I have been told by a friend who has looked through both for a long enough period to tell the difference that the 22mm had a better image. Unfortunately I can't verify this because I have not hand the same opportunity myself.
The theory is that there is a limit to the AFOV that you can fit in a barrel for each focal length. I have a list of these, but not with me at the moment. The next eyepiece up the chain is the 27mm and it is a true 2" eyepiece. So somewhere between 24mm and 27mm it gets impossible to get the FL into the 1.25" barrel and still keep the AFOV or image quality.
Some people think that you should never buy the longest focal length eyepiece in a 1.25" barrel set because the manufacturer tends to try and squash it all in so to speek. But I trust teleview not to have done this.
Quite often the longest FL eyepiece is the best seller in that (1.25") barrel size so maybe TV would have had the reason to go the extra 2mm. Anyone with a 2" focuser would have a longer FL EP in their set anyway so would most likely skip the 24mm EP.
It's up to you really. I think the quality of the whole series is excellent and would expect that you would not be able to tell the difference...umm...I don't know.
So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying go the 22ml for using in either a 1.25 or 2 inch focuser (but especially for the 1.25") and jump straight to the 27mm for a 2" ... longer fl EP, if I wanted to go longer than the 22mm???
Televue's webpage talks about how well the 24mm works with the Powermates.
At least I think, from memory, it was the 24mm they were refering to. Another example of the difference between a Powermate and a straight-out Barlow???
I must say I'm leaning towards the 22mm if/when I decide it's time to try a Pan.
Apart from the obvious benefits of sharpness to the edge of the FOV and contrast etc in my Celestron 9.25, I think it'd give me some great DSO views in my 8" f5 newt.
Hi Matt, you probably been following that other thread I started asking re good low-medium power premium EP's for SCTs. One theme that was repeated a couple of times was whether the performance increase on a slow scope like an SCT was worth the $ for the panoptics and naglers. I'm still in the undecided camp. If you dive in for the 22mm panoptic will be keen to hear your conclusions
Steve H: the Vixen LVW 22mm is definitely in my calculations, being something of a Vixen fan anyway. Especially as Rob says the jury's still very much out on whether there's enough of a gain in performance in SCTs to justify the extra $ shelling out for Nags and Pans???
Rod(star) recently bought the 22mm panoptic for his 10" Meade SCT. I'm sure he can give you some feedback (but not a comparison to the 24mm). John B probably also looked through it at mogo creek the other week, so he might have a word to say also.
I used to own a 27 pan and I loved it. I also loved the view through a 31nagler and got one when i had an offer too good to refuse.Consequently, the 27 got sold to be replaced by a 24.
The 24 is a hot seller for the reason that its the best full field ep possible in 1.25" format. I find it a lot more convenient to swap 1.25" eps around than to mess with adapters switching between 1.25 and 2 inch formats.
On the down side, the eye relief is much shorter than the 27mm.
Rod(star) recently bought the 22mm panoptic for his 10" Meade SCT. I'm sure he can give you some feedback (but not a comparison to the 24mm). John B probably also looked through it at mogo creek the other week, so he might have a word to say also.
Matt, I won't be selling you my 22mm Panoptic as well!
I am extremely pleased with mine, it will probably always be my favoured combination with my LX200. It provides excellent contrast, nice large FOV, and beautifully frames a number of my favourite objects, being a nice middle magnification size. Good pinpoint stars to the edge of the FOV. It is excellent for observing close doubles too. It is certainly not too big in physical size for your scope.
As Mike has indicated, I cannot comment on the 24mm. I suspect it would be very similar in performance.
I have the 24 and am more than happy with it. Good field of view, no aberrations or distortions through the 9.25. Have to say it looks slightly better through the 9.25 than the 10" lx200. Only slightly though. I have never used the 22 though, so nothing to compare to.
So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying go the 22ml for using in either a 1.25 or 2 inch focuser (but especially for the 1.25") and jump straight to the 27mm for a 2" ... longer fl EP, if I wanted to go longer than the 22mm???
Not sure if the 27 is a big enough jump from the 22. I have the 15, 22 and 35 and the change in image scale is just about right. Maybe draw yourself an image scale diagram like I did (below), it will help figure out what eyepieces you really need.
If you were thinking of eventually buying second one, I'd plan get the 19mm and 27mm. But then you'd miss out on the wonderful 22 (but they are all wonderful). Just on that point, well actually, on a completely different subject...I have decided I don't like the 31mm Nagler. Too much colour near the edge and it does have a lot of field curvature that no one seems to mention, I expect more from a $1000 EP. The 26mm Nagler is good though. Very good.
I wish I had a 31mm Nagler to off load! Not selling my 35 pano.
I thought the 31 Nag comment was pretty much common knowledge anyway. At least with the people that I hang out with. It's just that the last three observing session I've had, I have noticed it's short comming quite a bit. It's still a really good EP but I am one of those people that would rather view I slightly smaller field that is perfect than add extra field with abberations.
There are two schools of thought. The imprefections distract me.
That's why ortho's are so popular I guess. Very small field, but what's there is brillant.
So I stand by my Nag comment but in a way it's not I big deal I think.
