I've found the info I need, so thanks to everyone for trying to help. My questions centred around whether a 35mm Panoptic and 2" diagonal would work, which a lot of people have already commented on
.
It was a post from user Tanglebones (Stu) (in stargazerslounge.com back in April 2016) that finally convinced me, so I'll copy it in here just to finish this thread.
Thanks to all who helped. and apologies for the barrage of posts!
Stephen
In one of my last posts I mentioned wanting to try the Panoptic 35 (P35) on M42 and I had my chance a few weeks ago out at a darkish-sky site. First though, here is an entry from my observing log taken on the 27th of September 2014, which is the first time my eyes ever looked at M42 through a telescope - "I have to say, M42 was a bit underwhelming and I’m not sure why.” Contrast this with my entry on Friday, 11th of March 2016, which is when I went out to the dark sky site::
Tonight, there is only one word I can use to describe M42. Two words. Absolutely stunning. Oh, how my comment of 2014-270/21 comes back to haunt me ("I have to say, M42 was a bit underwhelming and I’m not sure why.”). I have never seen M42 looking so beautiful and I think I am just a little bit in love. And not just with M42, the TV35P was pretty much my only eyepiece for the majority of the evening. Using it, I saw the Trapezium as clearly as if I was there. Pin-sharp and very bright, surrounded by fold after fold of billowing nebulosity. That nebulosity seemed to take on a 3D perspective, even though I knew I wasn’t seeing it as such. It looked like it had depth to it, though, like it would look as I approached it.
The fish mouth was dark, far darker than I think I’ve seen before in other scopes. As too was the dark nebulosity that separates M42 from M43. I also saw the swept-back ‘wings’ for the first time, matching what I see in people’s images. And those three distinct stars all lined up underneath the starboard wing. And all this was before trying the UHC and OIII filters. Under the UHC filter, the Trapezium stars were a bit harder to see but I attribute this to the extra nebulosity I was observing, which only enhanced the 3D-like experience. The stars all had a blue-green tint to them, but strangely this didn’t detract from the view. It gave it an unearthly, surreal perspective. I then switched to the OIII filter and there were less stars again and I noted the nebulosity had a different shape to it.
It amazes me that this hauntingly beautiful sight was right there for me to view my entire life, and until just over a year ago I never took the time. I’m so glad I finally did.
The views through the two DeLites are *almost* as good, but not quite, which I attribute to illumination of field. They are just as sharp and clear as the P35, but not quite as well lit. That Panoptic 35 is now my go-to eyepiece and it is always the first one I reach for. I haven't noticed any vignetting at all. If it is present then it is very subtle. So if any others find themselves wondering which eyepiece will give them the widest possible field of view in a Sky-Watcher Mak 180, with a minimum of distraction, then I highly recommend they look at Tele Vue's Panoptic 35. In this particular telescope it gives some lovely, lovely views.