Baader Morpheus 12.5mm and 17.5mm

[a5tarman]

Hi all, I recently bought the 12.5mm Morpheus and loved what I saw in my brief test. I need more clear skies. I'm now wondering if the 17.5mm should be part of my arsenal. What do you guys think? Is 17.5mm too close to 12.5mm to be worth it? Will I appreciate the difference, or should I be stepping up to a 20mm+ lens to compliment the 12.5mm?

 

Edit:

Sorry guys, I forgot to mention I'm using a GSO 10inch dob 1250mm focal length.

Edited January 5, 2021 by a5tarman

[mikeDnight]

The 17.5mm is a gorgeous eyepiece that you will definitely love and appreciate. It is definitely worth adding to the 12.5mm. The danger is that you'll want the rest!

[Jiggy 67]

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

The 17.5mm is a gorgeous eyepiece that you will definitely love and appreciate. It is definitely worth adding to the 12.5mm. The danger is that you'll want the rest!

Totally agree!!

[John]

It depends on the scope being used. I usually find myself skipping straight from 21mm to 13mm in my 12 inch dobsonian or from 24mm to 14mm in my refractors. I do have nice 17mm eyepieces but I don't find they get a lot of use in my scopes.

I believe that the Morpheus 17.5mm is probably the best in that range so I can understand the temptation though.

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by John

[JTEC]

Just to support and concur around the 17.5 Morpheus. It’s one of a few eyepieces in my rather randomly accreted collection - that includes, among others, an Ethos, several Delos and a couple of Pentax XWs - that I think is outstanding and really wouldn’t want to lose. The others I feel the same about are the 10mm Delos, the Tak TOE 4mm and the 3.4mm Vixen HR. I like the 6.5 Morpheus a lot as well, very sharp and comfortable to use.

[paulastro]

3 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

The 17.5mm is a gorgeous eyepiece that you will definitely love and appreciate. It is definitely worth adding to the 12.5mm. The danger is that you'll want the rest!

When are you going to buy youself a set Mike?  In fact, I'll bring my 17.5 along to a session with you - if you can buy the rest of them so that I can try them out. ☺. 

[paulastro]

4 hours ago, a5tarman said:

Hi all, I recently bought the 12.5mm Morpheus and loved what I saw in my brief test. I need more clear skies. I'm now wondering if the 17.5mm should be part of my arsenal. What do you guys think? Is 17.5mm too close to 12.5mm to be wirth it? Will I appreciate the difference, or should I be stepping up to a 20mm+ lens to compliment the 12.5mm?

YES, YES, YES !!!!!!!!

[HollyHound]

1 hour ago, John said:

It depends on the scope being used. I usually find myself skipping straight from 21mm to 13mm in my 12 inch dobsonian or from 24mm to 14mm in my refractors. I do have nice 17mm eyepieces but I don't find they get a lot of use in my scopes.

I believe that the Morpheus 17.5mm is probably the best in that range so I can understand the temptation though.

 

Agree with this... I tend to go 20mm to 14mm on the 10" dob, but I do also have the Morpheus 17.5mm and it's a really lovely eyepiece and I find it works very well, especially on my other scopes.

I'm not so impressed with the Morpheus 14mm, as it exhibits quite a lot of field curvature, but then to be fair so does the XW14, hence why the Delos 14mm tends to be used for that focal length!

Good to hear that the Morpheus 12.5mm is a great eyepiece for you and I would certainly consider pairing that with the 17.5mm on my Mak127 and C5, purely for the larger usable FoV.

I don't think you would go far wrong adding it to your arsenal 👍

Edited January 4, 2021 by HollyHound

[F15Rules]

At the risk of sounding boring, I'd definitely add my recommendation to get the 17.5mm. I love mine and it also barlows well, so at 2x it gives you an 8.75mm option, or at 2.25x (as with my Baader Hyperion Zoom Barlow) it gives you 7.75mm for higher power again, both Barlow'd options maintaining great eye relief.

I've also owned the 14mm. Hollyhound  is correct that it does have some FC, but MUCH less than the Pentax XW14 which I compared the Morph 14 to - and sold the Pentax. I've hear that the 12.5mm is also excellent, with negligible FC, and you clearly like it..have you Barlow'd the 12.5mm Morph? - at 2x it effectively gives you a Morph 6.5mm as well👍. (I have a Nagler T2 12mm, otherwise I'd probably have the 12.5mm too.. I personally find the gap from 12 or 12.5 to 17.5 to be quite a useful one🙂.

Dave

[Sunshine]

I have a 9mm Morpheus and, a 15mm XW, reading this thread about the 17.5 Morpheus i will be getting it also, i don't care how close it is to my 15mm XW. Morpheus eyepieces are great, MORE MORE MORPHEUS!!

Edited January 4, 2021 by Sunshine

[Louis D]

1 minute ago, Sunshine said:

I have a 9mm Morpheus and, a 15mm XW, reading this thread about the 17.5 Morpheus i will be getting it also, i don't care how close it is to my 15mm XW. Morpheus eyepieces are great, MORE MORE MORPHEUS!!

I'll give you $500 for that ultra-rare 15mm XW.  I've never even heard of one before. 😉

[Louis D]

Maybe I missed it, but what is the focal length of the scope you intend to use these eyepieces in?  If it's upwards of 2000mm, then having the 17.5mm and 12.5mm makes sense.  If it's 500mm, not so much.

[John]

19 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Maybe I missed it, but what is the focal length of the scope you intend to use these eyepieces in?  If it's upwards of 2000mm, then having the 17.5mm and 12.5mm makes sense.  If it's 500mm, not so much.

That was my thought Louis.

 

[HollyHound]

45 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I'll give you $500 for that ultra-rare 15mm XW.  I've never even heard of one before. 😉

Actually I do have this very thing, and it works better than the XW14... it’s an XW30 in an ES 2x 2” focal extender🤣 Very useful, but quite a heavy combination 😬

Edited January 4, 2021 by HollyHound

[Sunshine]

50 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I'll give you $500 for that ultra-rare 15mm XW.  I've never even heard of one before. 😉

LOL, you had me stoked, for a minute i thought i was cashing in on a rare eyepiece so i ran downstairs to my basement and opened my eyepiece case to my dismay. 

AHHHH!! $500 US is like i dunno 5 thousand Canadian! I do have this ultra rare 14mm if you like? lol

Edited January 4, 2021 by Sunshine

[Don Pensack]

I find it interesting so many report FC in the 14mm Morpheus.  I see none.  But then, the coma-corrected focal length in my newtonian scope is 1826mm, so there isn't any scope field curvature to see.

I suspect the 14mm may be quite flat and, therefore, revealing of any FC in the scope.  After all, an eyepiece whose field is | + a scope of FC ( = a visible FC of ( and eyepiece | + scope | = visible | .

 

As for the 17.5mm >> 12.5mm split, at a focal length of:

500mm, the magnification difference is 11.4x  Too small to justify.

1000mm, the magnification difference is 22.9x.  Too small to justify.

1200mm, the magnification difference is 27.4x.  Still too small to justify.

1500mm, the magnification difference is 34.3x.  That is still, in my opinion, too small to justify--probably OK for a 4" or smaller scope, but nothing bigger.

1800mm, the difference is 41.1x.  That is right on the cusp of an acceptable size magnification jump.

 

So the thread starter has a 12.5mm and wants to know the next logical jump.  I would say not to 17.5mm, but to about a 20-24mm depending on scope size and focal length.

[Louis D]

9 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

So the thread starter has a 12.5mm and wants to know the next logical jump.  I would say not to 17.5mm, but to about a 20-24mm depending on scope size and focal length.

Exactly what I was thinking.  In fact, I typically jump from 30mm or 40mm right to 12mm to 14mm once the object is centered in most of my scopes.  After I'm satisfied with that view, I might then try a 17mm or 22mm just to see if the change in context brings out anything new and enjoyable.

[HollyHound]

59 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I find it interesting so many report FC in the 14mm Morpheus.  I see none.  But then, the coma-corrected focal length in my newtonian scope is 1826mm, so there isn't any scope field curvature to see.

I suspect the 14mm may be quite flat and, therefore, revealing of any FC in the scope.  After all, an eyepiece whose field is | + a scope of FC ( = a visible FC of ( and eyepiece | + scope | = visible | .

I’ve been specifically testing three 14mm eyepieces (Pentax XW, TV Delos & Morpheus) over the last month... fewer sessions than I’d like due to weather, so more testing to go still, but I can confirm my findings with regard to field curvature (FC)...

StellaMira 80mm ED f/10 refractor (FL 800 mm), viewing Saturn and Jupiter in the same FoV:

• XW14 - Significant FC 
• Morpheus 14 - Significant FC
• Delos 14 - No FC noticeable

Bresser 10” f/5 dob (FL 1270 mm), viewing star fields and M42:

• XW14 - Noticeable FC from halfway across field, however coma is more significant 
• Morpheus 14 - Noticeable FC from halfway across field, however coma is more significant
• Delos 14 - No FC noticeable, however coma is significant

I also bought a Paracorr II a few weeks ago, as I was finding the coma obtrusive. This completely removed any visible coma. Probably the most significant improvement I’ve made to the views from my dob 👍. This has also had some noticeable affect on FC...

Bresser 10” f/5 dob (FL now 1460 mm, due to 1.15x increase from Paracorr), again viewing star fields and M42:

• XW14 - FC still visible but only for outer 20%. It’s possible to focus midway and minimise it
• Morpheus 14 - FC still visible but only for outer 10%. It’s possible to focus midway and minimise it
• Delos 14 - No FC noticeable

Don, I would agree that this probably says more about the FC in the scopes than the eyepiece. I haven’t yet compared them in my Mak127 (FL 1500 mm), so that might be revealing.

I would also add that I find the contrast on DSOs comparable for the Delos and XW, and slightly better than the Morpheus, but this is as always quite subjective.

Again, these are my findings with my (54 year old) eyes and my scopes only 😀

Gary

[a5tarman]

Sorry guys, I forgot to mention I'm using a GSO 10inch dob 1250mm focal length.

12.5mm gives me 100x and 17.5 would give me 71x. I'm curious to know if people jump between these two magnifications much. 

I have 1.25" TV 2x Barlow on the way, so I figure getting a 17.5mm effectively gives me 8.75mm eyepiece for only the cost of a barlow, and also 6.25mm with my 12.5mm eyepiece. Or is there a reason to skip the 17.5mm and get a dedicated 9mm eyepiece?

The Morpheus 17.5mm is the only one I know of that has a 1.25" barrel which would make use of the barlow. 

[John]

I usually go straight from 21mm (75x) to 13mm (122x) when using my 12 inch dobsonian. The next step is 8mm (199x) then 6mm (265x) and then 4.7mm (338x) and that is the set that I most often use with that scope.

I've found having more options at higher powers (ie: closer focal lengths) more useful than lots of low / mid range magnifications.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by John

[a5tarman]

At this stage I'm seriously considering getting the 17.5mm to compliment the 12.5mm.

 

My reasoning...

With my 10 inch dob 1250mm focal length 12.5mm gives me 100x and 17.5mm would give me 71x.

Like a previous poster pointed out, with a 2 x barlow a 17.5mm effectively gives me 8.75mm, and my 12.5mm will give me 6.25mm.  I also have a 3 x barlow for nights with good conditions.

I only intend on using 1.25" barlows and the 17.5mm Morpheus, is as far as I'm aware, the lowest mag eyepiece around that AFOV that I can get before hitting the 2 inch barrels which would mean I can't use my barlows.

I was considering the ES82 24mm but I already have a 30mm GSO Superview, so I'm not sure I desperately need to upgrade any eyepieces in that magnification range.  My dob will spend 90% of it's time under bortle 6/7 skies anyway, and as I understand it 2 inch eyepieces will just bring in too much light pollution and lose the contrast with DSO. So I figure I'll focus my money on 1.25 inch barrel sizes in the high to medium magnifications.

[Ricochet]

5 hours ago, a5tarman said:

as I understand it 2 inch eyepieces will just bring in too much light pollution and lose the contrast with DSO. So I figure I'll focus my money on 1.25 inch barrel sizes in the high to medium magnifications.

This is not strictly true. The brightness of extended objects (of which the light polluted sky is one) is determined by the exit pupil of your telescope-eyepiece combination. This means that for any given telescope. eyepieces with a longer focal length will have a brighter background sky and contrast of stars will be reduced (the brightness of stars is determined by the aperture of the telescope). In order to increase the contrast of stars you want to increase the magnification/decrease exit pupil so that the background sky is dimmed, while the stars stay at a constant brightness up until the airy disk starts to be resolved.

For viewing DSOs that are extended objects, contrast between the object and background sky will remain constant as both are dimmed or brightened equally by changing eyepiece focal length. To make extended objects easier to view, you should increase magnification, and hence size of the object, up until the point where the exit pupil generated by the telescope-eyepiece is in the 2-3mm region, as this corresponds to typical daytime pupil sizes and is where your brain is most adept at correcting aberrations inside your eye. However, this only applies if the object you are viewing fits inside the field of view of the eyepiece. If you can't see the edges of the object, it will most likely look like an empty patch of sky.

This means that whether you were to buy the 2" 24mm ES82° or the 1.25" 24mm ES68°, the brightness of the background sky will be identical, as the focal lengths are the same. In general you might have more problems with an overly bright background sky with 2" eyepieces compared to 1.25" eyepieces, but that is only because those eyepieces typically have longer focal lengths, not because of the diameter of the barrel.

Due to the way that your eye works, doubling or halving the actual brightness appears as one "step" in apparent brightness to us. This means that you can space your eyepieces by increments of ~1.4X focal length, up until the point where the seeing conditions begin to limit magnification and closer steps may be required. If we use this formula then the "perfect" increase in focal length from a 12.5mm eyepiece is a 17.5mm eyepiece, and the perfect decrease a 9mm eyepiece. It is no coincidence that these two focal lengths also exist in the Morpheus range. In fact if you exclude the 14mm, all of the Morpheus range are spaced at ~1.4X. However, in my experience, there is one eyepiece in this series that can be skipped if you want to reduce the number of eyepieces in your set, and that is the focal length one step longer than your 2-3mm exit pupil eyepiece. In your f5 scope, your 12.5mm eyepiece is your 2-3mm exit pupil eyepiece and so the 17.5 is the one that potentially you can skip. Given the issues with light pollution in your location, you will have to try to figure out whether you need something that has a wider field of view than your 12.5mm and a darker background sky than your current 30mm (or potential 24mm).

[John]

2 inch eyepieces with very, very wide fields of view and focal lengths of around 20mm work well even in moderately light polluted skies. I have a 31mm ultra wide that I could use with my 12 inch F/5.3 dob but the 21mm hyper wide gets much more use under my Bortle 5-ish skies.

 

 

[Don Pensack]

18 hours ago, a5tarman said:

At this stage I'm seriously considering getting the 17.5mm to compliment the 12.5mm.

 

My reasoning...

With my 10 inch dob 1250mm focal length 12.5mm gives me 100x and 17.5mm would give me 71x.

Like a previous poster pointed out, with a 2 x barlow a 17.5mm effectively gives me 8.75mm, and my 12.5mm will give me 6.25mm.  I also have a 3 x barlow for nights with good conditions.

I only intend on using 1.25" barlows and the 17.5mm Morpheus, is as far as I'm aware, the lowest mag eyepiece around that AFOV that I can get before hitting the 2 inch barrels which would mean I can't use my barlows.

I was considering the ES82 24mm but I already have a 30mm GSO Superview, so I'm not sure I desperately need to upgrade any eyepieces in that magnification range.  My dob will spend 90% of it's time under bortle 6/7 skies anyway, and as I understand it 2 inch eyepieces will just bring in too much light pollution and lose the contrast with DSO. So I figure I'll focus my money on 1.25 inch barrel sizes in the high to medium magnifications.

I think you'd be better off with at least a 50x magnification jump in between eyepieces.

[a5tarman]

Thinking more about it I'm starting to see I should just look at a 22mm or 24mm as the next jump.  A 17.5mm should be something left for when my eyepiece collection is complete and I'm bored haha. What's a decent eyepiece in that range excluding Teleview? I'd love a Nagler but I don't feel like spending that much on one piece at this stage of my life. I'm pretty keen on 72 to 82 afov.