3-way review. TV Widefield vs. Hyperion vs. Meade 5000 ***FURTHER UPDATE!!!***

[Andrew*]

This is the start of a 3-way review between the following eyepieces which I have the privilege to have at my disposal all at once. I’m extremely interested in the result, as they are all by nature so very different from each other, but all come into the same price range. By specification though, they are very similar to each other – similar focal lengths, similar AFOVs, and of course similar TFOVs.

• Televue 19mm Wide Field

• Baader Planetarium 21mm Hyperion

• Meade Series 5000 20mm Super Plossl

thre three side by side

the Hyperion - bigger than both together :shock:

From above, trying to illustrate the coating reflections, but failing...

First impressions:

When I unwrapped the Meade and the Hyperion, I had a good idea of what to expect, but pictures of the Tele Vue are very thin on the ground as production halted I believe over two decades ago. So when I unwrapped the Tele Vue Wide Field, I found the most simple eyepiece I’d ever seen: Straight 1.25” barrel, smooth sides without rubber grips. No eyeguard. Simple, plain capital lettering in Tele Vue green. Just a slight taper at the top, and slits in the metal ring to unscrew the lenses. I realised then that I was holding an eyepiece that was older than me. Looking through the TV at a plain background revealed a nice clear wide field which to see the edges required me to move my head. To see the whole FOV meant putting your eye right in there and smearing eye lash grease over it. Comparing the reflections off the eye lens with the other two eyepieces, I noted very many, bright reflections, which appears to indicate it’s not fully multi-coated, or at least not to the same standards.

By strong contrast to the Tele Vue’s appearance, the Hyperion is a BIG eyepiece (for 1.25”) and it’s got all the bells and whistles – TWO barrels with safety grooves on each, rubber grips, rubber covers for the adaptor threads, and even a colour-coded ring. The only area I felt the Hyperion fall short on was a nice eye-cup. There is a flimsy rubber sleeve which is comfy, but when viewing with the eye up to this, the edge of the eyepiece barrel impinges on the view, 10 degrees at least on each side. I saw this when looking at a plain, light background and don’t know how this affects night views. Bringing the eye back 1cm from this or so gives an ideal clear view. Comparing the AFOV to the Meade saw little difference. If anything, the Meade’s 60 degrees is very slightly larger than the Hyperion’s.

The Meade is a very smart eyepiece. To extend the eye cup you must twist the whole body up from the 1.25” barrel (see photo). It slides up 12mm in a lovely fluid motion, but I find best comfort at 6mm. The eyepiece has a smart design and is well constructed, and is no bigger or heavier than it needs to be (lightest of the three). If I would have to make a complaint about the first impression it would be a very tight fitting of the front end cap.

Can't wait to test these three optically 8)

Cheers for reading

Andrew

[Albireo380]

Excellent review Andrew - I look forward to your comments when you are able to use them side - by - side on a 'scope. The Hyperion is MASSIVE compared to the other two.

Tom

[John]

I used to own a Tele Vue 19mm Wide Field (it could have been that one that you now have - they are not that common ). I enjoyed the images that it provided but I agree that the eye relief was a little tight compared to modern day EP's. I believe the Panoptic 19mm (which suceeded it) has improved eye relief and coatings - you had one of those for a while I recall ?.

John

[Neon]

Nice one Andrew. I look forward to seeing your conclussions on these optically.

[centroid]

A nice opening review Andrew, I will follow with interest your optical findings.

I have pretty much a full set of Meade Series 4000 eyepieces, and with the new 12" LX200R came a 26 mm 60 deg Series 5000 eyepiece.

From a build quality aspect, the 5000 series eyepiece looks to be an improvement over the 4000 series, but I've yet to optically compare the two side-by-side.

Dave

[Andrew*]

thanks chaps

I compared the Meade Series 4000 SW 32mm to the 5000 SP and the difference was outstanding!

[MartinB]

Very interesting comparison Andrew, should give a good insight into how far EP design has moved on over a short period of time.

[Andrew*]

Here goes - the moment we've all been waiting for! The opening of the Golden Envelope (thanks Tony! )

In my recent thread in Observing reports I give the background for the first impressions optically on these three eyepieces. Last night I had them all side by side to compare objectively in a 8" f/5 reflector and an 80mm f/7.5 ED refractor. The main object I used to compare these was M42 on a full moon night, which allowed me to evaluate a number of qualities. Of course, M42 did not reveal every aspect of the eyepieces, e.g. internal reflections when viewing bright objects, background darkness etc. but I did assess the following aspects: sharpness, eye relief, contrast, resolution, astigmatism, blacking out, optical aberrations, and coma correction. I was actively looking for these defects in an objective manner, not just casually observing.

In this review:

Hyperion = 21mm Baader Planetarium Hyperion

Meade = 20mm Meaede Series 5000 super plossl

TV = 19mm Tele Vue Wide Field

ED80 = Orion ED80 f/7.5 refractor

newt = Skywatcher 8" f/5 newtonian

Viewing with the ED80

So first off - the Hyperion. Almost immediately, I noticed the stars as radial lines, slightly thicker in the middle and tapering towards the edge. I can’t remember the name of this aberration (spherical?), but it was noticeable from 20% out (40% of the overall FOV). My biggest problem with the Hyperion was eye placement. I found that if your eye was too close to the eye cup it was all black. You have to position your eye quite centrally otherwise it tends to black out severely. Eye relief was very comfy. At just 30x, the 3 brighter stars in the Trapezium were clearly separable (I think for this I can give the ED80 10/10! However, that’s not relevant to the review).

The Meade showed no signs of spherical aberration, and matched the Hyperion for edge sharpness. The stars appeared as arcs, starting to become apparent in the last 1/3 of the overall FOV. The Meade evidently suffers from astigmatism. Try as I might, I couldn't find this in the newt. This puzzled me, until I found the answer in this article (search for "coma" – it’s first appearance in the article is in a sentence which explains this). The eye lens is smaller in the Meade and consequently your eye must be closer. However, I had no issues with kidney-beaning, and general viewing was more comfortable. The resolution matched the Hyperion as I could make out 3 Trapezium stars very clearly.

I found no optical defects using the TV. Eye relief was indeed smaller than the other two, but wasn’t uncomfortable without using glasses. 3 Trapezium stars were very slightly better resolved.

Viewing with the Newt

All three eyepieces showed coma at the edges in the newt. The Hyperion was the worst, the TV the best corrected. The Meade was only very marginally better than the Hyperion, but the TV gave an overall better view.

However, all is not lost for the Hyperion! Looking at M42 and changing from the TV to the Hyperion, I noticed that I could observe slightly more nebulosity. I checked over and over again, and am certain that the Hyperion gives better contrast. I can’t be sure of the cause, but I am guessing it’s to do with modern coatings. Comparing the TV to the Meade, the latter had a very slight edge on contrast, but not to the extent as the Hyperion. This fits with the observations I made of the reflection of the coatings earlier in the thread.

Also in the Hyperion’s favour is that quite honestly, coma wasn’t severe. I reminded myself that I was viewing at f/5 and found that, for the money (I paid about half the price of the TV), correction was rather good.

Summary

Although each eyepieces have clear strengths as well as weaknesses I’ve decided on a winner. That is the Tele Vue Wide Field. Optically it gives a superb, fairly wide view that is very sharp for almost its entire 65 degree field. Though the Meade matched the Hyperion optically, I feel it won over it in ease of use. The extendable eye cup, smart, compact, light design, and lack of blacking out put it ahead of the Hyperion. However, I must still make some additional observations with the eyepieces to assess how they cope with bright objects, and with a dark sky.

19mm Tele Vue Wide Field

Strengths: excellent viewing in slower scopes. Good coma correction at f/5.

Weaknesses: lack of generous eye relief, safety groove, and rubber grip, lower contrast against modern coatings.

20mm Meade Series 5000 super plossl

Strengths: excellent ease of use due to small, light, but strong build. Comfortable viewing.

Weaknesses: slight astigmatism.

21mm Baader Hyperion

Strengths: high contrast, good value for money.

Weaknesses: radial lines (spherical aberration?), cumbersome build

Thanks for reading.

Andrew

[John]

That's a very interesting conclusion Andrew. I thought the Tele Vue would hold up pretty well (I used to own the 24mm, 19mm and 15mm versions of this) but I thought that the more modern designs would have slightly edged it due to better coatings etc.

Hat's off to Al Nagler and Tele Vue for coming up with such a good design over a decade ago !.

John

[Andrew*]

Indeed, John,

At the end of the day, the most acclaimed optics prove themselves worthy of acclaim! Tele Vue definitely stole the show in last night's session, what with the nagler zoom, and this... I think the Panoptic was an excellent succession of the Wide Field, and eliminated all of those weaknesses I put on the TV.

But I'm quite sure that coatings have improved. I think Baader's coatings are superb. However, their tendency to black out, that I have now experienced in two Baader eyepieces, makes them rather uncomfy to use IMHO. It may simply be me being Rubbish at putting my eye in the right place...

cheers

Andrew

[Milamber]

Interesting Andrew - odd that I find the Hyperions far outperform the Televues in my experience. Just shows how much of a subjective nature eyepiece preferences can be. Nice collective review though and thanks.

The Hyperion is MASSIVE compared to the other two.

Nah - Hyperions are *tiny*...

Arthur

[centroid]

Thanks for the 'follow-up' on your initial 'post' Andrew, very interesting reading, and nicely presented. Well done!!

Dave

[Neon]

Nice one Andrew. I found your review very informative, especially since you listed the equipment you used.

[Andrew*]

Thanks all! I hope it helps people somehow... I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at the TVs performance, but no doubt the panoptic beats it in a few regards...

I hope I've got my aberrations right... I couldn't find a site that gives illustrations of all the optical aberrations you can see in eyepieces.

Interesting Andrew - odd that I find the Hyperions far outperform the Televues in my experience.

Interesting... Are you referring to the WFs? Maybe the 21mm is the runt of the Hyperion series...

Cheers

Andrew

[Milamber]

I mean all - I tried the Naglers (up to the 31) and the Panoptics (up to the 35) - even the plossls, and the only one I actually got on with was the 16mm T2. Strange eh?

Arthur

[GazOC]

Maybe the 21mm is the runt of the Hyperion series...

It certainly has the poorest reputation.

[MartinB]

Thanks Andrew, very informative.

I mean all - I tried the Naglers (up to the 31) and the Panoptics (up to the 35) - even the plossls, and the only one I actually got on with was the 16mm T2. Strange eh?

Not strage Arthur. That 17mm T4 you sold me needs very careful eyeplacement, too close and it kidney beans, too far away and you start losing FOV. The key for me was to get the eye cup adjusted perfectly then press my eye against it. 3 click out, that does it for me. Nothing like as easy to view through as my humble Moonfish though.

[FLO]

Maybe the 21mm is the runt of the Hyperion series...

It certainly has the poorest reputation.

Odd, it's one of the best-sellers, along with the 13 and 8mm.

[James]

I own a 21mm - the focal length is a good one for many scopes especially faster reflectors. I found the apparent field of view slightly smaller than the 8mm which I have and generally wasn't impressed with its performance, relative to the 8mm, but overall think its a good eyepiece. I don't get the same kidney-beaning that Andrew does on the Hyperions so I suspect part of that must be down to the observer. For example I have a 10mm Pentax XW with a knackered eyeguard which is stuck wound in - I get horrendous kidney beaning now with this eyepiece that I didn't when they eyeguard worked fine as it seems to be very hard to get exactly the right position.

James

[Milamber]

...That 17mm T4 you sold me needs very careful eyeplacement, too close and it kidney beans, too far away and you start losing FOV. The key for me was to get the eye cup adjusted perfectly then press my eye against it. 3 click out, that does it for me. Nothing like as easy to view through as my humble Moonfish though.

Ah - well there you go then... bit of a bu**er to get perfect placement when you're wobbling around at the top of a ladder

That may explain things

Arthur

[MartinB]

That wouldn't help!

[saturn5]

Arthur....if you dont mind me asking,where did you get the 35mm Stratus. I have the 13mm & 21mm and think they are superb value for money,definately punching above their weight. I have only seen up to 21mm for sale and above that is the 2" 25,32 & 38mm Q70's.

The 35mm Stratus appeals to me big time

[Milamber]

I found this one on AstroMart a few weeks ago and was lucky to be able to convince the current owner that posting it to the UK was not a major operation! No chance of getting one outside the US though since I don't think Orion sold them anywhere else. Adding to the scarcity is the fact that they are no longer made...

Arthur

PS - here's interesting... http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=458

[Andrew*]

It's incredible how much a second view reveals. Here's some further observations, all with the ED80 on a night with a big moon and some thin cloud:

Meade

- I didn't fully investigate the "arcs" that I described before when viewing through this eyepiece. In fact, the arcs were due to the eyepiece not being fully focused. Inside focus, stars appeared as arcs, and outside focus they appeared as lines radiating from the centre of the FOV. This effect was only noticeable at the edges of the FOV. Perfect focus revealed the stars as small smudgy crosses.

- A very slight blue fringe was visible on the lunar limb - probably the ED80 is to blame for this.

TV

- I found exactly the same focus effect that I saw in the meade when viewing through the TV.The difference was that perfect focus revealed much smaller neater stars.

- The eyepiece coped fine with the brightness of moon. There was no ghosting, nor could I see reflections when the moon was just out of the field (what do you call this again?).

- Viewing the moon, I am certain I saw a very slightly crisper central view (and it wasn't focus, this time!) than I saw with the other two.

- The blue tinge was visible with the TV too.

Hyperion

- the focusing technique I used to test the other two revealed another overlooked feature of the Hyperion - field curvature. There is a definite need to re-focus to see the edges as to see the centre of the FOV. The radial lines I noted previously were simply a result of this.

- Viewing the moon terminator/limb revealed some nasty colour effects - yellows and blues when moving your eye around the field.

- Eye placement seriously bothered me again this time...

And I think that will end my review - finally! I hope I've been thorough. I should hope so after all that waffle!

Cheers

Andrew