Jump to content


HyperFlex 7E1, Seben 8-24 Zoom, BCO 18 & 10 compared

Recommended Posts

Dear Stargazers!

as a follow up of the discussion on 12mm planetary eyepieces: [settled] 12 mm planetary eyepiece ortho or zoom I though I share with you my experience with my newly acquired EPs which arrived last Monday from Aunty FLO ūüėČ. Just before placing an order, I had a change of mind and went for the 10 mm BCO instead the Q-turret barlow. So here is the list of EPs in this comparison:

  • Hyperflex 7E1 Zoom: 7.2 - 21.5 mm (which has already a very good reputation as we all know)
  • Baader Classic Ortho 18 mm
  • Baader Classic Ortho 10 mm
  • Seben Super Pl√∂ssl Zoom: 8 - 24 mm (same as Skywatcher, Starguider, Zhumell, Agena, ....)


So here are the contenders. I am well aware that all those have been reviewed and compared, but I though I share my experience with them in the hope that somebody finds it useful.

The comparison was done with my 180 SkyMax Mak-Cass, set up with the original VB, an Omegon ADC, a TS-1.25" star diagonal and then the EPs. In this configuration, which works really well to correct for atmospheric dispersion, my scope has an effective focal length of 2940 mm. I had the chance to use the EPs two nights in a row, one with ok seeing and yesterday with good seeing conditions. After cooling the scope for about an hour (where I try to place the scope outside for cooling when the outside air temperature is the same as the storing temperature of the Mak, about 24 deg C) I went to work comparing the EPs. Each comparison was done for about an hour, where I switched EPs back an forth, using the orthos as baseline for quality.

Comparison on Saturn at 10mm, so the BCO 10, the Hyperflex at 10 and the Seben at 10 were compared. That's at 294x magnification:

  • The BCO 10 is really sharp (as expected) and to me surprisingly comfortable to use. I was initially sceptical about the 8 mm eye relief, however for me it works and thus gives superb views. 52 deg FOV is also very comfortable. The Cassini Division was clear and easily discernible.
  • The Hyperflex, even though with a smaller FOV, was very close to the performance of the BCO 10. Also expected, I read a lot of good reviews on the Hyperflex. Again Cassini Division nice and clear.
  • The Seben zoom also performed, however noticeably less good than the Hyperflex or even the BCO 10. Basically I missed some sharpness, obviously in comparison with the BCO, but also with the Hyperflex. For my eye it was harder to make out the Cassini Division through the Seben.

Comparison on Jupiter at 18 mm: BCO 18, Hyperflex and Seben at 18. That's at 163x magnification. Here a picture of how Jupiter should have looked like to describe what I managed to see:


  • Again the BCO 18 gave superb views, sharp with lot's of contrast (as expected for an ortho). Quite some structure visible in the cloud bands.The two main bands where easy to see, no problem there. I was able to see the short dark band below the lower main band, as well as the eddy structure to the right of it (referring to the picture above). I have to say I was impressed.
  • The Hyperflex zoom was quite up there with the BCO, maybe a bit less contrast, but I still could make out the short dark band.
  • With the Seben zoom I had a hard time discerning the short dark band as well as the eddy structure to the side of it. Would I not have known where to look, I would have missed that. So noticeably less contrast in the Seben.

Summary comments:

  • Using the BCOs as baseline, they both produce very sharp and contrast rich views. The 52 deg FOV is very comfortable to view planets. As said I was surprised how comfortable the BCO 10 is to use even though with its short eye relief (8 mm). Obviously not useful to people who have to wear glasses.
  • The Hyperflex zoom is quite close to the BCOs, even though with a narrower FOV. Sharpness and contrast are comparable. Probably one would not switch too often to the BCOs and happily observe with the Hyperflex.
  • The Seben zoom is a good EP, but not there with the Hyperflex or the BCOs. To my eyes its a workable zoom, but you miss out on details of the planets with respect to sharpness and contrast. I can recommend going for a Hyperflex (as so many have said before) if your are looking for a zoom EP.
  • These three EPs, BCO 10, 18 and the Hyerflex are a very functional base set for a 180 Skymax. BCO 10 very sharp on Saturn (looking forward to see Mars with that). BCO 18 produces contrast rich views of Jupiter. And the Hyperflex for everything between 136x - 408x ūüėČ. Maybe another fixed focal length EP in the 14-15 mm range, just to bridge the gap between the BCO 10 and 18. However the Hyperflex does a great job at that already.
  • A yes, and I really can only recommend an ADC. Without it the cloud band details on Jupiter disappeared even in the BCO 18 and the typical blue/red colour seams were clearly visible.

Clear skies,


  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice comparison :thumbright:

29 minutes ago, alex_stars said:
  • The BCO 10 ..... 52 deg FOV is also very comfortable...
  • The Hyperflex, even though with a smaller FOV, was very close to the performance of the BCO 10.

The Hyperflex has stated FOV of 40 @ 21.5mm and 60 @ 7.2.  I estimate it's about 55 @ 10mm, so it should have looked similar to, if not a little larger than, the BCO.  
(I have the Hyperflex but not the BCO so can't compare them as you have).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, globular said:

Nice comparison :thumbright:

The Hyperflex has stated FOV of 40 @ 21.5mm and 60 @ 7.2.  I estimate it's about 55 @ 10mm, so it should have looked similar to, if not a little larger than, the BCO.  
(I have the Hyperflex but not the BCO so can't compare them as you have).

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. I did not estimate the FOV of the Hyperflex yet, I focused more on comparing sharpness and contrast. My impression was that it is a bit narrower than the BCOs.

Also @Louis D posted in the preceding thread (https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/361158-settled-12-mm-planetary-eyepiece-ortho-or-zoom/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-3937213) this:


My version from Surplus Shed has between 9mm and 11mm of measured, usable eye relief, a measured AFOV of 33 to 49 degrees, and weighs 180g.

which I had in mind I guess.

Either way, the FOV of the Hyperflex is not at all limiting when observing planets. Maybe one day I should do a detailed FOV estimate of both (BCO and Hyperflex) at 10 mm.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review - thanks for posting it :thumbright:

I reckon my clone of the Hyperflex 7.2mm - 21.5mm zoom has an AFoV of around 38 degrees at 21.5mm widening out to about 55 degrees at 7.2mm. This is derived by comparing the illuminated field with other eyepieces I have of known (and trusted !) AFoV.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By alexbb
      It seems that I got less active lately in this hobby, mostly due to the pandemic, directly or indirectly.
      However, I'm planning to move from where I'm living now in the close future so I started replacing my gear with lighter and better items.
      One of the items was the mount. I still have a tuned SkyWatcher AZ-EQ5 and a stock SkyWatcher EQ6-R. I used both quite a lot, I passed with them long time ago 1000h of exposure. And recently I bought an iOptron GEM45.
      The AZ-EQ5 is in the lightweight mount class, but performs quite poor for astrophotography. The original RA worm was a crappy one and I sent the mount to DarkFrame for tuning. I received it back the same, I only lost time and money. I then purchased 2 new worms from China via OVL with some help from FLO. The new one (I didn't test both) have a larger PE than the original one, but a smoother one. The p2p PE of the new worm results in a >60" deviation. When pointing close to the NCP, it guides well below <1.0" total RMS. When pointing towards the celestial equator, the performance drops significantly to 1.0"-1.8" RMS. I always need to use short exposures in PHD to guide it smoother.
      In total I spent for the AZ-EQ5 perhaps more than 1800 euros with the tuning, the new worms and deliveries. A lot pricier than stock in the end, but it still has 2 big advantages: mine came with a foldable (towards the mount) pier style tripod and it's light, I can carry the mount with the tripod folded in one hand. The mount and the tripod weight less than 15kg. The other advantage is that I can use the second saddle for the second scope. I used this combo more than a couple of times, with short focal length refractors and all went well. A SW 72ED + an ASI1600 + a finder/guider mounted as counterweight as close as possible to the RA axis, perfectly balances a SW Esprit 80 and a Canon 550D.
      The EQ6-R is a lot heavier mount. The head itself weights about 17.7kg, it has a handle, but even standalone it seems a lot harder to carry than the AZ-EQ5 assembled on the tripod. The 2" tripod for the EQ6-R weights about 8kg. Definitely I cannot carry both the mount and the tripod in a single trip for a longer distance. The performance and weight capacity are decent though. Mine has quite a large backlash on both axis, I cannot feel it at hand, but it's obvious when slewing at slow speed. It doesn't bother me for imaging, anyway, since I balance the mount a little east heavy. At most I put a single 200/1200 newtonian and camera on it or a dual setup consisting of a 150/750 newtonian and + a 102/714 refractor and camera, one on top of the other. Weight was not an issue, but a larger momentum + wind affected the guiding performance a little. Towards the NCP it guided excellent at 0.4"-0.6" RMS, but closer to the celestial equator, the performance varied and dropped for this mount too. On Orion, at times the guiding stayed below 1.0" total RMS, but many times it went worse than 1" total RMS. I believe that I never put a scope on this mount and looked through it, I only used it for AP. One thing that bothered me for a while was that the mount was stalling at times due to insufficient power. None of my domestic 12V power sources that I used for the AZ-EQ5 was good enough so I used a 15V 8A source to power the mount. I recall paying around 1300-1400 euros for the mount about 2 years ago.
      I used the SynScan app on Windows to drive the SkyWatcher mounts. The app mimics the functionality of the hand remote. The AZ-EQ5 doesn't have a polar scope and I believe I never used precisely the polar scope on the EQ6-R either. The app allows you to perform a 2/3 star align, then it figures out the polar error and you can then perform a polar alignment routine aided by the software. You can select a star for polar alignment, slew to it automatically after select, align in center, then the mount moves a little and the software tells you to adjust the altitude and bring the star in center, then it moves again and tells you to adjust the azimuth and bring the star in center. Simple as that. If you're way off initially with the polar alignment, you might need to realign once or twice again. The SynScan app + drivers are also much simpler than the EQASOM and can be used for controlling the mount from other programs via ASCOM or for pulse guiding.
      Now, to the more recently acquired mount, the iOptron GEM45. I spent a lot of time researching what mount would suit my needs. Lightweight, good performance and not astronomically expensive. After many reviews read for the CEM40, I decided to go for the GEM45 as both share the same components. I only saw CEM60's and the older 45 eq. All my astrofriends' CEM60's perform better and more consistent than my EQ6-R.
      The GEM45 is supposed to have a PE resulting in an error less than 14" p2p. The graph for mine says that it's less than 10".
      The first thing that I noticed when I received the mount it was how small the box it came in was. The mount head is light at about 7kg and the tripod 5-7kg. The second thing that I noticed was what a poor design was made for mounting the mount's head on the tripod. It is unbelievably stupid compared to the SkyWatcher mounts and it's horribly difficult to mount and tighten the mount on the tripod in dark and cold.
      Again, comparing to the SkyWatcher, a minus is that you always need to disengage very carefully the gear switches and never leave them engaged. The mount does not have a friction clutch as the SkyWatcher has and hitting or pushing hard the components can lead to damaging the gears. So the mount seems very sensible to handling, it requires a lot of care and mounting the telescope(s) on the mount while holding the CW rod with the other hand can be quite damn hard sometimes. However, there is no backlash.
      After setting all the hardware, the next thing was to connect the remote control + the software. It was clear the day I received the mount. It arrived at 5PM and at 8PM I was out of the city with all the software installed.
      The iPolar was easy to use, however, you need to connect a separate USB cable for this, the mount does not have a USB hub.
      You can perform a star align from the hand controller, but not from the Commander app. You can perform a polar iterate align from the hand controller, but not from the Commander.
      Speaking of star alignment, if you choose a 2 or 3 star alignment procedure, I was used to the fact that the first star can be way off when initiating the alignment. The SkyWatcher mounts' software (hand controller or PC app) took into account the error and corrected it for the next stars. iOptron's software (hand controller only, the PC Commander can't align at all) does not. So you need to search again for the second (and third) star to bring it into the view and center it. Only then the model is taken into account. Moreover, the polar iterate align is a pain and, surprise, the polar iterate align and a retry of star alignment after polar adjustment does not take into account the model it computed at the previous star alignment so all the stars are way off if the zero position is not set very accurate. Searching automatically for zero position seems rather a poor joke. So, after being used to the SkyWatcher software, the iOptron seems soooo limited and counterintuitive.
      Due to this, I had quickly to learn to drift align with PHD when Polaris isn't visible (it my the case at home on the terrace).
      Leaving all the poor engineering and software designs, things are getting better. The mount looks very nice and rotates around both axes very very smooth. You can also pull cables through the RA and DEC axis and have them available at the DEC saddle. There's only a USB 2.0 connector on the saddle, that was rather useless for me so I needed to pull a USB 3.0 cable. However, the 12V power available on the saddle is very welcomed to power the cameras' coolers.
      As I type, I'm imaging with 2 ~70mm refractors one on top of the other + 2 mono ASI cameras. Both scopes weight about 10kg. Guiding performance is always below 1.0" total RMS, ranging between 0.4" and 0.8" total RMS, regardless of the pointing position on the sky. If I manage to convince either the mount or PHD to compensate for the PE, I believe it should perform much better as the error increases to >0.6" only when the guiding switches from East to West or viceversa. Plus, being backlash free, it responses very fast to dithering commands and settles quick and, with the small refractors, it didn't seem bothered almost at all by a mild wind.
      In the end, I'm very happy with the consistent very good performance of the mount, but still disappointed by the mount attachment to the tripod and the poor designed software and alignment procedures.
      I'll come back with more reviews for cameras and telescopes that I own or owned. And images, after I manage to process them. I've more than 100h of data waiting in the queue to be processed.
      Clear skies and stay safe!
    • By Steely Stan
      Now I've got my telescope working and I'm regularly shouting at the sky with cloud-rage, I'm starting to think about eyepieces.  My telescope (Celestron Nexstar 8SE) only comes with a single 25mm Plossl, so my thinking was to lay hands on a zoom, say 7-21 or 8-24, and work out what settings I use most and then buy dedicated fixed focal length eyepieces accordingly.
      With that strategy in mind, I've been waiting to get lucky on flea-bay for a Baader mk 3 or even mk 4 zoom but its such a waiting game not knowing if you can win an auction. - looks like about 2 a week come up.  There seem to be three options...
      Get a brand new Baader - £185
      Lurk on eBay till you get lucky - £100 to £125
      Lose patience and  drop a crafty £40 on a SVbony 7-21 and find it good enough to perform my experiment, or perhaps better than the price might indicate.
      Anyway, the point of this is to ask, do the better quality, and probably pricier zooms earn their corn becoming "keepers"; or do they inevitably get relegated when one finds one's sweet spot with two or three fixed eyepieces?
    • By rjc404
      Does anyone who has one of these zoom eyepieces know if there is a t-thread hidden under the twist-up rubber eye-cups like there are on some other zooms?
      I don't have a zoom in my set yet and don't want to break the bank. I just aim to use it mainly for visual e.g. being lazy with one 'no faff' eyepiece or when I'm being more dedicated, scoping out the seeing at different magnifications before changing to a dedicated eyepiece.
      I'd only use it for occasional photography but would rather buy one with a T-thread.
      For reference here are the different branded versions I can find:
      OVL Hyperflex version: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html
      Skywatcher Hyperflex version: https://www.365astronomy.com/SkyWatcher-HyperFlex-7E-7.2-21.5mm-High-Performance-Zoom-Eyepiece.html
      I had read in the previous thread that the Lunt version of this zoom is also generic but the only one I can find looks quite different and is twice as expensive and has a different field of view so not sure about that?
      Thanks for any feedback (or any other recommendations for circa £100 zoom lens that might have a hidden T-thread)!!!
    • By Adam Barnsley
      Hi all.
      I am looking for a zoom eyepiece to 60mm lunt. My first choices are Lunt zoom and Pantax smc xf zoom. Which will work better? Can you have any other offer? You could say something more about these eyepieces while observing h-alpha? 
    • By ukuleledaveey
      Hello All, as you are aware i am new here and also new to this wonderful hobby, as you may be aware i am a total newbie,no experience or knowledge, so i am at your mercy ?. Last weekend i was lucky enough to purchase a second hand Skyliner 200p, which came with a 10mm & 25mm  eyepieces, i know i shouldn't rush in as i need to get collimating tool, but i really fancy getting a zoom eye piece, i wondered if you guys n gals had any thoughts or recommendations on such, if possible i wouldn't mind getting a second hand one, i have seen one at Harrisons that i quite like 
      Anyway thanks for reading and i will probably be asking tons and tons of questions, sorry about that, but you area wonderful friendly and knowledgeable lot,many thanks and best regards
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.