SKYWATCHER 8mm to 24mm zoom eyepiece

[derekm]

Anyone out there with one of these eyepieces, who can make an honest judgement as to their quality and performance please?

I have no doubt that there are many eyepieces costing 6x as much which are better, but I have no intention of paying the price of a decent small scope on an eyepiece, no matter what it's reputation!

[John]

With respect, why the resistance to buying good eyepieces ? - you have a fine scope which will need decent quality eyepieces to give of it's best. You don't need to spend a fortune but I don't think the Skywatcher 8-24mm zoom will be doing your Revelation 12 dobsonian justice.

If funds are tight, think about decent plossls such as the Revelation or GSO (same thing really) or even the Tele Vue ones.

[derekm]

No resistance to buying good eyepieces, but I would prefer to put money into aperture than eyepieces. I have some decent "ordinary" plossls, but the convenience of a zoom could be handy. If neither of us has used one, we can't really make a judgement can we?

Convenience apart, if I had an Oldham mirror set, I'd be looking at top class eyepieces; I haven't, so I'm not.

The way I understand things, it's best if everything in the optical train is of similar quality. I have a very good Chinese mirror set and am asking just how good (or bad!) the Chinese zoom is.

At the end of the day, our seeing generally lets everything down!

[rowan46]

I've never owned one, but I guess I've read the same reviews you have, so my question is why ask, the general consensus is they are not as good as fixed eyepieces. but then you know that so why the attitude its not our fault. if you want it buy it it's a free country

[Gina]

A zoom is never as good as a prime lens - too much glass - but they are certainly handy. I considered getting a zoom EP myself but put the money to a good mount instead. A set of par-focal fixed EPs would be better. I bought a couple of Celestron Omni Plossl EPs hoping they'd be par-focal - they aren't! I guess you need to buy a set specifically par-focal. Switching EPs is not too much bother if they focus the same - it's having to refocus that takes the time.

[Psychobilly]

A zoom is never as good as a prime lens - too much glass - but they are certainly handy. I considered getting a zoom EP myself but put the money to a good mount instead. A set of par-focal fixed EPs would be better. I bought a couple of Celestron Omni Plossl EPs hoping they'd be par-focal - they aren't! I guess you need to buy a set specifically par-focal. Switching EPs is not too much bother if they focus the same - it's having to refocus that takes the time.

If they arent parafocal out of the box then you should be able to sort them out with some parafocal rings... a bit fiddly to get them spot on but not impossible...and pretty easy to get them fairly close...

I used to find a cheap 8-24mm zoom made parafocal to the webcam/DMK very handy when imaging..

[Rossco72]

A zoom is never as good as a prime lens - too much glass - but they are certainly handy. I considered getting a zoom EP myself but put the money to a good mount instead. A set of par-focal fixed EPs would be better. I bought a couple of Celestron Omni Plossl EPs hoping they'd be par-focal - they aren't! I guess you need to buy a set specifically par-focal. Switching EPs is not too much bother if they focus the same - it's having to refocus that takes the time.

I have used a number of zooms ranging from the skywatcher to Baader Hyperion, Televue and Pentax. The Televue 3-6mm is top quality as the focal range is small and the focus is pretty near perfect at each point in the travel. My current Pentax 8-24mm is better than most EP's in that range except very expensive Ethos ones but it has the convenience of being one EP, although big.

Quality costs money, if you aren't too worried about the optics then the skywatcher will do just fine, the Baader Hyperion is a good balance and the Pentax is top dog as far as I have seen.

Cheers

[derekm]

I've never owned one, but I guess I've read the same reviews you have, so my question is why ask, the general consensus is they are not as good as fixed eyepieces. but then you know that so why the attitude its not our fault. if you want it buy it it's a free country

Haven't read any reviews, which is why I asked the question. The concensus in any hobby is the more you spend the better. Anglers refer to "tackle tarts".

I asked a simple question about a modest eyepiece.

No attitude, it was just a straightforward request for information to someone who can hopefully give an answer based on their experience rather than supposition.

There are lots of comments on forums about the lack of quality of Chinese mirrors and how mirrors from xxx or yyy must be better.

All I can say is that my Chinese mirror was a pleasant surprise to me and also to the fairly knowledgeable gent who tested it.

Expensive is not necessarily good and cheap not necessarily bad. I'd still appreciate a reply from a user, for or against.

[brantuk]

I'd prefer the Hyperion Zoom to the SW (which came last in a SaN review about 15 months ago). The S/W had internal reflections and not so crisp. The Hyperion was second or third against TV and Pentax IIRC - largely cos it's so crisp and clear with next to no internal reflections.

I have the Hyperion and it really is a quality piece of kit. Not perfect but very good general purpose tool. I use it for aligning the finder, polar alignment, star alignment, and some visual testing before popping in better quality ep's for any particular object (eg to find a good magnification). Saves a lot of effort changing ep's when you can just turn the zoom.

As 5 ep's in one it's much better quality than any beginners ep set and very affordable. The Mk2's can be had for around £100-£120 s/h or £160'ish new. I can also attach a camera to the viewing end for projection photography cos it's specially threaded.

I allways recommend the Hyperion cos it's just great vfm

[derekm]

Thanks for that Brantuk; useful comments that I'll bear in mind.

[twotter]

I have an 8-24mm zoom which cost £50, and I got it to see if I would use it, before spending more money than I could really afford on the popular Baader.

My zoom performs okay, feels like a quality product, and can be barlowed. On the downside, the FOV at 24mm is a bit tighter than my plossls, on a par from about 20-12mm, then better around 10-8mm. I'd probably use it in place of my plossls if I was going out for a short observing session, or for splitting double stars.

I've decided against looking to get the Baader zoom, instead I plan to build up my collection of fixed length Hyperions instead.

[John]

No attitude, it was just a straightforward request for information to someone who can hopefully give an answer based on their experience rather than supposition..../QUOTE]

My view was given on the basis of experience - lots of it and over 30+ years in the hobby with 20+ scopes and many (too many !) eyepieces

I've used and owned a number of zooms, including the Skywatcher 7-21 and 8-24. The only one that I've found equalled the quality of views (which is what we are all after) of quality fixed focal length eyepieces is the Tele Vue Nagler 3-6 zoom which is superb but, you pay for that quality of course. The Baader Hyperion 8-24 "click stop" zoom was pretty good but lost a bit in sharpness and field of view to the Baader Hyperion fixed focal length equivalents. You may class the Baader as an excessively expensive item as well at £170+ new, I don't know

You requested an "honest judgement as to their quality and performance please" and that's mine FWIW. But it is based on experience not just supposition

[rwilkey]

Hi, I ordered one of these from Sky's the Limit for my grandson, who is 7 yrs old, of course, I tried it out first and was actually amazed at the quality and zoom capability, now my wife wants one and I shall be buying another. As with other zooms, the field is slightly smaller than with fixed eyepieces, my only critcism, but the advantages of the zoom outweigh this in my view.

[derekm]

No attitude, it was just a straightforward request for information to someone who can hopefully give an answer based on their experience rather than supposition..../QUOTE]

My view was given on the basis of experience - lots of it and over 30+ years in the hobby with 20+ scopes and many (too many !) eyepieces

I've used and owned a number of zooms, including the Skywatcher 7-21 and 8-24. The only one that I've found equalled the quality of views (which is what we are all after) of quality fixed focal length eyepieces is the Tele Vue Nagler 3-6 zoom which is superb but, you pay for that quality of course. The Baader Hyperion 8-24 "click stop" zoom was pretty good but lost a bit in sharpness and field of view to the Baader Hyperion fixed focal length equivalents. You may class the Baader as an excessively expensive item as well at £170+ new, I don't know

You requested an "honest judgement as to their quality and performance please" and that's mine FWIW. But it is based on experience not just supposition

Thanks for that John; I appreciate your comments, now it's clear that you have actually tried them.

Wrongly, I now admit, (as your first posting didn't mention the actual use), I took it as the usual "you must spend £XXX on YYYY name to have anything decent." You must admit there's a lot of that on all forums for all hobbies.

Apologies for misreading you.

[derekm]

Hi, I ordered one of these from Sky's the Limit for my grandson, who is 7 yrs old, of course, I tried it out first and was actually amazed at the quality and zoom capability, now my wife wants one and I shall be buying another. As with other zooms, the field is slightly smaller than with fixed eyepieces, my only critcism, but the advantages of the zoom outweigh this in my view.

Whilst I understand the reasoning of the guys recommending the high end zooms, the SW now sounds like a fair punt for £50 odd, simply from a convenience point of view. My long term aim is to go over to 2" eyepieces where possible (modest, not top line!), but the SW zoom sounds handy, especially for the little ETX.

Thanks for your comments.

[John]

Thanks for that John; I appreciate your comments, now it's clear that you have actually tried them.

Wrongly, I now admit, (as your first posting didn't mention the actual use), I took it as the usual "you must spend £XXX on YYYY name to have anything decent." You must admit there's a lot of that on all forums for all hobbies.

Apologies for misreading you.

No problem

I agree entirely with your point about the "pressure to spend". I've had a lot of fun in this hobby with very low cost equipment and the performance improvements get smaller as your investment gets larger

You mentioned angling in one of your posts - I do some of that as well and I'm quite content with my budget "Argos specials" when it comes to tackle - caught some quite nice fish on it as well and I can't recall them complaining that they had fallen to low cost tackle

[FLO]

The Skywatcher 8-24 Zoom eyepiece might be acceptable for telescopes with f-ratios f8 or higher, such as an SCT or Maksutov, but I would not recommend it for a fast Dobsonian. Consider buying a secondhand Meade 8-24 zoom (essentially the same as the more expensive Televue 8-24 zoom) or the Baader Hyperion zoom.

HTH,

Steve

[Rossco72]

Steve,

I too think the Baader is a good balance between cost and performance. A fast Dob is always going to test EP's and I think that has been the general consensous of the replies in this thread.

If money was no object the Pentax is great at all speeds but the Baader is pretty good for 1/3 the cost.

[twotter]

The Baader is about £170 or so? Price is definitely a factor for me, and perhaps for others.

Roll on that big lottery win

[FLO]

Yes, around £170.

Only the more expensive zoom eyepiece work well, that is why we don't offer the Skywatcher zoom. Skywatcher do have some very nice eyepieces but that isn't one of them. At around £60 we would recommend you forgo the convenience of a zoom in favour of one or two Plossl eyepieces. They will be brighter, sharper, have more contrast and less abberations.

HTH,

Steve

[Rossco72]

Price is usually a factor for everyone.

However value for money is also a consideration and saving a few quid to buy something that you wont use because it doesn't meet your minimum requirements is a false saving.

Over the years I have spent a fair bit on kit which needed to be upgraded as it simply wasn't up to the task in hand. If I had saved for the right kit it would have been cheaper than spending some, losing some, spending more, losing some, spending more again, losing some etc. to get to where I needed to be.

Fast systems in particular are demanding on EP's, with slower SCT, Maks or slower Refractors this is less of an issue and lots more kit reaches the useable limit.

[twotter]

Ah, the benefit of hindsight, where would we be without it

[LMC]

I'm sort of a zoom junkie as I like their convenience for grab & go.

They are also pretty good for deciding what length eps suit your observing style and then buying accordingly rather than just taking a punt.

I wasn't especially impressed with the Skywatcher and am currently using a Meade.

I don't know what they cost in the UK, but the Baader III 8-24 zoom is very, very good.

I've just been down the road looking thru' a friend's new one (he's a show-off) and its the nicest zoom I've seen that doesn't cost as much as a small car. We did some twitching with a WO88 at dusk at then some quick squizzes through an 8" f4 Newt before rain set-in. It handled both really well and I couldn't detect any serious curvature.

Its around $300 (180 GBP) here which is a whole lot less than the Leica 7-21 at about $900!

But I ramble.

I wouldn't bother with the Skywatcher.

[Ggeo]

I agree, a zoom is perfect for grab and go convenience or gauging your viewing style. If it's a good one you will use it more because it's also convenient. The baader sounds good but I use a nikon mc2 with a converter for astro work and the nikon optics are great. You have to choose between convenience and fov at the wider settings, but convenience wins for me.