televue panoptic 24mm vs nagler 22mm

[ako]

hello,

im steadiliy building a better eyepeice collection and i hav the above question. im wanting a med to low power work horse for deep sky of around 22-24mm. and the choice is now narrowed down to between the panoptic 24mm or the 22mm nagler. i use a 5" refractor as my main scope but also an 12" F4 reflector and hence paying for televue.

my main concern is that with the 5" scope photons of deep sky objects are at a precious and from reading many many reviews the larger fov of the nagler means your eye cannot take it all in, some of these photons would b lost to your iris not into the pupil and then (hopefully) brain! making deep sky objects not as bright or invisible?

your help and opinions pls

matt

[Andrew*]

I've never heard that one before! I can't imagine it being true because in all my time browsing CN with people raving about all TeleVue products (and counter arguments) I haven't once heard that argument.

Besides, your eye can comfortably take in a Nagler's field. Your peripheral vision spans about 120° in each eye.

If you can afford the 22mm Nagler I can't imagine you will ever be disappointed by it!

Andrew

[John]

Hi Matt,

Some people prefer the field of view of the Panoptics (and Pentax XW's which are excellent as well I believe) and others love the ultra-wide Naglers and Ethos's (Ethi ?).

I'm in the latter camp and use a range of Naglers (including a 22mm T4) and an Ethos 13 in my 4" refractor and 12" dobsonian. I have no trouble seeing the whole field of view of the Naglers and even the Ethos. That said, I also really enjoyed the 24 Pan when I owned one but I rather got a taste for the ultra-wide FoV's

Frankly whatever you choose from the Tele Vue range you won't go wrong - that are all superb eyepieces IMHO.

John

[ako]

telescope house has 10% off this bank holiday weekend so me thinks i only hav until monday 2 decide!

i was swaying towards the nagler, it is a bit more, but is cheaper than buying the pan they realising i should hav had the nagler, selling second hand then buying a new nagler. will see others comments then make up my mind later in the weekend,

cheers for your thoughts guys

matt

[FLO]

I used to own a number of Televue Naglers and Panoptics. My favourite was the 24mm Panoptic. If I were to buy just one Televue it would be that one.

[ako]

hi steve, how come your panoptic was favoured over the naglers?

many thanks matt

[mcrossley]

I have the 24 Pan and 20 Nag T2 (not the 22). I can see the attraction of the 24 Pan, it is a cracking eyepiece - good colour, clear and sharp. BUT, the views through the 20 Nag are my favourite with both the refractor and C14. All my other Nags are shorter focal lengths.

[James]

Another happy Tele Vue 24mm Panoptic owner. I'm one of those people who prefers about 70 degrees field of view and I've never quite been comfortable with the Naglers, nor the Ethos' I've looked through (I know, I know...sacrilege... ).

I used to say that my 24mm Pan would have to be prised from my cold dead body but I think I'll amend my will to ask that it gets buried with me

If you like the field of view of the Naglers then you'll be happy with the 22 but you'll be happy with the 24mm too. I'd really try and get a look through the 22mm because you might go for the 24mm Pan and always wonder if the Nagler was better...

James

[FLO]

hi steve, how come your panoptic was favoured over the naglers?

many thanks matt

It is difficult to say. I was using a driven mount so I guess the extra field-of-view offered by the Naglers was a bit irrelevant. Our eye cannot take in more than about 70 degrees so you need to tilt your head to see the edges. I got to wondering why I had paid so much for something that fell outside of the optimum field-of-view. Perhaps the reason I liked the 24mm Panoptic so much was because all the available light was placed where I could see it, comfortably.

The 100-degree Ethos is an interesting design. Four times at Star Parties I have been shown a view through a telescope, when I finished and moved away I was told I had just looked through an Ethos. Only when I looked again and peered into the outer edges did it become apparent.

Ultra-wides are very impressive feats of optical engineering and if your pocket is deep enough then buy and enjoy them, just don't go thinking you have short-changed yourself or are missing out if you choose a Panoptic.

Having said that, if you have a Dobsonian then with an ultra-wide you will find you spend less time shuffling the scope across the sky as the object stays in the eyepiece FOV for longer.

HTH

[Cairngorm]

I am considering a good quality eyepiece, either the 24mm or 27mm Panoptic with my 250mm Skywatcher F5 reflector. Wondering if 27mm would produce noticable coma. I guess 27mm Panoptic would provide much the same field of view as the 22mm Nagler. Seems that a fair number of folk prefer the 24mm Pan, is it a better all rounder.

Gerry

[johninderby]

The 24mm Panoptic does seem to be favoured over the 27mm even though reviews don't seem to show any difference in performance, probably down to the 27mm being a less popular fl and most go straight to the 35mm.

My favourite though is the 22mm Panoptic, which is unfortunately no longer available, and is preferred by many over the 22mm Nagler. I managed to find a like new 22mm Panoptic recently (they don't come up for sale often) and it is close to an Ethos in sharpness and contrast, a definite keeper.

John

[MartinB]

It isn't just about FOV. With the Nagler you will be getting a higer magnification but a bigger FOV. Your background sky will be darker with the Nagler and should allow you to see more of those faint fuzzies. If cost isn't an option I would go for the Nagler

[FLO]

... Our eye cannot take in more than about 70 degrees so you need to tilt your head to see the edges.

Some members are saying they can see the Nagler's full 82-degree FOV without tilting their head, some even say they can see the full 100-degrees offered by the Ethos. That is interesting as I definitely cannot. Ah well, I guess we are all different

After saying that, I am typing this while sat on the sofa next to Nette. I am aware that she is in my field of vision but I cannot see her in detail without turning my head towards her. Is this making sense!? Have I developed tunnel vision?

[John]

Prompted by Steve's post I've just been outside with my 4" refractor and looked through my 9mm Nagler and 13mm Ethos eyepieces at M57 and M13 to re-assess what I can make of the view though them. Personally I feel that I am "aware" of the whole of the edge of the field of view of both eyepieces and stars right scross that field however I think it's fair to say that I'm only "critically aware" of the central 60-70 degrees of the FoV - by that I mean able to discern fine detail, contrast, faint objects etc.

My eye may well be instinctively panning around to perceive the whole FoV while retaining that sharper awareness of that central portion - I think I read somewhere thats how our eyes operate, to be able to sense movement (danger ?) with peripheral vision while focussing sharply on targets (prey ?) in a central zone - or maybe that's big cats

With regard to eyepieces perhaps it's down to personal preference whether you like the FoV you are critically aware of framed by the field stop edge or by a wider field of starry sky - the great thing is that there are some very nice eyepieces around these days to cater for all tastes

Thats just my take on this - "your mileage may vary" as they say !.

John

[MartinB]

You are effectively using averted vision for some of the view with Naglers and, probably, panoptics as well

[FLO]

Its interesting that you mention the 9mm John as that was one that I owned. I wasn't able to see the field edge without tilting my head. I guess it is like you say 'your mileage may vary'. I did like the 9mm, after the 24mm Panoptic it was my favourite.

Martin, I see what you mean by averted vision but I think we probably vary there too. I find averting my eye to around 2-3 o'clock works well but anywhere else doesn't really do it for me.

[Andrew*]

This is a really interesting topic which has been on my mind a lot lately.

I've found that your central vision - i.e. what you can focus on and discern fine details is very small. e.g. I can only focus on and read "central vision" from two feet away - everything else is kind of blurred. That must only be about 10° or so.

However, with my right eye (left eye closed) looking ahead I can see the inside rim of my glasses (by my nose), and things right next to me (90° from my central vision) - that's around 120°!

What I'm trying to get at is that I should be able to see the edge of the FOV with a 120° eyepiece but only see fine details for the central 10° of my vision.

So where does this 70°-for-maximum-comfort thing come in? I don't know but I definitely see the point. There is something quite "easy" going about a 70° FOV.

Perhaps it's the maximum the eye can swivel in it's socket so that central vision can focus on any point within the field without having to tilt your head. Between 70° and 120° you can still see the entire FOV with your peripheral vision, but you need to "look around" with your head as well as your eye to focus near the edges. How does that sound for a theory?

Andrew

[Andrew*]

And perhaps it's different again with astronomy - much less detail visible than usual daylight viewing. Could it be that the simplicity of viewing point sources on a black background means your central vision "expands" and you can see more FOV in fine detail?

Just thinking out loud really....

Andrew

[MartinB]

Using a 17mm nagler the position of the cup (or whatever the word is) is pretty critical. If your eye is too close you get kidney beaning and too far away and you can't see the whole FOV, you do actually have to turn you head. That is where the click stop set up on the naglers works well. 3 clicks up and I can see the whole field of view but without the beaning. I'm not aware of moving my eye around when viewing but if I am my brain seems fairly happy about it!

[John]

Interesting thread and really thoughtfull inputs

If this was Cloudynights the thread would have been locked and there would have been threats of court action by now

What a great place SGL is for a nice, open astro equipment discussion

John

[FLO]

So where does this 70°-for-maximum-comfort thing come in? I don't know but I definitely see the point. There is something quite "easy" going about a 70° FOV.

This is a subjective response, of course, but I like the way all the available light/detail/information/whatever is concentrated into a field of view that I can see comfortably without tilting my neck to see the edges. In fairness if I were using a Dobsonian or some other undriven mount I'd probably go back to two or three ultra-wides, otherwise I actually prefer super-wide eyepieces.

[FLO]

Still thinking about this, it strikes me that the way modern eyepieces use more and more elements to stretch the available light ever further outside of the optimum field of view without obvious detriment is testament to the quality and clarity of modern optical glass and coatings

[ako]

thank you all for your helpful responces. there is nothing better than getting peoples opinions. there is far too much defensive discussion around on the internet whereby people are keen to defend their scope/gear.

well in the end i pushed the boat out and got the 22mm nagler, ive only had views at dusk of the moon so far with it been so late and just about not getting dark. its contrast and sharpness is breathtaking. the eyepeice's proper first light will b at dalby forest starfest in aug were under dark skies it should get a good testing. i think i will invest in a wider panoptic later on for my widefield eyepeice but will b good to hear more toughts once we can get out under dark skies again and try the theory out.

cheers matt

[ako]

thank you all for your helpful responces. there is nothing better than getting peoples opinions. there is far too much defensive discussion around on the internet whereby people are keen to defend their scope/gear.

well in the end i pushed the boat out and got the 22mm nagler, ive only had views at dusk of the moon so far with it been so late and just about not getting dark. its contrast and sharpness is breathtaking. the eyepeice's proper first light will b at dalby forest starfest in aug were under dark skies it should get a good testing. i think i will invest in a wider panoptic later on for my widefield eyepeice but will b good to hear more toughts once we can get out under dark skies again and try the theory out.

cheers matt

[Moonshane]

sorry to resurrect this old thread but I am going through exactly the same quandry, the difference is that I have a 24mm Panoptic and and thinking about selling this and getting the 22mm Nagler T4.

the reason for this are:

1. I feel the Nagler with a 13% increased field and 9% more magnification will help me with more contrast in my light polluted skies.
   
2. The 2" format fits better with my large dob (I won't be using this so often in the 6" as this is aplanetary scope).
   
3. the field and magnification sits a little better between the 35mm Panoptic and the 13mm Ethos.
   
4. I'm sure I read somewhere that there's 'just something special about the T4s' - or is this just TV hype??
   

Buying and selling used, I reckon it will cost me around £100 to change and on this basis I reckon it's worth it. Any comments from anyone on my logic and Ako, were you happy you made the original choice now based on your experience to date?

If anyone thinks about selling their 22mm Nagler T4 do please let me know!

Cheers

Shane