Should I swap my 3 mid-power EP's for a zoom ?

[jabeoo1]

I am always looking to reduce the gear down and spend less time fiddling and more time actually looking

From the 15mm, 11mm & 8mm Plossls --------> A single 8-24mm Zoom

This will be used in my 4" Frac.  Would this me wise?  

Would the Pentax XL out perform the Baader Mk IV ?

OR 

Is there an option to use 1 fixed length EP & barlow to cover the mid range gap ?

Low Power = 22mm LVW (x33)

Mid: 8mm, 11mm & 15mm Plossls (x92, x67 & x49)

High: 3-6 Nagler Zoom (x123 --> x246)

[DRT]

I don't know the answer - but if someone persuades you it is "yes" can I have your TV 11mm and 15mm Plossls?

 

[jabeoo1]

2 minutes ago, DRT said:

I don't know the answer - but if someone persuades you it is "yes" can I have your TV 11mm and 15mm Plossls?

I was asking for impartial advice Derek 

[DRT]

OK - more seriously - it firstly depends on whether or not you get on with zoom EPs. I have tried many and always end up selling them. Part of the reason is that they tend to have a fairly narrow and variable FOV. I like wide field EPs so the zoom ends up in the case and my Ethos and Panoptics are in the diagonals. This is a different proposition for you as you are going from Plossls to zoom so will not be losing any FOV.

I think the easiest way to make the decision is to buy one and compare it to what you have. You will quickly begin to gravitate towards one or the other.

[xtreemchaos]

hi jabeoo, ive done that, i still have a set of Plossls, but i find myself using my hyp M3 zoom nearly all the time, and am thinking of going for a Pentax xl zoom next.ive tryed one before and thay do out perform the badder mk3 dont know about the mk4. goodluck, charl

[Star Struck]

I have always struggled with kidney beaning with zooms due to the variable eye relief.

Also as stated above, the FOV changes and is not always to everyones liking.

Tony

[Richard Hather]

This is a review I wrote last year, I've only ever tried the Pentax Zoom and it was lovely to use nice and easy just pop it in and enjoy.

But as other members have put the FOV can be an issue and for me because I love my open star clusters started to frustrate me so I sold my Pentax and got a 13mm ethos in the bargain.

Richard

[jabeoo1]

Its a chunky looking EP though,  I wonder if its far too much in a 1.25" Tak Prism diagonal. 

[Alien_Photons]

I had a zoom but when it broke never replaced it. If you swap them for a zoom you will spend less time swapping eyepieces and more time zooming in and out but still no more time observing.

Work out the best magnification for your skies and best FOV for targets and buy one very good eyepiece. You'll stop wasting time and get the best view possible.

[Richard Hather]

It is a big EP but I never had problems with it and I had it in my diagonal that came with the scope.

What scope would you be using the zoom with?

Richard

[jabeoo1]

Its in my Tak FC-100

[swamp thing]

1 hour ago, jabeoo1 said:

 

Is there an option to use 1 fixed length EP & barlow to cover the mid range gap ?

 

8mm Ethos? Wider field than your 15mm and as much power as your 8mm  

 

[Moonshane]

I'd get a 24mm Panoptic,  keep the 11mm plossl and get get a Nagler zoom.  You have most things covered then.

[Piero]

To me it's nice to have a bit of fov, but I can easily leave without. Getting a zoom eyepiece was one of the best purchases I have made in this hobby. Of course this doesn't mean it is the best purchase for everyone, but to me there are clear practical and economical advantages.

In terms of views, a very good zoom is certainly not behind very good eyepieces such as XWs or Delos. 

[Highburymark]

The Pentax is a large and heavy eyepiece James, though you do have the bigger focuser with the DF compared with the DC. I'd certainly suggest you try one before buying, especially as you're used to lightweight eps. Optically it's first rate - a step up from the still excellent Baader. 

[jabeoo1]

1 minute ago, swamp thing said:

8mm Ethos? Wider field than your 15mm and as much power as your 8mm  

 

I see the logic here.  

[Highburymark]

There is also a new Pentax PR XL zoom - lighter, 60 degree field, which I've not seen reviewed (for astronomy) yet.

[iPeace]

I am on this path myself. I am busy comparing the Pentax XL zoom to the Baader Mark IV and on Luna and Jupiter it's too close to call. The Pentax has the premium feel, while the Baader is lighter and more compact and still solid.

Truth is I love them both but the game continues. Need to get some good observing in with Luna out of the way to make progress, so to be continued.

I am now working with a set of ES 24/68, 24-8 zoom, 6-3 Nag zoom and 4-2 Nag zoom for max power in the TV85.

You don't get Ethos FOV or performance. If you are happy with decent Plossls, either of these could well satisfy.

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, jabeoo1 said:

Its a chunky looking EP though,  I wonder if its far too much in a 1.25" Tak Prism diagonal. 

I use the Pentax with a Baader T2 diagonal and 1.25" ClickLock. It looks chunkier than it feels; I would use your diagonal without reservation.

[Richard Hather]

I agree with mark best bet is to try and get hold of one they are pretty chunky and there not light but if you can get away with using optically it's a lovely EP ?

Richard

[Stu]

First question, what sort of mount are you using?

If it's a manual AltAz which requires accurate balancing then I would tend to favour similar weight eyepieces and forget the zoom. If an EQ or other powered mount which copes with imbalance more easily then the zoom may make sense.

Zoom wise, if you want widefield then the Leica ASPH is about the best there is, but obviously expensive and quite heavy. Personally I didn't think the edges were up to the mark vs some premium ultra wide fields but on axis and for most of the field they are excellent. I would have another. From reputation only, I would go for the Pentax XL over a Baader Zoom.

Although I've just sold my 2" ES eyepieces, even when I had them I found myself using a limited set of 1.25" most of the time. 24mm Panoptic, native and barlowed, 18 and 12.5mm BGO often in a x2.5 PowerMate, and finally the 3 to 6mm Nag Zoom for high power. These go very nicely in either the Tak or Zeiss Prism.

I don't find that much need for so many options around the mid range, unlike at the higher end. When I had my Leica Zoom, it was almost invariably used with a Baader VIP Barlow to give me the zoom flexibility at high power.

[John]

I've not used the Pentax zoom but I have owned 3 of the Baader zooms, 1 x mk II and 2x Mk III's. I liked the Baader zooms but I'd not want one as my only mid range eyepiece option.

 

[iPeace]

27 minutes ago, Stu said:

If it's a manual AltAz which requires accurate balancing then I would tend to favour similar weight eyepieces and forget the zoom. If an EQ or other powered mount which copes with imbalance more easily then the zoom may make sense.

My intuition tells me it's the other way around. Care to expand and enlighten?

[Stu]

21 minutes ago, iPeace said:

My intuition tells me it's the other way around. Care to expand and enlighten?

Well as you know a manual AltAz mount greatly benefits from being finely balanced so you can leave the clutches fairly loose and have free movement. Even having to refocus between similar weight eyepieces e.g. a BGO and a Plossl can cause the balance to change.

An EQ needs to be balanced, yes of course, but for visual will easily cope with a change of eyepiece weight without any issues, the motor may have to work a little harder but you can put the scope in a compromise position between the two extremes and small imbalances won't  make any difference to the tracking.

Simply, I am more bothered by balance with my Giro-WR than my Vixen GP.

[iPeace]

8 minutes ago, Stu said:

Well as you know a manual AltAz mount greatly benefits from being finely balanced so you can leave the clutches fairly loose and have free movement. Even having to refocus between similar weight eyepieces e.g. a BGO and a Plossl can cause the balance to change.

An EQ needs to be balanced, yes of course, but for visual will easily cope with a change of eyepiece weight without any issues, the motor may have to work a little harder but you can put the scope in a compromise position between the two extremes and small imbalances won't  make any difference to the tracking.

Simply, I am more bothered by balance with my Giro-WR than my Vixen GP.

Indeed. And, as a zoom requires fewer eyepiece changes...? Would this not be even better for the Giro-WR? I must be missing something, I'm sure.