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

New Panoptics

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#26 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 17 May 2025 - 12:59 PM

Curious of any other lines will see this change, in particular the other two eyed friendly eyepieces like the 16mm T5 Nagler.

I owned the 16T5, but had to let it go. It was phenomenal…except that tiny eye relief it had. If only Al Nagler could redesign and squeeze a few extra mm of eye relief out of it, I wouldn’t hesitate purchasing it again! 


  • Mike B, helpwanted and betacygni like this

#27 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    James Webb Space Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,886
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 17 May 2025 - 11:30 PM

Nuts, I saw the thread title and got all excited that the Type 2 Panoptics had been announced.

 

A lightweight 41 Panoptic would pretty much be an automatic purchase for me.


  • scotsman328i likes this

#28 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 05:36 AM

Nuts, I saw the thread title and got all excited that the Type 2 Panoptics had been announced.

 

A lightweight 41 Panoptic would pretty much be an automatic purchase for me.

Big Time! If TV could lighten the 41 Panoptic by a considerable amount, I’d purchase it also. Some of these legends like the 31 Nag, 41 Pan and 21 Ethos are just too heavy to be practical in many telescopes. 


  • Mike B likes this

#29 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,902
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 18 May 2025 - 10:39 AM

Nuts, I saw the thread title and got all excited that the Type 2 Panoptics had been announced.

 

A lightweight 41 Panoptic would pretty much be an automatic purchase for me.

Better form factor too, like the 40mm Wide Field was, or ES68 40mm is, or Pentax XW 40mm is. Or indeed the 35mm Panoptic is. 


  • scotsman328i likes this

#30 saemark30

saemark30

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,704
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 18 May 2025 - 10:49 AM

Has the coatings changed over the years?

The 15mm Panoptic has low 90% transmission according to Markus Ludes.



#31 Refractor6

Refractor6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Port Alberni B.C. , Canada

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:15 AM

I owned the 16T5, but had to let it go. It was phenomenal…except that tiny eye relief it had. If only Al Nagler could redesign and squeeze a few extra mm of eye relief out of it, I wouldn’t hesitate purchasing it again! 

  The nice thing about never wearing my glasses when observing going back to 1998 is that I've never had any issues with taking in the full view to the edge with this or many other fine eps that don't work well for eyeglass users.  The Nagler 16 Type 5 is just one incredible eyepiece..cool.gif


  • scotsman328i and Kutno like this

#32 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:23 AM

  The nice thing about never wearing my glasses when observing going back to 1998 is that I've never had any issues with taking in the full view to the edge with this or many other fine eps that don't work well for eyeglass users.  The Nagler 16 Type 5 is just one incredible eyepiece..cool.gif

Frac, I don’t wear glasses at the eyepiece! lol. The 10mm was just too tight. That is the ONLY drawback of the 16T5! That ocular is one of the best out there due to FOV, weight, ergonomics and incredible quality and images it produces! I cannot agree more with you. 
 

I just couldn’t get used to stuffing my eyeball into the glass to get the full FOV from it. I was cleaning eyelashes and oils off it all the time. I have the 20T5 at 12mm and that is about the LIMIT for eye relief. That is BORDERLINE comfortable for me.  We all kinda learn our own personal tolerances for eye relief in oculars. Mine I know is 12mm. Honestly, better would be 13mm+ for eye relief.


Edited by scotsman328i, 18 May 2025 - 11:24 AM.

  • Mike B likes this

#33 Mike W

Mike W

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:28 AM

Frac, I don’t wear glasses at the eyepiece! lol. The 10mm was just too tight. That is the ONLY drawback of the 16T5! That ocular is one of the best out there due to FOV, weight, ergonomics and incredible quality and images it produces! I cannot agree more with you. 
 

I just couldn’t get used to stuffing my eyeball into the glass to get the full FOV from it. I was cleaning eyelashes and oils off it all the time. I have the 20T5 at 12mm and that is about the LIMIT for eye relief. That is BORDERLINE comfortable for me.  We all kinda learn our own personal tolerances for eye relief in oculars. Mine I know is 12mm. Honestly, better would be 13mm+ for eye relief.

The 19 pan @13mm .............


  • scotsman328i likes this

#34 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:30 AM

The 19 pan @13mm .............

Oh yeah! Got it Mike! Actually just acquired a pristine one from my good friend RAKing! Still to get it out and peek through it. I know it’s at 13mm also. I know it’s going to be fantastic just like its bigger brothers the 35 and 24 I own. waytogo.gif



#35 Refractor6

Refractor6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Port Alberni B.C. , Canada

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:31 AM

  I wonder if TV changed anything with the design over the years?  The reason I ask is that I have a older Nagler 16 Type 5 from the early 2000's and with the eyecup folded down its a breeze to take in the whole view without squeezing my eyeball to the ep....ideas on that?


  • scotsman328i likes this

#36 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:33 AM

  I wonder if TV changed anything with the design over the years?  The reason I ask is that I have a older Nagler 16 Type 5 from the early 2000's and with the eyecup folded down its a breeze to take in the whole view without squeezing my eyeball to the ep....ideas on that?

That’s a good question and I honestly have no idea! They might have, I dunno. Let’s see who chimes in and can fill us in. 


  • Refractor6 likes this

#37 Mike W

Mike W

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:35 AM

I doubt it..............


  • Refractor6, scotsman328i and payner like this

#38 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:42 AM

I doubt it..............

Mike, you could be right about that also. Maybe it’s just my eyes. Everyone’s eyes can give different perspectives on viewing and different experiences. You and I both have seen so many arguments on CN spark over one person saying “ocular xxx is crap” and another come chiming in with “are you insane? xxx is the best ocular ever invented!” A total waste of energy and time and ultimately a shut down post over one person’s experience over another’s. lol.

 

As far as the 16T5 goes, my opinion is it is one of the finest oculars made by Televue due to many factors like weight, FOV, ergonomics, breathtaking views, contrast, sharpness etc.

…the ONLY drawback was that darned eye relief. Gimme at MINIMUM another 2mm of eye relief on it, Uncle Al, and I’ll swipe my card right now. lol.gif


  • Refractor6 and Mike B like this

#39 Mike W

Mike W

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,514
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:49 AM

I don't think the specs have changed, that info would be all over the net. 13mm comfy to me, 13-15mm the sweet spot.


Edited by Mike W, 18 May 2025 - 12:37 PM.

  • scotsman328i likes this

#40 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 11:58 AM

Totally agree, and Refractor6…yes, I’m jealous the ER doesn’t bother you! (Green with envy). lol.


  • Refractor6 likes this

#41 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 12:05 PM

I should add Frac, I do own a 17mm Type 4. It also is an incredible ocular, but I can’t do things on the featherweight like you can with the 16mm Type 5…and yes, I really miss that. 


  • Refractor6 likes this

#42 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 70,080
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 May 2025 - 12:21 PM

Have the coatings changed over the years?

The 15mm Panoptic has low 90% transmission according to Markus Ludes.

Yes, they have improved as technology has advanced.


  • TOMDEY likes this

#43 Refractor6

Refractor6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Port Alberni B.C. , Canada

Posted 18 May 2025 - 12:25 PM

I should add Frac, I do own a 17mm Type 4. It also is an incredible ocular, but I can’t do things on the featherweight like you can with the 16mm Type 5…and yes, I really miss that. 

  That's the other thing I like about it...nice and lightweight.....cool.gif


  • scotsman328i likes this

#44 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 70,080
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 May 2025 - 12:32 PM

  I wonder if TV changed anything with the design over the years.  The reason I ask is that I have an older Nagler 16 Type 5 from the early 2000's and with the eyecup folded down it's a breeze to take in the whole view without squeezing my eyeball to the ep.... ideas on that?

I seem to recall some of the Panoptics didn't have retaining rings on the field lenses, so that if you removed the bottom barrel the lenses would fall out.  They had these little paper warnings about that.

I think they all have retaining rings now.

And, of course, the 22mm and 15mm Panoptics were discontinued.

And now, the lower barrels are becoming smooth, with no undercuts on the barrels.

And, the production has moved from Taiwan to Japan.

 

I, too, had no problem (when I observed without glasses) using the 16mm T5 Nagler with its 10mm eye relief.

It was tight, but the concave eye lens prevented me from rubbing eyelashes against the glass.  The T6 Naglers seemed more comfortable, with 12mm eye relief and less concave eye lenses.

And a few nights comparing the 17mm T4 with the 16mm T5 were a revelation.  I sold the 17mm but kept the 16mm.

The 16mm was sharper, had better contrast, a more uniform sky background brightness across the field, a flatter field, and no intrinsic coma.

Plus, it was parfocal with the T6 Naglers.


Edited by Starman1, 18 May 2025 - 12:34 PM.

  • Refractor6, Mike B, scotsman328i and 1 other like this

#45 scotsman328i

scotsman328i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Charleston, SC.

Posted 18 May 2025 - 12:47 PM

I seem to recall some of the Panoptics didn't have retaining rings on the field lenses, so that if you removed the bottom barrel the lenses would fall out.  They had these little paper warnings about that.

I think they all have retaining rings now.

And, of course, the 22mm and 15mm Panoptics were discontinued.

And now, the lower barrels are becoming smooth, with no undercuts on the barrels.

And, the production has moved from Taiwan to Japan.

 

I, too, had no problem (when I observed without glasses) using the 16mm T5 Nagler with its 10mm eye relief.

It was tight, but the concave eye lens prevented me from rubbing eyelashes against the glass.  The T6 Naglers seemed more comfortable, with 12mm eye relief and less concave eye lenses.

And a few nights comparing the 17mm T4 with the 16mm T5 were a revelation.  I sold the 17mm but kept the 16mm.

The 16mm was sharper, had better contrast, a more uniform sky background brightness across the field, a flatter field, and no intrinsic coma.

Plus, it was parfocal with the T6 Naglers.

Yup, Don is another lucky one Frac…I’m stuck with the 17mm Type 4 Brick. lol.gif


  • Refractor6 likes this


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