Have heard rumors that the Pan. 41 performance was not suited for some particular scopes, so my question is; what major difference would one see in a side by side with the 31 Nag.? Other than a decrease in X and field of view. JM
Comparison : 41 vs. 31
Started by Midnight Sun, 09/13/2007 02:52PM
Posted 09/13/2007 02:52PM
Opening Post
Posted 09/13/2007 05:49PM
#1
Depending on the focal length of the scope the exit pupil becomes a problem in faster optics.
Posted 09/13/2007 09:45PM
#2
John,
When I checked out the 41mm Pan and the 31mm Nagler in a C-11 f/10 and a 14.5" SM F/4.3, the 31mm Nagler was the best for Coma, exit pupil (eye position) and over all performance in both scopes. The difference in image was not dramatic, but it was obvious.
When I checked out the 41mm Pan and the 31mm Nagler in a C-11 f/10 and a 14.5" SM F/4.3, the 31mm Nagler was the best for Coma, exit pupil (eye position) and over all performance in both scopes. The difference in image was not dramatic, but it was obvious.
[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue
Amateur Imager
Posted 09/14/2007 03:22AM
#3
To say "other than field of view and magnification" doesn't leave much left over. The Pan 41 is an under-rated eyepiece that lives in the shadow of the Nagler 31. Most people would get one or the other. Myself, I think that having an eyepiece which delivers the most fov you can get in your scope is worthwhile.
But of course one should possibly get both. Myself I prefer the XWs and have the 30XW and the 40XW and use them both extensively. The Pan 41 is very respectable. If the 40XW didn't exist I'd have the Pan 41.
regards
greg n
But of course one should possibly get both. Myself I prefer the XWs and have the 30XW and the 40XW and use them both extensively. The Pan 41 is very respectable. If the 40XW didn't exist I'd have the Pan 41.
regards
greg n
"Scope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no scope." --Freewheelin' Franklin
Funding Member
