Baader Morpheus eyepieces and BBHS Mirror Diagonal

[balticsensor]

I went for it.

After falling in love with my William Optics 40mm 70° eyepiece, I decided that I wanted two more complimentary widefield eyepieces. I went for the 17.5 mm and 9 mm Baader Morpheus eyepieces. And the best diagonal I could find to go with them - the Baader BBHS Sitall mirror diagonal. Now it's all cloudy in my location (of course), but I will share my impressions about this beautiful kit as soon as I get some clear skies!

[F15Rules]

Lovely eyepieces 👍. I have the 17.5mm and have owned the 9mm and loved them both, very sharp right to the edge of the field.

I've not tried the BBHS mirror diagonal, but have read good reports on it. I have used the Baader T2 prisms for years and love them. I do feel that differences in performance between diagonals are often much more subtle than between various eyepieces.

Look forward to reading of your experiences 😉.

Dave

[Piero]

Good set! 

I have the same diagonal as well as the 2" prism model. Both are very fine.

[Andy ES]

Good Stuff!

I’ve also been using Morpheus eyepieces at 6.5, 9 & 12.5mm, I think they are superb with the click lock system.

only got the Baader click lock 2” DiElectric Star Diagonal though 😁

[balticsensor]

TEST 1

Late February. Snows have been melting for several days. Heavy humidity and poor transparency. Seeing poor. Light pollution (population 500 000). Nearly full Moon.

Nevertheless, I couldn't resist trying my new kit. So I aimed at M42.

First, the diagonal tests. Sky-Watcher 2" stock against Baader 2" BBHS Sitall mirror. Under these conditions, I did not perceive any gain in limiting visual magnitude. However, there was an obvious difference in star appearance. To me it was significant. I cannot say whether it's astigmatism or scattering, but I made a rough recreation in Photoshop of HIP 26199. The Baader made a cleaner split and clearly showed better color. Additionally, I think there was a distinct improvement in contrast, but it's hard to say due to the conditions and switchover time.




Secondly, I tried the Morpheus eyepieces. They are very comfortable to view through, even compared to a decent eyepiece like the 2" William Optics 40mm SWAN. In my mind I just kept saying to myself "you lean in, and it's just there, you lean in, and it's just there". No effort whatsoever. Also, it did not feel like I was changing magnification in a way. With Plössl and orthoscopic eyepieces, there was a real sense of effort when switching to higher magnification, mostly due to the shrinking eye lens and eye relief. With the Morpheus eyepieces the switch is traceless. It's a feeling like there is no eyepiece change, but only the telescope itself is changing the image scale. It's a strange new experience to me. Also, these eyepieces are truly fully sharp right to the edge on my telescope. Well, there is a very slight image degradation near the very last 3-5% of the image circle. But it's minor. In star-hopping or in scanning the sky there was always the problem for me of stars appearing to be nebulous objects in my peripheral vision, only to appear to be nothing but normal stars when I slewed my telescope on-axis. That's frustrating. No more of that with the Morpheus, and I'm glad.

[Barry-W-Fenner]

I own a number of the Baader Morpheus range. The 9mm & 17.5 are my absolute favorites. 🙂

[Louis D]

8 hours ago, balticsensor said:

Well, there is a very slight image degradation near the very last 3-5% of the image circle.

Not unusual right at the field stop for the best eyepieces.  You can put a bright star out there and rack focus back and forth to check for aberrations.  If it switches between being a radial line and a tangential line on either side of best focus, that's astigmatism.  If the star is simply stretched into a radial spectrum of colors at best focus, that's chromatic aberration.  If it needs to be refocused between the axis and the edge, that's field curvature (which could be in the scope as well).  If it simply expands into a teardrop shape pointing to the center even at best focus, that's coma (again, could be in the scope).