I also have a 22mm Panoptic, Debbie. It is a very nice eyepiece. Tele Vue does not make it any longer, and I'm not parting with mine. Mat -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Debbie Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Explore Scientific Eyepieces Brent and Matt, I have a 8mm TV Plossl that I have not used in awhile. Maybe I should try it against my buddy's ES 6.7mm when the weather warms up a little. I still have a little snow on the driveway. Mike, I'd be interested in the 24mm 2-inch as well. I'd like to see how it stacks up against my 22mm Panoptic. Debbie On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mike Scott <mike37n113w@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a few of the 82 series (the 30, 24 and 18). Both are terrific. Had them for 1+ years. I don;t have any quantitative comparisons for you, but I like them better than the Meade 25 (or was it 26) that I used to use.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Debbie <astrodeb@beyondbb.com> wrote:

...

Anyone have any favorable comments on Explore Scientific eyepieces? I'm interested in the 82 degree eyepieces for planets, doublestars, and planetary nebulae. They are on sale right now and I may buy one soon. Thanks.

Debbie _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation

I am in agreement with Brent on using simple eyepieces for planetary observation. I prefer orthos and my old Konigs, and even Kellners and Plossls can work very well. It's not simply a matter of wide-field not being needed, though that is certainly true for planets. Fewer elements also mean less loss from multiple surface reflections as well as increased throughput due to decreased absorbtion. Multi-layer surface coatings do nothing to mitigate absorbtion. Some wide-angle EPs also are more prone to ghost images than simpler designs. Lastly, it is a rare wide-angle EP, from my experience, that is as sharp at the center of the field as a simple design. In his book Star Testing of Astronomical Telescopes, Dick Suiter demonstrates that the center of the field of the Nagler design is a bit soft. I'm sure there are better wide-angle EPs today but the concept of "more glass" rarely does much for center field sharpness. Simpler eyepiece designs also work very well when used with a Barlow. I do own a couple of 80+ degree eyepieces and several 70 degree, but they are at least 30 years old and used for dim, extended DSOs only. For planets, I always reach for my orthos, old UO Konigs, and the occasional Plossl and Kellner. If you own a long refractor, f/12 or slower, you might be surprised how sharp even a simple Ramsden can be on the planets. I keep a couple of old Ramsdens handy for my refractors. I will also echo Brent's comment on colored filters for planetary use. They almost never let you see more detail over-all. What they do is surpress some features to allow very specific ones to be seen a bit more easily. But overall, the resolution is lessened a tad. They do have their uses, on occassion, but I highly doubt you'll ever experience a "wow" moment using a colored filter. I've only ever found them useful a handful of times on Mars and Jupiter. Sorry Debbie, but I can't give a recommendation on ES eyepieces. Almost everything in my eyepiece case dates from 1985 or earlier. I'm still an Erfle user, happy with 60-65 degree fields, for the most part. Only rarely will I break-out my UO 16mm & 32mm Widescans with 82-degree fields, or my 40mm 7/70, with the bigger scopes. They get used with my smaller, faster scopes for the most part.