Celebrity Deathmatch: 22 Pan vs. 24 Pan
#1
Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:09 PM
#2
Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:58 PM
#3
Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:17 PM
I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!
Others have commented on this feature of the 22.
#4
Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:08 PM
22 pan has good edge correction and great eye relief.
24 pan has great edge correction and poor eye relief.
Take your pick!
I went with the 22 pan because I use Dioptrx and need the eye relief.
If I didn't need the Dioptrx, I would get the ES 24 mm 68 deg.
#5
Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:17 PM
I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!
Others have commented on this feature of the 22.
I still have the Pan22.
#6
Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:49 PM
22 pan has good edge correction and great eye relief.
24 pan has great edge correction and poor eye relief.
So far, it sounds like choice comes down to which performance characteristic is most important to the end user: eye relief, or edge correction.
#7
Posted 05 May 2013 - 04:06 PM
I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!
In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).
#8
Posted 05 May 2013 - 05:55 PM
22 pan has good edge correction and great eye relief.
24 pan has great edge correction and poor eye relief.
So far, it sounds like choice comes down to which performance characteristic is most important to the end user: eye relief, or edge correction.
Yes - that is the way to do it with any eyepiece purchase choice. Figure which performance characteristic that is different between the options matters more to you and use that to make your decision.
Dave
#9
Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:01 PM
22 pan has good edge correction and great eye relief.
24 pan has great edge correction and poor eye relief.
Sounds to me like it's about ER... & possibly immersiveness.
Have had the 24mm... was a fine EP, optically, but had neither ER or "I" for my eyes.
#10
Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:17 PM
Best,
#11
Posted 05 May 2013 - 08:06 PM
I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!
In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).
It is interesting to read about the 22mm Panoptic. I have had one for a few years now, rarely use it. It just seems like the 20 mm Type 2 Nagler is an overall better performer, bigger, wider field of view, better corrected in a fast scope.
Of course the 22mm Pan is better if you drop it on your toe...
Jon
#12
Posted 05 May 2013 - 08:19 PM
It is interesting to read about the 22mm Panoptic. I have had one for a few years now, rarely use it. It just seems like the 20 mm Type 2 Nagler is an overall better performer, bigger, wider field of view, better corrected in a fast scope.
Jon; that may well be, however the OP asked only about the 22 vs 24 Pan.
Both of these eyepieces are excellent, and very difficult to choose a winner. Like most eyepiece choices it comes down to personal preference.
#13
Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:30 PM
#14
Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:34 PM
The 24mm Pan also has a 8% wider TFOV at 16% larger true field area which is another advantage they have over the 22s.
Even thought both are rated as having 15mm of eye relief I agree with others that the 22mm seems to have provide a little advantage in this area. I also agree that it seems to provide a little more immersive view. And the 22mm Pan also provides a little more magnification and a slightly darker sky background. The 22mm Pan has one other property I like and that is I think it is the best looking eyepiece that Tele Vue or any other manufacturer has ever produced. It is instantly recognizable classic Tele Vue but it is not so large in size as to appear ungainly.
If I had to choose between the two I'd probably pick the 22mm if I was buying it just for single eyepiece viewing and if its heavier weight was not going to be an issue with the scope I was using it with. However, if I had present or future binoview use in mind as well, then I'd pick the 24mm.
John Finnan
#15
Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:27 AM
#16
Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:12 AM
#17
Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:54 AM
#18
Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:13 AM
I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!
In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).
The 2" skirt just threads off for those interested in 1-1/4" only operation. However, it does not change the weight very much (judging by feel alone).
A few years back I had the 24 Pan, 22 Pan, and 24 Brandon in house. Long story short, the 24 Pan was the one that got sold off. It was a great eyepiece but since all my scopes have 2" focusers the max true field aspect of the 24 never held any weight for me. Too easy just to pop in a 2" eyepiece and get even more field.
In addition to the 22 Pan immersiveness, I suppose a great deal of my opinion on this eyepiece is sentimental. The 22 Pan (along with the 9 mm T1 Nagler) was my first foray into the premium wide field world 20 some years ago. The 22 Pan was absolute magic in my f/9 Newtonian. It has never disappointed me in any other scope over the years.
As many have pointed out time moves on. A short while ago a nicely-priced 22 Nagler T4 came up on the 'Mart so I snagged it. I'm sure the A/B comparison will leave me very conflicted.
#19
Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:05 AM
The 2" skirt just threads off for those interested in 1-1/4" only operation.
Just for reference, i understand this same skirt will *NOT* come off with the 12-T4 Nagler, even tho they appear similar.
A short while ago a nicely-priced 22 Nagler T4 came up on the 'Mart so I snagged it. I'm sure the A/B comparison will leave me very conflicted.
Since i already have one of these, i wouldn't even THINK of trying the 22-Pan... but i'm sure it would be a fun comparo.
#20
Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:11 AM
I did that comparo and sold the 22 Panoptic. That was a long time ago, too, like early '90s?The 2" skirt just threads off for those interested in 1-1/4" only operation.
Just for reference, i understand this same skirt will *NOT* come off with the 12-T4 Nagler, even tho they appear similar.
A short while ago a nicely-priced 22 Nagler T4 came up on the 'Mart so I snagged it. I'm sure the A/B comparison will leave me very conflicted.
Since i already have one of these, i wouldn't even THINK of trying the 22-Pan... but i'm sure it would be a fun comparo.
#21
Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:49 AM
I've never forgotten that, so the 22Pan has another sentimental memory for me!
However, aside from this, the 22Pan is an awesome eyepiece that will thrill most looking thru it!
#22
Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:02 AM
I would take the 22mm LVW over both any day of the week.
Cheers,
#23
Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:21 AM
#24
Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:26 AM
Here is a partial list of eyepieces that sold much, much faster and garnered much more interest than the Panoptic:
Pentax XLs
Nagler Type 6s
ES 100s
ES 82s
Tak LEs
Tak MC Orthos
Meade 5k SWAs
Meade 5k UWAs
TMB Planetaries
TMB SMs
Celestron Ultimas
Vixen LVs
Vixen LVWs
etc.
It's not a bad eyepiece, really, but I much prefer the 22mm LVW to the 22mm Panoptic. I don't much care for the 24mm Panoptic. The shorter focal length Panoptic have poor ergonomics (24mm, 19mm and 15mm) due to the short eye relief wide field combination.
Regards,
Jim
#25
Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:12 AM
Here is a partial list of eyepieces that sold much, much faster and garnered much more interest than the Panoptic:
I think the 22mm Panoptic is a hard sell, it's competing against eyepieces that are considerably cheaper like the Meade Series 5000 SWAs that can be had for under $100. One has to be clear that spending close to $200 for the 22mm Panoptic is worth it. It comes down to separating the performance of the eyepiece versus the value of the eyepiece. A great deal is a good deal but not necessarily a great eyepiece.
Jon