Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

ES 62 26mm vs. Panoptic 24mm

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 paul m schofield

paul m schofield

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 23 May 2010
  • Loc: Hollywood, Florida

Posted 23 September 2017 - 11:58 AM

Has anyone done a comparison of these two eyepieces? I used to have a 24mm Pan but regrettably sold it. That's another story. I know the quality of the Pan, but how does the ES compare?

In my Newtonian, 6" f/6.7, the Pan gave me 42x, the ES would be 39x. Close enough. Both would give a 1.6 degree field; both weigh 8.2 oz.; the Pan has 15mm eye relief, the ES 19.3mm.

Price is the big difference: $300 for the Panoptic, $95.99 for the ES on sale. TV quality is hard to beat. How does the ES compare?

#2 M11Mike

M11Mike

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,103
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Ballston Lake, NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:58 PM

I have the 24 Pan (and it's my all time favorite eyepiece). Just for the heck of it - I bought a ES 68 degree 24mm to compare and quickly sold it - no question it's a very good eyepiece - but the Pan beats it. Especially the outer 10-20% of the FOV (near the edge) --- the Pan - pin point stars /// the ES - 'mushy' stars.

I read every review I could find comparing the two - some guys really like the ES - but to me once again - it's YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR and the Pan delivers 100%....the ES delivers something less than 100%.

If $$$ is a CRITICAL factor - that's different - but if you simply want the BEST - take the T/V PAN.

You simply can't go wrong with TV eyepieces --- that's why you never see them being sold USED cheap - they hold their value like no other as they consistently DELIVER great performance.

T/V eyepieces are like having $$$ in the bank - you get to USE them and if you ever decide to sell (for whatever reason) you get 80% of your money back --- so what's the real cost????????
  • RAKing, paul m schofield, Tyson M and 1 other like this

#3 Tank

Tank

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,248
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 23 September 2017 - 02:21 PM

get the 24 pan bottom line

unless you want to save some $$$ but performance wont be as good


  • paul m schofield likes this

#4 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,370
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 23 September 2017 - 03:42 PM

I have a 24mm Panoptic out in the field case waiting for sundown right now.  In that range I have a bunch of simple eyepieces (25mm and 26mm Orthos and Panoptics, and a 24mm Brandon) as well as the 22mm Panoptic, 22mm Vixen LVW and a vintage Meade Series 4000 SWA 24.5mm, and far and away the Pan is my favorite followed by the 25mm Televue Plossl and then the 22mm Vixen LVW; all three being really close.  Next would be the 22mm Panoptic.

 

Perhaps hunting a used 22mm LVW or 22mm Panoptic would be a decent alternative.  You should be able to get one those two for a great price and get 90%+ of the Pan 24s goodness.

 

Best,

 

Jim


  • Procyon, paul m schofield and starbase25 like this

#5 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,528
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 23 September 2017 - 03:45 PM

Price is the big difference: $300 for the Panoptic, $95.99 for the ES on sale. TV quality is hard to beat. How does the ES compare?

Not in the same league, and a completely different design. If you want a closer competition with the Panoptic, try the ES 24mm 68°, if you can find one. People have also said nice things about the APM Ultra Flat series.


Edited by Peter Besenbruch, 23 September 2017 - 03:46 PM.

  • SteveG, MortonH, paul m schofield and 1 other like this

#6 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,079
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 23 September 2017 - 04:51 PM

I don't know about everyone else, but if I could get a 100-dollar eyepiece that was as good as a 300-dollar eyepiece, I would do it in a flash!

 

Hasn't happened yet..... tongue2.gif

 

Love my pair of 24 Pans!

 

Ron


  • paul m schofield likes this

#7 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 50,784
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2017 - 05:02 PM

Has anyone done a comparison of these two eyepieces? I used to have a 24mm Pan but regrettably sold it. That's another story. I know the quality of the Pan, but how does the ES compare?

In my Newtonian, 6" f/6.7, the Pan gave me 42x, the ES would be 39x. Close enough. Both would give a 1.6 degree field; both weigh 8.2 oz.; the Pan has 15mm eye relief, the ES 19.3mm.

Price is the big difference: $300 for the Panoptic, $95.99 for the ES on sale. TV quality is hard to beat. How does the ES compare?

24mm Panoptic has a 27.0mm field stop.

The 26mm Explore Scientific 62° has a 27.3mm field stop.

So you're right--essentially the same field.

In my f/7 refractor, the 24mm Panoptic is sharp to the field stop.

The ES is sharp in the center 50°, +/-,  and deteriorates in the last 5° on each edge.

If I were a teacher, I'd give the 24 Pan an A- (it has a bit more rectilinear distortion than it needs to have) and the ES a B-

(above average for inexpensive 58-62° eyepieces, but with too much astigmatism at the edge in the f/7 scope).

It definitely is easy to use, though.

There's another 70° eyepiece at 22mm that is near the same price where the center 62° is sharp and clean and only deteriorates right near the edge.

So it might pay to get some opinions about other possible eyepieces at/around the same price.


  • MortonH, paul m schofield and 25585 like this

#8 SteveG

SteveG

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,983
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 23 September 2017 - 06:34 PM

I had the 24 Pan, 22 Pan and Meade 5K 24/68 (same as ES) all at once.

 

While the 24 Pan was better corrected at the edges, I still preferred the Meade due to its much longer eye relief. I let the 22 Pan go because it didn't fare as well in my fast f5 dob without a coma corrector. I think if I had the 22 today, I would keep it as I have a Paracorr now.

 

The Meade is the only 1.25" 24 mm wide-field that I have where I can see the entire fov with a Dioptrx sitting on top.


  • paul m schofield likes this

#9 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 06:37 PM

Has anyone done a comparison of these two eyepieces? I used to have a 24mm Pan but regrettably sold it. That's another story. I know the quality of the Pan, but how does the ES compare?

In my Newtonian, 6" f/6.7, the Pan gave me 42x, the ES would be 39x. Close enough. Both would give a 1.6 degree field; both weigh 8.2 oz.; the Pan has 15mm eye relief, the ES 19.3mm.

Price is the big difference: $300 for the Panoptic, $95.99 for the ES on sale. TV quality is hard to beat. How does the ES compare?

I have in the past owned the 24mm Pan, 24mm ES68, 27mm BST Flat Field, 27mm Pan, 28mm ES68, 22mm Olivon 70, 22mm T4 Nagler among others.  Currently I own the 26mm ES62 in this focal length range. 

 

The answer to your question depends upon what you want out of the eyepiece.  The 26mm ES62 was a very pleasant surprise for me when I picked it up.  With my SW120ED it gives 35x and a 1.8 deg TFOV.  

 

Here are its strengths:

 

1.  It is super comfortable and the field is as natural to take in as you can ask for. 

2.  Coatings seem excellent as it provides very bright views with a clean sky background. 

3.  Stars are very sharp and it has excellent snap to focus.

4.  Plenty of eye relief for glasses.

5.  Excellent construction in a light package.

 

Its only weakness is that as a 5 element eyepiece it breaks down as you move toward the outer field.   I personally find the breakdown tolerable in my 120ED.   If you require sharp to the edge performance then this eyepiece will not meet your needs.   I use it in conjunction with the 12.5mm Docter and the 9mm and 6.5mm Morpheus if that is any indication of how highly I rate it for my own use.

 

For my tastes the only advantage the 24mm Pan has is the sharp to the edge performance. 


  • Javier1978, paul m schofield and nicoledoula like this

#10 M11Mike

M11Mike

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,103
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Ballston Lake, NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 07:50 PM

RON - I agree with you - you just stated it differently - " if I could get a 100-dollar eyepiece that was as good as a 300-dollar eyepiece, I would do it in a flash"! (ME TOO!!!) I said "you get what you pay for".

SAME DIFFERENCE.

Ron - I wasted a lot of time and money TRYING to do that - UNsuccessfully!!!!!!! :-)

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)
  • RAKing and paul m schofield like this

#11 M11Mike

M11Mike

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,103
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Ballston Lake, NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 07:58 PM

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......
  • paul m schofield and kevint1 like this

#12 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 50,784
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:10 PM

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Erfles are still made, but they are no longer called Erfles.

And they still work fine at f/10 and LONGER--just not in today's f/3-f/6 newtonians.


  • paul m schofield and SpaceShipRuthie like this

#13 paul m schofield

paul m schofield

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 23 May 2010
  • Loc: Hollywood, Florida

Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:31 PM

Thanks everyone for your enlightening comments. I figured that the Panoptic would be superior; I used to have one so I know the TV quality.

I do have a six-element Japanese 32mm Erfle that is sharp to the edge in my f/11.4 refractor and does a reasonably good job in my f6.7 Newtonian. I'll start saving for a used Pan.
  • alnitak22 likes this

#14 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:32 PM

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Mike,

 

You do understand how human vision works?  A plossl is a widefield eyepiece compared to the amount of field the eye can see sharply at one time.  What is the point of any extra field beyond what the eye can sharply focus? 

 

The answer is that the extra field serves the dual "F's" -  "Framing" objects and "Finding" objects.   It doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to meet those needs.

 

I observe with the target centered in the field.  The 26mm ES62 is great for framing DSO and is plenty sharp over enough FOV that all the stars of most clusters are sharp.   And the falloff toward the edge is not that dramatic so it is not an aesthetic distraction as it would be for eyepieces such as the 38mm and 32mm Orion Q70's.   I've seen numerous eyepieces with significantly worse edge performance than the 26mm ES62. 

 

Why would I spend $300 on a sharp to the edge 24mm Pan that lacks enough eye relief for wearing glasses when I obviously don't need a max TFOV 1.25" eyepiece to be perfectly sharp to the edge?

 

You see there is a performance continuum where edge performance is concerned.  It goes from perfectly sharp to the edge to so bad that it is aesthetically distracting.  The 26mm ES62 falls into the part of that continuum where it is not perfectly sharp to the edge, but it is more than good enough so that it is not distracting.

 

I listed 5 positive qualities of this eyepiece and only one negative - and the positives well outweigh the negative.   And in my opinion the 26mm ES62  gives a better aesthetic presentation and a more natural feel and quality to the light than the 24mm Pan.

 

In short - you are wrong to suggest that the field that is not perfectly sharp serves no purpose.

 

Dave


Edited by russell23, 23 September 2017 - 10:33 PM.

  • Mike B, lylver, 25585 and 2 others like this

#15 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:37 PM

Also Mike - I've yet to find a plossl that is sharp to the edge in my refractor.  So I'm not sure how spending less on a plossl would change the situation.   The 26mm ES62 seems spacious compared to the plossls.


Edited by russell23, 23 September 2017 - 10:38 PM.


#16 starbase25

starbase25

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,453
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2014

Posted 24 September 2017 - 01:37 AM

Only thing lacking in the 24mm Panoptic is eye relief. If you want both good eye relief and great sharpness, look no further than the 22mm LVW, however, that one is lacking in transmission.

 

There just is no "free lunch". bawling.gif


Edited by starbase25, 24 September 2017 - 01:40 AM.

  • gene 4181 and 25585 like this

#17 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 September 2017 - 09:30 AM

Only thing lacking in the 24mm Panoptic is eye relief. If you want both good eye relief and great sharpness, look no further than the 22mm LVW, however, that one is lacking in transmission.

 

There just is no "free lunch". bawling.gif

Ditto on both!  The 24mm Pan is sharp right to the edge and I liked it when I had one but the eye relief was insufficient for use with my glasses so I could only use it with a 3x TV barlow which defeats the point in having a 24mm max TFOV eyepiece.    As for the 22mm LVW - great eyepiece but transmission does seem to lag behind.  

 

The 22mm Olivon 70 might be the way to go if one can use a 2" eyepiece.  I had one and really liked it.  I ended up selling it in the normal buy and sell routine when I was trying out different lines.  I have not tried the new APM 24mm 65 deg.  I tried the APM 18mm 65 deg and wasn't really excited by it.  There was nothing wrong with it necessarily although it did have a bit of EOFB.  For me it just wasn't a lively field.

 

I also tried the 22mm T4 Nagler last winter and didn't like it.  Despite the long eye relief I just didn't find it comfortable on the eye. 



#18 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 September 2017 - 09:35 AM

One other thing about the 26mm ES62.  I noticed in an early morning observing session today that with a target centered, the portion of the field which is pinpoint sharp in my 120ED is larger than the portion of the field which my eye can naturally scan around without either straining the eye muscles or moving my head.   The field near the edge that is not pinpoint sharp appears just fine in peripheral vision while focusing on the center. 



#19 sec4aa

sec4aa

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 17 May 2017
  • Loc: Long Island, NY

Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:51 PM

 

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Mike,

 

You do understand how human vision works?  A plossl is a widefield eyepiece compared to the amount of field the eye can see sharply at one time.  What is the point of any extra field beyond what the eye can sharply focus? 

 

The answer is that the extra field serves the dual "F's" -  "Framing" objects and "Finding" objects.   It doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to meet those needs.

 

I observe with the target centered in the field.  The 26mm ES62 is great for framing DSO and is plenty sharp over enough FOV that all the stars of most clusters are sharp.   And the falloff toward the edge is not that dramatic so it is not an aesthetic distraction as it would be for eyepieces such as the 38mm and 32mm Orion Q70's.   I've seen numerous eyepieces with significantly worse edge performance than the 26mm ES62. 

 

Why would I spend $300 on a sharp to the edge 24mm Pan that lacks enough eye relief for wearing glasses when I obviously don't need a max TFOV 1.25" eyepiece to be perfectly sharp to the edge?

 

You see there is a performance continuum where edge performance is concerned.  It goes from perfectly sharp to the edge to so bad that it is aesthetically distracting.  The 26mm ES62 falls into the part of that continuum where it is not perfectly sharp to the edge, but it is more than good enough so that it is not distracting.

 

I listed 5 positive qualities of this eyepiece and only one negative - and the positives well outweigh the negative.   And in my opinion the 26mm ES62  gives a better aesthetic presentation and a more natural feel and quality to the light than the 24mm Pan.

 

In short - you are wrong to suggest that the field that is not perfectly sharp serves no purpose.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

How do you think an ES62 40mm would perform on f/6 compared to a Q70 38mm? Is it going to be better just because the lower FOV?

I have a TV plossl 26mm that looks great at f/6 but that is a 50deg and I don't think it is fair to compare with other wider EPs.



#20 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,079
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:51 PM

 

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Mike,

 

You do understand how human vision works?  A plossl is a widefield eyepiece compared to the amount of field the eye can see sharply at one time.  What is the point of any extra field beyond what the eye can sharply focus? 

 

The answer is that the extra field serves the dual "F's" -  "Framing" objects and "Finding" objects.   It doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to meet those needs.

 

I observe with the target centered in the field.  The 26mm ES62 is great for framing DSO and is plenty sharp over enough FOV that all the stars of most clusters are sharp.   And the falloff toward the edge is not that dramatic so it is not an aesthetic distraction as it would be for eyepieces such as the 38mm and 32mm Orion Q70's.   I've seen numerous eyepieces with significantly worse edge performance than the 26mm ES62. 

 

Why would I spend $300 on a sharp to the edge 24mm Pan that lacks enough eye relief for wearing glasses when I obviously don't need a max TFOV 1.25" eyepiece to be perfectly sharp to the edge?

 

You see there is a performance continuum where edge performance is concerned.  It goes from perfectly sharp to the edge to so bad that it is aesthetically distracting.  The 26mm ES62 falls into the part of that continuum where it is not perfectly sharp to the edge, but it is more than good enough so that it is not distracting.

 

I listed 5 positive qualities of this eyepiece and only one negative - and the positives well outweigh the negative.   And in my opinion the 26mm ES62  gives a better aesthetic presentation and a more natural feel and quality to the light than the 24mm Pan.

 

In short - you are wrong to suggest that the field that is not perfectly sharp serves no purpose.

 

Dave

 

 

I am not Mike, but I certainly do understand how the eye works and I have always been distracted by the softness I see in the ES eyepieces.

 

Maybe the eyepiece doesn't have to be razor sharp to the edge, but some of us can see the softness and are distracted by it.  I guess it is the same as field curvature.  We have an interesting thread running here on CN regarding FC and my answer to the question of "When does field curvature bother you?" has always been, "When I notice it."  Because that means it is too much for me to accommodate with my eyes.

 

It's the same for edge sharpness. When does softness bother me?  When I notice it.  And I notice it a lot with the ES eyepieces I have tried. Unfortunately, I am now stuck with a couple of ES eyepieces: a 9mm 60HD and an 18mm 82-degree. They are so bad, I won't even bother to list them on A-mart.

 

So I guess the question to the OP now becomes, "Are you willing to gamble $100 on an eyepiece that MIGHT work okay, or would you rather pay $300 for an eyepiece that has been proven to work for you before?" 

 

My junk box has a few lost gambles sitting inside. I certainly won't recommend another gamble to the OP.

 

Obviously, your situation is different. Wearing glasses is not something I have to do, except for reading, and I realize that certain eyepieces don't work for you.  If the ES works for you, enjoy it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron


  • paul m schofield likes this

#21 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:02 PM

 

 

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Mike,

 

You do understand how human vision works?  A plossl is a widefield eyepiece compared to the amount of field the eye can see sharply at one time.  What is the point of any extra field beyond what the eye can sharply focus? 

 

The answer is that the extra field serves the dual "F's" -  "Framing" objects and "Finding" objects.   It doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to meet those needs.

 

I observe with the target centered in the field.  The 26mm ES62 is great for framing DSO and is plenty sharp over enough FOV that all the stars of most clusters are sharp.   And the falloff toward the edge is not that dramatic so it is not an aesthetic distraction as it would be for eyepieces such as the 38mm and 32mm Orion Q70's.   I've seen numerous eyepieces with significantly worse edge performance than the 26mm ES62. 

 

Why would I spend $300 on a sharp to the edge 24mm Pan that lacks enough eye relief for wearing glasses when I obviously don't need a max TFOV 1.25" eyepiece to be perfectly sharp to the edge?

 

You see there is a performance continuum where edge performance is concerned.  It goes from perfectly sharp to the edge to so bad that it is aesthetically distracting.  The 26mm ES62 falls into the part of that continuum where it is not perfectly sharp to the edge, but it is more than good enough so that it is not distracting.

 

I listed 5 positive qualities of this eyepiece and only one negative - and the positives well outweigh the negative.   And in my opinion the 26mm ES62  gives a better aesthetic presentation and a more natural feel and quality to the light than the 24mm Pan.

 

In short - you are wrong to suggest that the field that is not perfectly sharp serves no purpose.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

How do you think an ES62 40mm would perform on f/6 compared to a Q70 38mm? Is it going to be better just because the lower FOV?

I have a TV plossl 26mm that looks great at f/6 but that is a 50deg and I don't think it is fair to compare with other wider EPs.

 

I wouldn't want to speculate on how good the edge performance of the 40mm FL is Vlad.  The problem is that you cannot count on the exact same performance across all focal lengths in a line - especially where edge performance is concerned. 

 

I will say that the 38mm Q70 ranked as just about the worst eyepiece I have ever seen for edge performance in an f/8.3 achromat.  It is hard to imagine that the 40mm ES62 could possibly be worse than the Q70.   Don P. said that the ES62's are a new design by the same designer the developed the ES92 line. 

 

My guess is that the designer actually just started with the original and then improved the old discontinued Meade 5000 plossl line.  



#22 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,882
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:08 PM

 

 

Dave - what good is a WIDE ANGLE eyepiece IF all the additional field is essentially NOT worth looking at?????

Why pay extra $$$ for FOV is it doesn't work. That to me just doesn't make sense. If all you need is the center of view to be pin-point sharp then you can get by with much lower cost PLOSSLS and ORTHOSCOPICS.

Why spend all the additional $$$ for 68/72/82 and 100 degree AFOV eyepieces????

Mike P (Ballston Lake, NY)

PS: I have some great Erfles you might be interested it. :-) That's why no one makes/sells these anymore...IE - they are only sharp in the center - suffer as you move out to the edge......

Mike,

 

You do understand how human vision works?  A plossl is a widefield eyepiece compared to the amount of field the eye can see sharply at one time.  What is the point of any extra field beyond what the eye can sharply focus? 

 

The answer is that the extra field serves the dual "F's" -  "Framing" objects and "Finding" objects.   It doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to meet those needs.

 

I observe with the target centered in the field.  The 26mm ES62 is great for framing DSO and is plenty sharp over enough FOV that all the stars of most clusters are sharp.   And the falloff toward the edge is not that dramatic so it is not an aesthetic distraction as it would be for eyepieces such as the 38mm and 32mm Orion Q70's.   I've seen numerous eyepieces with significantly worse edge performance than the 26mm ES62. 

 

Why would I spend $300 on a sharp to the edge 24mm Pan that lacks enough eye relief for wearing glasses when I obviously don't need a max TFOV 1.25" eyepiece to be perfectly sharp to the edge?

 

You see there is a performance continuum where edge performance is concerned.  It goes from perfectly sharp to the edge to so bad that it is aesthetically distracting.  The 26mm ES62 falls into the part of that continuum where it is not perfectly sharp to the edge, but it is more than good enough so that it is not distracting.

 

I listed 5 positive qualities of this eyepiece and only one negative - and the positives well outweigh the negative.   And in my opinion the 26mm ES62  gives a better aesthetic presentation and a more natural feel and quality to the light than the 24mm Pan.

 

In short - you are wrong to suggest that the field that is not perfectly sharp serves no purpose.

 

Dave

 

 

I am not Mike, but I certainly do understand how the eye works and I have always been distracted by the softness I see in the ES eyepieces.

 

Maybe the eyepiece doesn't have to be razor sharp to the edge, but some of us can see the softness and are distracted by it.  I guess it is the same as field curvature.  We have an interesting thread running here on CN regarding FC and my answer to the question of "When does field curvature bother you?" has always been, "When I notice it."  Because that means it is too much for me to accommodate with my eyes.

 

It's the same for edge sharpness. When does softness bother me?  When I notice it.  And I notice it a lot with the ES eyepieces I have tried. Unfortunately, I am now stuck with a couple of ES eyepieces: a 9mm 60HD and an 18mm 82-degree. They are so bad, I won't even bother to list them on A-mart.

 

So I guess the question to the OP now becomes, "Are you willing to gamble $100 on an eyepiece that MIGHT work okay, or would you rather pay $300 for an eyepiece that has been proven to work for you before?" 

 

My junk box has a few lost gambles sitting inside. I certainly won't recommend another gamble to the OP.

 

Obviously, your situation is different. Wearing glasses is not something I have to do, except for reading, and I realize that certain eyepieces don't work for you.  If the ES works for you, enjoy it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

 

That is the standard you have to go by when it comes to edge performance.  I do not rate the edge falloff of the 26mm ES62 as a problem because it does not distract from the viewing experience and it is not that significant in my f/7.5 APO.    Personally, I think the ES glass usually is not polished to the same standards as the premium eyepiece lines.  I rank the ES82 line as the worst ES line, then the ES100's and the ES68's as the best of the three original lines.

 

Now we add in the ES92 and ES62 lines.  I've not tried the glass sandwiches that are the ES92's but by all accounts they are something special.  While the ES62's are not sharp to the edge, I believe that they have adopted some new formula with these things because the sky background seems more high definition with this 26mm ES62 than any ES eyepiece I have previously looked through.  Normally with an ES eyepiece I sense a subtle background of scattered light.  That is not the case with my 26mm ES62 and that is one of the reasons why it blends nicely with the 12.5mm Docter and the Morpheus eyepieces.


  • paul m schofield likes this

#23 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,528
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 24 September 2017 - 07:40 PM

Don P. said that the ES62's are a new design by the same designer the developed the ES92 line. 

 

My guess is that the designer actually just started with the original and then improved the old discontinued Meade 5000 plossl line. 

Dave, your constant ranting about the 26mm ES 62° is getting old, therefore I just ordered the 14mm version of that series. ;) I'll try to post my impressions when I get it.

 

My situation is a bit strange. With an f15 scope, eyepieces like my 18mm are genuine planetary eyepieces. It's a bit of a jump from the 18mm ortho to a 12.5mm. I have a 16mm Flat Field which fills in nicely, but the gap between 16mm and 12.5 is still a bit large.


  • Procyon, russell23 and nicoledoula like this

#24 payner

payner

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Bluegrass & SW Appalachian Regions, Kentucky

Posted 24 September 2017 - 07:41 PM

There is a 28 mm Takahashi Erfle available on the market. In my f/8 and slower telescopes I enjoy using it. Very nice, dark background, nice form factor, and excellent build quality. I also enjoy the Pan 24 mm, too. Excellent eyepiece.

 

Randy


  • 25585 likes this

#25 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 50,784
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 24 September 2017 - 11:38 PM

Dave said:

Don P. said that the ES62's are a new design by the same designer the developed the ES92 line.

My guess is that the designer actually just started with the original and then improved the old discontinued Meade 5000 plossl line.

 

The old discontinued Meade Series 5000 "Super Plössl" line was  60° line made by JOC.

The new 62° series is also made by JOC and in the exact same focal lengths.

IF they are different, other than the housings, they have been sealed, and I bet the coatings updated, and perhaps some of the internal glass types changed

since so many different glass types are available now that were not back then.  And it appears that at least one is an entirely different eyepiece (the 14mm).

 

But we do not know that for a fact.  The first line above was what I was told by ES.

We need more reviews.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics