Baader Morpheus range - General chat

[IB20]

On 25/07/2021 at 17:33, badhex said:

Thanks John, good to know. If I do go for the 4.5mm I'll be interested to see how the C5 performs with it. I suppose that there's a much better chance of a decent outcome with something like a Morpheus, although I am guessing I'll still need very good conditions. 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offer_baader-morpheus-76-degree-wide-field-eyepieces_251092.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=CLR-2801&utm_campaign=Twitter Clearance FYI!

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Dont do that to me Louis..

I have recently been pondering the 12.5mm to replace the 14mm, However I dont know if it is really worth doing.

Regards

Too close.  I wouldn't bother.  I use my 12mm ES-92 at that focal length.  The presentation is completely different from the Morpheus.

[badhex]

2 hours ago, IB20 said:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offer_baader-morpheus-76-degree-wide-field-eyepieces_251092.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=CLR-2801&utm_campaign=Twitter Clearance FYI!

Thanks @IB20. If I were in the UK I'd probably be straight on that. Sadly buying from FLO is a bit more complicated these days for us Europe mainlanders, and I'd only end up saving about 10EUR if I'm lucky - along with all the delays and customs faff that it entails.
They are pretty much all in stock at astroshop.eu ... which is dangerous. I had momentarily "forgotten" that I was thinking about another one!

[Voyager 3]

10 hours ago, Louis D said:

Too close.  I wouldn't bother.  I use my 12mm ES-92 at that focal length.  The presentation is completely different from the Morpheus.

But Baz seems to own 17.5mm Morpheus too ... The difference between 17.5mm Morpheus and 12.5mm Morpheus is bigger compared to the difference between 17.5mm and 14mm Morpheus. It really depends on him . If the 17.5mm is stealing the eyepiece time of the 14mm , then there is a reason to buy the 12.5mm . But if it was me , I wouldn't bother getting the 12.5mm AND sell the 14mm . The next jump from the 12.5mm should be 20-24mm , but Baz already owns a 17.5mm . So 9mm-17.5mm is a reasonable one . 

[John]

I find ~17mm a focal length that I just don't use much. With my 2 inch eyepieces I tend to skip straight from 21mm to 13mm and with my 1.25 inch set I step from 24mm to 14mm. I guess this is related to the focal lengths of my scopes which vary between 663mm and 1590mm.

I do have some fine 17mm options including the 17.3 Delos and the 17mm ES / 92 but the poor things seem to get a little overlooked.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by John

[Ags]

Poor little Delos. I can look after it for you 🤣

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, John said:

I find ~17mm a focal length that I just don't use much. With my 2 inch eyepieces I tend to skip straight from 21mm to 13mm and with my 1.25 inch set I step from 24mm to 14mm. I guess this is related to the focal lengths of my scopes which vary between 663mm and 1590mm.

I tend to skip straight from 30mm to 40mm "finder" or widest field eyepieces straight to 12mm to 14mm eyepieces for most observing as well.  My 22m NT4 and 17mm ES-92 don't see much use.  I tend to then jump up to 5mm to 7mm for the next look, giving my 9mm Morpheus and 10mm Delos very little focuser time.

What I find I do is, like a good father, I make time for all my A-team eyepieces and cycle each one through the focuser during an observing session to see if the presentation through any of them yields a different impression of an object.  Often times I'm rewarded with the unexpected juxtaposition of nearby star clusters, asterisms, or double stars with the main observation target adding interest.  I tend to observe for aesthetics rather than for ticking objects off of an observation list.

[Deadlake]

20 hours ago, John said:

I find ~17mm a focal length that I just don't use much. With my 2 inch eyepieces I tend to skip straight from 21mm to 13mm and with my 1.25 inch set I step from 24mm to 14mm. I guess this is related to the focal lengths of my scopes which vary between 663mm and 1590mm.

I do have some fine 17mm options including the 17.3 Delos and the 17mm ES / 92 but the poor things seem to get a little overlooked.

 

17 mm size seems great for bino’s. @jetstream tells me the Nikon 17mm HW is one of his best EP’s, better then Tele Vue or APM.

 

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

17 mm size seems great for bino’s. @jetstream tells me the Nikon 17mm HW is one of his best EP’s, better then Tele Vue or APM.

 

The Nikons certainly have a great reputation, but it totally depends on the focal length (and ratio) of your scope as to which eyepieces end up being most useful. You can’t really generalise I don’t think. For similar focal ratio scopes the exit pupil remains the same regardless of aperture/focal length so then it is more relevant. I used to have scopes from f5 to f20 and needed a much wider range of eyepieces to cover those than now where I have from f5 to f8.8.

[JOC]

On 04/08/2021 at 04:02, Voyager 3 said:

But Baz seems to own 17.5mm Morpheus too ... The difference between 17.5mm Morpheus and 12.5mm Morpheus is bigger compared to the difference between 17.5mm and 14mm Morpheus. It really depends on him . If the 17.5mm is stealing the eyepiece time of the 14mm , then there is a reason to buy the 12.5mm . But if it was me , I wouldn't bother getting the 12.5mm AND sell the 14mm . The next jump from the 12.5mm should be 20-24mm , but Baz already owns a 17.5mm . So 9mm-17.5mm is a reasonable one . 

The trouble is unless you own them all they don't all look pretty and matched in the same EP box!

[Deadlake]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

The Nikons certainly have a great reputation, but it totally depends on the focal length (and ratio) of your scope as to which eyepieces end up being most useful. You can’t really generalise I don’t think. For similar focal ratio scopes the exit pupil remains the same regardless of aperture/focal length so then it is more relevant. I used to have scopes from f5 to f20 and needed a much wider range of eyepieces to cover those than now where I have from f5 to f8.8.

Very true but I could imagine that between f4-f8 would be general coverage for most observers. At the same time when EP's are compared I don't really see much reference made to focal length. Good point to make because it's not mentioned, it's not some thing I considered when reading reports.

[John]

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

17 mm size seems great for bino’s. @jetstream tells me the Nikon 17mm HW is one of his best EP’s, better then Tele Vue or APM.

 

I'm sure the NW 17 is superb. I used to have the Ethos 17 but as a focal length that I don't personally use I thought it excessive to have an expensive "place filler" in the eyepiece case so moved that one one to a home where it would be used more often. The ES 92 / 17mm fills the space in the foam less expensively and is a pretty good experience when I do use that focal length.

Can't see the point of of investing close to £1K on another 17mm eyepiece, even if it is the best 17mm in the world,  given the use that I make of that focal length

Personally, I've given up chasing ultimates in each focal length now. Mind you that pursuit does keep the eyepiece forums ticking over

I've an excellent couple of eyepiece sets now and I'm, content. Many folks would give their right arms to own the 17.3 Delos or the ES 17 / 92 and I still have both. Got to draw a line somewhere and carry on with improving the viewing skills I think

 

[Deadlake]

7 minutes ago, John said:

I'm sure the NW 17 is superb. I used to have the Ethos 17 but as a focal length that I don't personally use I thought it excessive to have an expensive "place filler" in the eyepiece case so moved that one one to a home where it would be used more often. The ES 92 / 17mm fills the space in the foam less expensively and is a pretty good experience when I do use that focal length.

Can't see the point of of investing close to £1K on another 17mm eyepiece, even if it is the best 17mm in the world,  given the use that I make of that focal length

Personally, I've given up chasing ultimates in each focal length now. Mind you that pursuit does keep the eyepiece forums ticking over

I've an excellent couple of eyepiece sets now and I'm, content. Many folks would give their right arms to own the 17.3 Delos or the ES 17 / 92 and I still have both. Got to draw a line somewhere and carry on with improving the viewing skills I think

 

17 mm is a length which as you said is just a filler and might not get much use. On price however the owners of the Nikon HW don't pay Treasure Island prices, but import from Japan.

e.g.

https://www.kyoei-osaka.jp/SHOP/nikon-nav-125hw.html

It's around £600, similar to Tele Vue prices, or maybe wait for one needing to be re-homed....

To be honest I'm thinking of getting a bino viewer, so a pair of 17.5 mm Morpheus would slot right in, making the purchase of a 17 HW for mono viewing a little over the top.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

At the same time when EP's are compared I don't really see much reference made to focal length.

I know, it does frustrate me and I guess that was the gist of my post. People often recommend eyepieces to others, only considering how they work in their own scope. Different scope focal lengths and ratios make a big difference. As an extreme example, a 31mm Nagler gives 5 degrees of sky and x16 in my f5/500mm Genesis, whereas it gave 0.6 degrees and x129 in my old f20/4000mm focal length Mak. 

[Deadlake]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

I know, it does frustrate me and I guess that was the gist of my post. People often recommend eyepieces to others, only considering how they work in their own scope. Different scope focal lengths and ratios make a big difference. As an extreme example, a 31mm Nagler gives 5 degrees of sky and x16 in my f5/500mm Genesis, whereas it gave 0.6 degrees and x129 in my old f20/4000mm focal length Mak. 

I have a 20 mm XWA and a 30 mm UFF, this does not work with a Vixen SD103S as it does not have enough infocus.  
Another variable too bring into what EP works with which scope. 

[John]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

Very true but I could imagine that between f4-f8 would be general coverage for most observers. At the same time when EP's are compared I don't really see much reference made to focal length. Good point to make because it's not mentioned, it's not some thing I considered when reading reports.

That's a good point.

When I used to do eyepiece reports for the forum I used to make a point of being specific about the scope specs used in the comparisons and wherever possible use scopes of varying specs. Also using a wide range of target objects (easy and challenging) over a number  of sessions was really required to start to get to understand the eyepieces characteristics.

It's quite a long process !.

Not having to fork out for the eyepieces (thanks to loans from FLO) was a great help too !

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by John

[John]

8 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

I have a 20 mm XWA and a 30 mm UFF, this does not work with a Vixen SD103S as it does not have enough infocus.  
Another variable too bring into what EP works with which scope. 

The focuser on my Vixen ED102SS F/6.5 is the same as the stock SD103S one I think. My Ethos 21 / Nagler 31 each focus with about 12mm inwards travel to spare.

Edit: apologies - we seem to be moving off the topic of the Morpheus a bit.

Edited August 5, 2021 by John

[globular]

49 minutes ago, John said:

Many folks would give their right arms to own the 17.3 Delos or the ES 17 / 92 and I still have both.

That's a good offer John. I accept.  Where should I post my right arm in return for your ES 17/92 ?

[jetstream]

4 hours ago, John said:

Many folks would give their right arms to own the 17.3 Delos

The 17.3mm Delos is another favourite of mine, deeper than the Nikon, extremely tight stars and used for different things than the 17mm/14mm HW Nikon. The 17.3mm,10mm Delos are super eyepieces. Put the 17.3mm on the core of M42 under dark skies and be prepared to look for your jaw on the ground....IMHO.

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, Deadlake said:

17 mm size seems great for bino’s. @jetstream tells me the Nikon 17mm HW is one of his best EP’s, better then Tele Vue or APM.

 

All these eyepieces are vg, but sometimes, to some individuals certain ones stand out. For me the 17/14 mm Nikon HW is one of them. The view of the Swan neb with this eyepiece in the 24" f4.1 is burned in to my brain forever. The 17 Ethos is an extremely good eyepiece and another top tier hyperwide choice. For ease of use the 17 Ethos gets the nod. The Nikon has some "niggles"- eyecup design, collar for focus and not being able to be used with the PCII.

However, the views...

ps conditions must allow the possibility to maximize what all these eyepieces have to offer, or theres not much difference.IMHO

[Don Pensack]

Magnifications the Morpheus eyepieces produce in my scope and how they work:

Scope is 12.5" f/5.75 (the f/ratio with a Paracorr), 1826mm focal length

17.5mm--104x.  A good, fairly low power eyepiece for larger objects--frequently used on large clusters.  I don't often go below this power because few objects look better at lower powers.

14mm--130x.  A popular all-around magnification for many objects.  Not high enough for a lot of objects, but seeing never interferes at this power, so it is often used on large nebulae and clusters.  My #1 finder eyepiece.

12.5mm--146x.  a comfortable magnification for nearly everything large and a frequently-used focal length.  I use the Apollo 11 a lot more (166x) because the 11mm focal length is more usable for galaxies.

9mm--203x.  THE galaxy focal length, large planetaries, etc.  Very frequently-used focal length.  Sold my sample, but will acquire another one when they're available.  

6.5mm--281x.  Not too high.  Good for nearly all small objects and good for Jupiter and Moon in average seeing. I use the 6mm Ethos a lot more due to a wider field and MUCH sharper optics.  I don't use glasses at this magnification,

so the eyepiece needs the eyeguard extender ring.  The extender ring also helps block peripheral light, so the eyepiece has excellent contrast.  If anyone uses any Morpheus without glasses, I recommend the extender ring. 

4.5mm--406x  Not used because my 4.7mm Ethos SX has a field 45% wider, which is more useful in an undriven scope.  The Ethos SX is sharper and brighter, too.  It isn't just seeing, because the 3.7mm Ethos SX is sharper than both of them.

[jetstream]

56 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

9mm--203x.  THE galaxy focal length, large planetaries, etc.  Very frequently-used focal length.  Sold my sample, but will acquire another one when they're available.  

Rumor at the coffee shop has it that the 9mm Morph is the sweetheart of the line- thoughts?

[Deadlake]

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Magnifications the Morpheus eyepieces produce in my scope and how they work:

Scope is 12.5" f/5.75 (the f/ratio with a Paracorr), 1826mm focal length

17.5mm--104x.  A good, fairly low power eyepiece for larger objects--frequently used on large clusters.  I don't often go below this power because few objects look better at lower powers.

14mm--130x.  A popular all-around magnification for many objects.  Not high enough for a lot of objects, but seeing never interferes at this power, so it is often used on large nebulae and clusters.  My #1 finder eyepiece.

12.5mm--146x.  a comfortable magnification for nearly everything large and a frequently-used focal length.  I use the Apollo 11 a lot more (166x) because the 11mm focal length is more usable for galaxies.

9mm--203x.  THE galaxy focal length, large planetaries, etc.  Very frequently-used focal length.  Sold my sample, but will acquire another one when they're available.  

6.5mm--281x.  Not too high.  Good for nearly all small objects and good for Jupiter and Moon in average seeing. I use the 6mm Ethos a lot more due to a wider field and MUCH sharper optics.  I don't use glasses at this magnification,

so the eyepiece needs the eyeguard extender ring.  The extender ring also helps block peripheral light, so the eyepiece has excellent contrast.  If anyone uses any Morpheus without glasses, I recommend the extender ring. 

4.5mm--406x  Not used because my 4.7mm Ethos SX has a field 45% wider, which is more useful in an undriven scope.  The Ethos SX is sharper and brighter, too.  It isn't just seeing, because the 3.7mm Ethos SX is sharper than both of them.

I was thinking of 17.5 mm Morpheus for bino usage, any others I should consider?

For larger magnifications the 9 mm Morpheus also looking interesting, again any other EP's I should consider?

Thanks

[Piero]

8 hours ago, John said:

I'm sure the NW 17 is superb. I used to have the Ethos 17 but as a focal length that I don't personally use I thought it excessive to have an expensive "place filler" in the eyepiece case so moved that one one to a home where it would be used more often. The ES 92 / 17mm fills the space in the foam less expensively and is a pretty good experience when I do use that focal length.

Can't see the point of of investing close to £1K on another 17mm eyepiece, even if it is the best 17mm in the world,  given the use that I make of that focal length

Personally, I've given up chasing ultimates in each focal length now. Mind you that pursuit does keep the eyepiece forums ticking over

I've an excellent couple of eyepiece sets now and I'm, content. Many folks would give their right arms to own the 17.3 Delos or the ES 17 / 92 and I still have both. Got to draw a line somewhere and carry on with improving the viewing skills I think

Similar here.. With my scope and observing style, I never felt the need for a 18-16mm eyepiece. I tend to skip that range even with my zoom eyepiece. 

[Don Pensack]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

Rumor at the coffee shop has it that the 9mm Morph is the sweetheart of the line- thoughts?

I don't really think so.  It just might correspond to an excellent magnification and exit pupil in a lot of scopes.

It depends what you're sensitive to.  I hate astigmatism, and have very little tolerance for any in an eyepiece.

Other people might hate slight chromatic aberration or field curvature, or something else.

 

In Ernest's tests at f/4 (f/10 was much much better--more or less perfect), the star images were:

4.5mm--4' center, 10' 1/2 way, 14' edge   largest issue CA

6.5mm--4' center, 10' 1/2 way, 16' edge   largest issue CA

9mm--5' center, 11' 1/2 way, 14' edge   largest issue Astigmatism

12.5mm--5' center, 12' 1/2 way, 16' edge,   largest issue FC

14mm--5' center, 18' 1/2 way, 24' edge   largest issue FC.

[the 17.5mm was not tested]

Note: 10' is essentially a perfect star image, so judge accordingly.

If you cannot see the very outer parts of the star images due to light pollution or small aperture, the edge stars drop to <1/2 as large in size.

And all of them are pretty much perfect at f/10.

It's my impression from testing them at f/7, f/5.75, and f/3.45 that the Morpheus line probably has a minimum f/ratio of 4.5-4.7 for best performance.

At f/5.75, the 14mm (the weakest in the test) is pretty much sharp to the edge in a flat field scope, so the f/4 results have to be judged as a "worst case" scenario.

Stick to longer f/ratios and the performance is high-end.

A coma corrector will work wonders at f/5.5 and shorter.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Don Pensack