February 10, 1998

Afternoon.

A friend loaned me his 35mm Televue Panoptic eyepiece. My goal was to test the eyepiece to see if I liked it or not.

I pulled out my Quantum 6 inch f/15 Maksutov to start the tests. I compared the 35mm Panoptic with my 40mm University Optics 7/70 eyepiece. The 35 Panoptic had the annoying color on the fringes, or in other words, everything around the circumference of the field of view was purple in color. Some people are not bothered by color on the fringes or lateral color; but, I find it very distracting. It draws attention to itself. The 40mm 7/70 has no color on the fringes.

On the mountains, the 35 Panoptic had just a touch brighter image or sharper image than the 40mm 7/70; but, that all could be accounted for taking in consideration that I was dealing with clouds coming and going.

The 40mm 7/70 has a little more problem with blackout of the field of view and kidney beaning. Both eyepieces though, if you get close enough to them, will start to blackout around the circumference in a big huge kidneybean shape. The 35 Panoptic was harder to get to black out. Put another way, the 40mm 7/70 tends to want to black out, whereas, the 35 Panoptic tends to not want to black out; but, neither is perfect. Also, I could sense the huge 2 inch central obstruction from time to time in each eyepiece; the only thing to account for the occasional central dimming of the image.

Keeping the rubber eyecup up on the 35 Panoptic helped to protect against blackout, by helping to remind the eye not to get too close. It is impossible to take in the full field of view of the 35 Panoptic during the day. By the time I got close enough to the 35 mm eyepiece to start to see the whole field of view, large portions of the field of view were starting to blackout. With the 40mm 7/70 you can almost see the whole field of view before large amounts of blackout start to take place. The annoying part about the 40mm 7/70 is that you also get small random kidneybeans in the field of view as well if the eye is not held in just the right spot.

I tried a different test that I had not tried before. I tried focusing the eyepieces onto an object half a block away with an interesting result. The 40mm 7/70 felt comfortable; in comparison the 35 Panoptic gave me a woozy or dizzy feeling. The 35 Panoptic was not good for closeup work. The 35 Panoptic suffers from distortion.

For comparison, I also stuck in a 1.25 barrel 32mm UO Koenig. It had a severely narrow field, but relatively sharp image in comparison. Around the circumference I was getting a random dimming of the image which I attributed to vignetting, probably from the eyepiece barrel. The 32 UO Konigs are also known to have a touch of coma on the edges, which I have seen at night.

I also tried a 55 UO Plossl. The central obstruction was clearly detectable; to get the best view, I had to pull my head way back away from the eyepiece. Not the most comfortable eyepiece with the Q6.

In summary, in the Q6 during the daytime the 35 Panoptic didn't have anything to recommend it above any of the other eyepieces. It was basically a tradeoff of one annoying feature for another. I have come to the general conclusion that the Q6 is not the best telescope for daytime usage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I then decided to try the same eyepieces in my 80mm f/6.25 University Optics refractor. Much better image with all eyepieces; but, the results were basically the same.

The 40mm 7/70 tends to blackout more easily, but the 35 Panoptic is not immune. In the 80mm refractor, the 35 Panoptic still has color on the fringes, though less of it.

The 40mm gives a more relaxed feel or less strain on the eyes. The roof across the street is straight in the 40mm 7/70. The roof is bowed or bent in 35 Panoptic. I would easily declare the 40mm 7/70 the winner over the 35 Panoptic, except for the severely annoying blackout habits of the 7/70.

If you want 'perfection' in the 80mm refractor, then the 1.25 inch barrel 32mm UO Koenig is the way to go. Perfect image, no blackout, no color on the fringes, no distortion, no bent roofs; but, a very narrow field of view in comparison. The 85mm Rini Modified Plossl is just about as good.

In summary, I didn't see anything during the daytime that would give the 35 Panoptic the edge or a recommendation. In my opinion, the 35 Panoptic is not the best eyepiece available for daytime usage; but, then neither is the 40mm UO 7/70. For daytime usage, I feel the desire to get a 2 inch barrel 32mm University Optics Koenig.

Darwin Bagley

---------------------------------------------------------------

February 14, 1998

2:00 A.M. Mountain Standard Time.

Looked outside and found a valley wide clearing in the clouds. Lovely night. Time for a look at the moon. I used my 6 inch f/15 Quantum Maksutov.

After five to ten minutes I was nearly blind and had a touch of a headache. I don't tend to look at the nearly full moon with low power wide field eyepieces and six inches of aperture. But, tonight was an exception -- my goal was to test out my friend's 35mm Panoptic on the moon. Maybe I am a wimp, but my humble opinion is that anyone spending a long time on the nearly full moon with 2 inch eyepieces probably ought to invest in a 2 inch neutral density filter or a 2 inch variable polarizer. It would make the task more enjoyable. But, I don't know of any two inch moon filters right off; so moon viewing might be a task best reserved for 1.25 inch eyepieces, or wait until it becomes more of a sliver if you want to use 2 inch eyepieces. Enough said.

I compared my 1.25 UO Koenig, my 40mm UO 7/70, and my friend's 35mm Panoptic. Amazing. I would never have guessed it after my poor daytime experience with the 35 Panoptic; but, the Panoptic was the best on the moon in this scope in my opinion. I'll tell you why.

First, the 40mm 7/70 just plain didn't match up. The 7/70 had traces of shadows or kidneybeaning that kept interrupting the view. Pulling far off axis like I sometimes like to do and the 7/70 will ghost at the opposite edge. It did barlow up OK with the Q6's built in barlow; but, some of the inherent problems of the 7/70 remained in the barlowed image.

Second, the 1.25 UO Koenig was basically clear and sharp. It also barlowed up well. Perfect image as long as you keep the eye on axis. Get off axis and the whole image blacks out as is typical with many eyepieces. The biggest drawback is that the moon barely fits within the field of view. A narrow field of view.

Now for the 35 Panoptic. It was clear and sharp, maybe even a tad sharper on the moon than the 1.25 UO Koenig -- surprising. Of course the wide field was very pleasing giving an 'in orbit' type of feel to the experience. I don't know why, but I could sense no noticeable kidneybeaning nor shadowing taking place. No ghosting could be sensed either. I seemed to could pull the eye off axis with no real problem. It also barlowed up well. Amazing. In almost every respect it was as good as the 32mm UO Koenig, and it had that nice huge generous field of view.

About the only thing I could find wrong with the 35 Panoptic on the moon was that I could sense color on the fringes. But, in this case it was not that bad because the color around the circumference was either in black space, or far away from the center of interest. Anyway, I didn't find it as annoying as I generally do. I was just too interested in the clear sharp image of the moon the 35 Panoptic was giving. Almost good enough to go blind for.

Now, I imagine the Panoptic would indeed blackout on the moon if I forced myself to get too close to it; but, for some reason with this eyepiece on the moon I just instinctively kept in the zone of perfection. Maybe there was just such a huge zone, within which I could reside. I was just amazed that blackout was not happening during normal comfortable viewing. Wish I would have had a 2 inch moon filter in order to stay there for 15 minutes.

I tinkered around with other 1.25 inch eyepieces as well as some 1.25 filters. I tend to prefer my variable polarizer over my neutral density filters. Could see some clouds coming so I tried to find some deep sky objects for the 35 Panoptic. With the full moon, I could see nothing, only around 1st and 2nd magnitude stars. Kind of a mess. I could not find anything even after trying with binoculars. So I picked out what I think was the Gemini twins.

Wandering through those fields of stars I could sense no real difference between the 35 Panoptic and my UO 7/70. The sky was a touch blacker or darker with the Panoptic; but, that was the only difference I noticed. Need to wait a week or two to get rid of the moon for some real deep sky viewing. Until then, thanks for reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------

February 17, 1998

0:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time

I was surprised at midnight to find the valley clear of clouds. The moon was just rising to the east. I couldn't resist the temptation to pull out my 10 inch f/4.5. The scope had no chance to cool down, and I had no chance to dark adapt; but, I figured it might be the only chance this week I get to view according to the weather forecast. Take this one with a grain of salt because none of the conditions were optimum.

I put the scope on the Orion Nebula to the west. It was settling into the murk. Tube currents causing havoc -- could seem to sense only three of the four stars of the trapezium at any one time. In spite of the difficulties, a few things could be gleaned.

First, city glow was a severe problem. Comparing the 35 Panoptic with my 40mm UO 7/70, and the higher magnification of the Panoptic did serve to darken the background a bit more than the 40mm of the other eyepiece, as expected. I actually found this to be the most dramatic difference between the eyepieces. Out in the country with no sky glow and fully dark adapted, I would expect this advantage of the 35 Panoptic to disappear or not be as significant. But, for tonight I had a lot of light from the neighbors' reflecting off the snow.

Second, the stars across the field of the 35 Panoptic were a tad bit sharper than the 40mm 7/70. Nothing overwhelmingly significant because the 7/70 is quite good with my 10 inch scope. But, going back to magnification, one would expect stars to be more pinpoint with the lower magnification of the 40mm 7/70. As far as I could tell, the pinpointedness was the same in the center of both eyepieces, with the Panoptic holding correction across the field of view slightly better than the 7/70.

Third, the 7/70 had a little more random blackout of parts of the field of view if getting too close to the eyepiece than the Panoptic did; but, the Panoptic was not totally immune.

The clouds were materializing out of nowhere in the west. Orion was getting swallowed alive, so I moved up to the clusters in Auriga. I pointed the telrad at what the chart was calling M37, and there it was. Boy, with no dark adaptation, it was actually relatively hard to see; shouldn't be with 10 inches. Sky glow, I guess. Again the Panoptic had the edge because it had a darker sky background due to its higher magnification. I also wandered over to what I think was M36, and then back again a couple of times, switching eyepieces periodically. Strange, though, I was sensing the central obstruction's shadow in the UO 7/70 at one point; don't know why.

The clouds were filling the whole sky. I moved quickly over to the moon. It had clouds on it; but, the clouds were not severe enough yet to completely block the moon. On the moon the Panoptic looked a bit more contrasty than the 7/70. The 7/70 had ghosting, not severe, but occasionally noticeable. The Panoptic had no ghosting. I could sense the scope's central obstruction in both eyepieces. With the faster 10 inch, I could not sense any of the lateral color on the moon through the Panoptic that I sensed with the slower Q6. The drawback of the Panoptic is that it is a heavy little rock; I had to put a book on the back of the scope to keep the moon on the horizon from being lost every other second. I didn't have that problem with the 7/70. The 7/70 didn't weigh enough to cause horizon glide in the altitude bearings.

Again, take all this with a grain of salt; but, the 35 Panoptic was a tad more sharp across the field, had less blackout problems, dealt with sky glow a little better, and had no ghosting on the moon. At night in the city glow, the 35 Panoptic is slightly better in my 10 inch scope than the 40mm UO 7/70; but, that's no guarantee that it would prove to be better in your scope. I would like to take the two eyepieces to a dark site, get fully dark adapted, and then see if the 35 Panoptic is still a tad better at all these things.

Darwin Bagley

----------------------------------------------------------------

Follow Up Summary: One friend expressed surprise at my getting blackout with the 35 Panoptic in a fast telescope.

This eyepiece was a surprise all around. Nothing about it seemed to work out exactly as expected. I expected to get no blackout at all from the Panoptic, from all that I had heard; and, the only time I can't seem to get it to blackout is on the moon. I still have not tried it (keep forgetting), but I imagine I would have to stick the eyeball on the glass to get the Panoptic to blackout on the moon. And, I have no explanation for any of it.

The deep sky blackout (with my 10 inch scope) of the Panoptic was actually very minor, and only takes place if I get too close to the eyepiece; can be distracting though, requiring a pull back of the head when it starts to happen. I am guessing out in country with no sky glow that it would prove less distracting or nonexistent; just a guess though. Also leaving the eyecup up helps to prevent Panoptic blackout; reminds me that I am getting too close. And, again, as during the daytime -- the Panoptic tends to not want to blackout, whereas, the 7/70 tends to want to blackout, comparing the two.

In almost every respect, the Panoptic wins the 7/70 by just a little bit from what I have seen, except during daylight on the mountains and roof tops where the 7/70 trounces the Panoptic. The 7/70 also weighs less which can be a help at times.

I saw enough of the 35 Panoptic to know that I would like to see more. I have decided to purchase this eyepiece so I can have it on hand for the Sagittarius star clouds out in the desert this summer. I also intend to hang onto the UO 40mm 7/70 for the time being. The 7/70 is strong where the Panoptic is weak and vice versa; they make a good complement to each other with my current set of scopes.

Darwin Bagley

----------------------------------------------------------

March 15, 1998 Evening

I have received some feedback regarding what I had previously written from a person who had used a 27mm Panoptic with his 12 inch and 8 inch scopes. He had gotten a lot of interference from the secondary shadow while using the 27mm Panoptic in his 12 inch scope, but he had no secondary shadow problems with his 8 inch reflector. He wanted to know if I was able to see the secondary in the view of the 35 Panoptic with my 10 inch f/4.5.

I had, in the past, barely sensed the secondary shadow in the 35 Panoptic doing deep sky work; but, I found it was something that I had to go looking for. The shadow was obvious in the 10 inch while viewing the moon.

Last weekend, I had an experience that shed further light on the subject. The moon had risen up high in the east and I was looking at Orion in the western sky. There was a lot of moon glow in the sky. Under that situation, I did clearly notice the secondary's shadow in the 35 Panoptic. It was a little distracting. I found that by moving my eye closer and farther from the eyepiece that I could find a position in which the secondary's shadow would disappear, or fill the full field of view and disappear.

The 35 Panoptic is a deep sky instrument in my opinion. Used as such, you would most likely seek a dark 'deep sky' site away from city lights and around the time of new moon. In such darkness, I think the secondary's shadow would disappear or not be noticable, at least in my 10 inch scope.

But, in less than favorable conditions, the secondary's shadow can indeed be found in the 35 Panoptic, if one goes looking for it. I also believe that some scopes will have more problems with it than others. Again, it is somewhat a factor of getting the right eyepiece matched with the right scope, an ongoing searching process we all go through.

I have noticed that each time I get a new scope, I end up searching for a whole new set of eyepieces that work right with that scope; what I have on hand never seems to be optimum. This can somewhat explain why people would sell their 'favorite' eyepiece, or why you find some of the best eyepieces being sold in the used market. A new scope causes a shift in needs.

Darwin Bagley