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

31T5 vs 35Pan: Which has the more comfortable/immersive view?

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 thecelloronin

thecelloronin

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Charleston, SC

Posted Yesterday, 01:26 PM

Much has been said of the supremacy of the Terminagler in terms of performance. Excellent edges, wide field, etc.

 

But, for some long-effective-eye-relief buffs, I've heard its 19mm ER is borderline. When I had an hour or so to play with one, I found it comfortable enough to use with a DioptRx, but still preferred the "eye spa" of the 22T4, despite having the same ER rating. I didn't think to compare the diameter of the eye lenses, but maybe that's a factor as to why?

 

Since getting a 17.5 Morpheus, I think I can say that the "eye spa" is indeed a mitigating factor in my enjoyment of an eyepiece. The 22LVW gave me a similar experience as well.

 

So, I return my consideration to the venerable 35Pan. No, it doesn't give the sheer FoV of the 31T5, and I've read there's just enough pincushion to bother some observers. I've never looked through one, but the 24mm ER seems like it could give that easy view with DioptRx. 

 

On the consideration of comfort/immersion/eye spa alone, does the 35Pan compare favorably to the 31T5? As an aside, I'm aware the 30UFF has this quality, but sadly is not DioptRx compatible without modification.


Edited by thecelloronin, Yesterday, 01:26 PM.


#2 Frenchy

Frenchy

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Battle Ground, WA

Posted Yesterday, 01:43 PM

I replaced a 27 and 35 pan with a 31t5 and don't regret that decision whatsoever. Eye relief isn't an issue with me unless you start getting around 10mm. The 31t5 truly is like looking through a porthole into space. The 35 pan is an awesome eyepiece, I just didn't get that same type of feeling.  


  • brentknight and thecelloronin like this

#3 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,621
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK. Dark end of the street.

Posted Yesterday, 01:44 PM

35 is more comfortable. More eye relief, no kidney-beaning, better behaved exit pupil.


  • Mike W, Miranda2525, BradFran and 1 other like this

#4 brentknight

brentknight

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,873
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted Yesterday, 02:24 PM

I've no experience with the 35 Pan, but just looking at the numbers, it's better than half a pound lighter than the 31T5.  I preferred the view through my 31T5 over the 22N - I felt the contrast was better.  I have astigmatism, but I use the Nagler without glasses - I've just gotten used to it and it does not bother me.

 

The big issue with the 31T5 though is the size and weight.  It's the only eyepiece I have that requires changes to the balance on every one of my telescopes.  I still use it and recommend it, but just a warning that it might be an issue with your 10".



#5 thecelloronin

thecelloronin

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Charleston, SC

Posted Yesterday, 02:38 PM

I've no experience with the 35 Pan, but just looking at the numbers, it's better than half a pound lighter than the 31T5.  I preferred the view through my 31T5 over the 22N - I felt the contrast was better.  I have astigmatism, but I use the Nagler without glasses - I've just gotten used to it and it does not bother me.

 

The big issue with the 31T5 though is the size and weight.  It's the only eyepiece I have that requires changes to the balance on every one of my telescopes.  I still use it and recommend it, but just a warning that it might be an issue with your 10".

Oh totally. Between the price and balance issues I experienced, I've been looking for ways not to buy the 31T5 (and so far, succeeding!). The fact remains that it is the optical standard bearer for its FL, so I have to dig down into alternative considerations like the "eye spa".

 

To what do you attribute the superior contrast of the 31 over the 22? Shouldn't the 22 run away with this due to the FL difference?


  • brentknight likes this

#6 Neptune

Neptune

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,506
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Georgia

Posted Yesterday, 02:49 PM

I have had both more than once at the same time. I always end up going with the 31mm Nagler. I do wear glasses, but not when I observe. The Nagler actually has a little too much eye relief for my taste. Maybe it's the slightly darker sky back ground that gets me.


  • brentknight likes this

#7 brentknight

brentknight

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,873
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted Yesterday, 02:57 PM

I really have no idea.  I had probably one of the original ones and I never could get the sliding top to work.  It's been a couple years now since I sold the 22N so I can't compare them again.  I'd say it was just an overall preference.

 

If the 31T5 were a little lighter, I can't see that there would be any major issues with it.  It's not a great Lunar eyepiece because of that Ring-of-Fire effect, but it's not meant for something like that.  Build quality and balance in the hand is awesome - much better IMO than the ES30.

 

I just picked up an AT72EDII and got it all balanced out so that I can use the 31T5 as my 5.5° finder scope.  It's hard not to recommend this eyepiece, but it's important to keep in mind the scale of the thing...

 

 

I have had both more than once at the same time. I always end up going with the 31mm Nagler. I do wear glasses, but not when I observe. The Nagler actually has a little too much eye relief for my taste. Maybe it's the slightly darker sky back ground that gets me.

You are absolutely right about that Neptune.  The 31T5 is the only eyepiece that I have where I raise the eyecup to help with placement.  Without glasses I can still see the entire field.



#8 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,843
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted Yesterday, 03:00 PM

35 pan is much more comfortable, even the older style with the recessed lens, but the 31 Nag is way more immersive.

I like to use both now and again, based on nothing more than the mood I’m in for a given viewing experience.
  • Jon Isaacs, 25585 and sanbai like this

#9 thecelloronin

thecelloronin

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Charleston, SC

Posted Yesterday, 03:30 PM

35 pan is much more comfortable, even the older style with the recessed lens, but the 31 Nag is way more immersive.

I like to use both now and again, based on nothing more than the mood I’m in for a given viewing experience.

I like your style. I hope one day to enjoy the same privilege to own both.



#10 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,621
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK. Dark end of the street.

Posted Yesterday, 04:10 PM

The most comfortable, equal optically at F5, 31mm 82°, to a 31T5 is my Celestron Axiom LX. It is heavy though, but can be decloaked. Shame they were discontinued.

 

I use my 35 Panoptic more, & APM 30 UFF most of my 30something FL eyepieces.


  • Neptune likes this

#11 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 91,686
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted Yesterday, 06:51 PM

Oh totally. Between the price and balance issues I experienced, I've been looking for ways not to buy the 31T5 (and so far, succeeding!). The fact remains that it is the optical standard bearer for its FL, so I have to dig down into alternative considerations like the "eye spa".

 

To what do you attribute the superior contrast of the 31 over the 22? Shouldn't the 22 run away with this due to the FL difference?

 

I have both but don't wear eyeglasses at the eyepieces.

 

If you're looking for a reason not to buy the 31mm Nagler, there's one good reason:

 

The 21 mm Ethos.  

 

When I acquired the 21 mm Ethos 3 or 4 years ago, it became my finder of choice almost immediately, replacing the 31 mm Nagler...

 

Aren't I a big help. :)

 

Jon


  • brentknight and thecelloronin like this

#12 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,024
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted Yesterday, 07:16 PM

I have owned a 35 Pan, a 31 and 22 Nagler for my 12.5 inch, F5 Portaball. I sold the 35 Pan and replaced it with a 31 Nagler. Good decision. I Sold both the 31 and 22 Naglers, and replaced them with a 21 Ethos. I had regrets that I sold the 31 Nagler. In my opinion, it is one of the finest eyepieces ever made. The Portaball has balance issues. I solved them with walking weights. However, balance issues are common to many telescopes. There are solutions that are not all that hard to implement. I believe that the 22 Nagler has fallen off most people's  radar. In fact, I would not be surprised if TeleVue one day dropped it from their inventory. However, the 22 Nagler is one fine eyepiece. Its footprint is much smaller than either the 31 Nagler or the 21 Ethos, which lessons balance issues. Its 22 degree AFOV is no slouch. The 22 Nagler approaches 20mm of eye relief, which is plenty if viewing with glasses. It provides nice clear, contrasty, detailed views. I recently gave my daughter my Portaball, and sold the 21 Ethos, and purchased a 22 Nagler to replace it for my daughter. The 22 Nagler improves the balance issues. Lastly, 100 AFOV eyepieces are challenging for beginning astronomers--and sometimes for more experienced ones.   


  • thecelloronin likes this

#13 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,844
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted Yesterday, 09:05 PM

35 is more comfortable. More eye relief, no kidney-beaning, better behaved exit pupil.

Ditto.

 

35mm Panoptic for me. I like the longer eye relief. Less weight. The 31mm Nagler is just too heavy for my liking.

I also find it easier for eye placement on the 35mm Panoptic. I used to own the 30mm UFF and I tried that one and the 35mm Pan with and without my coma corrector. The 30mm UFF needed the CC to work at it's best. The 35mm Panoptic

*IS* better with the CC, but I found I can use it without the coma corrector with favorable results.

 

All of my observing is done with the CC at all times on a regular basis.


Edited by Miranda2525, Yesterday, 09:09 PM.

  • 25585 and thecelloronin like this

#14 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,621
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK. Dark end of the street.

Posted Today, 08:18 AM

Ditto.

 

35mm Panoptic for me. I like the longer eye relief. Less weight. The 31mm Nagler is just too heavy for my liking.

I also find it easier for eye placement on the 35mm Panoptic. I used to own the 30mm UFF and I tried that one and the 35mm Pan with and without my coma corrector. The 30mm UFF needed the CC to work at it's best. The 35mm Panoptic

*IS* better with the CC, but I found I can use it without the coma corrector with favorable results.

 

All of my observing is done with the CC at all times on a regular basis.

F5 you can just about get away with 70° or less, with only a little coma. For g&g I don't use a CC so my eps in the bag-by-the-door are 60 to 70°. Delites, LVWs, XWs etc.  




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