44 replies to this topic

[Echolight]

The little one will blend better with your set.

[Tony Flanders]

I own the 27-mm Panoptic and love it. I find it's one of the most comfortable eyepieces I own to view through, and that counts a lot for me. However, I agree that it makes no sense at all to own both the 24-mm Pan and the 27-mm Pan unless you need the 24-mm for a telescope that has only a 1.25-inch focuser. Fine-tuning magnification makes some sense at the high end, but little or no sense at the low end. So if it was me, I would either buy the 27-mm Pan and sell the 24-mm Pan or else buy the 35-mm Pan and keep the 24-mm -- assuming those were the only choices.

 

For what it's worth, I do not like the 24-mm Pan; I find its eye relief uncomfortably short, and cannot see the full field of view easily even when I'm not wearing my glasses.

 

I agree with most everybody else here that there are likely more reasonable options than Panoptics in this case.

[Echolight]

Yes. Sell the 24. Get the 27. It won’t present so much balance issues with your scopes as the 35.

I made the mistake of buying the ES68 24, when it was on sale. Almost immediately I had wished that I had bought the 2 inch ES68 28 instead, which was only $20 more and $219 at the time.

 

Even though I have the 28 PWA, which is much larger and heavier, and a 20% wider field of view. And a 20 Hyperwide, which is also much larger and heavier, and a little more true field of view than the ES68 28. Even with both of those, there are a lot of times that I would like to use a little 16 ounce eyepiece that is nearly as wide as the 20 XWA, but is in your face with the whole field of view instead of having to peer around to see it all in the Hyperwide.

[NeroStar]

This is a good topic. Always assumed if I couldn't afford Televue eyepieces ( I can't), I might be missing a lot. From a number of these posts by experienced observers like Dave Mitsky and Kenny, it seems the other brands have closed the gap considerably.

 

If your PM to Ed is in the general vein of the topic and not about something else, I love to get that perspective in posts here.

^^This^^  30 years ago, there was a significant difference between the low-cost EPs and high-end ones made by companies like Tele Vue and Pentax.  Maybe I'm not as 'picky' or discerning as some observers, but if I can get 95 percent of the same viewing experience with 1/3 of the expenditure, I'm down with it.   

Edited by NeroStar, 31 January 2023 - 03:50 PM.

[Skyfisher]

After running numbers for both Dobsonians the 35mm Panoptic wins.  The 27mm Panoptic doesn't gain much, especially on my 10".   I don't expect to purchase another EP but if I do (potato chips ya know) the ES 82 series will be considered.   I am hoping to be able to look through an ES 82 if I am able to get to a star party.  Presently I have to be close to home due to caregiver responsibilities.

 

Special thanks to the ES sales team     I do understand your logic but......

[aeajr]

We have someone from ES in this discussion?  Cool!

[Deep13]

I'm using my phone and can't see what your telescopes are. 24 and 27 are very close in size. so that's probably not worth it unless you are going to sell the 24. The 35 makes more sense if your scope is f/5 or slower and if you can tolerate the added weight.

[Skyfisher]

I'm using my phone and can't see what your telescopes are. 24 and 27 are very close in size. so that's probably not worth it unless you are going to sell the 24. The 35 makes more sense if your scope is f/5 or slower and if you can tolerate the added weight.

Two replies earlier from yours, that is what I decided based on AFV.   The scopes are 10" f5, 6" f6, and 80mm f7.   

[Skyfisher]

 

You have a very nice eyepiece collection. You will not contaminate it by choosing another eyepiece design. No one is keeping book on what eyepiece you use in your telescopes

Contaminated by a big fat bully.  Had to lay that pig on its side to fit in the EP case.   Probably tip over the entire scope? 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Mossonarock]

I know you already made your decision but another metric to consider is the field stop diameter of the eyepiece(s) in question. For example: if the inner diameter of the aperture of the rear cell/focuser/visual back/what have you is 26mm, you probably won't want an eyepiece that has a field stop of, say, 32mm. That's because you'll likely have vignetting of the outer margins of the field of view. Its a lesson I recently learned regarding my mak. Once I get my measurements written down, I plan to make a post about it. The wide field stop of an eyepiece doesn't do you any good if the hardware of your telescope is narrower than it. Imo, its a measurement that I wish telescope manufacturers would include in their product specifications. Now if all you are ever going to use are 1.25" eyepieces, then you are likely to never have an issue with it. The issue can come up with 2" eyepieces though.

[Skyfisher]

I know you already made your decision but another metric to consider is the field stop diameter of the eyepiece(s) in question. For example: if the inner diameter of the aperture of the rear cell/focuser/visual back/what have you is 26mm, you probably won't want an eyepiece that has a field stop of, say, 32mm. That's because you'll likely have vignetting of the outer margins of the field of view. Its a lesson I recently learned regarding my mak. Once I get my measurements written down, I plan to make a post about it. The wide field stop of an eyepiece doesn't do you any good if the hardware of your telescope is narrower than it. Imo, its a measurement that I wish telescope manufacturers would include in their product specifications. Now if all you are ever going to use are 1.25" eyepieces, then you are likely to never have an issue with it. The issue can come up with 2" eyepieces though.

Waiting for a clear sky for three months to test two recent EP purchases.  The 30mm 82deg EP I just bought is much larger than I would have imagined.   EP optics in conjunction with scope optics is all a mystery  to me.  My 6"f6 and 10" f5 are the scopes I'd like to use it with.  

[Mossonarock]

Using regular micrometer calipers, you can measure the inner diameter of your telescope's stuff: the aperture for the focuser, diagonal, visual back, rear-cell, visual adapter, what have you.

The field stop of eyepieces is normally indicated in the manufacturer's product specifications. Then just compare which number is bigger. If the eyepiece's field stop is bigger, you might get vignetting.

[Skyfisher]

Using regular micrometer calipers, you can measure the inner diameter of your telescope's stuff: the aperture for the focuser, diagonal, visual back, rear-cell, visual adapter, what have you.

The field stop of eyepieces is normally indicated in the manufacturer's product specifications. Then just compare which number is bigger. If the eyepiece's field stop is bigger, you might get vignetting.

No field stop specified.   2" focuser, Newtonian so no diagonal,  10" or 6" mirror so I don't see an issue.   My 80mm f7 may be an issue but given the 2" diagonal and focuser I doubt it.  May try a quick terrestrial view tomorrow and see if the 80mm works w/o vignetting.  Interesting subject.  

[Mossonarock]

not the diameter of the mirror or objective lens. The diameter of the opening inside the focuser, visual back, stuff. Its a lot easier to discuss in person with a telescope to point at than to type about it on the internet. I have gripped before about the lack of standard vocabulary in usage among amateur astronomers regarding this area of telescope architecture. Its just asking for confusion. I have an 11inch SCT and was getting vignetting because the aperture of the rear cell was narrower than the field stops in some of my long focal length eyepieces. I replaced those parts and do not get vignetting anymore.

You can visually see the vignetting of course if there is any. The stars will flare into to a wierd loop shape when they hit the edge of that barrier and then dim dramatically when they pass it as they move to the very edge of the field of view.

[Skyfisher]

not the diameter of the mirror or objective lens. The diameter of the opening inside the focuser, visual back, stuff. Its a lot easier to discuss in person with a telescope to point at than to type about it on the internet. I have gripped before about the lack of standard vocabulary in usage among amateur astronomers regarding this area of telescope architecture. Its just asking for confusion. I have an 11inch SCT and was getting vignetting because the aperture of the rear cell was narrower than the field stops in some of my long focal length eyepieces. I replaced those parts and do not get vignetting anymore.

You can visually see the vignetting of course if there is any. The stars will flare into to a wierd loop shape when they hit the edge of that barrier and then dim dramatically when they pass it as they move to the very edge of the field of view.

SCT very different than Newtonian in terms of distance from EP to exit through mirror vs. exit through wall of tube.  If weather cooperates tomorrow, I'll try the 80mm.

[Skyfisher]

not the diameter of the mirror or objective lens. The diameter of the opening inside the focuser, visual back, stuff. Its a lot easier to discuss in person with a telescope to point at than to type about it on the internet. I have gripped before about the lack of standard vocabulary in usage among amateur astronomers regarding this area of telescope architecture. Its just asking for confusion. I have an 11inch SCT and was getting vignetting because the aperture of the rear cell was narrower than the field stops in some of my long focal length eyepieces. I replaced those parts and do not get vignetting anymore.

You can visually see the vignetting of course if there is any. The stars will flare into to a wierd loop shape when they hit the edge of that barrier and then dim dramatically when they pass it as they move to the very edge of the field of view.

As I suspected, no issues with vignetting at all.  Seems like a very nice image for such a wide angle.   The only thing I don't like is the large size and heavy weight but I can live with that.

[DHurst]

OP said,”adding one last ep”

 

The ocularoholic in me is rolling on the floor in stitches😂

Good luck with that sir!

Edited by DHurst, 07 March 2023 - 05:37 PM.

[Skyfisher]

OP said,”adding one last ep”

 

The ocularoholic in me is rolling on the floor in stitches

Good luck with that sir!

What, ocularoholic?  Huh?  Well, I would love to have more but I kinda exhausted my budget for this year.   Would love a complete set of Ethos or similar but not gonna happen   Before anything else I want a decent mount and a larger refractor. 

[DHurst]

No offense meant!  Many here (including myself) have had your same sentiments; only to find that as we venture down the rabbit hole of amateur astronomy, time has a way of throwing the “acquisition curveball” at us.  Stay strong my friend!

Edited by DHurst, 08 March 2023 - 10:21 AM.

[Skyfisher]

No offense meant!  Many here (including myself) have have had your same sentiments; only to find that as we venture down rabbit hole of amateur astronomy, time has a way of throwing the “acquisition curveball” at us.  Stay strong my friend!

No offense was taken.  I've been trying to get some EPs to make up a reasonable range for casual observing which I think I now have.  35 years ago I became interested in astronomy/scopes but didn't have a budget to work with.   Today the available equipment is amazing and I have a reasonable budget though time/health is a bit of an issue.