Subtle Difference ES68 v TVPan

[Profiler]

This may be viewed as a minor point but for those who are interested and not already aware I discovered today that the ES 68's are not really comparable clones/copies of TV Panoptics (unlike their 82's and 100's).

All TV Panoptics are designed on a 6 lens element configuration whereas the ES 68's are actually a 7 lens element design.

[Suzy]

I'm a 70deg fan, but alas I gave the 68deg a wide berth in favour of the 82deg which I'm contemplating buying (the 4.7mm). I've heard a long time ago they weren't in the same league.

Just still not enough comparative reviews out there on these eyepieces (the 82 & 100deg) for one to make a truly informed decision is there. Would love to know how they hold against a Baader Hyperion in a fast scope (forgetting about the fov difference, I'm talking about quality), but that's another topic all together, may have to resurrect an old thread of mine & bring it up.:)

[AG Hybrid]

Well at 1/3 the price this isn't a surprise to me. Got to say though. The views through the Panoptics are pretty darn fine. Should be worth a premium.

[mercedes_sl1970]

Hi Suzy - not sure about the shorter focal lengths but this CN Review (http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2729),which includes the 68 deg ES 24mm is quite comprehensive, and long... It comes up with some interesting findings - and makes the 24mm seem quite attractive. Have been considering it for binocular use where, for me, 68-70 deg is perfect.

Apologies if you have already seen the review.

Andrew

[Profiler]

Can you provide a link to the review as I have come across other references to it but can't seem to find it myself :thanx:

[mercedes_sl1970]

Sorry if my link doesn't work. Here's another try: http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2729

Cheers

Andrew

[Profiler]

Thank you. Very interesting indeed.

[casstony]

WRT brightness, note that the Panoptic used in the CN review was a few years old and may not have had the latest coatings.

[Profiler]

I am still making my way through the review but the ES isn't the clear winner as it seem to be conveyed. It is certainly very good and indeed 'spectacular' when considered in the context of performance versus relative cost but it depends what are the parameters (in terms of use/targets) and costs to be considered. Additionally, there are some slips in the review as the ES 68 is, at least according to Opt Corp site, actually a 7 element EP not a 6 like the Pan.

[dannat]

From the Cn threads I've read the 68 deg are a tad better than the 82 deg ES in the med focal lengths eg 11&14 82 deg are inferior to the 16 mm 68

[Suzy]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for that link, and no I hadn't seen it before- quite comprehensive that's for sure. It's quite long and detailed so I had to stop short, will read the rest later on tonight. :thumbsup:

Here's (http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3819290/Main/3815434)a CN review of the ES 4.7mm 82deg I'm contemplating on buying. Aye, been having this contemplation for the past 6mths, but it's crunch time now. :lol:
I realise you guys aren't talking about the 4.7mm, but I think this maybe worthy of attention (from the link I just gave)...

I'm okay to make that compromise for the price of the ep and other good points it seems to have, price being one of them. It's mainly for splitting stars, observing the Homunculus in eta Carina and for bright dso's that can handle that magnification for times when I can go beyond my XW7mm. But the Baader still may win out for me on other points which I'm impressed with. Won't go into it here as I don't want to go off topic. :)

As Daniel stated below, and what I've always been led to believe, there can be differences in quality across different focal lengths which especially make themselves shown in fast scopes. The ES range confuses this issue more as they offer three (68, 82, 100) deg. fov's. :mad2:

[Profiler]

Suzy - why not the XW5mm over the ES? The general impression I get of the XW's is that they are hard to beat below 10mm. It is typically always better to take your time to save for a high quality EP than hunt around for compromises.

[MattT]

Tricky one isn't it Suzy? I had trouble justifying a 5mm XW and as much as I wanted to I knew it would not get much use. Other things to spend money on... Maybe you should start a thread along the lines of ....Are $300+ 5mm eyepieces really worth it when they sit in the eyepiece case for a long time, and see what comes out of that!
Having said that my 6.7 82 ES is fab can't really fault it, love to try it next to a Nagler one day just to reassure/ disappoint myself.
Matt

[Profiler]

Matt has got a good point - part of it also depends on what scope you have (in particular fl) and more importantly its quality. With top tier refractors you will use a 5mm all the time (I do at least for planetary) but with long fl reflectors etc Matt is right that it wouldn't get as much use due to magnification v sky conditions.

You already have the 7 & 10mm and as one IIS members signature notes 'life is too short to suffer bad glass". If you buy the XW you will never be wondering whether there was something else better 'if only' you had saved/spent a little more.

[MattT]

Profiler your right too about get the XW and your never left wondering if you did the right thing...aaarrgh if I had a 6" apo Id go for the a whole bunch of XW's ...while they are still around, Ive seen discussion on CN that they might not be making any more after the tsunami, sorry got off topic there :D Yes life is too short to look through bad glass..apologies Leon
Matt

[Profiler]

First - I can't take credit for the phrase about bad glass - I think it belongs to IIS member "The Mekon" from the old Dan Dare comics.

Now more importantly - to allay your concerns - it is only false rumours. Pentax released an official statement some months ago (some saw it - others didn't) but they are not discontinuing production of the XWs so they will be around for sometime to come.

Finally, you don't have to have a 6 inch refractor cannon to enjoy a 5mm or even 3.5 EP. If you have something like a NP101, TV-60, FS-60C these short focal lengths get plenty of use as do even amazingly shorter FL EPs like a 2-4mm Nagler zoom or LV2.5.

[brian nordstrom]

:thumbsup: Bang on there Profiler , I love using my 2.5mm - 6mm LV's in my 355mm f/l Tak FS60c there is something special using that combo , and as Matt said do you really have to spend that money on one eyepiece? , but at the other end my 22mm and 24mm Pans are my most used eyepieces in all my scopes , nice .:D .
Brian.

[Profiler]

I think it is the psychology of Lanthanum meeting true Fluorite working there Brian

[Gurutronic]

For what it's worth from the voice of someone still only 10 months into the hobby... I think that the ES series of eyepieces really do offer tremendous bang for the buck. So much so that I have, over the past 6 months gotten the 4.7, 6.7, 8.8 and 11mm in the 82 degree range and then the 16, 24 (x2), and 34 in the 68 degree range. The reason I got two 24's were that they really are great eyepieces and I wanted something relatively wide field for my finder scope. I would say however that I really love the 68 degree line for some reason.. I still remember looking through the 24mm when I first got it and thinking that suddenly I was viewing in High Def!!

[brian nordstrom]

;) You might be right there Profiler , there is something about this combo that works ..:thanx:.
Brian.

[Suzy]

Apologies Profiler for not getting back to you sooner.

I don't see the 5mm getting a whole lot of use. It gives me 240x mag.- bit too much for regular use on my scope which has a 1200 f/length. My XW7 (170x mag.) covers the high power end nicely, but that being said, the XW10 is the one that gets the big work out.

Regarding your comments of the XW's being hard to beat below 10mm- I've come across those comments a lot for sure. :thumbsup: The XW10 being the most popular (not because of any deficiencies, but because it's the most used in the range under 10mm).
OPT are selling the XW's at the moment for $359 plus $50 shipping brings it to $410 *cough cough*. But! If I came across a second hand one for $200 I would jump on it.
Hard to believe at the time when I bought my XW7 last year, they were selling in Australia for $730 (just the XW7), yet I was able to get it for $300 from OPT when the dollar was good. Huge price gap isn't it!

I agree completely with your last line: That's exactly what I told myself when I first started buying eyepieces. One can tend to waste a lot of money trying to find a good eyepiece. If I had the spare $410 I would jump on the XW5 for sure, but a recent $700 purchase of kitting out my dob with a go-to has used up my astro brownie points grrrr.

For the last 12 months I've sat back & waited on the responses of the ES before I made any decisions, so it's a purchase I'm not making lightly. But, at that high end of magnification, I'm prepared to make some small sacrifices- but then again I'm terribly fussy with quality. :rolleyes: I can still barlow down my XW10 to a 5mm, which I do sometimes, but I hate fiddling changing 2" adapters to accommodate 2" barlow in the dark and I don't care what anybody says, having all that extra glass on top of all that extra glass in widefields has GOT to do something in light loss. The only person I'd believe if they said that wasn't the case is John Bambury or the like.:confuse3:
A Nagler 5mm will never enter my mind as it's only got 12mm of eye relief. Fine for some, just not for me. I remember all too well having to struggle with 10mm ER with plossls that came with my scope.:P. Bit off topic, but was using Ron's 17mm 2" Nagler and it was noiiiiiice! :scared2: Good eye relief too.

If I'm not happy with the ES, I will look at it as only my second "failed" eyepiece purchase- a lesson I think I'm prepared to take the $100 gamble with. The other ep I'm talking about I only spent $50 on- performed tragically in my scope- for that price and it was Meade, I thought what the heck so I bought it. So I'm not doing too bad so far. :D:lol:
Haven't made up my mind fully yet- the reflection problem with the ES4.7 has me thinking still, tho not ruled it out entirely.

Perhaps I should put up a "wanted" ad. for an XW5. But then how often does one come across second hand XW for sale. No one seems to want to part with them.

[casstony]

Hi Suzy, the shorter focal length ES 82's have similar useable eye relief to the Nagler T6's. The manufacturer's stated eye relief figures are exaggerated and the 4.7 is reported to be tighter than the 6.7. I have the 6.7 and need to fold the eyecup down to take in most of the view, though it's reasonably comfortable to use that way.

The on-axis performance of the longer focal length ES eyepieces is on par with Televue but I haven't had a chance to properly compare the 6.7 and 11 yet.

[Profiler]

Hi Suzy

No problem at all - I am sadly a refractolic and didn't realise what FL and scope you were meaning. I think B&H photos have the XWs on special at the momment so might be worth a look.

[Suzy]

Oh! :mad2:
Hi Tony, you've been a big help, many thanks for that.
Oh boy, this is turning into a nightmare! The ES4.7mm is supposed to have 15mm of eye relief, having an ep already with that same amount ER I find that I really don't want to go any shorter.
Just a reminder to people that this is a personal choice regarding comfort level and a factor if one wears glasses.
Unless I get to try one in the meantime, I think I'll be giving this a miss and re-look at the Baader which was my second choice.


Profiler: no problem at all. ;):) It does get confusing!
Thanks for the link to B&H Photos (I hadn't heard of them before), I went & had a look but they don't seem to do XWs shorter than 10mm. But what a great price on them! $279.96 for the XW10mm converted to au that's $270)- that's fantastic! I've no clue on the shipping costs though.

[Profiler]

Hi Suzy

It only takes a few minutes to write an email to find out whether they can get other FLs for you and at what their prices might be. With respect to shipping costs I seem to recall reading another thread of someone mentioning something like $30 for shipping when they purchased from them recently - however, I don't think that figure was UPS but once again it can't hurt to ask and be certain.

[MattT]

Hi Suzy,
Astronomics have XW's for $325 or so and if you are on cloudy nights they do an unspecified discount postage is around $30 or so I think could be worth it? I did get the 5mm Hyperion with extra spacing rings and it's ok easy to look through but probably not close to the XW's in views...but only really used it once in the last few months.
Matt

[Suzy]

Good point Profiler, I will ask them if they sell the XW5mm, thanks.:thumbsup:
No doubt the XW's are a great price but $100 over budget at $300. Hmmm... I'll have a good think on it- very tempting. At this point a cost like that will have to wait a bit- just hope they're still that price in a couple of months.

Matt, thank you- good to know. :thumbsup:
I get this funny feeling I'll end up doing yet another XW. :eyepop:
What the heck, I don't really need steak for the next 2 months do I. :rolleyes::lol:

[Suzy]

I only get eyepieces with these coatings :D
The XWs & LVWs have lanthanum, while my Denkenmier has the flourite.

[Suzy]

Well, I bit the bullet a few days ago and ordered the XW5. Adoroma in the U.S. had it on special for only $280 and our dollar is doing well so the conversion works out to only $267 at the moment. Shipping was an extra $60, but that still brings it in at a cheap $330. I've just checked OPT and they still have them at $360 plus shipping.

A couple of months ago I bought the Baader Hyperion 5mm. It behaved shockingly in my fast scope- very annoying and distracting vignetting, rendering the fov much much less than the 65 (or 68 I forget) degrees. I took it back. So now that I've procrastinated so long on what 5mm ep to get, I could finally afford my XW so it all worked in my favor. :lol:

Someone posted links as to where in the U.S. to buy XWs from (I only knew of Woodlands and OPT) and that's how I came to know about Adorama. I tried finding the thread to thank that person but alas I couldn't find it. So whoever you are- a big thank you!

[MattT]

Well done Suzy! You know whats next...the 3.5XW :lol:

[Suzy]

That's not funny! :lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
no no no really it isn't
Why am I still laughing :lol:

...and I'm foolishly telling myself my kit is done. Is it ever "done". I've lost count of how many times I've told myself that. :P:lol:

Anything under a 5mm, I'm happy to barlow. :D If I was lucky enough to use that focal length say three times a year, it would cost me $110 a pop :eyepop:.

[bytor666]

Good call on the XW Suzy! I was also considering a 5mm XW, but the price held me back as well. I eventually found a 5.2mm Pentax XL, which I use on Jupiter and small globs / planetary nebs. I had also tried the 6.7mm and 4.7mm ES eyepieces which I drift timed. The 6.7mm ES 82 is actually a 7mm EP and the 4.7mm ES 82 is actually a 5mm EP. Some will say that is splitting hairs, but it's not:

1200/5= 240x
1200/4.7=255x

1200/6.7=179x
1200/7=171x

The difference isn't huge but is is there. I found the eye relief to be too short on the ES eyepieces in the 6.7mm and 4.7mm focal lengths, so I grabbed a 5.2mm Pentax XL and the difference in relief is quite large. The quality in the glass of the Pentax XL's are much better than the ES eyepieces as well, but not a huge difference when viewing at the eyepieces. The ES 6.7mm and 4.7mm showed nice tight stars on axis and close to the edges, but the eye relief for me was just too short.

I have also owned a 28mm and 20mm Meade Series 5000 SWA which are excellent performers in fast scopes, (mine is a 10" F/4.7 Skywatcher Reflector), and these eyepieces are probably the same as the ES 68 degree eyepieces. (The guy at ES used to work at Meade....so IMHO, I think the Meade Series 5000 designs are pretty close to the ES designs).

Cheers,

[Don Pensack]

A note: Current versions of the Explore Scientific 68 degree eyepieces have 6 elements in 4 groups. It states this on the ES site, and I can verify it. Purging gas has also changed on the very latest arrivals from nitrogen to Argon.

[MortonH]

And the ES designs are remarkably similar to Televue (so similar that the absence of a law suit is somewhat surprising, from what I've been told).

[Don Pensack]

Jing Hua Optical (JOC) is the maker of the older Meade Series 5000 and Celestron Axiom LX eyepieces. For over a year, the Series 5000 and the Celestrons have been from another company.
JOC owns Explore Scientific.
It is likely the ES68s are similar to the TeleVue Panoptics, though not identical.
Scott Roberts, the manager of ES, used to work at Meade many years ago, and he was at Meade for many years when meade was sourcing from JOC.
Meade and Celestron now source from another company in China.