The Pan 24 is always the first eyepiece I use for every viewing session. I bought it used in 2006. Now in 2022, it STILL has the same street value. Effectively, it's a free eyepiece.
How well you see through an eyepiece is the result of: (1) the optical quality of the eyepiece; (2) the optical quality of the OTA; (3) atmospheric conditions of seeing and transparency; (4) local light pollution; (5) the health of your eyes, including the effects of aging; and (6) your training of your eyes and brain as an observer. I own a number of Televue eyepieces, including the 24 mm Panoptic, and they are all optically excellent. But under most suboptimal observing conditions, that optical excellence will produce only a limited incremental improvement. Most amateur astronomers under most conditions can achieve similar results with less expensive eyepieces. So each observer should do a realistic cost-benefit analysis before investing in premium eyepieces.
I'm just about to begin my astro journey and I'm research into which type of eyepieces to buy when I want to upgrade. A question that keeps poping now is... Are broad field of view eyepieces better for wide angle (higher FL) eyepieces or for low FL eyepieces?
@TH-camr-ku4nk Optically speaking, if the design of the eyepiece is good, then it shouldn't make a difference if the focal length is short or long. It's rather a question of preference. For example I prefer a narrow FOV for short focal length eyepieces because with them I'm only observing planets which appear small in the FOV no matter what magnification I use. The longer the focal length gets the wider I like the FOV to be since then I'll be observing wider targets. Hope this helps.
@@tomreinert4850 My old astigmatic eyes are definitely the limiting factor… I first began observing with 0.965” rudimentary Orthos and Kellners-so it’s still a huge thrill to look through a C8 with the 22 mm Panoptic at 47 Tucanae or Omega Centauri :-0
Great review. One of my favorites, definitely my most used eyepiece. In my short refractors I use it as a 'finder' eyepiece because of its huge beautiful views.
3:07 Thank you--great to see! I own the 22 mm Panoptic (purchased in 1995 and since discontinued). Interestingly, this modern 24 mm Panoptic has less diameter and lots less weight, 233 gm versus a hefty 437 gm for the vintage, dual-barrel 22 mm. The 24 mm Panoptic has similar look, size, mass, ER and AFOV to a discontinued TeleVue from the 1980s--the 24 mm Wide Field.
I just did the math and the 41mm televue panoptic would give me an identical magnification and FoV on my Celestron 8SE telescope to what you have on your F6 8” reflector. So i feel more confident about taking the plunge now. :)
Bogdan this is Mike regarding my question on the 41mm TeleVue….. I received the TeleVue 41mm panoptic after you’re feedback, as I mentioned I have the 24mm panoptic and the 31mm nagler the 41mm is as huge and with the 2” TeleVue diagonal let me say this WOW! Worth getting beat up by my wife for buying it ( well not to bad I had to sell something to cover the expense) 👍
Yes. That is the simple answer. I think my best ep is the Nikon 102 degree NAV HW 14/17mm. I think that provides the best contrast and clarity…. But it like the 21E are monsters. In contrast the trusty 24Pan is such a delightful eyepiece. Very light, easy on the eye. Definitely the best pound for pound eyepiece ever.
The best and sharpest eyepiece! I always use it to locate and enjoy the target. Then I move to the Nagler 13 and 5. But the first one is always the Panoptic 24!
Fantastic presentation I’m using my wife’s account to reply I have the panoptic and agree with you ! I also have the 31mm Nagler on my c8 and use the 24mm panoptic on my 5” refractor my question is how does the 41mm compare there aren’t any reviews of it that I can find I have 2” TeleVue everbright diagonals on both also the 8mm Delos TeleVue have you used the 41mm pan? It’s just that it would give lower magnification hopefully give all the nice contrast and to the edge sharpness. Great job on your reviews you are so on the money with everything you talk about and I’ve watched everyone reviewing same items but your dead on and I came close to purchasing other items but always lean towards your reviews keep up the terrific and honest reviews! Mike
@Bonnie Sannicandro Hi Mike! I'm glad you find my videos helpful. I haven't had the chance to look through the 41mm Panoptic, but given my experience with the 24 and 35, I'm confident that the images produced by the 41mm will have as much contrast and be as sharp right up to the edge of the FOV in your refractor as the 24mm version. The brightness might even go up a bit since the 41 has a larger field stop allowing more light to pass through. It should be a terrific eyepiece. Clear skies!
Rather than the Tele-Vue 24mm Panoptic 1.25" is there any con to getting the Tele-Vue 27mm Panoptic 2" (for about $40 more)? I can't get both. I own an Orion 10" Intelliscope Dob.
I was thinking about buying two for my Maxbright binoviewers, but was turned off by the dreaded undercuts! It’s between them and the Explore Scientific 68 degree
@Weeliebin Yeah, the undercuts aren't pretty, but I'm afraid you can't avoid the the Pano if you are looking for arguably the best image quality in eyepieces of mediu focal length. The ES 68° is good but not Panoptic good.
I guess eyepieces are as good as the conditions they are used in. How often are you able to get to dark sites to maximise your equipment (telescope + eyepieces)?
@Lindile Manzingana You are correct. I personally seldom go away to remote locations with dark skies for observing. I am fortunate enough to live an area with little light pollution and even though it's not perfect it's enough to make this hobby very enjoyable. That is why I'm almost always observing from my backyard.
12" is just not large enough to observe deep sky color. Even my 20" scope only shows very little color. My friend's 25" begins to show real nebulosity color.
@John Adams It's certainly not enough for all DSOs, but in case of the really bright ones like Orion Nebula and Pleiades it might just work if the seeing conditions are just right. On two occasions last winter I was able to see some very faint traces of green/blue color both of these objects. It also depends on the eye of the observer. For instance even though I was able to detect some light coloring with my left eye, with my right one this wasn't the case and the myopia difference between my eyes is only 0.25. The right eye being a bit worst then on my left eye. I think it's possible, but only under the right conditions.
There appears to be a supply problem with some televue eyepieces at the moment. I’ve had a panoptic 27 on order for quite some time, and it’s just being continually delayed further out. So I’ve changed the order to a 22mm Nagler type 4, which apparently doesn’t have the same supply issues. Hoping it’s a good alternative solution, but I wonder how the supply problem affects any other eyepieces.
@Alan price Thank you for the update. I have experienced some supply issues regarding other manufacturers as well. Skywatcher, Svbony and Celestron seem to be okay but Lumicon and Farpoint had very low supply levels a couple of months ago and a now starting to get back on track. Changing to a 22mm Nagler is definitely a good choice. Hope you get your eyepiece soon.
@@BogdanDamian glad you like the choice. Between this, the 9mm TV type 6, the Baader zoom, and the 2 x powermate, I’m hoping it’ll give me all the options I need foe the autumn 👍…… though am I imagining it, or are the fun objects in the sky arriving later at night this year than last year?
Hi there! I’m new and just getting into this hobby. Can someone please explain to me the difference between a 1.5” and a 2” eyepiece? Would the 2” just allow more light and generally be the better option?
@brandon152lee Hi and welcome to this wonderful hobby. The diameter of the eyepiece barrel (1.25" or 2") is influenced by a couple of factors. As rule of thumb the longer focal length of an eyepiece is and the wider it's AFOV is, the larger the internal lenses need to be, requiring a larger diameter barrel. For example the 24mm Panoptic with it's 68° AFOV barely manages to squeeze its lenses into a 1.25" format. The next option in the Panoptic series is the 27mm version and its lenses are already too big for a 1.25" barrel, which is why they increased the format to 2". There are also eyepieces with focal lengths as low as 13mm but with very wide AFOV of 100°+. This combination also requires a wider 2" housing. So yes, a 2" eyepiece can let more light through, but these aren't necessary better than 1.25" eyepieces. You typically choose an eyepiece base on its focal length since this will give you a certain magnification to observe the night sky. The size of the eyepiece is mainly a result of the other optical characteristics of the eyepiece. Hope this helps.
I haven't had the chance to try the 130st out yet, but since it's an f5 scope I believe you won't need a coma corrector to enjoy the full field of view of the 24mm Pano. My 12" dob is an f5 scope as well and I've yet to see any coma with this eyepiece.
Hi! How would you compare 24mm(1.25") vs 27mm (2") panoptic? Do you notice any significant differences? I need to choose one of those for my 8 inch dob! Thanks.
@@JeffFishman I have an 8" newtonian on order as my first telescope. For starters I have ordered two TS-Optics eyepieces which are in the mid price range. You say you are using the 24mm 1,25" all the time, but recommended the other user to get the 27mm 2". What is better on the 2"?
great video! This was very informative as always. I wear glasses so maybe I should get the Tele Vue 27.0 Panoptic with 19mm eye relief? This would be used on an 8" Newt at F4.
@lazernteebbee Thank you! If the ER is the most important criteria for you, then the 27mm version certainly makes sense. But keep in mind that with the longer focal length the barrel size also increases to 2". If the somewhat lower magnification obtain is not an issue, then go for the 27mm. Its a great eyepiece.
@lazernteebbee It matters in a way that you will have to wear your glasses every time you look through the eyepiece for optimum views. Unfortunately eyepieces do not correct for this regardless of the quality of the lenses inside the eyepiece.
@@BogdanDamian I think Delos 17.3mm 72° Apparent Field Eyepiece would be better for my scope @ F4 800mm/200mm because of my astigmatism. If we consider the larger field of view and the exit pupil. 17.3mm divided by F4 will give me 4.3 exit pupil and a 2x barlow at 2.16 exit could be the sweet spot when viewing.
How would you compare it to the ES 82 24mm? I know tele Vue has its legendary status, I went for explorer scientific for the price point with my limited budget.
@EJL2004 The ES is a very good midrange eyepiece capable of delivering good optical performance especially in that price category. The Tele Vue is certainly not twice as good, but it is able to deliver sharper views with a bit better contrast. Its FOV is also flatter, although considerably narrower than the ES's.
Hi Bogdan, Thanks a lot for this very informative video. I am thinking of getting either this 24 mm panoptic or 27 mm (2 " barrel) panoptic for my starsense 8" dob. Which one would you recommend? Thanks
@@BogdanDamian Thanks for the quick response. Yes I am planning to use it mainly with my dob(that has 2" focuser). Appreciate you educating us on all things telescope related! Thanks,
@wayneteachey2714 In terms of brightness, contrast and sharpness both are very similar. The FOV is a bit flatter on the Pano while being wider on the Nagler. The 1.25" format of the Pano makes it compatible even with smaller telescopes and different accessories like Barlows as well, which is definitely an advantage.
Very interesting. I have some TV eyepieces but not this one. I do have the ES68 24mm though, which has a few mm more eye relief. I'd really like to do a side-by-side comparison some times...
I haven't had the opportunity to use any explore scientific eyepieces yet, but I heard a lot of good things about them. Maybe I'll get my hands on one of them and make a review and also a comparison video.
@@BogdanDamian Awesome. I'd be really curious to know the difference between two that match in terms of AFOV and focal length. I get mine from this store: www.aliexpress.com/item/4000114417818.html Their stock isn't great at the moment, but for me they are a lot cheaper than buying ES eyepieces locally. I don't know how things work in Germany with import tax etc.
@Mandragara If you can get your hands on eyepieces and their are somewhat affordable, then go for it. Here in Germany we do need to pay taxes on everything so they aren't cheap. I usually wait for sales on the different online shops and tray and buy when the price is the lowest.
@ranger5309 Besides the field of view being a bit wider and the eye relief a bit longer, there isn't much of a difference between the two. Because of its compatibility with smaller telescopes and different accessories due to the 1.24" format I would pick the 24mm version.
Hello Bogdan. This is Suresh, from India. Thank you for nice videos. I own a Celestron Starsense Explorer 8 inch Dobsonian. After using the stock 25 mm Plossl that came with the scope, I am now looking at two Televue eyepieces, one for planetary and the other for deep sky. Can I proceed with the 9 mm Nagler and the 24 mm Panoptic or do you have better ones for me? I am also looking for the best collimator to go with this scope. Some say lasers are not that useful and that a Cheshire is better. Some suggest using both. Can you suggest, please? Thank you.
@sureshr23 Hi Suresh! The Pano is great for DSO. The 9mm Nagler for planetary not so good unless you have a 2x Barlow. The 9mm won't produce a strong enough magnification and the eye relief is very short as well. A 5 or 7mm DeLite would be better. If you want a wider FOV than take a look at the 6 or 8mm Delos. As for the collimator, a laser collimator will work just fine as long as you can make sure it is properly aligned. I have a video on this topic if you want to check it out: th-cam.com/video/MClSQrAF2HA/w-d-xo.html The best results are obtained by using a laser collimator and a Cheshire eyepiece. The best collimator I used so far is the one from Farpoint: amzn.to/46UrhKg
@jayinla228 That depends on your telescope and its focal length. If you can get a decent magnification out of the eyepiece+Barlow without using a high power Barlow. The Panoptic will be just fine in combination with a 2x, maybe a 3x Barlow. Anything higher and the existing pupil might get pushed way back.
@jayinla228 With a 2x Barlow you would get a little over 100x magnification which is on the lower side for planetary observations. If a 3x Barlow would find in with your other eyepieces, then try it out. That way you would get 156x which is much better. But you would be pushing it. This being said, I would recommend getting a different eyepiece with a shorter focal length for plants. It makes more sense than to try and make a planetary eyepiece out of the 24mm Panoptic.
Saluti! My question is, what eyepeace I should use for looking NGC 4565 in a good way. In the moment I use a 32mm SWAN from Omegon and a 10mm Hyperion from Baader. I wish to see NGC 4565 in a bigger form; with my equipment NGC 4565 is very little and nearly not to identify. My Teleskop is a 200/1000 Skywatcher Newton. You have a tip for me? Thanks and good greetings from Jörg Baumann, Mecklenburg/Gerrmany
@Baumann Jörg Hi! If you are currently using the 32mm SWAN, then I would try observing the needle galaxy with the 24mm Panoptic from Tele Vue. It's brighter than the SWAN whilst offering a higher magnification. If you want even more magnification then maybe go with the 19mm Panoptic. Viele Grüße
Hi, it is possible to get colours in deep sky, depending on the aperture of your scope and eye sensitivity to colour in low light levels. In my 10 inch dobsonian M42 is deep green, NGC 3372 is light pink and a lot of the brighter planetary nebulae are a vivid green/blue colour. Various open clusters show beautiful contrasting star colours and then there are double and carbon stars which have intense colours.
"An eyepiece that lets in as much light as possible" - this statement makes no sense. The eyepiece doesn't "let in" light - it magnifies the image made by the main objective in the telescope. In fact the opposite is true - in many cases, what matters is an eyepiece that subtracts as LITTLE light as possible. If you meant field of view, well, that depends on what you are looking at. For planets and the Moon, a large field of view is not as important as minimal scattering and sharpest image.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 76 | คู่เอก "ผึ้งหลวง vs สมิงดำ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9SBshmGQOIM/mqdefault.jpg)
The Pan 24 is always the first eyepiece I use for every viewing session. I bought it used in 2006. Now in 2022, it STILL has the same street value. Effectively, it's a free eyepiece.
@Joe Shuster The 24mm Panoptic is a fantastic eyepiece and in my opinion one of the best ones ever made.
Oddly enough, this is what is sitting on my scope right now, and most of the time, unIess i switch it with 10mm Delos
How well you see through an eyepiece is the result of: (1) the optical quality of the eyepiece; (2) the optical quality of the OTA; (3) atmospheric conditions of seeing and transparency; (4) local light pollution; (5) the health of your eyes, including the effects of aging; and (6) your training of your eyes and brain as an observer. I own a number of Televue eyepieces, including the 24 mm Panoptic, and they are all optically excellent. But under most suboptimal observing conditions, that optical excellence will produce only a limited incremental improvement. Most amateur astronomers under most conditions can achieve similar results with less expensive eyepieces. So each observer should do a realistic cost-benefit analysis before investing in premium eyepieces.
I'm just about to begin my astro journey and I'm research into which type of eyepieces to buy when I want to upgrade. A question that keeps poping now is... Are broad field of view eyepieces better for wide angle (higher FL) eyepieces or for low FL eyepieces?
@TH-camr-ku4nk Optically speaking, if the design of the eyepiece is good, then it shouldn't make a difference if the focal length is short or long. It's rather a question of preference. For example I prefer a narrow FOV for short focal length eyepieces because with them I'm only observing planets which appear small in the FOV no matter what magnification I use. The longer the focal length gets the wider I like the FOV to be since then I'll be observing wider targets. Hope this helps.
@@tomreinert4850 My old astigmatic eyes are definitely the limiting factor… I first began observing with 0.965” rudimentary Orthos and Kellners-so it’s still a huge thrill to look through a C8 with the 22 mm Panoptic at 47 Tucanae or Omega Centauri :-0
Great review. One of my favorites, definitely my most used eyepiece. In my short refractors I use it as a 'finder' eyepiece because of its huge beautiful views.
3:07 Thank you--great to see! I own the 22 mm Panoptic (purchased in 1995 and since discontinued). Interestingly, this modern 24 mm Panoptic has less diameter and lots less weight, 233 gm versus a hefty 437 gm for the vintage, dual-barrel 22 mm. The 24 mm Panoptic has similar look, size, mass, ER and AFOV to a discontinued TeleVue from the 1980s--the 24 mm Wide Field.
I just did the math and the 41mm televue panoptic would give me an identical magnification and FoV on my Celestron 8SE telescope to what you have on your F6 8” reflector. So i feel more confident about taking the plunge now. :)
Stellarium on pc or Mac is really good to simulate different combinations of equipment against any target in the sky 🎯
The 24mm PanoptIc sits in my Tele Vue TV-85 as my go to ocular. 👍
The panoptic 27 and 41 are my low power go-to along with the Nagler 31
Is the tv 24 the only EP you use with your tv85?
I recently got the 27mm Panoptic.
Bogdan this is Mike regarding my question on the 41mm TeleVue….. I received the TeleVue 41mm panoptic after you’re feedback, as I mentioned I have the 24mm panoptic and the 31mm nagler the 41mm is as huge and with the 2” TeleVue diagonal let me say this WOW! Worth getting beat up by my wife for buying it ( well not to bad I had to sell something to cover the expense) 👍
@Bonnie Sannicandro This is awesome! You definitely did the right choice. Now I have to try out that combination for myself 🙂 Clear skies!
Yes. That is the simple answer.
I think my best ep is the Nikon 102 degree NAV HW 14/17mm. I think that provides the best contrast and clarity…. But it like the 21E are monsters.
In contrast the trusty 24Pan is such a delightful eyepiece. Very light, easy on the eye. Definitely the best pound for pound eyepiece ever.
The best and sharpest eyepiece! I always use it to locate and enjoy the target. Then I move to the Nagler 13 and 5. But the first one is always the Panoptic 24!
The TV Delite eyepieces are about the same price and FOV and have 20mm of eye relief making them more comfortable viewing then the Panoptic IMO
Wow, I love it how professionally made your videos look. Great job! Also you seem to really know your stuff - thanks for the super nice review! 😊
Thank you!
Fantastic presentation I’m using my wife’s account to reply I have the panoptic and agree with you ! I also have the 31mm Nagler on my c8 and use the 24mm panoptic on my 5” refractor my question is how does the 41mm compare there aren’t any reviews of it that I can find I have 2” TeleVue everbright diagonals on both also the 8mm Delos TeleVue have you used the 41mm pan? It’s just that it would give lower magnification hopefully give all the nice contrast and to the edge sharpness. Great job on your reviews you are so on the money with everything you talk about and I’ve watched everyone reviewing same items but your dead on and I came close to purchasing other items but always lean towards your reviews keep up the terrific and honest reviews! Mike
@Bonnie Sannicandro Hi Mike! I'm glad you find my videos helpful. I haven't had the chance to look through the 41mm Panoptic, but given my experience with the 24 and 35, I'm confident that the images produced by the 41mm will have as much contrast and be as sharp right up to the edge of the FOV in your refractor as the 24mm version. The brightness might even go up a bit since the 41 has a larger field stop allowing more light to pass through. It should be a terrific eyepiece. Clear skies!
Your videos are very clear! Thanks for sharing
Rather than the Tele-Vue 24mm Panoptic 1.25" is there any con to getting the Tele-Vue 27mm Panoptic 2" (for about $40 more)? I can't get both. I own an Orion 10" Intelliscope Dob.
I was thinking about buying two for my Maxbright binoviewers, but was turned off by the dreaded undercuts! It’s between them and the Explore Scientific 68 degree
@Weeliebin Yeah, the undercuts aren't pretty, but I'm afraid you can't avoid the the Pano if you are looking for arguably the best image quality in eyepieces of mediu focal length. The ES 68° is good but not Panoptic good.
Totally different class!
I guess eyepieces are as good as the conditions they are used in. How often are you able to get to dark sites to maximise your equipment (telescope + eyepieces)?
@Lindile Manzingana You are correct. I personally seldom go away to remote locations with dark skies for observing. I am fortunate enough to live an area with little light pollution and even though it's not perfect it's enough to make this hobby very enjoyable. That is why I'm almost always observing from my backyard.
12" is just not large enough to observe deep sky color. Even my 20" scope only shows very little color. My friend's 25" begins to show real nebulosity color.
@John Adams It's certainly not enough for all DSOs, but in case of the really bright ones like Orion Nebula and Pleiades it might just work if the seeing conditions are just right. On two occasions last winter I was able to see some very faint traces of green/blue color both of these objects. It also depends on the eye of the observer. For instance even though I was able to detect some light coloring with my left eye, with my right one this wasn't the case and the myopia difference between my eyes is only 0.25. The right eye being a bit worst then on my left eye.
I think it's possible, but only under the right conditions.
I disagree John. My 10 inch dobsonian is smaller than a 12 inch yet I see colour in quite a lot of the brighter DSO'S
There appears to be a supply problem with some televue eyepieces at the moment. I’ve had a panoptic 27 on order for quite some time, and it’s just being continually delayed further out. So I’ve changed the order to a 22mm Nagler type 4, which apparently doesn’t have the same supply issues.
Hoping it’s a good alternative solution, but I wonder how the supply problem affects any other eyepieces.
@Alan price Thank you for the update. I have experienced some supply issues regarding other manufacturers as well. Skywatcher, Svbony and Celestron seem to be okay but Lumicon and Farpoint had very low supply levels a couple of months ago and a now starting to get back on track. Changing to a 22mm Nagler is definitely a good choice. Hope you get your eyepiece soon.
@@BogdanDamian glad you like the choice. Between this, the 9mm TV type 6, the Baader zoom, and the 2 x powermate, I’m hoping it’ll give me all the options I need foe the autumn 👍…… though am I imagining it, or are the fun objects in the sky arriving later at night this year than last year?
@Alan price You are correct, the planets for example come into view approx. 1.5 hours "later" compared to last year.
Hi there! I’m new and just getting into this hobby. Can someone please explain to me the difference between a 1.5” and a 2” eyepiece? Would the 2” just allow more light and generally be the better option?
@brandon152lee Hi and welcome to this wonderful hobby. The diameter of the eyepiece barrel (1.25" or 2") is influenced by a couple of factors. As rule of thumb the longer focal length of an eyepiece is and the wider it's AFOV is, the larger the internal lenses need to be, requiring a larger diameter barrel. For example the 24mm Panoptic with it's 68° AFOV barely manages to squeeze its lenses into a 1.25" format. The next option in the Panoptic series is the 27mm version and its lenses are already too big for a 1.25" barrel, which is why they increased the format to 2". There are also eyepieces with focal lengths as low as 13mm but with very wide AFOV of 100°+. This combination also requires a wider 2" housing. So yes, a 2" eyepiece can let more light through, but these aren't necessary better than 1.25" eyepieces. You typically choose an eyepiece base on its focal length since this will give you a certain magnification to observe the night sky. The size of the eyepiece is mainly a result of the other optical characteristics of the eyepiece. Hope this helps.
@@BogdanDamian it does help. Thank you very much!
Would it work good in my fast orion spaceprobe 130st? Cause it corrects coma in your telescope I heard without a coma corrector
I haven't had the chance to try the 130st out yet, but since it's an f5 scope I believe you won't need a coma corrector to enjoy the full field of view of the 24mm Pano. My 12" dob is an f5 scope as well and I've yet to see any coma with this eyepiece.
@@BogdanDamian welp im 15, so better save up 😂!
Great review, would this eyepiece work well with my 8inch dob?
@sparta3363 Yes, absolutely!
I use the 24mm all the time. I also have the 2" 27mm and 35mm panoptics
Hi! How would you compare 24mm(1.25") vs 27mm (2") panoptic? Do you notice any significant differences? I need to choose one of those for my 8 inch dob! Thanks.
@@mthirugnana go with the 2 inch, the 27 MM
@@JeffFishman Thanks Jeff!
@@JeffFishman I have an 8" newtonian on order as my first telescope. For starters I have ordered two TS-Optics eyepieces which are in the mid price range.
You say you are using the 24mm 1,25" all the time, but recommended the other user to get the 27mm 2". What is better on the 2"?
Hi - i just prefer the larger FOV of the 2” EP’s
great video! This was very informative as always. I wear glasses so maybe I should get the Tele Vue 27.0 Panoptic with 19mm eye relief? This would be used on an 8" Newt at F4.
@lazernteebbee Thank you! If the ER is the most important criteria for you, then the 27mm version certainly makes sense. But keep in mind that with the longer focal length the barrel size also increases to 2". If the somewhat lower magnification obtain is not an issue, then go for the 27mm. Its a great eyepiece.
@@BogdanDamian thx for the relpy. I also have a stigmatism so i'm not sure if that matters too.
@lazernteebbee It matters in a way that you will have to wear your glasses every time you look through the eyepiece for optimum views. Unfortunately eyepieces do not correct for this regardless of the quality of the lenses inside the eyepiece.
27mm ER not enough with my glasses
@@BogdanDamian I think Delos 17.3mm
72° Apparent Field Eyepiece would be better for my scope @ F4 800mm/200mm because of my astigmatism. If we consider the larger field of view and the exit pupil. 17.3mm divided by F4 will give me 4.3 exit pupil and a 2x barlow at 2.16 exit could be the sweet spot when viewing.
How would you compare it to the ES 82 24mm? I know tele Vue has its legendary status, I went for explorer scientific for the price point with my limited budget.
@EJL2004 The ES is a very good midrange eyepiece capable of delivering good optical performance especially in that price category. The Tele Vue is certainly not twice as good, but it is able to deliver sharper views with a bit better contrast. Its FOV is also flatter, although considerably narrower than the ES's.
Hi Bogdan, Thanks a lot for this very informative video. I am thinking of getting either this 24 mm panoptic or 27 mm (2 " barrel) panoptic for my starsense 8" dob. Which one would you recommend? Thanks
@mthirugnana Hi, if you are only planning to use it in combination with a telescope that has a 2" focuser, then go with the 27mm.
@@BogdanDamian Thanks for the quick response. Yes I am planning to use it mainly with my dob(that has 2" focuser). Appreciate you educating us on all things telescope related! Thanks,
How does the 24mm Panoptic compare with the 22mm Nagler?
@wayneteachey2714 In terms of brightness, contrast and sharpness both are very similar. The FOV is a bit flatter on the Pano while being wider on the Nagler. The 1.25" format of the Pano makes it compatible even with smaller telescopes and different accessories like Barlows as well, which is definitely an advantage.
Very interesting. I have some TV eyepieces but not this one. I do have the ES68 24mm though, which has a few mm more eye relief. I'd really like to do a side-by-side comparison some times...
I haven't had the opportunity to use any explore scientific eyepieces yet, but I heard a lot of good things about them. Maybe I'll get my hands on one of them and make a review and also a comparison video.
@@BogdanDamian Awesome. I'd be really curious to know the difference between two that match in terms of AFOV and focal length.
I get mine from this store: www.aliexpress.com/item/4000114417818.html
Their stock isn't great at the moment, but for me they are a lot cheaper than buying ES eyepieces locally. I don't know how things work in Germany with import tax etc.
@Mandragara If you can get your hands on eyepieces and their are somewhat affordable, then go for it. Here in Germany we do need to pay taxes on everything so they aren't cheap. I usually wait for sales on the different online shops and tray and buy when the price is the lowest.
How would it compare to the Tele Vue 27mm 2” panoptic? If you could only have one?
@ranger5309 Besides the field of view being a bit wider and the eye relief a bit longer, there isn't much of a difference between the two. Because of its compatibility with smaller telescopes and different accessories due to the 1.24" format I would pick the 24mm version.
@@BogdanDamian Thank you. Your channel is great! Clear Sky’s! Katy, Tx. 😃
Yes it is really that good .
😁 I have one
Hello Bogdan. This is Suresh, from India. Thank you for nice videos. I own a Celestron Starsense Explorer 8 inch Dobsonian. After using the stock 25 mm Plossl that came with the scope, I am now looking at two Televue eyepieces, one for planetary and the other for deep sky. Can I proceed with the 9 mm Nagler and the 24 mm Panoptic or do you have better ones for me? I am also looking for the best collimator to go with this scope. Some say lasers are not that useful and that a Cheshire is better. Some suggest using both. Can you suggest, please? Thank you.
@sureshr23 Hi Suresh! The Pano is great for DSO. The 9mm Nagler for planetary not so good unless you have a 2x Barlow. The 9mm won't produce a strong enough magnification and the eye relief is very short as well. A 5 or 7mm DeLite would be better. If you want a wider FOV than take a look at the 6 or 8mm Delos.
As for the collimator, a laser collimator will work just fine as long as you can make sure it is properly aligned. I have a video on this topic if you want to check it out: th-cam.com/video/MClSQrAF2HA/w-d-xo.html The best results are obtained by using a laser collimator and a Cheshire eyepiece. The best collimator I used so far is the one from Farpoint: amzn.to/46UrhKg
Would it be ideal for planetary viewing with a barlow?
@jayinla228 That depends on your telescope and its focal length. If you can get a decent magnification out of the eyepiece+Barlow without using a high power Barlow. The Panoptic will be just fine in combination with a 2x, maybe a 3x Barlow. Anything higher and the existing pupil might get pushed way back.
@@BogdanDamian it's a 10" dob with 1250mm
@@BogdanDamian would that size work
@jayinla228 With a 2x Barlow you would get a little over 100x magnification which is on the lower side for planetary observations. If a 3x Barlow would find in with your other eyepieces, then try it out. That way you would get 156x which is much better. But you would be pushing it.
This being said, I would recommend getting a different eyepiece with a shorter focal length for plants. It makes more sense than to try and make a planetary eyepiece out of the 24mm Panoptic.
Saluti! My question is, what eyepeace I should use for looking NGC 4565 in a good way. In the moment I use a 32mm SWAN from Omegon and a 10mm Hyperion from Baader. I wish to see NGC 4565 in a bigger form; with my equipment NGC 4565 is very little and nearly not to identify. My Teleskop is a 200/1000 Skywatcher Newton. You have a tip for me?
Thanks and good greetings from Jörg Baumann, Mecklenburg/Gerrmany
@Baumann Jörg Hi! If you are currently using the 32mm SWAN, then I would try observing the needle galaxy with the 24mm Panoptic from Tele Vue. It's brighter than the SWAN whilst offering a higher magnification. If you want even more magnification then maybe go with the 19mm Panoptic. Viele Grüße
@@BogdanDamian Thanks a lot for the answer, Jörg Baumann 😁👍
Get a Baader Morpheus 14mm for more mag, flat field and > FOV it will blow your mind (if your a astronomy geek!)
People say there are eye pieces and then there are tele vue.my budget can reach baader Hyperion but if I win the lottery then you know the rest!
Bogdan, love the videos, but the irony! This is a video about an eyepiece but I'm distracted because your glasses are sitting crooked.
Are these still made in Japan?
@Paultricounty The Panoptic is made in Taiwan. The DeLite in Japan.
Just a suggestion, if reviewing EP's, provide real images, not simulated ones. To get a better analysis of the product. Just saying, thanks.
How?
I’d like to know how you’d do that?
By using a camera lens instead? Not quite thought this through have you?
Colors in deep sky? No way.
Hi, it is possible to get colours in deep sky, depending on the aperture of your scope and eye sensitivity to colour in low light levels. In my 10 inch dobsonian M42 is deep green, NGC 3372 is light pink and a lot of the brighter planetary nebulae are a vivid green/blue colour. Various open clusters show beautiful contrasting star colours and then there are double and carbon stars which have intense colours.
@@epickcrom5606 I have seen colors through my old 8"
Bro he even said himself! YOU DON'T NEED GLASSES to use a telescope
"An eyepiece that lets in as much light as possible" - this statement makes no sense. The eyepiece doesn't "let in" light - it magnifies the image made by the main objective in the telescope. In fact the opposite is true - in many cases, what matters is an eyepiece that subtracts as LITTLE light as possible. If you meant field of view, well, that depends on what you are looking at. For planets and the Moon, a large field of view is not as important as minimal scattering and sharpest image.
get one and you want to regret it, not the best ad