Quote:

---

I think most, if not all, Televue eyepieces are designed to be used with their own refractors or at least short focal length newtonians. Medium to high power eyepieces are more useful I would imagine. Hard to improve on the low power choices already offered by TV.

---

Personally I am fine the existing eyepieces. I have a set of eyepieces from TeleVue that do the job. The 31mm Nagler is a fine eyepiece. To me, new and different are new objects in the sky to observe, new sites to observe from. A trip 5 hours down the road to the Baja Dark Skies Inn is going to make far more difference in what I see than a new eyepiece or two.

Jon

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I think most, if not all, Televue eyepieces are designed to be used with their own refractors or at least short focal length newtonians. Medium to high power eyepieces are more useful I would imagine. Hard to improve on the low power choices already offered by TV.

---

Hmmm...

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

2. 41Pan/31T5 - Are these both entirely "perfect"? Nope. First off...they are massive and heavy. Improvements can be to lighten them and decrease their physical size. Plus, I need a 2" 100 degree eyepiece that gives widest TFOV capable with a 2" barrel. So not necessarily an improvement of these as much of a missing eyepiece.

Always room for improvement.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Plus, I need a 2" 100 degree eyepiece that gives widest TFOV capable with a 2" barrel. So not necessarily an improvement of these as much of a missing eyepiece

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I am not sure there is room in the barrel for TeleVue to build an eyepiece 100 degree 25mm of sufficient quality to please Uncle Al.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think most, if not all, Televue eyepieces are designed to be used with their own refractors or at least short focal length newtonians. Medium to high power eyepieces are more useful I would imagine. Hard to improve on the low power choices already offered by TV.

---

Hmmm...

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

2. 41Pan/31T5 - Are these both entirely "perfect"? Nope. First off...they are massive and heavy. Improvements can be to lighten them and decrease their physical size. Plus, I need a 2" 100 degree eyepiece that gives widest TFOV capable with a 2" barrel. So not necessarily an improvement of these as much of a missing eyepiece.

Always room for improvement.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

---

That's only your opinion, I find 15mm eye relief to be Perfect! If you want 20mm? buy a Delos.
Rex

---

Uh, they don't make a 24mm Delos. I think that's the point.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

---

That's only your opinion, I find 15mm eye relief to be Perfect! If you want 20mm? buy a Delos.
Rex

---

Uh, they don't make a 24mm Delos. I think that's the point.

---

And they don't make a 24 Panoptic with 20mm of eye relief. It would make more sense to suggest a 24mm Delos , a line with constant 20mm eye relief than to change a proven design with a good following. That's the point.
Rex

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Frankly, I don't think they have the interest. They can always argue that they have existing, excellent eyepieces in long focal lengths. 55 Plossl, 41/35 Pan, 31/26 Naglers, so why need more?

I of course agree with you. When new designs come out using latest glasses and coatings and production techniques, I feel that these new lines should as standard fare offer a 1.25" and 2" focal length that maximizes the barrel size. Neither the Ethos or the Delos do this and frankly, IMO it is a shame. Of course there may be the argument that the particular design is not practical to get to those longest focal lengths. To that I counter then offer a different design with the same optical parameters of ER and AFOV that does reach the max TFOV and brand it the same -- so give us a 72 degree Delos in 23mm or so and a 100 degree Ethos in 25mm or so. Don't care that the optical design might depart from the others as long as the AFOV, ER, and level of correction is maintained. This way we can build our eyepiece stalls with consistency. I know I was very happy when TV came out with the Delos line, then got bummed when I would have to get a 24 pan to max my 1/25" capabilitiy. Don't want to do that and have a context switch like that...so not a candidate line of EPs for me.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

---

That's only your opinion, I find 15mm eye relief to be Perfect!
Rex

---

I also find it very comfortable, no need for more eye relief, particularly if that means the eyepiece would be physically larger.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think most, if not all, Televue eyepieces are designed to be used with their own refractors or at least short focal length newtonians. Medium to high power eyepieces are more useful I would imagine. Hard to improve on the low power choices already offered by TV.

---

Hmmm...

1. Is the 24mm Panoptic improvable (as TV's max TFOV 1.25" wide field eyepiece)? I would say easily yes! Eye relief is way too short on this eyepiece. Needs to be 20mm. So there's a much needed improvement.

2. 41Pan/31T5 - Are these both entirely "perfect"? Nope. First off...they are massive and heavy. Improvements can be to lighten them and decrease their physical size. Plus, I need a 2" 100 degree eyepiece that gives widest TFOV capable with a 2" barrel. So not necessarily an improvement of these as much of a missing eyepiece.

Always room for improvement.

---

Point taken and I guess there is always room for improvement but it's like re-recording "Stairway to Heaven" to make it better. Why would you want to?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have heard that expressed before. However, another way of saying that is "I can't make a 25mm 100 degree eyepiece of sufficient quality." If they really can't make it then should they be considered a leader in the industry? Can't have it both ways...I'm a leader and I can't do stuff so let other innovate...but I'm the leader, etc. Contradictory.

---

I think you might be confusing quality with quantity Bill. The decision to NOT make the 25E is what makes Nagler an industry leader. The 21 Ethos was an innovation, the 25 ES 100 is a knockoff that makes compromises as Don has pointed out, compromises that TV is unwilling to make.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have heard that expressed before. However, another way of saying that is "I can't make a 25mm 100 degree eyepiece of sufficient quality." If they really can't make it then should they be considered a leader in the industry? Can't have it both ways...I'm a leader and I can't do stuff so let other innovate...but I'm the leader, etc. Contradictory.

---

I think you might be confusing quality with quantity Bill. The decision to NOT make the 25E is what makes Nagler an industry leader. The 21 Ethos was an innovation, the 25 ES 100 is a knockoff that makes compromises as Don has pointed out, compromises that TV is unwilling to make.

---

Industry leaders innovate and push the envelope (like TV did when they created the first Ethos). Sometimes compromizes have to be accepted (like Nagler zooms don't have 82 AFOV).

Post Extras: