefty than the Panoptic 41, by all accounts (I never looked through the latter), but very sharp indeed in both my F/10 SCT and my F/6 frac.

[John]

I have the Nagler 31 and the Ethos 21 and love them both. The N31 shows a bit more sky of course. Recently I acquired an Aero ED 40mm (actually a clone of it) which provides a 68 degree AFoV and has surprised me by being really sharp and pretty flat across it's field even with my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian. The 40mm / 68 shows a wee bit more sky than the Nagler 31 and is much lighter - nearly half the weight. The optics in the Aero ED's (and clones) are reputed to be the same used in the now out of production TMB Paragons.

At F/8 I would think these 40mm / 68's are worthy of consideration as alternatives to the 41mm Panoptic. The field stop is sharply defined as well !

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

3 minutes ago, John said:

I have the Nagler 31 and the Ethos 21 and love them both. The N31 shows a bit more sky of course. Recently I acquired an Aero ED 40mm (actually a clone of it) which provides a 68 degree AFoV and has surprised me by being really sharp and pretty flat across it's field even with my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian. The 40mm / 68 shows a wee bit more sky than the Nagler 31 and is much lighter - nearly half the weight. The optics in the Aero ED's (and clones) are reputed to be the same used in the now out of production TMB Paragons.

At F/8 I would think these 40mm / 68's are worthy of consideration as alternatives to the 41mm Panoptic. The field stop is sharply defined as well !

 

I had the Paragon, and sold it, regretted that, and got the LVW 42mm instead. The latter shows a bit more sky, as is perhaps a shade sharper at the edge, but the Paragon (or Aero) wins in terms of lack of pincushion distortion, and is very, very comfortable, showing little or no kidney beaning. The Vixen LVW 42 isn't particularly bad in that respect, but it is not as comfy as the Paragon

[John]

Just as an additional note, I also have the 30mm Aero ED, bought for outreach, and thats decent but not as well corrected as the 40mm.

[geoflewis]

I considered both the TV Panoptic 41mm & Vixen LVW 42mm, but after asking around purchased the Explore Scientific 68 40mm (ES 68/40) last year and have been very pleased with it for wider FOV with my C14 at F11. It gives me stunning views of M42 which just about fully fits the FOV, which was main reason for purchasing it.

Geof

Edited March 4, 2019 by geoflewis

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Apparently there are still MaxVision 40 mm 68 deg EPs around. I would be tempted by those if I hadn't already got the LVW 42.

Link here:

https://www.bresser.de/en/Sale/Display-Items/0215240-1.html

I gather these have the same optics and mechanical construction as the Meade SWA 40mm

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, Paul73 said:

The Leica 88° is a new one on me. Has anyone tried one?

They are repackaged German military eyepieces.  They generally go for about $1200 on the secondary market in the US.  Technically, they're considered Leitz, not Leica, though I'm not sure what the difference between the two badges is since I thought they're the same company.

Here's one CN thread about them.  The packaging has not been consistent over the years.  Here's another thread showing some of the incarnations.  You'd think with their European origins, you'd find more of them in Europe than in the US, as is the case with Clavé Plossls, but that doesn't seem to the case for the Leitz 88.

[astronomer2002]

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

Apparently there are still MaxVision 40 mm 68 deg EPs around. I would be tempted by those if I hadn't already got the LVW 42.

Link here:

https://www.bresser.de/en/Sale/Display-Items/0215240-1.html

I gather these have the same optics and mechanical construction as the Meade SWA 40mm

Thankyou for this info. I had heard the MaxVision 40 was supposed to be a Meade SWA in a different housing. Hopefully it is just that as I already have a Meade SWA 40 which I never found as sharp round the edge as the Nagler or Panoptic. It's OK, especially at longer focal lengths, but the actual fov seems to be on a par with the Nagler 31 (despite the sums saying it ought to be about 5% more).

It appears there are no really good 40mm+ eyepieces around.

I should own up that I also have a Meade 56mm eyepiece which yields about the same fov as the 41 Pan would, but it is like looking through a narrow tube at an overly bright sky and still the outer regions are not sharp. At least it reminds me that going to too long a focal length is pointless in 2" format.

I initially discounted the 41mm Pan due to the perceived fuzzy field stop, which to me would make it a poor eyepiece, but I just cannot find a better one. I was hoping to pick up a decent priced s/h one that someone didn't like. New price (with a bit of bargaining and not using a credit card)  is around £450 so, to me, at least, a s/h one ought to be not much over £300, after all a Nagler 31 can be picked up for £350 if you are patient. At that sort of price the Pan could be moved on if it did not provide the view I am after.

The cost of going to 3" would be horrendous and not financially viable for just one eyepiece.

It seems most people are singing the praises of ES eyepieces, which offer cheaper alternatives to the Televue offerings, but are not quite in the same league.

Ian B

[geoflewis]

Hi Ian,

Why not buy one and return if you don't like it. Having had success with the ES 68/40, I tried an ES 82/18, but couldn't get on with it so I returned it. Other than the cost of return shipping I got a full refund from TH (which included their shipping costs to me). That's one of the great benefits of buying on-line. Under the Consumer Contracts Regulations, you have the right to cancel at any time from the moment you place your online order, and up to 14 days from the day you receive your goods. Of course in the UK you might get 14 days of cloud, but.....

Good luck, Geof

[astronomer2002]

9 hours ago, Paul73 said:

The Leica 88° is a new one on me. Has anyone tried one?

The write ups for the ES 100° 25mm aren’t great. The 30mm 100° is heroically expensive and given that most manufacturers don’t push their 100° past 20mm ish, it would be one hell of a risk. I’m sure that their are some reviews on CN.

Could be that you are asking your scope to be something that it isn’t. Maybe a. Dedicated wide field scope would give better views for similar outlay. Although, I’d be tempted to try the 41mm Panoptic anyway.

Re. The kidney beaning mentioned earlier. Televue make extenders to raise the eyecup for the longer eye relief eyepieces which may help.

Paul

Paul,

The 22 Nagler has an eyecup that can be extended and that makes observing with it quite comfortable. It's a shame the 26 and 31 don't have the same. I can use them as I am used to manouvering my eye to the sweet spot but when showing people objects through the scope I often find they cannot manage and I have to switch to lesser eyepieces.

Scopes are all about compromises and I guess I should be happy with 0.78 degrees. This is enough for nearly every object, apart from the largest nebulae, and I am afraid those are simply not visible to the human eye in the polluted skies we have to endure. It amazes me Herschel found so many of these from Slough! I'd just like to get the maximum field that I can.

 

Ian B

[astronomer2002]

4 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Hi Ian,

Why not buy one and return if you don't like it. Having had success with the ES 68/40, I tried an ES 82/18, but couldn't get on with it so I returned it. Other than the cost of return shipping I got a full refund from TH (which included their shipping costs to me). That's one of the great benefits of buying on-line. Under the Consumer Contracts Regulations, you have the right to cancel at any time from the moment you place your online order, and up to 14 days from the day you receive your goods. Of course in the UK you might get 14 days of cloud, but.....

Good luck, Geof

Geoff,

That's an interesting story. A friend purchased an ES 82/18 and was very happy with it in a F10 12 inch SCT. I tried it in my scope and the Naglers were just so much better. I was both happy and disappointed as there was no potential saving. As a result I chose to wait for the 26 Nagler to be available s/h and continue my Nagler odyssey.  I have tried other ES eyepieces but felt they weren't any better than Meades. Price performance may put ES at the top, but for pure performance there are alternatives.

Ian B

[cathalferris]

I recently had the same conundrum. I had updated my main scope to a 20" Dob, and I wanted to get the best widest field. This led me to a choice of getting either of an Ethos 21mm, or an ES-100 25mm, as I wanted a 100 degree eyepiece for this role. I already had a 31mm 82 degree Celestron eyepiece but that focal length was too large an exit pupil for my eyes - hence the shorter focal length and wider FOV requirement.

In the end I went for the ES eyepiece, as it's got just that much more of a true FOV. In that 20" scope the difference was an FOV of 65.2' against the Ethos' 54.5'. Regarding aberrations it's being used with a Paracorr in an f/3.94 newt and my own eyes have a little bit of astigmatism anyway (awaiting a new prescription to get some astro-specific contacts) so I was happy enough to go the ES route.

Using that eyepiece over the past few clear evenings, I've been happy with that decision.

It would have been a much harder choice on which to buy if TV had made an Ethos 24 though..

[John]

You don't see many reports on the ES 25mm / 100. Good to know that there are some out there

[astronomer2002]

On 04/03/2019 at 19:01, cathalferris said:

I recently had the same conundrum. I had updated my main scope to a 20" Dob, and I wanted to get the best widest field. This led me to a choice of getting either of an Ethos 21mm, or an ES-100 25mm, as I wanted a 100 degree eyepiece for this role. I already had a 31mm 82 degree Celestron eyepiece but that focal length was too large an exit pupil for my eyes - hence the shorter focal length and wider FOV requirement.

In the end I went for the ES eyepiece, as it's got just that much more of a true FOV. In that 20" scope the difference was an FOV of 65.2' against the Ethos' 54.5'. Regarding aberrations it's being used with a Paracorr in an f/3.94 newt and my own eyes have a little bit of astigmatism anyway (awaiting a new prescription to get some astro-specific contacts) so I was happy enough to go the ES route.

Using that eyepiece over the past few clear evenings, I've been happy with that decision.

It would have been a much harder choice on which to buy if TV had made an Ethos 24 though..

Sounds like the ES works for you. I am glad it does as with my f4.3 Newt I find  low powers with widefield eyepieces have too large an exit pupil. There's no doubt the big Newts score when it comes to seeing faint galaxies and nebulae though.

 

Ian B

[John]

8 hours ago, astronomer2002 said:

Sounds like the ES works for you. I am glad it does as with my f4.3 Newt I find  low powers with widefield eyepieces have too large an exit pupil. There's no doubt the big Newts score when it comes to seeing faint galaxies and nebulae though.

 

Ian B

I tend to agree Ian. I find my 21mm Ethos (exit pupil with my 12 inch dob is 3.96mm) to be a noticeably more effecitve galaxy / faint target tool than my 31mm Nagler with it's 5.85mm exit pupil with the same scope. If I observed from a really dark site, the Nagler 31 might get more use ?

[astronomer2002]

Since I cannot find a 41 Pan for sale s/h I purchased an ES40 as suggested by several people here. It was s/h so would be a 'bargain' if it filled the role.

The skies have not been brilliant since it arrived but I have seen enough to make comparisons.

Compared to the 31 Nagler I see more sky, but the outer edges are not as sharp as the Nagler.  There appears to be field curvature, which isn't apparent in the Nagler 31 and is certainly more noticeable than in the  Panoptic 35.

The sky background also appears brighter than in the 31 Nagler or 35 Panoptic. This may be due to the sky conditions but I have read that some ES eyepieces yield a 'dark gray'   background sky so it may be a real effect. Oddly my ancient 40mm Meade SWA yielded a slightly smaller field but with a darker background.

I'm trying hard to like this eyepiece but it may need a Paracorr to be a perfect eyepiece, which will defeat the advantages it offers namely cost and wider true fov.

I wish I knew someone with a 41 Pan so I would know whether it's the holy grail of widefield eyepieces or not.   ?

 

Ian B

 

[John]

Interesting feedback Ian.

I continue to be impressed by the Aero ED 40mm clone that I bought a while back - sharp and pretty flat field right across even at F/6.5. If you get a chance to try one, it might be worth taking the opportunity.

Meanwhile, I hope a 41mm Panoptic comes your way soon as well.

 

 

 

[Piero]

I use the Lunt 20 Hdc and APM UFF 30mm as low mag EPs. 

The UFF is a lovely eyepiece, the hdc is a light weight beast. Happy with both really.

[astronomer2002]

3 months after I acquired the ES68 Argon filled 40mm I was offered a 41 Panoptic and so now have both.

Given the lousy seeing conditions we have experienced this year it is unfair to make too strong a claim for these two eyepieces that obviously require the darkest possible sky to perform to their max however I do have some initial observations.

The 41 Pan turns out to be less of a problem to use than many on astro sites suggest. I find it quite easy to position my eye in the right place and the shorter eye relief actually makes using the ep more convenient than the ES 40 since the eyecup on that ep is too short to form a good barrier against  external light interference. The adjustable eyecup on the 41 Pan scores here.

The stars are definitely sharper across the field in the Panoptic and the sky a little darker. I do not find the field stop particularly fuzzy  with the Panoptic, which was an issue I worried about.  To be honest the slightly out of focus stars at the edge of the field in the ES are more noticeable than any lack of sharpness in the field stop of the Pan.

Measuring the true FOV I would have to conclude there is little to choose between them. I got the impression the ES had a very slightly larger TFOV, though this is very hard to quantify.

Both eyepieces seem to suffer some vignetting when used with a 2 inch star diagonal. The outer part of the field is definitely darker in both eps. Without the star diagonal the situation improves, but is still just about noticeable.  I suspect that if the sky was darker it would be hard to detect.

All in all the Pan wins out for me, but not by much.

I will wait for darker, clearer skies before making a final decision because both eyepieces show too bright a sky background in the current nighttime conditions. As a result the 31 Nagler continues to be my favorite low power ep. If anyone want's an ES68 40mm in pristine condition in a couple of months I expect I will be passing that one on.

 

Ian B

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by astronomer2002