|
Thanks, guys, I appreciate all your comments.
Mmmmm, well, I do have the T4 12mm, and I know what you mean, Geoff, about the softer focus. That's why I indulged in the luxury of the 10mm Pentax, especially for planetary stuff. Still, I resented losing the field when I used the Pentax in the Megrez and that's why I opted NOT to sell the Nagler. (The problem of matching EPs to telescopes.) Although I don't observe with glasses, I appreciate decent eye relief, and on this alone I will probably avoid the 16mm - I don't need 20mm of ER, but I get uncomfortable when it's much under 15mm. The ETX only accepts 1.25" EPs, so that is partly why I was asking. I did have a look through Tom's (Vermin) 17mm during the daytime once, and I was impressed by the absence of kidney beaning then.
Steve is right, the FOV of the naglers is closer than I credited to the 19mm Panoptic. The 24 seems to get the rave reviews, though, and is closer to the sensible gap in my collection.
Scott, I'll die a poor man (and lonely) if I start loading up my binoviewers with naglers and the like.
Is back focus as much a deal with the Panoptics (i.e compared to the Naglers)?
Thanks again,
Brian.
|