Second Time Around

I second what Mike suggested in getting two scopes, one for at home and one for hiking. That way you have two scopes that achieve each objective rather than one scope that will always be a compromise.

I've been thinking about this some more and I feel that the steadier the binoculars are then the less tiring they are to hold. This is because the less the balance point moves, the more constant the force. It's the change in balance that I find tiring.

The harness is most useful for carrying. However, when held up to the face the straps are under tension and so effectively take some of the weight. For me with my muscle problem this certainly makes a difference. I'd also add that this tension makes it easier to hold the binoculars steady.

I tried the 15x50s and found them too tiring to hold up for long with the supplied strap because of an injured back and neck. Even the 12x36s were tiring for me. I found the answer in a harness. Normally harnesses though are bulky and can be fiddly. However I've found the one and possibly only exception is the Rick Young Ultralight. Not only is it indeed ultralight (1 ounce!), it's so small it easily fits in my binocular case so I leave it on my binoculars permanently. Most of all it's extremely comfortable. I thought the narrowness would mean that it would dig in to my shoulders. It's counter-intuitive, but even over just a thin shirt it doesn't at all. This is because the weight is distributed over the chest as well. I really don't know it's on and carrying my binoculars for hours is almost effortless. I also have one on my dSLR. In fact every time I buy binoculars or a camera in the future I'll be buying another one. For further details and a video demonstrating it in use go to https://www.birders-store.co.uk/ultra-light-bino-harness.html where at £27.99 delivered it's currently a lot cheaper than Amazon.uk.

What an excellent and informative review/comparison! Many thanks.

A Cloudy Nights thread here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/794521-sig-sauer-zulu6/ There's also a link there to a longer thread with reviews of the Zulu.

Ditto.

One of the things I wanted to highlight was that the APM zoom certainly isn't parfocal to me, and in fact is no more so than the Baader Mk IV in the low focal length range (up to 12mm). The Baader is often criticised for this, but my observations suggest perhaps unfairly. It would make sense that parfocality is easier to achieve in a 2x zoom (like the APM and the Leica) than in the far more common 3x zooms (Baader and many others). Whether a zoom is parfocal or not depends very much on the observer, with older ones like me usually having more of a problem. I'm therefore going to be doing some more testing, including at the longer eyepiece focal lengths and also with my f/4.8 Dob, plus different Barlow lenses. The latter seem to improve parfocality, especially those with higher amplification, but I want to record just how much. In the meantime I'd welcome comments and findings from others.

Whether the full field of view can be seen with a Dioptrx will vary from observer to observer, depending on the shape of the face, especially that of the eye sockets. My eye sockets are small and deep, so I can't see the full FOV in a lot of eyepieces that aren't a problem for others. I wasn't expecting it, but yes I did get my spare Dioptrx back from China via APM.

My apologies over the 8mm figure. This was a last minute addition to the review from my original notes. I seem to have forgotten to take into account the adapters I was using and can't remember what I did use. The testing was done on my Altair 72mm f/6 EDF. Mine is an earlier version with 97mm of focal adjustment, so no problems with infocus. I'll delete the 8mm figure.

I've only had a little time with my APM Super Zoom but here are my preliminary thoughts, including compared with my Mk IV Baader Hyperion zoom. I bought the APM as it specifies that it accepts a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector, and supposedly is parfocal. It may be parfocal to those with younger eyes but at f/6 is only so for me from 7.7 - 12mm. As a comparison my Baader zoom is also parfocal from 8-12mm - so exactly the same. It's just that the Baader goes up to 24mm compared with only 15.4mm for the APM. On behalf of Marcus Ludes of APM I sent my spare Dioptrx to the makers KUO in China. On receiving my Super Zoom I initially thought that a Dioptrx wouldn't fit because of the additional 37mm thread above the 43mm thread. However, it does so if you add a Baader 43 x 0.75 mm extension, or better still a 43 to 42mm step down ring. To allow the fit to be secure and yet still enable the Dioptrx to be adjusted, an O-ring is needed with the former but not the latter. So many thanks, Marcus! Unlike the Baader, the eyelens doesn't rotate when zooming. This is inconvenient when using a Dioptrx, and downright fiddly and time consuming when using 2 of them with binoviewers. So another plus for the APM. There's not quite enough eye relief for me to see the full FOV (field of view) with a Dioptrx attached, so I'm perfectly happy with a reduction to an almost constant 66 deg rather than the initial spec of 75 deg. This may be the reason I didn't notice any EOFB (edge of field brightness). The apparent FOV is just less than the Baader at the shortest focal length, but (like most zooms) the Baader reduces rapidly at lower powers. Indeed, the APM has a wider actual FOV at 15.4 mm than the Baader does at 24mm. Unlike the Baader, there is some AMD (angular magnification distortion). However, this isn't a problem for me, partly again because of not being able to quite see the full FOV, and partly because I don't sweep with this eyepiece. Sharpness and contrast are at least as good as the Baader but I need to do some further testing here, including on my f/4.8 Dob. The zoom action is beautifully smooth, and I love the 7 intermediate click stops. It's a dual 1.25 and 2 inch eyepiece. However, as noted by others it needs extra infocus when used in the 1.25 inch configuration. The location of the focal plane may be the reason that I measured that my Barlows amplify more than their specs suggest, especially with the APM used as a 1.25 inch. To sum up, I'm very pleased with this eyepiece, and it's almost certain that the APM is going to replace the Baader zoom as my workhorse eyepiece. So thanks again, Marcus!

UPS certainly used to insure glass but only if sent direct rather than through a broker. I don't know of any others except Royal Mail, but with them you're rather limited in size and weight.

Most lights are way too bright for astronomy as they adversely affect night vision. So I insist on ones that can be dimmed right down. I'd very much recommend one of the inexpensive Black Diamond range of headtorches that can be set very dim. Moreover, they can be set to always come on with the dimmest red light whichever button you push - so no accidents! The red beam is wide and even, as is one of the two white beams, the other white one being a spotlight. You do need to avoid the higher priced ones that have a battery check on starting up though. This is because they light up an intense blue that'll ruin your dark adaption. Additionally, those with the Powertap feature can be knocked on accidentally. BTW, the so-called Astro models aren't suitable for astronomy as they don't have a red light! I'd suggest the discontinued Cosmo 250 that's sold at a reduced price from £17.60 on at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Diamond-Cosmo-250-Headlamp/dp/B07S2ZJ6CG

That's useful information about the stability, thanks. I was considering getting what I suggested.

If you do decide to sell the Report 112 I may be interested. However, one solution might be to just buy a Module Insert 2 to fit to your Report 112. This is a centre column. There are various options shown on the drop-down menu, including geared and manual, the latter with different heights. https://www.berlebach.de/en/?bereich=details&id=491https://www.berlebach.de/en/?bereich=details&id=491

£237 for the Baader, £379 for the APM here in the UK.

Here are some thoughts on the zooms I've used so far: Hyperflex 9-27mm. I compared it with my Baader during the day on my shed. Even though the focal lengths are lower, the actual field of view at 27mm is about the same as the Baader 8-24mm at 24mm. Nor was it as sharp as the Baader in my f/6 refractor. I was planning to try it on the sun with my Quark, but there were no sunny days or clear nights before I passed it on to two of my grandkids to use with the 70mm f/10 I bought them for Xmas. Not surprisingly, it was better at f/10. Not compatible with a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector. Svbony 7-21mm. I tested it on a very low down Saturn, and surprisingly found that on my f/6 refractor it was as good as the Baader on axis. Sharpness fell off somewhat off axis and the field of view was quite a bit smaller. However, trying it on prominences with my Quark it was way behind the Baader, seemingly because of lower contrast. I bought this firstly for outreach rather than risking my Baader zoom. Secondly, it's very small and light, even compared to other Svbony models, so I thought it might therefore be useful in binoviewers. I need to test it further at night when my binoviewers come back from repair, but will almost certainly keep it for the reasons given. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring. Celestron 8-24mm. The version I bought was the spotting scope one, so it might be different to the astro model. The first thing I noticed was that it was even less parfocal than my Baader. In fact, none of these 4 zooms are parfocal (no refocusing required when changing power) to my aged eyes, but might be to someone younger. The field of view was also smaller. What disqualified it completely though was that it wasn't threaded for filters or screw in Barlows (the astro model is). I therefore returned it without further testing. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring. Baader 8-24mm. This is much more expensive than those above, and not surprisingly outclassed all of them, both in sharpness/contrast and field of view. It's by far my most used eyepiece, although I also own a selection of quality fixed focal length eyepieces. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring. The only downside, that's really important only for binoviewing with a Dioptrx, is that unlike most zooms the eyelens rotates when zooming. APM 7.7-15.4mm Superzoom I've just got this and been able to use it only briefly. Easily the best of all, but then it's a lot more expensive. Wide, almost constant 66 degree field of view. In fact the field of view is wider at 15.4mm than the Baader at 24m. Despite being claimed as parfocal, only so from about 7.7mm to 12mm for me, probably fully to someone younger. Dioptrx compatible with M37 to M43, or better still M37 to M42, adapter.

I have several Barlows including the 2.25x Baader. However, I'd recommend that rather than getting the 2.25x Baader you get a dual power 1.5x/2x. This will be less expensive and also far more versatile. This is because early in the session you can choose which amplification is best for the type of target, and most importantly the seeing conditions on the night. Here in the UK, and so frequently under the jetstream, magnification is limited not only by the size of the scope but also by the atmospheric seeing. Depending on the scope you have, it's likely that you wouldn't be using the really high powers very often. There's another reason to use the lowest amplication possible. This is because most zooms (including the Baader) have the widest apparent field of view at the shortest focal length. For instance, if you want the equivalent of a 6mm focal length then using a Baader zoom at 9mm with a 1.5x Barlow will give you a wider field of view than using the zoom at 12mm with a 2x Barlow. Not all 2x Barlows can also be used at 1.5x, but the ones that can don't cost any more. These ones allow the black lens cell to be unscrewed from the body of the Barlow and then screwed into the filter thread at the bottom of an eyepiece to give 1.5x. Another advantage is that you can get an even higher power than 2x. This is achieved by adding an inexpensive extension tube(s) just above the black lens cell. There is a limit to this, but it does give a lot of flexibility at low cost. For instance, Baader do an 18.5mm extension tube that will increase the magnification of most Barlows by a little over 0.25x. You can even stack them to get an extra 0.25x or so for each extension tube, although the image will eventually deteriorate if you go much over 3x. Available here for £16: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-dt-4-1-31-8mm-nosepiece-extension-18mm-long.html The Barlow I'd suggest is this: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/astro-essentials-125-2x-barlow-with-t-thread.html. Unlike most similar ones it also has a thread for 1.25 inch filters on the bottom, plus a T-thread (M42) on the top for connecting cameras. What's more it costs only £25!

I think glasses v Dioptrx is very much a matter of personal choice. Depending on one's eyesight there are pros and cons of each, and what's best for one person may not be the best for another. Amongst the disadvantages are: 1) Not all eyepieces accept a Dioptrx 2) If the angle of the eyepiece changes when moving the scope (e.g. a reflector), you need to adjust the Dioptrx. The quick and easy solution is to put a small blob of glue on the rubber of the Dioptrx and always have this at say the top 3) No good when sharing eyepieces 4) You may need glasses anyway to look at the sky or charts etc However, I wonder how many have tried a Dioptrx? And of those, how many have actually done a head to head comparison? These are the reasons I prefer a Dioptrx plus some comments: 1) The coatings are better than on even the top of the range Rodenstock lenses on my glasses 2) The polish is almost certainly better than that of glasses - few people would pay for this on glasses so almost no demand, so no supply 3) My glasses have plastic lenses that scratch more easily than the glass lens in a Dioptrx 4) The angle of my astigmatism changes between my annual eye tests. With a Dioptrx I can adjust this at the telescope 5) I find that, like many, I need an extra 0.125 or 0.25 correction for astigmatism at night 6) I wear my glasses on a cord and have no problems taking them on and off for looking at the sky - it quickly becomes automatic 7) I have no presbyopia and so don't need glasses at all for looking at close range objects such as screens or maps 😎 I have a Dioptrx on my finder eyepiece, but even without this I don't find astigmatism critical on a finder as it's doing just that - finding 9) On the rare occasions I share my scope I do wear my glasses 10) And most of all, and this is the clincher, having done head to head tests I found that I can see more with a Dioptrx than with my glasses As has been mentioned already many Pentax and Baader eyepieces accept a Dioptrx. So do many from Explore Scientific. If the eyepiece has a M42 (t-thread) or M43 screw top it'll almost certainly accept a Dioptrx. The same goes for most others with a non-screw 42 to 43mm top. In some cases fitting an elastic band or an O ring to the top will give a secure hold whilst still allowing the Dioptrx to be turned. I don't find this necessary with an M42 thread, but do with an M43. For instance Baader Mk IV zooms have an M43 screw top and need an O ring. The O-ring has an inside diameter of 42mm and a thickness of 2 mm. Below is a pic of my holding a Baader Mk IV zoom by a Dioptrx without the eyepiece falling to the floor. The Dioptrx can still be turned.

Despite having high quality fixed focal length eyepieces, I use my zooms a lot more often. The zoom plus a Barlow lens and a low power, wide field eyepiece is often all I use the whole evening. Fixed focal length eyepieces may be slightly better corrected when compared with a zoom at the same magnification. But that's not always a fair comparison as that magnification may not be the optimum for a given object. This is because one of the many advantages of a zoom is to be able to dial in precisely the best focal length. For instance, this may be 13mm or even 13.1mm, which may actually show more detail than shorter or longer fixed focal length eyepieces - even the best quality ones. I especially like the ability to increase the magnification to make use of brief moments of good seeing (a steady atmosphere). It takes more time to swap out an eyepiece, and the opportunity may then be missed. You can't see anything if you haven't got an eyepiece in the focuser! Zooms also enable the field of view to be varied to frame an object to get the prettiest view. For this reason I particularly like them for clusters. They're also handy when you're using filters. You don't have to unscrew and then replace the filter when you change magnifications. Additionally, if you lose sight of an object at high power you can simply and quickly zoom out to find it again. Many of those who post here and advocate fixed focal lengths are experienced observers. It's so easy to forget what it was like as a beginner! A zoom eyepiece enables beginners to easily learn what difference a change of magnification makes on all the various classes of object. It also shows them what focal lengths would be most useful to their eyes, their telescope, and their observing conditions. They then have the option of buying/not buying the most appropriate fixed focal length eyepieces for them. For these reasons I'd always recommend that beginners buy a zoom as their first eyepiece.

Are you looking on Berlebach's own website? I ask because I had the same problem and ordered direct from them. Delivery was very fast.

Why I prefer a headtorch is that you can also hold it in your hand. So it's dual purpose.

I'd suggest looking at the Black Diamond Cosmo 350-R Headlamp. This is a new rechargeable version of what's been my favourite headtorch range for years. Most headtorches are way too bright for astronomy, but most Black Diamonds (including this one) can be dimmed right down low. What's more, they can be set to only come on at the lowest red light setting. So no more accidents! The only thing to watch is that the battery test lights up a series of blue LEDs, so I'd avoid using this at all. This is the reason I prefer the non-rechargeable version. However, I do use it with rechargeable AAA batteries.

Thanks all. Very helpful.

David, I'm probably being thick but could you explain how to determine where the point opposite the focuser is? Many thanks.