GazOC

I've got a couple of the old Sirius Plossls, they strike a good balance for me between cost/ FOV/ eyerelief and weight 

Orion Optics used to make a similar scope a few years back. I think it's discountinued now though ?

Thick vanes too by the looks of it to support the sub aperture corrector plate?

The 10mm and the 3.5 were definitely among the later additions, John

When Hyperions first came out they were priced around £65 and there weren't really many (any?) other options that gave that FOV as an upgrade to standard Plossls. Since then they've gone up in price and more options have become available to astronomers.

I do think they can get something of a bad press as many times when people ask for opinions on them they immediately get compared to the Morpheus range which are pretty much twice the price simply because Baader make both types of eyepiece 

I mainly use my 100 deg eyepieces these days but IMHO the Hyperions are solid workhorses and affordable enough that I have been able to cover all the focal lengths relatively cheaply through a combination of buying new when they first came out and second-hand purchases later on

Yep, I'm aware of the exit pupil issue, hence the 'most uses'.

I have both the 17 and the 21 BTW, I just couldn't leave it with one of the set not in my collection 😆

Don, I don't know if it's still the case but when they first came out the 21mm Hyperion was *supposed* to give less than the advertised 68 Deg view resulting the field being roughly the same as the 17mm model which renders the 21mm a little redundant for most uses

I've never tested this out so can't comment as to its veracity though 

I have most of the UO volcano top orthos, the focal lengths I'm missing are filled with non-volcano top orthos and don't seem either as good or as comfortable to use

Surely different glass in the 2 scopes at those prices? IIRC the Equinox range was the same 

IIRC the way to get longer focal lengths out of the Hyperions is to remove the second set of lenses completely from the 21mm/ 17mm etc eyepieces rather than use the tuning rings 

I've got Hyperions but never tried it though, sorry 

I don't think the 24mm Hyperion is compatible with the fine tuning rings. The rings "work" by increasing the distance between 2 sets of lenses to give higher magnifications. The 24mm doesn't have the second set of lenses 

4 hours ago, Ken82 said:

Excellent scopes the equinox series. These new ones look like a replacement to me. 
 

I regretted selling my 80mm equinox and since then I’ve not sold a single astronomy item ! 

I've got an 80mm Equinox, my regret is not buying a 120mm when they were available. I got an Evostar ED120 instead to save a few quid 

Bears more than a passing resemblance to a Skywatcher Equinox 66

 Totally agree, John. They are very good scopes at a great price. 

So the Evostar range is under no threat at those prices 

Has anyone got this scope mounted on a HEQ5 for visual? Asking for a friend...😉

31 minutes ago, Steve Clay said:

Agree, would be a computer controlled process I would have thought. Regarding sanding the tube I assume some rag was stuffed down to keep dust out?

I'd be inclined to play it safe and unscrew the lens cell

They certainly look stunning, I know telescopes are "for looking through, not looking at" but I much prefer a bit of colour over the plain white that most scopes seem to sport

I've got a PST that I've not used for over a decade but I'm still torn over selling it just in case I'd want to use it at some point in the future 

19 hours ago, johninderby said:

 

Ignore that John, I didn't see the subsequent posts. Apologies 

As you say Paul, in an ideal world we would be able to test our purchases before buying and then decide but, at least for me, it's just not an option  most cases

Pretty much all my astro purchases have had to be made on a spec sheet and word of mouth (which is notoriously risky where refractors are concerned, everyone seems to love THEIR refractor 😉) 

24 minutes ago, johnturley said:

I thought that FPL 55 glass was supposed to be superior to FPL 53 (although only marginally so), CFF state that their larger refractors use FPL 55, and give the impression that this is the case.

John 

The limited info I've seen on it is that 53 corrects CA slightly better than 55 has but that 55 has slightly better "polishing properties" whatever exactly that means 

I could be wrong though...

I've never looked through a FPL 55 refractor but if the numbers tell the full tale I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference, at least visually, in between that and FPL 53 scope (with the usual caveat of all other things being equal)

8 minutes ago, johninderby said:

FPL55 by Ohara perhaps?

https://www.ohara-inc.co.jp/en/product/optical/new/s-fpl55.html

That would have been my uneducated guess

Carbon Brush brings up an interesting point, by not specifying glass type there's nothing to stop Skywatcher changing over to different (poorer?) glass type at some point in the future which renders all the previous reviews and owners recommendations pretty much obsolete. 

At the moment if you buy any Skywatcher ED or triplet (bar the ED150) you at least have that guarantee of consistent material type 

"Not stated" generally means not 53 as, rightly or wrongly, it's big plus point to a lot of potential buyers

It also leaves to door open to buyers who might like to think to that their scope could be made of Schrödinger's Glass whereby as long as they don't know what glass is in it then it COULD be FPL-53 😉

It's something I prefer to know before I buy, not having the chance the test a scope before purchasing