Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Televue panoptic eyepiece(s)


Recommended Posts

Hi,

Sorry if this is old ground, but I was wondering if someone could tell me why these (and others-such as the nagler etc.) are so expensive compared to plossls? Obviously, it has something to do with the optics used in them, i.e. expensive glass, coatings etc., but are they any good is what I'm driving at here?! :rolleyes:

I would be tempted by a 19mm panoptic I've seen going for £135, is that a fair price for one of these or should I not bother; I will be using it on my 4" achromat refractor?

Thank you.

Richard.

Edited by milkyjoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the "is it worth it" depends also on the scope you are using. If e.g. your (albeit fine) ST102, the net result might be dominated by imperfections in the scope, rather than eyepiece. On the other hand an F5 scope is quite demanding re. eyepieces. I tended to (vaguely) match capabilities of scope and eyepieces - Though I still overspent on eyepieces. <sigh> At least Televue are future-proof? :rolleyes:

Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst TV EPs are certainly popular I'm not convinced they're value for money and I can't see myself buying any.

Having said that I've read plenty of posts from people who have had them then sold them on without losing much, if any, money on the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they really make a big difference compared to a plossl, I'm not convinced!? :rolleyes:

Hi,

I had a 24mm pan and still wish I had it!! I love my naglers. Great eyepieces really do make a difference...

Alan :eek:

Edited by milkyjoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a f12 scope and cheaper Plossl eyepieces work fine, I have a Antares 32mm Plossl which is very good in my scope, but I prefer wide field eyepieces because they are much better for viewing star clusters ,galaxies etc and they are very comfortable to use as well.

I didnt want to spend a fortune on eyepieces so i got a couple of Baader Hyperions which are good vfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they really make a big difference compared to a plossl, I'm not convinced!? :rolleyes:
I think (and feel) there is something "vaguely significant" about an apparent field of view around 68 degrees. The idea is that this corresponds to the "pleasant" static field of the eye. A bit less, and the view seems somehow "constricted"... a bit more, and the eye has to "move around" the field. All is subjective! There are other factors - A wider field keeps an object in (a Dobsonian) view for longer etc. Whatever field of view, it always seems hard to go back to a narrower field... :eek: Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TeleVue are certainly worth it. They are also a great and innovative firm who look after their customers and have old fashioned values.

It is not true that you need a good scope for a TV to be worthwhile. It might even be the opposite. I have world class refractors here from Takahashi and TEC and to use mundane EPs in them would be silly. But we also have an honest but not premium 20 inch f4.1 Dob. In Plossls the optics are frankly poor. With the TVs the view is transformed. Even with the wider field the edge stars are sharp enough not to detract from the pleasure of the view. I have no coma corrector and with TVs will not be buying one. In a Plossl only the centre is sharp.

The very wide TVs, Naglers and Ethosses (spelling??), have a fantastically engaging, immersive quality that feels giddyingly like being out in space.

It seems that fast f ratios need premium EPs more than slow and I find this to be so, though I prefer the TVs in our f10 SCT as well.

In optics small gains cost a lot but the eye is our most sensitive receptor and appreciates these small gains.

Buy that 19 Panoptic, it is one of the best EPs ever made, but demand the 20 per cent redution.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they really make a big difference compared to a plossl, I'm not convinced!? :rolleyes:

Have you tried any ?.

Try some and see what you think. Eyepiece choice is a personal thing and what works for one person might not float someone elses boat.

If they don't make a difference then thousands of astronomers, including many extremely experienced ones, around the world have wasted millions of £'s / $'s. Which seems unlikely to me :eek:

I guess your point could be applied just as much to other premium priced eyepieces such as Pentax - or do you just have your doubts on Tele Vue ?.

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget you not only need to match the eyepiece to the telescope but your eye too. I fell into this trap a few years back by buying a TV Nagler 16mm T6. An eyepiece with a terrific reputation but it was hopeless for me personally. The eyerelief was too short, so i couldn't wear my glasses. Which meant my severe astigmatism undid all the good work Televue had done in making the eyepiece. I could have spent yet more money buying a Televue Dioptrix but i had already spent too much on the eyepiece anyway. So not an option.

I know one or some of the Panoptics have marginal eyerelief. Can't remember if it's the 15mm or 19mm or both that have that problem. If you don't wear glasses, it won't be a problem anyway.

edit - it was the 15mm Panoptic that had next to no ER.

Edited by russ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I haven't tried any of the higher priced TV eps so I guess my comment about not being convinced is now invalid! :) Don't get me wrong though, I do like TV stuff, I have owned a few of the plossls, including a 15mm and 11mm version and they did give me some lovely views; definitely on par with my Meade 3000 one's. :eek:

I would like to try one of these panoptics, but I can't justify the hefty price tags these eps demand..., but it is very, very tempting! lol

:rolleyes:

Have you tried any ?.

Try some and see what you think. Eyepiece choice is a personal thing and what works for one person might not float someone elses boat.

If they don't make a difference then thousands of astronomers, including many extremely experienced ones, around the world have wasted millions of £'s / $'s. Which seems unlikely to me :)

I guess your point could be applied just as much to other premium priced eyepieces such as Pentax - or do you just have your doubts on Tele Vue ?.

Edited by milkyjoe
Can't spell! :p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they really make a big difference compared to a plossl, I'm not convinced!? :rolleyes:

At a given focal length and thus magnification, you see 84% more sky in the Panoptic (and they are expensive because even in fast scopes the stars close to the edge still look clean and are not deformed by aberrations). Apart from that, don't expect the centre of the field to be much better, though. They're not "better", they're different.

That's a pretty large difference, yes. Whether it's worth it is another matter and also very much a matter of observing habits (if you look a lot at wide nebulae and cluster you'll appreciate being able to frame even the larger ones well, but if all you look at are isolated small galaxies the Plössl does just as well).

Edited by sixela
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard

I gotta agree with Olly

When i got my 16" Lightbridge the supplied eyepiece a 26mm QX was simply shocking (i now use it upside down as a novelty shot glass:)).

whack in a TV eyepiece and it just transforms it.

Worth it? Oh yes. Specially with a fast reflector.

Regards Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my comment about not being convinced is now invalid! :rolleyes:
Either way, they are still QUITE expensive, for many? <G> And then, having ONE, is likely to lead to needing more? I remember, with wry amusement, someone (in another place) advising everyone to "stop moaning about TV prices"... and learn to prioritise their (household?) budget! Heck, I'd drink to that... [only teasing] :eek:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, they are still QUITE expensive, for many? <G> And then, having ONE, is likely to lead to needing more? I remember, with wry amusement, someone (in another place) advising everyone to "stop moaning about TV prices"... and learn to prioritise their (household?) budget! Heck, I'd drink to that... [only teasing] :eek:

I think in every hobby / pursuit the equipment needed to pursue it ranges hugely in price. I've dabbled with photography, fishing, golf and archery on and off and that's certainly the case with those activities.

Probably the most important development in astronomy over the last few years is that good quality equipment is now available at relatively affordable prices while the higher priced stuff remains there for those who are interested in that.

You can certainly do "good astronomy" with modestly priced equipment :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in every hobby / pursuit the equipment needed to pursue it ranges hugely in price. I've dabbled with photography, fishing, golf and archery on and off and that's certainly the case with those activities.
totally agree with that comment, I spend several thousand pounds on the pursuit of Koi **** heaven! Ultimately its all about good water management, it was very expensive to keep them in good condition, a lot of people heat their ponds but that was just too much for me to pay for. :rolleyes: Edited by Nexus 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm another fan of the Panoptics. I have a 35mm and a 22mm, both give views that you can roll your eyes round in and not find the view degrading at the edges. I would only bother though if you have a fast scope. F10 really is forgiving. My old C8 gave great views with Revelation plossls but the view was significantly poorer when I used these in my F5 dob. Light transmission is another factor that I've found noticeable and, after using the Panoptics for a while, it's probably something I'd pay a premium for.

Cheers, Martin

Cheers, Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cars, pah! My Panda at the legal limit in France is faster than a Ferrari at the legal limit in the UK. Heh, it's even true!!! Unrewarding things, cars, though it took me years to learn that.

I have two observatories that both cost twice what I paid for the Ferrari eating Panda (bouight new) and they are, believe me, deeply rewarding. The planet prefers them, too.

Think what your are doing with your telescope. You are collecting photons that have flown millions of light years to tell you about what is out there. Isn't that great!

However you place your priorities, optical junkie or bargain hunter, or both, let's enjoy the view.

The best value thing you will ever buy has not changed since the middle ages. It remains... the book.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.