19 Panoptic v 16 nagler

[Nick P]

Can anyone help with this, I am looking for a new low (ish) power eyepiece to replace my 32mm TV Plossl because the exit pupil is way too big for me on my scope (7.14mm, I probably max out at 5mm!) so losing light and at 28x light polution tends to wash the view out - although a brilliant lens it doesn't suit my circumstances.

So I wanted something around the 50x mag mark with a relatively wide field of view - hence the option of the 19 pan or the 16 nagler. Both get good reviews so quality wise not much to choose between them, and they have the same TFOV, however what I would like advice on is which would give the most immersive view? would the image clarity and brightness match the 32 plossl?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated to help me make the right decision as this will complete the eyepiece set with the 11mm Nagler, 8mm Plossl and a 2x barlow which gives a good magnification range of 50x - 225x at reasonable break points (50x, 82x, 112x, 164x, 225x)

Thanks

Nick

[NGC 1502]

Hi Nick, I've used both of these EPs (not owned) and I do own a 32mm TV Plossl.

(But I don't use the 32 in my fast reflectors, same problem as you, large exit pupil)

In my local club, there is loads of kit, it's great to try before you buy.

They are both very nice, small & neat. For me, I prefered the 19 Pan, I found

the eye relief just to tight with the 16 Nagler. But some find it ok.

If you wear glasses to observe (I don't) the eye relief will be a bigger factor.

Every TV eyepiece that I've looked through has been great, sharp to the edge

in my fast scopes.

HTH, Ed.

[John]

Hi Nick, I've used both of these EPs (not owned) and I do own a 32mm TV Plossl.

(But I don't use the 32 in my fast reflectors, same problem as you, large exit pupil)

In my local club, there is loads of kit, it's great to try before you buy.

They are both very nice, small & neat. For me, I prefered the 19 Pan, I found

the eye relief just to tight with the 16 Nagler. But some find it ok.

If you wear glasses to observe (I don't) the eye relief will be a bigger factor.

Every TV eyepiece that I've looked through has been great, sharp to the edge

in my fast scopes.

HTH, Ed.

I've owned a 24mm Panoptic and the 16mm T5 Nagler and I agree with Ed's summary above. I love Naglers and the 16mm T5 was very sharp but the 10mm of eyerelief was a bit too tight. The T6 Naglers have 12mm of eye relief and those 2mm seem to make a lot of difference.

But both are very fine eyepieces

[ollypenrice]

I don't know the 16 Nagler but the 19 Pan is an absolute glory and never out of a telescope. I love t. It does attract dust though, being concave. (Big deal!)

Olly

[MartinB]

Agree with the try before you buy if your eyes are fussy about eye relief. The advantage of the Nagler is that, because it is delivering the same field of view but at higher magnification your background sky will be darker. Views will have a little more contrast. I don't want to exagerate it and ultra wide fields aren't everyones cup of tea but there is a difference. However, if I had a 19mm Panoptic I wouldn't be looking to lay out good money to replace it with a 16mm Nagler

[John]

I don't know the 16 Nagler but the 19 Pan is an absolute glory and never out of a telescope. I love t. It does attract dust though, being concave. (Big deal!)

Olly

With a concave eye lens, which all the Panoptics and Naglers have I think, is the eye relief measured from the center of the lens ?.

If it is (which seems logical) then the concave lens will mean that your eye needs to get even closer to the top of the eyepiece.

[Nick P]

Thanks for all the advice everyone, really good stuff and is reinforcing the reviews I found around the web - always good when a trusted source (SGL members) 'peer reviews' other opinions.

I think that now leaves a reasonably simple decision:

Both eyepieces are technically good and give good views, both are well adjusted for fast scopes, both have the same FOV, magnification difference is marginal (19 = 47x and 16 = 56x)

So the only major difference is .............................. price point! ....................... which makes the Pan 19 the winner!

[Moonshane]

I cannot add much to this other than to say every Nagler and Panoptic I have looked through have been excellent. one consideration is that the 19mm Panoptics possibly come up for sale more often than the 16mm Nagler? therefore if you want one sooner rather than later the 19mm Pan will be more likely to surface (no negative inference in these comments either way).

another thing's for sure. if you buy the Pan or the Nagler at the right sort of price then you'll always be able to sell them if needs be.

[John]

... both have the same FOV, magnification difference is marginal (19 = 47x and 16 = 56x)...

As MartinB said, the Nagler shows a little more sky at a higher magnification - if you have some light pollution to contend with the additional magnification will darken the background sky a bit making faint deep sky objects a little easier to see.

[Nick P]

As MartinB said, the Nagler shows a little more sky at a higher magnification - if you have some light pollution to contend with the additional magnification will darken the background sky a bit making faint deep sky objects a little easier to see.

Absolutely accepted, however on my scope with a 900mm focal length the increase in FOV is tiny at 1 arc minute which at these magnifications will be hardly perceptible at the EP (of course this is where being able to try them out side by side would be a great advantage!).

I am expecting the jump from 28x to 47x to give sufficient darkening of the background to pick up faint DSO's which would be targeted, am particularly thinking of M57 here which I just couldn't see at 28x although at 82x was clear as a bell!

Galaxies however are pretty much out anyway due to the LP here although I can get the core's it's not possible to resolve any decent detail.

Does all that sound reasonable and match others experiences?