Love at first light - Baader Zoom Mk IV

[iPeace]

You love it or you don't. Many have sung its praises, many have voiced disapproval. Only one way to find out on which side of the fence you fall.

A head-to-head against a case full of Ethos would totally miss the point, for me at least. Not dragging the case out at all, and finding out how happy I would be, that's the ticket.

Fit and finish very nice. Smooth, solid action.

Conditions not ideal - are they ever - but worth a decent session. Scope is the TV85, 600mm f/l.

The Pleiades fit in the view at the 24mm stop and look very nice. The Trapezium in Orion also nicely visible. Double Cluster, Praesepe, clusters in Gemini and Auriga, all happening. FOV not as much of an issue as I thought it might be.

But the fun is of course in the zooming. Instantly get a bit closer. Nothing parfocal about this for me, tiny consistent tweak of focuser needed between stops, not irksome, but reassuring.

Best was Jupiter. At the 8mm stop a most enjoyable view. Can't wait to try it on the Moon.

Eye placement occasionally tricky, but reestablished quickly enough.

Desert island eyepiece? Have not decided that yet. I wanted to love it, was prepared not to. I think I do.

[Pondus]

Hope you`ll enjoy it .

Have the mkIII myself. Loved it for along time, escpecially for lunar and planet views.

For different reasons I dont get along with it anymore though. Havent given it up just yet though.

 

Rune

[fiestazetecmk2]

Looks very nice.I must admit I did contemplate buying this.but I chose to buy fixed focal. How does it measure up against fixed.is it really that good.l want to hate it but the more I read I'm trying to keep my wallet hidden.arggghhhh

[John]

Nice report Mike !

I've played with the Mk IV zoom but not looked though one, as yet. I've owned a couple of the Mk III's and a Mk II.

They are the best reasonably affordable zoom available I think. I found the 24mm focal length too constrained and with a fuzzy field stop but from 20mm to 8mm things were more enjoyable.

I had my last one when the nice supernova was showing for some time in M82. Lengthy comparisons with other eyepieces of that lovely galaxy and some other targets led me to the conclusion that the zoom was generally very good but that it lacked penetration on deep sky objects and delivered a few unwelcome internal ghosts at certain angles on brighter objects.

Maybe the Mk IV has improved in those areas ?

 

[iPeace]

5 hours ago, Pondus said:

For different reasons I dont get along with it anymore though. Havent given it up just yet though.

Yes, I read your thoughts on this (well, not directly, but as you had shared them with us); indeed, during this first light session, whenever I needed a moment to re-establish eye position, I thought of your comments and imagined how it may irritate in a certain state of mind. I can also get "blackouts", "kidney beaning" or whatever you'd like to call it with a 31mm T5 Nagler, or even with a 21mm Ethos - in which case I immediately assume that it's me, not the eyepiece, and move on. This zoom eyepiece does immediately let you know if you're out of position - sort of like a Telrad or Rigel sight does. I often do the RDF dance. Neighbours line up to watch in fascination.

5 hours ago, fiestazetecmk2 said:

I chose to buy fixed focal. How does it measure up against fixed.

Well that's a good question, and the answer will vary depending on which fixed-length eyepieces you compare it with. The general consensus is that a zoom eyepiece cannot be as good as eyepieces - in roughly the same quality bracket - of fixed focal length; I accept this is so.

In my (eyepiece) case, it's hardly fair to compare with the Ethos range for sheer performance. No real point in comparing with a 31mm T5 Nagler, either. The Nagler 3-6 Zoom has the concept of zoom in common, but covers shorter focal lengths.

The thought experiment is, could a 8-24 zoom combined with a 3-6 zoom replace eight fixed-length eyepieces within that range of focal lengths? We would all like that to be true for various reasons. The answer will depend on context.

• Want to relax at the eyepiece knowing that it doesn't get any better: no, the zooms will not do that for you
• Want the absolute best, pure performance, regardless of field of view, or even eye relief: no, you may be an ortho man
• Want the absolute widest field of view available: no, obviously the zooms will not suffice
• Only really use three 1.25" fixed-length eyepieces anyway: no, a zoom doesn't fit in such a sensible mindset
• Incurable eyepiece swapper: yes, you might get more actual observing done with a zoom
• Want to take (carry) your astro gear on holiday: yes, the zooms will get it done
• Want to live in a caravan at your dark site for six months of the year, and not have to sleep on your eyepiece case: yes, zooms constitute a viable option
• Want your astro gear to sit quietly in the far corner of the cupboard beneath the stairs and behave itself for the 300 non-observing days of the year: yes, the zooms fit that bill
• Rather buy a car than a case full of Ethos: yes, the zooms will do nicely

Take note, I find myself regularly wallowing in several of the categories above and I don't pass judgement on their validity.

5 hours ago, John said:

They are the best reasonably affordable zoom available I think.

They are also reasonably *available*. Somewhat harder for me to find a Pentax or a Leica in stock...

5 hours ago, John said:

I found the 24mm focal length too constrained and with a fuzzy field stop but from 20mm to 8mm things were more enjoyable.

I was ready to be underwhelmed by the 24mm setting, without actually looking for faults. Indeed, if you regard it as a 8-20mm zoom eyepiece, with a gratuitous 24mm setting just for the hell of it, it's not bad at all. With my scope, the Pleiades fit in the view; that fills my cup sufficiently to enjoy. It won't give you a wide field fix, of course. I'm sure that in a direct comparison with a 24mm Panoptic or ES 68 deg the difference will show - I plan to see this for myself sometime soon.

5 hours ago, John said:

I had my last one when the nice supernova was showing for some time in M82. Lengthy comparisons with other eyepieces of that lovely galaxy and some other targets led me to the conclusion that the zoom was generally very good but that it lacked penetration on deep sky objects and delivered a few unwelcome internal ghosts at certain angles on brighter objects.

Maybe the Mk IV has improved in those areas ?

Well I doubt that the Mk IV is optically any better than the Mk III - Baader doesn't seem to say so.

The brightest objects I observed during this first session were Sirius and Jupiter. I suppose if I'd ever seen an "internal ghost" in an eyepiece, I would know about it... I feel sure I didn't see one last night. Time will tell.

I certainly didn't enjoy conditions good enough last night to pass final judgement on deep sky performance, even with the limited aperture of the TV85. There was some high-altitude haze (if such a thing exists) and I wasn't expecting the full Monty. When it cleared a bit more later on and I stole a march back out for another taste, all I had eye for was Jupiter. Truly to be continued.

*

The main takeaway for me was how much *fun* it was to use. No eyepiece swapping at all, let alone from a case that looks like you're planning to open the front door using explosives. It's very relaxing, and provides a good mindset for enjoyment. It's like going out with binoculars, only to discover that you have zoom capability built in. If only...

And that, I have decided, is indeed the next step. I will add another Baader Zoom and a reasonably priced binoviewer in due course, and see how I get on.

 

[fiestazetecmk2]

The only way to judge is to try one..all this is subjective as conditions do change through the night.we all see differently anyway. Think I will stick with fixed focal.yes zoom has its place in astronamy.but not in my eyepiece case.we all strive to improve on what we have.but I sometimes think we loose the reason why we got into this astronamy in the first place .and  to enjoy what's up there instead of wanting better all the time.enjoy your scope and the views.that's why you bought it.isn't it.???.

 

[Saganite]

Cheers for that report Mike, it is very helpful. I use binoviewers most of the time now, particularly the Moon and planetry, and have grown tired of searching for pairs of eyepieces at different focal lengths, and now that the Mk IV's have a reduced diameter and are lighter I am seriously considering a pair of these instead, with a pair of 24 Pans at the top end( these are mainly for use in my Dob).I am sure that in my refractor, at f15 ,these will be very good.

[Floater]

I've often wondered how the TV 8-24 stacks up against other 8-24 zooms.

Has anyone had a chance to compare and have an opinion to share? (I have at least a couple of possible names in mind here.)

[Paul73]

Great writup. 

The Baader 2.24x Barlow is a pretty good partner too. 

I find the quality of image good. It is a bit like having a box full of good £50 eyepieces in one little package!

I believe that the TV effort was a rebranded third party eyepiece that didn't live up to expectations.....

The Baader does suffer in faster scopes. Even then in an F5 Newt the view isn't bad, just a bit disappointing when compared to premium fixed length jobbies. Hardly Baader's fault.

I should use mine more.

Paul

[alan potts]

Congratulations on you new eyepiece, hope it is not with free clouds.

Alan

[John]

I've owned 3 of the Baader zooms but not a Tele Vue 8-24 zoom or it's clone, the Vixen LV 8-24 (Vixen made the 8-24 zoom for Tele Vue). Tele Vue carried this zoom for over 2 decades but eventually decided that the zoom market place was over-crowded and that the zoom was not quite as good as their other eyepiece ranges so dropped it sometime in the late 1990's I think. Contrary to some rumours, TV never kept it's origins a secret neither was it dropped in a hurry because they were "found out" in some way .

Performance comparison reports that I've read elsewhere suggest that the Baader zoom is probably a marginally better performer than the TV / Vixen 8-24's.

 

[AKB]

13 hours ago, Pondus said:

Have the mkIII myself. Loved it for along time, escpecially for lunar and planet views.

Yup, me too.  I see that there are some mechanical differences, but does anyone know if the optics basically the same for the Mk-III and Mk-IV ?

 

[iPeace]

14 minutes ago, AKB said:

Yup, me too.  I see that there are some mechanical differences, but does anyone know if the optics basically the same for the Mk-III and Mk-IV ?

 

Baader doesn't go out of its way to mention this; my assumption is that the optics are identical.

[John]

16 minutes ago, AKB said:

Yup, me too.  I see that there are some mechanical differences, but does anyone know if the optics basically the same for the Mk-III and Mk-IV ?

 

I had a good look at a Mk IV last week and the optics certainly looked the same as the Mk III. I didn't get a chance to look through it though. As Mike says, generally a manufacturer trumpets all the positive stuff as much as possible so if the optics are not been mentioned by Baader, they are probably unchanged.

[spaceboy]

Like new bank notes. They look different but do exactly the same

[mikeDnight]

I had my first ever view through a Baader MKlll Zoom last Monday. I was observing Venus in broad daylight while using my friends Takahashi FC100DL. Up until then the only zoom I ever considered worth having was the grossly over priced Televue 3 to 6. Since last Mondays session with the Baader Zoom, I haven't been able to get the ultra clean, super sharp crescent of Venus out of my mind. I haven't yet seen through one on the night sky but the Baader MKlll on Venus in daylight was just stunning. 

I'm seriously considering the MklV.

(MklV has same optics, smaller, lighter body for bino use)

Mike

[John]

Nice feedback Mike

I don't think the Nagler zooms are overpriced though. For what they can do in the right focal length scope. Bought used at any rate. Ok, maybe a tad pricey when new now !

My 2-4mm showed Sirius B very well earlier !

[YKSE]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎22 at 16:59, John said:

I had a good look at a Mk IV last week and the optics certainly looked the same as the Mk III. I didn't get a chance to look through it though. As Mike says, generally a manufacturer trumpets all the positive stuff as much as possible so if the optics are not been mentioned by Baader, they are probably unchanged.

The new Baader site is a very good face lift, specifications are added to many of their products, and some Q&As too. Accordidng to it, there's no optical difference between Mark IV and III.

http://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/new-products/baader-hyperion-universal-zoom-mark-iv-8-24mm-eyepiece-(1¼"--2").html