31 replies to this topic

[GolgafrinchanB]

I'm an eyeglasses wearer and lover of my 15mm delite, 3mm delite, and 8mm delos. I find the delites to be exceptionally comfortable and the delos to be perfectly reasonable but slightly more difficult to use, which is about a wash in return for the added FOV.

 

My question is: which of the 2 title eyepieces should I eventually get for widefield work in my 10" f/5 dob and 3" f/6 frac. I want the answer to be the 27 pan because I'm confident 68deg is plenty for me and I like the concept of it being a bit smaller and lighter. BUT I'm worried about the eye relief of the pan from various "I wouldn't want to use that piece with eyeglasses" reports here and elsewhere. Astronomics lists the 22mm T4 as having "all of its very long 19mm eye relief" available where as the 27 pan is listed as "with 16mm of usable eye relief" which is also a strike against the pan. Tele Vue lists both eyepieces as 19mm of eye relief.

 

So, how bad is the eye relief in the 27mm pan, how about the 22T4? Also, how bad is the added weight of the 22T4? It looks like my 8mm delos and even my 55mm plossl are lighter than the 22 which is a bit concerning. Are there any difficulties with eyeball positioning in the 22T4 when compared to the 8mm delos?

 

I think I'm talking myself into the 22T4, but am curious others opinions here. I'm also open to other suggestions. I wish there was just a 25mm delos or delite - but that's not how life worked out. The plan is to have an eyepiece for when I want to go wider than my 15mm delite (without getting to the ridiculous exit pupils of my 40 and 55 plossls which I use for afocal night vision stuff). This is an "eventually" buy, so I've got plenty of time.

[areyoukiddingme]

The 22T4 should be fine with glasses, and the 27 Panoptic will be tight. I have both, but don't view with glasses (yet).

 

The alternative to the 27 Panoptic would be the 30mm APM ultraflat. You'll get a well corrected, wide field with enough eye relief for glasses.

[SeattleScott]

Both say 19mm ER per TV but I agree the Panoptic has a reputation for being borderline for glasses wearers, while I don’t recall hearing those same complaints about the 22T4.

The 27 Panoptic weighs about a pound and has a 30.5mm field stop. The 22T4 weighs 1.5 and has a 31.1mm field stop. The 30UFF has 22mm ER and an excellent reputation for ease of use with glasses, weighs about 1.2lb, has a 36.2mm field stop, is better corrected than either of the Televues, or about any long focal length eyepiece for that matter, and costs less than the Televues.

Obviously the 22T4 could have exit pupil advantages at F5.

[TOMDEY]

Another option would be to do away with the eyeglass restriction altogether and forevermore > get your eyes fixed with Lasik or PRK. I had that done years ago and ~never looked back~. Going around for the first time in decades seeing sharply without glasses is quite astonishing and gratifying. As a bonus... every eyepiece and binocular becomes comfortably optimized, usable and immersive. Something to consider.    Tom

 

As Prince Hamlet famously observed, "To see, or not to see, that is the question." ~

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by TOMDEY, 21 March 2025 - 07:03 AM.

[davidgmd]

Another option would be to do away with the eyeglass restriction altogether and forevermore > get your eyes fixed with Lasik or PRK. I had that done years ago and ~never looked back~. Going around for the first time in decades seeing sharply without glasses is quite astonishing and gratifying. As a bonus... every eyepiece and binocular becomes comfortably optimized, usable and immersive. Something to consider.    Tom

 

As Prince Hamlet famously observed, "To see, or not to see, that is the question." ~

  
Alas, poor spectacles! I knew them, Thomas: items of infinite focus.

[ngc7319_20]

Just tried both by daylight scene in 36mm F/12 scope.  Both P27 and N22T4 are OK with glasses on -- no problem seeing entire FOV and couple mm eye relief to spare.  N22T4 has issues with blackouts / kidney bean -- though by night it would likely do better (larger eye pupil).  The APM 30 UFF / Celestron Ultima Edge is also good.

Edited by ngc7319_20, 21 March 2025 - 09:48 PM.

[Starman1]

I'm an eyeglasses wearer and lover of my 15mm delite, 3mm delite, and 8mm delos. I find the delites to be exceptionally comfortable and the delos to be perfectly reasonable but slightly more difficult to use, which is about a wash in return for the added FOV.

 

My question is: which of the 2 title eyepieces should I eventually get for widefield work in my 10" f/5 dob and 3" f/6 frac. I want the answer to be the 27 pan because I'm confident 68deg is plenty for me and I like the concept of it being a bit smaller and lighter. BUT I'm worried about the eye relief of the pan from various "I wouldn't want to use that piece with eyeglasses" reports here and elsewhere. Astronomics lists the 22mm T4 as having "all of its very long 19mm eye relief" available where as the 27 pan is listed as "with 16mm of usable eye relief" which is also a strike against the pan. Tele Vue lists both eyepieces as 19mm of eye relief.

 

So, how bad is the eye relief in the 27mm pan, how about the 22T4? Also, how bad is the added weight of the 22T4? It looks like my 8mm delos and even my 55mm plossl are lighter than the 22 which is a bit concerning. Are there any difficulties with eyeball positioning in the 22T4 when compared to the 8mm delos?

 

I think I'm talking myself into the 22T4, but am curious others opinions here. I'm also open to other suggestions. I wish there was just a 25mm delos or delite - but that's not how life worked out. The plan is to have an eyepiece for when I want to go wider than my 15mm delite (without getting to the ridiculous exit pupils of my 40 and 55 plossls which I use for afocal night vision stuff). This is an "eventually" buy, so I've got plenty of time.

I also recommend the 30mm Ultra Flat Field (regardless of which of the 6 to 8 brands you pick).  Wide, comfortable with glasses, and great in both your scopes.

Stellarvue is $229

Celestron version is $279

Sky Rover version is $179 (this version is straight from the mfr)

APM version is $250

TS version is $294

Altair Astro version is £165

Stellalyra version is £159

Tecnosky version is €215

The versions with an aluminum lower barrel are lighter than the versions with a steel lower barrel (Sky Rover, Altair).

It is well corrected to f/4 (as if anyone at f/4 would use a 30mm) and is worth more than it sells for.

Apparent field 70°, field stop 36.3mm.  Effective eye relief from the rubber up: 17.1mm (2.1mm more than Pentax XW series, which few have issues with while wearing glasses).

I find it comfortable to use with glasses on, and I have deep-set eyes.

 

You may be used to thinking of the eye relief as from the glass up, but the glass differs in depth a lot from eyepiece to eyepiece.

For example, the new Pentax XW 85° eyepieces have 20mm of eye relief, but only 12mm of effective eye relief.

The Long Perng 80° eyepieces are nearly the same: 20mm and 12mm.

So, unfortunately, you can't tell whether an eyepiece is usable with glasses just based on the mfr's eye relief claims.

20mm eye relief does not guarantee glasses-compatibility.

[GolgafrinchanB]

Sounds like I need to read up on the 30UFF as it's been mentioned by pretty much everyone! Also sounds like the 27 pan is as I feared not as good as other options for glasses. Thanks for the opinions all, and keep them coming if you are reading this and have more to add!

[csrlice12]

Split the difference......22 Panoptic.

[TayM57]

I had the 30 UFF, and did not like it because the field was very flat and appeared to be some distance down the barrel, so to speak. Eye relief was not a problem- it was very easy for me to use. I just did not like the presentation. It felt much like the Pentax XW's, which many on here like. I sold my Pentax set to someone here on CN that is local to me, and he loves them. If you have looked through a Pentax XW, that is about what you should expect from the 30mm UFF. 

 

The N22T4/A11 both feel about the same to me. For these eyepieces, my glasses have to be touching the rubber eye guard, or less than 1mm from the rubber eye guard. 

 

The Delos/Delites have about the same eye relief, but as you mentioned, eye placement is less tricky with the Delites, likely because the AFOV is narrower. 

 

The Morpheus, to me, are the most comfortable eyepieces for eyeglasses wearers. I do find that the Morpheus are not as well controlled for light scatter as the Delos are. 

 

 

Do keep in mind observing styles vary from person to person. I like to hover, because I remain seated while observing. So, the Morpheus eyepieces are fantastic for me. Unlike most others, I use them by unscrewing the cap off, because the rubber guard is so tight to the cap, so I just unscrew them and use the Morpheus without the rubber eye guard as I like the floating effect which adds to the immersion for me, especially combined with my hovering type of observing.

 

I started out with 100° eyepieces, and I'll always love that hyperwide AFOV. I still do. But, having switched to glasses at the eyepieces, I'm fond of the Delites, Delos, Morpheus, ES92s, and the N22T4/N31T5, with the N31T5 being the least compatible for eyeglasses wear. 

Edited by TayM57, 21 March 2025 - 05:47 PM.

[dustyc]

I have both. Really frustrating. In order to figure out this "use with glasses" it's necessary to have both in the field during an observing session. 

Both oculars spec at "19mm" eye relief. I had the 27 Pan. Had to use the Dioptrix to see the whole FOV. Never bothered with either the 31mm or 22mm Naglers because they also have "19mm" eye relief. 

Visiting a shop I discovered that the 22mm Nagler was easy to see the whole FOV with glasses! This with a larger FOV to boot! 

Along with undercuts, this variance in ER with the same spec is annoying. 

[areyoukiddingme]

I've compared the 30 APM, 27 Panoptic, 31 Nagler, 30 Pentax XW. 

 

The Nagler is the overall winner--wide field, sharp with excellent contrast, nice saturated reds for my eye sight. 

 

A lot of people have/are big fans of the 30XW. I like that it is comfortable/easy to use, and has excellent contrast too. But it does have lateral color, and more astigmatism at the edges than the other options. 

 

I find the presentation of the 30XW to feel like it has more apparent field than it actually does--it feels larger than the 30 APM, for example, but is actually smaller.

 

The Panoptic is small, light, and presents the field surprisingly similarly to the APM (the views easily mistaken when I used them in small refractors). The Panoptic does need more out focus than the others, so if lots of re-focusing is annoying with your mount, this may also count a tad against the Panoptic.

[SeattleScott]

I had the 30 UFF, and did not like it because the field was very flat and appeared to be some distance down the barrel, so to speak. Eye relief was not a problem- it was very easy for me to use. I just did not like the presentation. It felt much like the Pentax XW's, which many on here like. I sold my Pentax set to someone here on CN that is local to me, and he loves them. If you have looked through a Pentax XW, that is about what you should expect from the 30mm UFF. 

 

The N22T4/A11 both feel about the same to me. For these eyepieces, my glasses have to be touching the rubber eye guard, or less than 1mm from the rubber eye guard. 

 

The Delos/Delites have about the same eye relief, but as you mentioned, eye placement is less trickier with the Delites, likely because the AFOV is narrower. 

 

The Morpheus, to me, are the most comfortable eyepieces for eyeglasses wearers. I do find that the Morpheus are not as well controlled for light scatter as the Delos are. 

 

 

Do keep in mind observing styles vary from person to person. I like to hover, because I remain seated while observing. So, the Morpheus eyepieces are fantastic for me. Unlike most others, I use them by unscrewing the cap off, because the rubber guard is so tight to the cap, so I just unscrew them and use the Morpheus without the rubber eye guard as I like the floating effect which adds to the immersion for me, especially combined with my hovering type of observing.

 

I started out with 100° eyepieces, and I'll always love that hyperwide AFOV. I still do. But, having switched to glasses at the eyepieces, I'm fond of the Delites, Delos, Morpheus, ES92s, and the N22T4/N31T5, with the N31T5 being the less compatible for eyeglasses wear. 

Not often someone complains about the field being flat! I mean, it is called Ultra Flat Field.

[GolgafrinchanB]

Can anyone here verify if the 30mm 70deg UFF (from various sellers - sounds like sky rover is the manufacturer) eye-guard ring is sized correctly to be compatible with dioptrix / the Tele Vue PVS-14 adapter / TeleVue rubber eyecups - all 3 are the same size? It would be nice to have the option to attach such an eyepiece to my night vision (Tele Vue PVS-14 adapter) if possible but is not a total deal breaker if I can't.

[Highburymark]

I have both these eyepieces, and use the Panoptic mainly for afocal night vision. I don’t wear glasses for astronomy. But with my reading glasses on, I can’t see the Pan 27 field stop.

[Starman1]

I have both. Really frustrating. In order to figure out this "use with glasses" it's necessary to have both in the field during an observing session. 

Both oculars spec at "19mm" eye relief. I had the 27 Pan. Had to use the Dioptrix to see the whole FOV. Never bothered with either the 31mm or 22mm Naglers because they also have "19mm" eye relief. 

Visiting a shop I discovered that the 22mm Nagler was easy to see the whole FOV with glasses! This with a larger FOV to boot! 

Along with undercuts, this variance in ER with the same spec is annoying. 

If you measured every eyepiece's depth to its eye lens below the horizontal plane touching the folded down rubber eyecup, you would find radically different depths on every eyepiece.

I've come to the conclusion that eye relief figures don't matter, only Effective Eye Relief figures matter.

And without having the eyepiece in hand to try out, trying to figure out whether an eyepiece is glasses-compatible is merely shooting in the dark.

[Starman1]

Can anyone here verify if the 30mm 70deg UFF (from various sellers - sounds like sky rover is the manufacturer) eye-guard ring is sized correctly to be compatible with dioptrix / the Tele Vue PVS-14 adapter / TeleVue rubber eyecups - all 3 are the same size? It would be nice to have the option to attach such an eyepiece to my night vision (Tele Vue PVS-14 adapter) if possible but is not a total deal breaker if I can't.

It is NOT compatible with the DioptRx or any accessory of that size.

It just misses.  One CN poster actually machined 0.5mm off the lip so that it would be compatible.

An intrepid soul, for sure.

[ausastronomer]

I'm an eyeglasses wearer and lover of my 15mm delite, 3mm delite, and 8mm delos. I find the delites to be exceptionally comfortable and the delos to be perfectly reasonable but slightly more difficult to use, which is about a wash in return for the added FOV.

 

My question is: which of the 2 title eyepieces should I eventually get for widefield work in my 10" f/5 dob and 3" f/6 frac. I want the answer to be the 27 pan because I'm confident 68deg is plenty for me and I like the concept of it being a bit smaller and lighter. BUT I'm worried about the eye relief of the pan from various "I wouldn't want to use that piece with eyeglasses" reports here and elsewhere. Astronomics lists the 22mm T4 as having "all of its very long 19mm eye relief" available where as the 27 pan is listed as "with 16mm of usable eye relief" which is also a strike against the pan. Tele Vue lists both eyepieces as 19mm of eye relief.

 

So, how bad is the eye relief in the 27mm pan, how about the 22T4? Also, how bad is the added weight of the 22T4? It looks like my 8mm delos and even my 55mm plossl are lighter than the 22 which is a bit concerning. Are there any difficulties with eyeball positioning in the 22T4 when compared to the 8mm delos?

 

I think I'm talking myself into the 22T4, but am curious others opinions here. I'm also open to other suggestions. I wish there was just a 25mm delos or delite - but that's not how life worked out. The plan is to have an eyepiece for when I want to go wider than my 15mm delite (without getting to the ridiculous exit pupils of my 40 and 55 plossls which I use for afocal night vision stuff). This is an "eventually" buy, so I've got plenty of time.

 

I have the 22mm Nagler T4, the 27mm TV Panoptic and also the 30mm Sky Rover UFF.

 

Amongst other scopes I also have a 10"/F5 Newtonian and a 10" F5.3 Newtonian.

 

I would not recommend the 22mm Nagler T4 for use in a 10"/F5 Newtonian without a Paracorr, which I also have, as I own 2 other larger faster scopes. Without a Paracorr in a 10"/F5 Newtonian, the 22mm Nagler T4 is a pretty average performer showing Coma, Field Curvature and some Off Axis astigmatism.  The 17mm Nagler T4 is just the same.  Combined with a Paracorr they are both excellent performers.

 

If you don't already own a paracorr, stay away from the 22mm Nagler T4, as you don't need to add the cost of a Paracorr to the cost of the eyepiece!

 

Conversely the 27mm TV Panoptic performs very well in the same scope without a paracorr, so of the 2 that would be my choice without hesitation. I have no trouble using it with my glasses on, which is aided by the fact that my glasses have small frames and thin lenses, which sit close to my face. If you had glasses with large frames, lenses like coke bottles that sat 50mm out from your face, it would be a different story!

 

My top choice would be the 30mm Sky Rover UFF.  It has a slightly larger TFOV, better eye relief and a nice flat field in an F5 newtonian, without a paracorr.  It's also 1/2 the price of the others, so really a no brainer!

 

Cheers

[25585]

Another option would be to do away with the eyeglass restriction altogether and forevermore > get your eyes fixed with Lasik or PRK. I had that done years ago and ~never looked back~. Going around for the first time in decades seeing sharply without glasses is quite astonishing and gratifying. As a bonus... every eyepiece and binocular becomes comfortably optimized, usable and immersive. Something to consider.    Tom

 

As Prince Hamlet famously observed, "To see, or not to see, that is the question." ~

Nope. If something goes wrong, your eyesight is done in. Surgery after injury or extreme natural deterioration is one thing, but to risk my eyes to do without glasses is not going to happen. 

[25585]

I also recommend the 30mm Ultra Flat Field (regardless of which of the 6 to 8 brands you pick).  Wide, comfortable with glasses, and great in both your scopes.

Stellarvue is $229

Celestron version is $279

Sky Rover version is $179 (this version is straight from the mfr)

APM version is $250

TS version is $294

Altair Astro version is £165

Stellalyra version is £159

Tecnosky version is €215

The versions with an aluminum lower barrel are lighter than the versions with a steel lower barrel (Sky Rover, Altair).

It is well corrected to f/4 (as if anyone at f/4 would use a 30mm) and is worth more than it sells for.

Apparent field 70°, field stop 36.3mm.  Effective eye relief from the rubber up: 17.1mm (2.1mm more than Pentax XW series, which few have issues with while wearing glasses).

I find it comfortable to use with glasses on, and I have deep-set eyes.

 

You may be used to thinking of the eye relief as from the glass up, but the glass differs in depth a lot from eyepiece to eyepiece.

For example, the new Pentax XW 85° eyepieces have 20mm of eye relief, but only 12mm of effective eye relief.

The Long Perng 80° eyepieces are nearly the same: 20mm and 12mm.

So, unfortunately, you can't tell whether an eyepiece is usable with glasses just based on the mfr's eye relief claims.

20mm eye relief does not guarantee glasses-compatibility.

I have four; Altair, APM, Stellalyra and Meade UHD. Going to be trying them all out in my new 12" F5, when the sky-jinx has passed.

[TOMDEY]

Nope. If something goes wrong, your eyesight is done in. Surgery after injury or extreme natural deterioration is one thing, but to risk my eyes to do without glasses is not going to happen. 

Yep --- that's prudent. I've always been a ~risk taker~ probably part of being in the military, enlisted when there was a draft. That permanently recalibrates us guys to everything else looking like relatively/realistically small risk compared with probably getting shot at. Thankfully, ironically, I returned four years later unscathed (luck of the draw). Got my eyes fixed with wonderful results. Broken wrist, ruptured quads, dislocated shoulder... and now looks like my geriatric hip and knee joints need bionic replacements --- I see the specialists in a week. What's most sobering is when some friends seemingly low risk and everything going magnificently --- out of nowhere get offed by a microscopic virus, bacterium, rupture, explosive runaway self-growth or accident out of the blue. Life itself is terribly risky. Seems no right answer other than to maybe, just maybe ... try to avoid risk. Half of my extended family work or worked as --- "first responders" --- apparently a genetic predisposition?    Tom

 

Here's my son (professional firefighter) relaxing on his day off >>> Ehhh...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[PJBilotta]

Having compared five in this range (22 T4, 27 Pan, 30 UFF, ES 28/68 and 30XW) the 28/68 came out on top for me. In my case, I've found the Meade 5000 SWA to be sharper, higher contrast and better eye relief than the ES version (decloaked).

All of these are excellent, but for me, the 28/68 hits a sweet spot. Easier to look through than the 22 T4, better edge correction than the 30 XW, more eye relief and less distortion than the 27 Pan, and brighter than the 30 UFF. It's also the cheapest of the group.

Regardless of personal preferences, I think the XW, UFF and 28/68 all beat both the 27 Pan and 22 T4 on a number of factors. Love my Televues, but this is a focal length where others are stronger.

[25585]

Having compared five in this range (22 T4, 27 Pan, 30 UFF, ES 28/68 and 30XW) the 28/68 came out on top for me. In my case, I've found the Meade 5000 SWA to be sharper, higher contrast and better eye relief than the ES version (decloaked).

All of these are excellent, but for me, the 28/68 hits a sweet spot. Easier to look through than the 22 T4, better edge correction than the 30 XW, more eye relief and less distortion than the 27 Pan, and brighter than the 30 UFF. It's also the cheapest of the group.

Regardless of personal preferences, I think the XW, UFF and 28/68 all beat both the 27 Pan and 22 T4 on a number of factors. Love my Televues, but this is a focal length where others are stronger.

Before the 30 UFF and re-introduction of the XW 30 and 40, my 28 SWA/ES Maxvision was my main finder eyepiece. The UFF, having no undercut, took over from both 28 and a 35 Panoptic. I use the XW 40 more than 30.

[GGK]

as if anyone at f/4 would use a 30mm

 

 

This is more popular than you realize for wide field observing. 

 

A 30mm eyepiece is used at f/4 when its larger field stop is needed to reach a wider field of view.  Depending on the observer's eye pupil diameter, the 30mm eyepiece's exit pupil at f/4 might be oversized and effective aperture reduced, but that's the trade-off for the wider true field.  For wide field observing, an 82+^o 30-32mm eyepiece is a better candidate vs. the 70^o 30mm UFF because of the larger field stop.   

 

Gary

[mountain monk]

I sold my 30mm UFF. Yes, it is sharp to the edge. Yes, eye placement is very easy. Comma, but, I found the view rather boring compared to the 31mm Nagler, the 22mm Nagler, or the 32mm Masuyama 85*. I would describe the latter’s view as elegant. Different strokes…

 

Dark, clear, calm skies.

 

Jack