Baader Hyperion Zoom Mk3

[SpaceWalker]

EdZ has measured, verified and posted here  the Hyperion Mark III  AFOVs at different magnifications. They are

at 8mm = 225x, I see 204mm = 0.31° = Afov 70°
at 12mm =150x, I see 254mm = 0.38° = Afov 58°
at 16mm = 112.5x, I see 305mm = 0.46° = Afov 52°
at 20mm = 90x I see 357mm = 0.54° = Afov 49°
at 24mm = 75x, I see 368mm = 0.56° = Afov 42°

I personally like wide views like 82*AFOV, so this Zoom looks useful just within ~8-12mm range, IMO. So it would probably be not bad idea to have a 20-24mm wide angle (e.g. 68*+) fixed FL eyepiece in addition to the Zoom.
 

[John]

Having owned a couple of the Hyperion Zooms, I agree with the above post. Nice eyepieces in the 8mm - 20mm range but the field gets constricted and fuzzy edged beyond that so it's worth budgetting for another eyepiece to deliver low power / wide angle  views.

[Duke2k]

Since my last update no more debris has appeared and the only time I notice the existing piece is when viewing the Moon.

Has anyone used them in very cold conditions -6c as this is when mine seemed to get the problem?

Its still a very good eyepiece except for the dust problem.

[John]

I've read about the Hyperion zooms getting rather stiff to operate in really cold conditions but not about any cold related debris.

[F15Rules]

I've had 3 of these zooms and really like them. I also had a Leica zoom and apart from the wider field of the Leica there wasn't that much difference-well, not 3x the price worth..

I still have some fixed focal length EPs but the Baader Zoom is just very convenient to use and excels in my long refractors at 8-20mm settings - and doesn't affect the balance of the scope as the same weight is always in the focuser, whatever the magnification..

I agree that the smaller field at the 24mm setting is underwhelming but I think that is just because we are conditioned to expect long focal length EPs to equate to wider fields (as is often the case with fixed length ones). So I do keep several wide field EPs from 25mm up to 42mm (mostly 2" barrel) to cover those needs, and here the choice of both 2" and 1.25" adapters is useful and convenient .

Regarding the debris mentioned after a period of time, I have never seen that, but I've not yet had one of these for over 12 months so far. I wonder if the debris could be small flakes of black paint coming off the internal threads with repeated in-out zooming plus thermal expansion of the paint in seasonal temperature extremes? If so, these flakes should be able to be sucked out carefully with a Dyson/Vax type hoover accessory as they would hopefully be on external, not internal, glass surfaces?

Overall though, for around £120-£130 in excellent used condition this is one excellent piece of kit.

Dave

[Duke2k]

Hi Dave. Yes this is what is probably is. I have tried using a vacuum to remove it but whatever it is it sticks to the lens surface.

Maybe I'm just unlucky but this is the third time this has happened and even though I use it a lot its always been well cared for.

Arthur

[F15Rules]

Hi Dave. Yes this is what is probably is. I have tried using a vacuum to remove it but whatever it is it sticks to the lens surface.

Maybe I'm just unlucky but this is the third time this has happened and even though I use it a lot its always been well cared for.

Arthur

Hi Arthur

Just one more suggestion..if suction doesn't shift it, how about high pressure blowing, such as a hairdryer on cool but maximum setting?

You could also try spraying a little Baader Wonder fluid onto the lens then wiping it gently off, but be sure not to leave the fluid on the lens longer than a few seconds in case it gets under the outer lens surface, as that could dry with smears which are worse than the original particle.

I'm sure it must be very frustrating, might be worth contacting Baader direct in Germany, they do seem a decent firm..

good luck!

Dave

[stadaik]

I've had 3 of these zooms and really like them. I also had a Leica zoom and apart from the wider field of the Leica there wasn't that much difference-well, not 3x the price worth..

Dave

i will revive this topic because of Dave's post. Dave have you made a comparison between Baader and Leica? Have you ever tried the Zeiss zoom. I would like to read about if you have the info. 

thnx

[John]

i will revive this topic because of Dave's post. Dave have you made a comparison between Baader and Leica? Have you ever tried the Zeiss zoom. I would like to read about if you have the info. 

thnx

This thread on another forum is worth a read:

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/481585-is-the-baader-hyperion-zoom-that-good-optically/

I've owned a couple of the Hyperion Zooms (a MkII and a MkIII) and found them pretty good apart from the 24mm setting where the FoV narrows and the field stop becomes ill-delined. It's not quite as good as what I'd call premium peformers (eg: Pentax XW, Delos, Vixen SLV, Baader GO and CO etc) but given it's flexibility, pretty good.

[F15Rules]

Hi Stadaik,

The Leica Zoom I had was the Vario version not the latest Aspheric Version. The main difference is the field of view which on the Aspheric is around 60deg minimum and 80 deg maximum, whereas the Vario was more like 50deg minimum to 65 max - still very acceptable I found.

There are a few posts on Cloudy Nights comparing the Vario with the Aspheric, and the general consensus is that it is the uber-wide field of the Aspheric that is the key difference: but of course the Aspheric is around £600, compared to the under £300 I paid for the Vario (in very good used condition).

The Leica is smaller than the Baader, but weighs about the same, and does feel slightly more solid than the Baader (which itself appears well built). I would say that the Leica had better contrast which was noticeable on dark nights with good transparency, and slightly better (sharper) edge of (wider) field correction: but on axis sharpness there wasn't much in it at all. I agree that the 24mm setting on the Baader is not great, although the one I have now does present a nice sharp field stop. Another poster above gave some actual measured FOV figures for the MK III and I would agree that the 24mm setting does seem more like a 42-45 degree field rather than the claimed 50 degrees (more like a good ortho fov - the difference being that most Orthos are used at shorter focal lengths for detail on moon, planets, doubles etc, so a small FOV doesn't matter): at 24mm you really expect a more expansive view, which is why even diehard zoom afficianados tend to keep one or two long focal length wide field eyepieces in their arsenal.

I haven't had the pleasure of using a Zeiss zoom - but the name would be enough for me, I'm sure they would be superb.

I would also comment on the MK III Baader: the one I have now is my third, and it is definitely better built than the first two. The Click stop mechanism is very definite, where the first two were rather "woolly" in feel, and the optics also seem much closer on this one to the performance of my fixed length eyepieces: last weekend I had a good 2 hour session in which I used both the Baader and my Explore Scientific Argon purged (6.7mm and 34mm) and Maxvision 28mm eyepieces. 

Probably the longest comparison was between the Baader at 8mm and the ES 6.7mm 82deg, particularly on M13. The contrast on both eyepieces was very good, hard to choose between them, although the higher mag of the 6.7mm made more faint stars (pop out) - M13 really takes high magnification on a good night, I find- and of course the much wider 82 deg field of the ES made M13 really stand out with lots of black sky around it.

Right now, if offered a Baader MK III at £120 or a Vario Zoom at £270, I'd have to say I'd take the Baader and use the £150 to get another single Explore Scientific or maybe 2 Maxvisions!

Hope that's of some help.

Dave

[stadaik]

thnx both for your response. John i ve already made an account to CN looking there for similar threads. Dave, yes i was talking for aspheric version. Between MK3 and Vario Zoom you are choose the first. Between MK3 and aspheric?

[YKSE]

I have both MK3 and aspheric, and keeping both.

To my eye, Leica has less scatter light around bright objects, and no stray lights at when a bright object is just outside the FOV, this combination gives better contrast in FOV. MK3 is used mostly in PST, alignment and family outreach. Leica doesn't come into focus in PST, the so-so helical focuser in PST almost demands a par-focal zoom. The stray lights from bright object ouside FOV is actually an advantage in alignment, you can easily determine where to adjust mount movement, and a zoom is very handy for occasional users

[John]

I've not used a Leica ASPH zoom but my understanding is, from the many reports I've read on it, is that it competes with things like the Delos and the Pentax XW's. If that is the case then thats a step up on the Hyperion Zoom I reckon.

For it's sub-£200 cost though the Hyperion Zoom does very well.

[F15Rules]

I can't add much to YKSE's and John's thoughts..I am sure the Leica aspheric is a division above the MKIII and if I could afford the £600 or so for one I would have one..but I can't so I'm happy with the MKIII and some decent (if not premium branded) fixed focal length EPs such as Explore Scientific and Maxvisions.

One feature of zooms I do really like is that you can "dial in" the magnification for the conditions, so for example if I have fixed EPs of 8mm and 12mm but the conditions on a given night best suit something in between, I can simple adjust the zoom focus to the point that gives the best view- whatever that might be between 8mm and 12mm.

Davr

[Dave In Vermont]

Yet another re-awakening of this thread. Perhaps I should found a church around it.....

But I just joined the club. I ordered one of these critters from Agena AstroProducts in Los Angeles. They have free shipping in the US, and excellent service. Rather like the FLO over in the UK.

I already have a Vixen Lanthanum 8 - 24mm zoom, and it should prove interesting to compare the two. Vixen's use of lanthanum in one, or more, of their lens elements truly makes for quite a difference. Tack-sharp stars to the edge of the FOV. So this should be good.

I'll be back.....

Arnold...er...Dave