Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm?
Lloyd Bentsen
but the "instadjust" too loose and, for me, a nuisance. I have the
Panoptic 35mm (great) and the Pentax 7mm (also great). My eyepiece
objective is: quality, eye relief, and good FOV. Your recommendations
for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most appreciated.
There was a thread on this very topic a few months ago if memory serves
me. I would be grateful if someone saved it or could remember the
consensus.
Lloyd Bentsen
lben...@concentic.net
Lloyd Bentsen
but the instadjust too loose and, for me, a nuisance. I have the
quality, good FOV and good eye relief. Your recommendations for either
the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most appreciated. There was a
grateful if someone saved it or could remember the consensus.
Thank you (if this message is a duplicate, my apologies...server
cantankerous).
Lloyd Bentsen
lben...@concentric.net
John Ford
> for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most appreciated.
Even though I am a diehard TeleVue EYEPIECE fan, I would go for the
Pentax in this case. The field is flatter and the eye relief is far
superior.
(Sorry, but I couldn't find the previous thread.)
--
Clear skies,
John Ford
South-Eastern Michigan
jf...@inac.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerald Pearson & Sue Sarlette
relief for me. I tried the 22mm Panoptic at a star party, and I could
just barely manage to see the entire fov only if I mashed my eyeglasses
uncomfortably hard between the eyepiece and my face.
I own 7mm and 28mm Pentax XL's, as well as Vixen Lanthanum 2.5mm, 4mm,
10mm, and 25mm, and find all of them quite comfortable to use with my
eyeglasses on.
-- Gerry
Lloyd Bentsen wrote:
>
> I tried the Nagler 22 Type 4 for a weekend and found it not only heavy
> but the "instadjust" too loose and, for me, a nuisance. I have the
> Panoptic 35mm (great) and the Pentax 7mm (also great). My eyepiece
> objective is: quality, eye relief, and good FOV. Your recommendations
> for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most appreciated.
> There was a thread on this very topic a few months ago if memory serves
> me. I would be grateful if someone saved it or could remember the
> consensus.
>
> Lloyd Bentsen
> lben...@concentic.net
lude...@my-deja.com
195, a great eyepiece
Markus
In article <3A16A3B5...@concentric.net>,
Lloyd Bentsen <lbentsen\"nospam\"@concentric.net> wrote:
> I tried the Nagler 22 Type 4 for a weekend and found it not only heavy
> but the "instadjust" too loose and, for me, a nuisance. I have the
> Panoptic 35mm (great) and the Pentax 7mm (also great). My eyepiece
> objective is: quality, eye relief, and good FOV. Your recommendations
> for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most appreciated.
> There was a thread on this very topic a few months ago if memory
serves
> me. I would be grateful if someone saved it or could remember the
> consensus.
>
> Lloyd Bentsen
> lben...@concentic.net
>
>
Del Johnson
Del Johnson
In article <8v8f0k$73e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ste...@binghamton.edu
Panoptic had better transmission, had little or no advantage in crispness or
edge of field sharpness. (This could be the samples I owned as one of the
reviews suggested the Pentax had a transmission advantage.)
The Pentax is more comfortable, smaller and lighter, and worked well with
glasses. The Panoptic required rolling down the eyeguard and pressing in to see
the full fov.
You can do a search at infoseek.com or dejanews.com and get the old thread. I'd
recommend it.
Larry Stedman
Vestal, NY
lude...@my-deja.com
Del Johnson <deljo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Is there a web page with photos and specifications on the Leica?
>
> Del Johnson
>
www.apm-telescopes.com > products > special eyepieces > Leica
22 mm 66° 20 mm 6-element weight 290 g ,1,25" or 2" eyepiece adapter
included US $ 195
Markus
Mike McIsaac
SCT comparing the planetary performance of my 14mm Leica with my 22mm
Panoptic. Now, one would expect that much of an increase in
magnification to result in a decrease in contrast and detail,
especially on Jupiter. Nope! The image produced by the Leica was
sharper, showed more detail, and had higher contrast than the Panoptic.
The eye relief of the Leica is perfect with or without eyeglasses with
none of the "kidney bean" blackouts common to wide-angle eyepieces. It
is a great eyepiece and I'd bet that the 22mm is just as good. If I
were shopping for an eyepiece in 21-22mm focal length, I'd buy the
Leica first. I'd bet you keep it (and brag about it too!).
Clear skies from the land of Freezing Rain (YECH!!!)
Mike McIsaac
60*N 150*W
> In article <8v8f0k$73e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > You may also consider the Leica 22 mm 66° with 20 mm eyerelief for $
> > 195, a great eyepiece
> >
> > Markus
--
*********************************************
186,000 miles per second: its not just a good
idea, its the law!
*********************************************
omaha...@my-deja.com
You CAN adjust the tension on the Instadjust
barrel (see Televue's website). The field of view
is absolutely fantastic, and nice and flat/sharp
to the edge, even on my f/4.5 scope(haven't found
a need for a field flattener (ie Paracorr) yet).
Whether the extra cost is justified...I don't
know...but I love mine. But what I really
replied here for was my desire to know, whether
this was the famous Lloyd? :-) Don't suppose so.
On the other hand...if so...maybe we can get a
Democratic plank going on sensible light fixture
use!
Waiting for the type 5 to arrive,
Jeff
In article <3A16A3B5...@concentric.net>,
Lloyd Bentsen
<lbentsen\"nospam\"@concentric.net> wrote:
> I tried the Nagler 22 Type 4 for a weekend and
found it not only heavy
> but the "instadjust" too loose and, for me, a
nuisance. I have the
> Panoptic 35mm (great) and the Pentax 7mm (also
great). My eyepiece
> objective is: quality, eye relief, and good
FOV. Your recommendations
> for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm
will be most appreciated.
> There was a thread on this very topic a few
months ago if memory serves
> me. I would be grateful if someone saved it or
could remember the
> consensus.
>
> Lloyd Bentsen
> lben...@concentic.net
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Roy
omaha...@my-deja.com wrote:
**Jeff,
I agree wholeheartedly!!!! The type4 22 Nag is probably one of
the most awesome eyepieces I've ever seen! While using it with my 20"
dob, I just get this overwhelming feeling that I'm at the top of the
food chain with this configuration. The field is gigantic, flat and
IN YOU'RE FACE BIG TIME! Plus, when coupled to Televue's big barlow,
the contrast and defintition for planetary viewing is quite tremendous.
I just obtained a new Pentax 10.5 XL and it's an awesome eyepiece as
well, but I cannot wait to compare the two while viewing planets. (22
nag with 2x brlw and 10.5 XL)
PR
Space Traveler
>Gee...I've got the 22mm type 4...and I love it.
>You CAN adjust the tension on the Instadjust
>barrel (see Televue's website). The field of view
>is absolutely fantastic, and nice and flat/sharp
>to the edge, even on my f/4.5 scope(haven't found
>a need for a field flattener (ie Paracorr) yet).
>Whether the extra cost is justified...I don't
>know...but I love mine. But what I really
>replied here for was my desire to know, whether
>this was the famous Lloyd? :-) Don't suppose so.
>On the other hand...if so...maybe we can get a
>Democratic plank going on sensible light fixture
>use!
>
>Waiting for the type 5 to arrive,
>
>Jeff
>
Jeff:
Wow, what kind of scope are you using? I had bad coma with the 22mm
Type 4 in a 12.5" f/5. 2/3 of the distance from the center of the
field to the edge I could see the coma, about half way it was
unbearable. I sprang for the Paracorr and now the field is truly flat
with no coma. My true field was 67 min without the Paracorr and 59
min with the Paracorr.
Space Traveler
Axel
joy to use, it truly gets out of the way and puts you in space. I'll
never forget my first look at Saturn with this eyepiece, small but very
clear at only 55x, floating out there in space with *gobs* of star-
studded space all around it! It was like being there.
Ritesh
In article <8vb9ru$8kj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
omaha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Gee...I've got the 22mm type 4...and I love it.
> You CAN adjust the tension on the Instadjust
> barrel (see Televue's website). The field of view
> is absolutely fantastic, and nice and flat/sharp
> to the edge, even on my f/4.5 scope(haven't found
> a need for a field flattener (ie Paracorr) yet).
> Whether the extra cost is justified...I don't
> know...but I love mine. But what I really
> replied here for was my desire to know, whether
> this was the famous Lloyd? :-) Don't suppose so.
> On the other hand...if so...maybe we can get a
> Democratic plank going on sensible light fixture
> use!
>
> Waiting for the type 5 to arrive,
>
> Jeff
>
WHALEN44
You have it backwards. You should expect better contrast using the higher
magnification eyepiece. The Leica 14mm is a great eyepiece, but having compared
the 22 Leica to the 22mm Panoptic and 22 Nagler, (and also the 14mm Leica) the
22mm Leica comes in fourth. It is not nearly as good as the 14mm.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
"Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
WHALEN44
Sounds more like a problem with your optics, not your eyepiece.
Paul Roy
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
>
**Whalen,
I'm not quite sure that you could blame the optics if the guy
is experiencing severe coma. Any f/5 mirror, regardless of quality,
should produce relatively the same amount of coma. The amount of coma
the observer experiences, I believe anyway, is more determined by the
observer's perception, and to a degree the eyepiece's he or she is
using. I use the Nag 22type 4 in a 20" f/5 dob, and although coma is
present, it is in my opinion not at all unbearable.
PR
Space Traveler
>Space,
>
>Sounds more like a problem with your optics, not your eyepiece.
>
>
>Richard Whalen
Richard:
I spoke with David N. about the problem over a long phone call. His
advice was to test the scope then get a Paracorr. I followed his
advice.
I set up the scope on a bright star in the center of the field. Then
I moved the scope so the star traveled across the entire field. This
is how I know the spot I started getting the "coma".
I asked David why I did not see the coma in a 16mm type 2. He told me
that the problem gets bad as the size of the true filed increases.
David also gave me some information into optics in general. I plan on
building a 22in f/4 scope next year. I thought of building a 20in f/5
but I would prefer the 22in. I did not wish to get nose bleeds from
using the scope. David convinced me that a f/4 scope is a good choice
with the Paracorr. I justified the expense with the plans of getting
the bigger scope and being shorter than the 20in!!!
I tried the 22mm Type 4 with the Paracorr and it fixed the coma!!!
This made a BIG difference. Maybe I am picky? You may not feel you
need one? I know the difference in my scope. I will not leave home
without one (Paracorr).
I did not know the Paracorr fixed bad optics?
Space Traveler
WHALEN44
The Paracorr will not fix bad optics, but are you sure what you saw was only
the result of coma? From the discription you gave, it sounds like a lot more
coma than should be present in a well corrected f5 newtonian using a quality
wide field eyepiece.
Bill Becker
14mm Leica, eh? Hmmmmmm........;^)
Best regards,
Bill
Del Johnson
without the Paracorr and my 27mm Panoptic eyepiece. Some of it may
have been field curvature. In any case, the Paracorr solved the
problem.
Del Johnson
In article <20001120180820...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
Space Traveler
problem?
I spoke with David Nagler on the phone for some time. He felt the
problem was coma. I can now try the scope with the Paracorr and
without and with I don't see it, without I do!
The way David described the effect was right on in my test.
I did a Deja News search for Paracorr. Some with f/5 scopes love the
Paracorr others did not feel it made that much of a difference. I'm
one of the second.
Have you yourself tried a f/5 scope using a true field of 60' with and
without?
I wish you were here to see the difference. I'm convinced from my
personal experience that the problem was coma. David was feeling the
same way. He came up with a fix. He was confident in his feelings
and so am I. Bottom line is a Paracorr will not fix bad optics. Mine
are fixed, pinpoint to the edge!
Space Traveler
Del Johnson
Bob Berta
me, of too little eye relief. I also got a bit of the kidney bean
shadow. The Pentax 21 has 20mm of eye relief, a great adjustable eye
cup (lot better design than the colapsing Radian design) and very good
performance. I have nearly the full range of Pentax XLs except for the
5.2 and 28mm. Of all of them I find the 21mm is my most used eyepiece.
The magnification and FOV on both my 6" refractor and my 8" SCT is my
favorite range..especially for a general purpose eyepiece. That being
said...the lens is not the one I choose if I want the absolute best
image...that would be the 14, 10.5 or especially the 7mm. One thing I
have noted about all of the Pentax XLs I have is that they seem to have
much better color correction than other eyepieces I have owned or used.
This may be due to the ED glass used in them...I have also noted that
they all work extremely well with a barlow...better than any of the
other eps I have.
Actually I don't consider the Panoptic to be the TV eyepiece to compete
with the Pentax XL...the Radians really more of a contender. Although I
personally tried both and went with the Pentax...they are close. The
cincher was the color performance of the Pentax.
RAnder3127
Leica, Nikon, Pentax, etc match something like the Nagler or even Radians
for edge of field correction? If they do, that's great as I hear nothing but
praise
for their central sharpness and contrast.
-Rich
Mike McIsaac
You have it backwards. You should expect better contrast using the
higher magnification eyepiece
Richard Whalen
Hi Richard:
Maybe I have it backwards for Florida but here in Alaska we do it
different. The seeing here is rarely good enough to go to high power so
when I can, EVERYTHING seems so much better that I get kind of
rapturous! Lately there have been nights when the gas giants look like
they're in a pot of boiling water. I wish you folks in the Lower 48
would keep your darn warm, wet, Winter weather and give us back our
freezing cold and mounds of snow with clear, black, steady skies. The
roads around here lately have been like driving on polished marble
covered with warm butter in a car with bald tires.
I Leica Clear Skies!
Mike McIsaac
60*N 150*W
--
*********************************************
186,000 miles per second: its not just a good
idea, its the law!
*********************************************
John Shakespeare
Bob Berta wrote:
> [snip]. I have nearly the full range of Pentax XLs except for the
> 5.2 and 28mm. [snip]
I bet you'll be pleased with the rumour on the APM website: Pentax might be
producing two more XLs soon, a 2.6mm and a 30mm (2"). The 2.6mm would complete
the overlap with the Radian's focal length range.
Best Regards,
John.
lude...@my-deja.com
John Shakespeare <shak...@assari.cc.tut.fi> wrote:
>
John,
the 2 new XL are not a rumor, they really coming
Markus
William Byrd
>
> I bet you'll be pleased with the rumour on the APM website: Pentax might be
> producing two more XLs soon, a 2.6mm and a 30mm (2"). The 2.6mm would complete
> the overlap with the Radian's focal length range.
>
but with my eyes I had trouble from the large exit pupil in my fast
scopes. The 30mm would be just right.
Any details Markus? Expected delivery time? Weight? Same screw up or
down guard? Price?
Bill
--
Bill Byrd we...@flash.net San Antonio, Texas
lude...@my-deja.com
> Any details Markus? Expected delivery time? Weight? Same screw up or
> down guard? Price?
> Bill
> --
only follow details are known: 65° FOV, 2" Barrel, same screw up and
down eyeguard as the other focallenght
Markus
Fdeal
experience with higher magnification, the background is darker and the
resolution, within reasonable limits, is often higher. Smaller exit pupils
also reduce glare and work better for my eyes when viewing planets (again,
at reasonable magnifications ~ 200X). I think it would be more helpful to
compare ep's of more similar focal length.
Peace,
Fred Deal
Mike McIsaac <mike_m...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8valj5$pij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I heartily agree with Markus. I was out two nights ago with my C-9.25
> SCT comparing the planetary performance of my 14mm Leica with my 22mm
> Panoptic. Now, one would expect that much of an increase in
> magnification to result in a decrease in contrast and detail,
> especially on Jupiter. Nope! The image produced by the Leica was
> sharper, showed more detail, and had higher contrast than the Panoptic.
> The eye relief of the Leica is perfect with or without eyeglasses with
> none of the "kidney bean" blackouts common to wide-angle eyepieces. It
> is a great eyepiece and I'd bet that the 22mm is just as good. If I
> were shopping for an eyepiece in 21-22mm focal length, I'd buy the
> Leica first. I'd bet you keep it (and brag about it too!).
>
> Clear skies from the land of Freezing Rain (YECH!!!)
>
> Mike McIsaac
> 60*N 150*W
>
> > In article <8v8f0k$73e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > You may also consider the Leica 22 mm 66° with 20 mm eyerelief for $
> > > 195, a great eyepiece
> > >
> > > Markus
>
>
> --
> *********************************************
> 186,000 miles per second: its not just a good
> idea, its the law!
> *********************************************
>
>
ell...@my-deja.com
Who carries Leica. Nobody certainly here in Canada!!
Elleray
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You may also consider the Leica 22 mm 66° with 20 mm eyerelief for $
> 195, a great eyepiece
>
> Markus
>
> In article <3A16A3B5...@concentric.net>,
> Lloyd Bentsen <lbentsen\"nospam\"@concentric.net> wrote:
> > I tried the Nagler 22 Type 4 for a weekend and found it not only
heavy
> > but the "instadjust" too loose and, for me, a nuisance. I have the
> > Panoptic 35mm (great) and the Pentax 7mm (also great). My eyepiece
> > objective is: quality, eye relief, and good FOV. Your
recommendations
> > for either the Panoptic 22mm vs Pentax 21mm will be most
appreciated.
> > There was a thread on this very topic a few months ago if memory
> serves
> > me. I would be grateful if someone saved it or could remember the
> > consensus.
> >
> > Lloyd Bentsen
> > lben...@concentic.net
> >
> >
>
ell...@my-deja.com
barrel 30 mm. will be a great addition to the line.
Elleray
>
> Bob Berta wrote:
>
> > [snip]. I have nearly the full range of Pentax XLs except for the
> > 5.2 and 28mm. [snip]
>
> I bet you'll be pleased with the rumour on the APM website: Pentax
might be
> producing two more XLs soon, a 2.6mm and a 30mm (2"). The 2.6mm would
complete
> the overlap with the Radian's focal length range.
>
> John.