Are these good eyepieces (sharp/good edge correction?)...I seem to recall they get mixed reviews. Are these closer in performance to the UO 2 inch Konigs. They are Erfle's so are these obsolete or a good addition for DSO hunting.
Meade 32mm SWA
Started by jkurtz555, 06/07/2005 12:41PM
Posted 06/07/2005 12:41PM
Opening Post
Posted 06/07/2005 12:45PM
#1
What sort of scope are you thinking of using it in???
jon
jon
Posted 06/07/2005 02:28PM
#3
Jeffrey,
At one time I owned one of the old Japanese versions of the 32mm SWA. It worked well enough in an f/6.5 Cave Newtonian but displayed some astigmatism in my f/4.8 Starsplitter and a friend's f/5 Obsession. I believe that the SWA is a modified Erfle and is somewhat similar, but not as good as, the old Tele Vue Wide Field.
Dave Mitsky
At one time I owned one of the old Japanese versions of the 32mm SWA. It worked well enough in an f/6.5 Cave Newtonian but displayed some astigmatism in my f/4.8 Starsplitter and a friend's f/5 Obsession. I believe that the SWA is a modified Erfle and is somewhat similar, but not as good as, the old Tele Vue Wide Field.
Dave Mitsky
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Posted 06/07/2005 04:12PM
| Edited 06/07/2005 04:12PM
#4
I've owned the 32mm 2" Konig, some of the SWA's and some Panoptics. My 2 cents:
They give better views then the Konig. My 40mm is good but does soften around the edges in my f6 scope and considerabley more in my f5. The view is pleasing and I like the light transmission. The konigs have good light transmission as well but are a little softer and the field is smaller (I think it is like 55 vs 68). The konigs are a little cheaper (about $100 vs $125 here on AM).
The Panoptic gives a crisper view. The contrast is also "better" on the Panoptics. However, you lose some light transmission for the contrast. For the big wide views I prefer the light transmission over the heavy contrast. For a big wide view the softness is a preference thing. It doesn't bother me on this view as much as if I dropped in something in the range of 10-15mm. On the 32mm, I'm typically concerened with a big wide macro view instead of picking apart tiny detail. The killer on the Panoptics is the price. In this size you're around $300 here on AM. I use my 27 Pan plenty and really like the view, but I think of that sticker price everytime I pull it out.
I hope this helps.
Ed
They give better views then the Konig. My 40mm is good but does soften around the edges in my f6 scope and considerabley more in my f5. The view is pleasing and I like the light transmission. The konigs have good light transmission as well but are a little softer and the field is smaller (I think it is like 55 vs 68). The konigs are a little cheaper (about $100 vs $125 here on AM).
The Panoptic gives a crisper view. The contrast is also "better" on the Panoptics. However, you lose some light transmission for the contrast. For the big wide views I prefer the light transmission over the heavy contrast. For a big wide view the softness is a preference thing. It doesn't bother me on this view as much as if I dropped in something in the range of 10-15mm. On the 32mm, I'm typically concerened with a big wide macro view instead of picking apart tiny detail. The killer on the Panoptics is the price. In this size you're around $300 here on AM. I use my 27 Pan plenty and really like the view, but I think of that sticker price everytime I pull it out.
I hope this helps.
Ed
Funding Member
