20mm Nagler Type 2 VS. 27mm Panoptic

[bytor666]

I would like to know if anybody has done a side by side comparison of these two eyepieces. My main concerns are EYE RELIEF, EDGE CORRECTION, ON AXIS PERFORMANCE, and COATINGS.
-------------------
Mark
12" GSO Reflector
27mm Pan
14mm Meade 4k UWA
SW 5-8mm Zoom
2" GSO Barlow

[gbeal]

Not entirely Mark, but I did own both a 20/T5 and a 27 Pan at the same time. The one that was apparent was the FOV, it was not overly larger in the 27, so I elected to sell both and simply get a 22/T4. This and a 12mm are all I really need.

[atalas]

Hi Mark, I had both and they are both great eyepieces ! I found the 20mm Type II a tad sharper than the 27mm Pan from centre to edge of field . If memory serves me I think the 27mm Pan had better eyerelief,the 20mm Type II was a bit tight so If you wear classes while observing I don't think the Nag would be a good choice for you.
Anyway Mark both are great pieces of class and won't dissapoint you in sharpness across the field .

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

Am bumping this old thread along as I am asking a similar question, except substitute 22mm Nagler for 20mm

At present I have an old 2" 32mm Erfle (awful erfle I call it) and don't use it much. Gives 32x and 65 degree field, plenty of distortion at the edges. Thinking that the 27 Panoptic may be too much like this thing. What I love about Naglers is there great views right to the edge.
Good thing about Panoptics, is that its more comfortable to see the edge.

[GrahamL]

I sold the 27 and still have the 22

Both great eyepieces, plenty of eye relief. The 22 gives me a similar fov
with more magnification.

The 22 costs significantly more , and is a big jump in weight from the panoptic, aside that you could probably be very happy with either.

[gb_astro]

I found the 22T4 to be one of the most comfortable of all the Nagles to use.
Minimal blackout and very easy to see the entire field stop.
Among the Naglers, second only to the 31N in this department.

gb.

[astro744]

Originally Posted by The Mekon

Am bumping this old thread along as I am asking a similar question, except substitute 22mm Nagler for 20mm

At present I have an old 2" 32mm Erfle (awful erfle I call it) and don't use it much. Gives 32x and 65 degree field, plenty of distortion at the edges. Thinking that the 27 Panoptic may be too much like this thing. What I love about Naglers is there great views right to the edge.
Good thing about Panoptics, is that its more comfortable to see the edge.

The 27mm Panoptic is a highly corretced eyepiece, nothing like your 32mm Erfle. The 20mm T2 Nagler is regarded as a very fine eyepiece but it is rather heavy, similar to the 31mm Nagler or 41mm Panoptic. The 20mm T5 Nagler is much lighter and is also highly corrected and an excellent performer.

I'm not sure you can compare the 20mm Nagler T2 or T5 with the 27mm Panoptic since there are too many differences. The field stop diameter of both 20mm Naglers is 27.4mm whereas the 27mm Panoptic is 30.5mm so the true field is larger in the Panoptic with the magnification much lower and exit pupil much higher.

You will not be disappointed with either Nagler or Panoptic and both will be in a completely different ball park to the Erfle which shows considerable abberations off axis and I know because I have a Celestron 2", 32mm Erfle too.

The only abberation you will see with the Tele Vue is coma from your primary mirror should you be using a Newtonian and it is actually a pleasing sight to see coma alone and no astigmatism. Get yourself a Paracorr and coma will be gone too.

If you like 82deg fields go the Nagler otherwise the 68deg field of the Panoptic is quite nice. The 27mm Panoptic and 20mm T5 Nagler weigh about the same and about half that of the 20mm T2 Nagler.

I would go the 20mm T5 Nagler for a bit more magnification and smaller exit pupil than the Pan but the final choice depends on the telescope you are using.