Televue 15m Panoptic or wf?

Does anyone have experience with these two oculars in a f/6ish scope? Obviously the wf is quite a bit less expensive (which is why I'm thinking of going with it). I've also seen that a lot of people actually prefer the wf due to better eye relief, contrast, and because it can be barlowed. Others say that the Panoptic is a tremendous improvement over the wf because the edge of field is sharper. Is the Panoptic really worth $50-$100 more?

FWIW, the 15mm Panoptic can be barlowed. I always thought it worked better with an Ultima barlow than any other e.p. I have. This is certainly true at f8 and above. I believe I've also used it barlowed in my f6.3 TV76 with good performance.

Never used a WF, though, so can't compare the two.
Bob

I've had both, although not at the same time. Had the 15mm Wide Field too long ago to remember much about it, except that the eye relief was uncomfortable to me. In comparison the 15 Pan I do not find a problem with in the eye relief department.

I routinely use a Siebert 4x telecentric barlow with my 19 Pan and 15 Pan with no issues. No vignetting and the full 68 deg AFOV remains. Never tried them with regular barlows though.

I've also owned both of those models and thought that the 15mm Panoptic was an improvement. I experienced no problem using either one with a 2x Celestron Ultima Barlow lens. Neither eyepiece had much in the way of eye relief.

Dave Mitsky

You may be interested in reading Ed Ting's review of the 15mm Panoptic.

http://www.scopereviews.com/page4.html

Dave Mitsky

The same goes for the review by Todd Gross.

http://www.weatherman.com/nagler2.htm

Dave Mitsky

Brian Schmidt said:

Does anyone have experience with these two oculars in a f/6ish scope? Obviously the wf is quite a bit less expensive (which is why I'm thinking of going with it). I've also seen that a lot of people actually prefer the wf due to better eye relief, contrast, and because it can be barlowed. Others say that the Panoptic is a tremendous improvement over the wf because the edge of field is sharper. Is the Panoptic really worth $50-$100 more?

I have never used the 15mm Panoptic but I have used (and still use) the 15mm Widefield extensively in a variety of scopes ranging from a 60mm F/13.3 refractor to a 12.5 inch F/4.06 Newt (F/4.67 with a Paracorr.)

First: Beware that the field stop on the 15mm widefield is only 15.6mm, if you convert this to AFoV using the formula:

effective AFoV = 57.3 deg/rad x (Field stop/focal length)

the effective AFoV is 59.6 degress, more generous than a typical Plossl but not a lot. To put it another way, a 17mm Plossl with a effective AFoV of 52 degrees would have the same TFoV as the 15mm Widefield.

As far as the viewing experience, it's a decent eyepiece, particuarly in a slower scope, it's not much bigger than a 15mm Plossl, it's edge correction in a faster scope is better than the 4 element designs but not Nagler-like. I keep it and use it because it is a compact eyepiece with decent eye relief that works nicely in a medium to slow scope, it does not overload a small scope quite the way a 16mm Nagler does.

If one remembers this is an eyepiece from a time when Erfle's and Konigs were the standard WF's and that no one expected pinpoint stars across the field of view then this is a very useable and enjoyable eyepiece.

I looked through the classifieds for the past year, the 15mm TV widefields seem to be going for around $110-$120 though a couple sold for $60-$70. I think $110-$120 is too much for this eyepiece based on it's performance, I think it's a reasonable choice at $80 or so.

Still, in comparison the Stratus/Hyperions, while the field of view is definitely less generous, the field of view is more evenly illuminated (no bright edge) and the edge correction is less distracting.

My thinking: If I were going for a 15mm Widefield I would not spend $100+ on the TV WF. If you have fast scopes, then a bargin 16mm Type Two Nagler or 14mm Meade UWA would not be a whole lot more but provide a much cleaner field of view, otherwise the 15mm Panoptic or something from Pentax...

Jon

Thank you so much for all who have written. Very thoughtful information.