Baader Planetarium 8-24mm Hyperion

[Yubnub]

Can you advise if this zoom will be for to much to use with a Skywatcher 127 Maksutov? 
 

seen lots of recommendations for it but it’s 50% the cost of the scope/rig! 

[johninderby]

While the Baader is an excellent zoom it is not cheap. One of the Hyperflex zooms is a lot cheaper and not that far off the Baader performance wise.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/search/for/hyperflex/

The Svbony zoom is surprisingly good for the price. Can be had cheaper on eBay if you don’t mind the wait from China.They do a few other zooms as well.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SVBONY-SV170-Telescope-Eyepiece-Element/dp/B08CVCWKBP/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2LBYMOS3JOZAW&keywords=svbony+zoom&qid=1643321559&sprefix=svbony+zoom%2Caps%2C126&sr=8-2

Edited January 27, 2022 by johninderby

[Louis D]

Starting out, I'd go for one of the cheaper zooms plus a 32mm Plossl for widest field views.  At f/12, all would perform excellently across the field.

7mm to 8mm is about as high as you can go on a 127 Mak due to small exit pupil issues anyway, so it's a good fit for the Mak.  Technically, you could go all the way up to an 84mm eyepiece for a 7mm exit pupil, but such a 1.25" eyepiece doesn't exist; and if it did, it would be like viewing through a straw since it would have about a 20° apparent FOV.

[PeterC65]

The first eyepiece I bought for my MAK was the Baader Zoom and I don't regret it, but they are even more expensive now. The second eyepiece I bought was a 40mm Celestron Omni plossl which I don't use much.

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

The second eyepiece I bought was a 40mm Celestron Omni plossl which I don't use much.

Didn't you say you added a 2" Clicklock to your Mak in another thread recently?  Do you have a 2" diagonal and any 2" eyepieces for it yet?  Here's my setup with a 2" visual back and large 2" eyepieces.  The first photo has a decloaked Meade 40mm 4000 SWA in the diagonal while the second photo has a 35mm Baader Scopos Extreme in the focuser.  The 40mm Pentax XW would probably do well in it, but I haven't tried that combo at night since getting the XW a over a year ago.  I did take a snapshot with my cellphone camera through the combination as shown the third photo.  It's lighter than either the Baader or Meade.

[PeterC65]

5 hours ago, Louis D said:

Didn't you say you added a 2" Clicklock to your Mak in another thread recently?  Do you have a 2" diagonal and any 2" eyepieces for it yet?

I do have a 2" Clicklock on the visual back of my MAK, but only a 1.25" diagonal and 1.25" kit after that.

When I first started with astronomy last year I posted on here about a possible change to 2" throughout to increase the true field of view and I remember your comments from then @Louis D. From that discussion I decided the MAK just wasn't a widefield scope and so decided to stick with 1.25" for filters and eyepieces, not least because of the expense of going to 2". I now have a short refractor which does a much better job of widefield than the MAK could ever do, and with the same 1.25" kit.

The main reason I went for the 2" Clicklock on the visual back was for mechanical stability. It does hold the diagonal very securely. I have a filter wheel permanently attached to the diagonal and use quite heavy ES eyepieces so there is quite a lump hanging off the visual back. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I also really value the ability to cant over the diagonal to get a comfortable (sitting down) eyepiece position for extended observation.

All that said, I do still sometimes wonder what a 2" diagonal and 2" eyepiece might give me!

[johninderby]

The Baader 1.25” Quick Lock is better suited to the mak. You just need a T2 to SCT adaptor to mount it to the mak if it has the SCT thread otherwise the mak to SCT adaptor is also needed.

I experimented with a 2” visual back and 2” diagonal and while you can get a slightly wider fov with the right eyepiece concluded just not worth the bother. Just adds unnecessary weight. The mak just isn’t meant to be a widefield scope in the first place.

Edited January 28, 2022 by johninderby

[PeterC65]

3 hours ago, johninderby said:

The Baader 1.25” Quick Lock is better suited to the mak. You just need a T2 to SCT adaptor to mount it to the mak if it has the SCT thread otherwise the mak to SCT adaptor is also needed.

I experimented with a 2” visual back and 2” diagonal and while you can get a slightly wider fov with the right eyepiece concluded just not worth the bother. Just adds unnecessary weight. The mak just isn’t meant to be a widefield scope in the first place.

I have a 1.25" Clicklock clamp as the eyepiece clamp on the diagonal (actually on the filter wheel attached to the diagonal). It's great for quick changing of eyepieces but its hold is nothing like as good as the 2" version so I prefer the 2" Clicklock on the visual back despite it being a close fit with the focus knob.

I completely agree that the MAK is just not a widefield scope and it's not worth trying to get the last fraction of a degree out of it.

[Louis D]

Well, I find the jump from 1 degree to 1.7 degrees with a 40mm SWA 2" eyepiece quite nice in my 127 Mak.  It's not widefield like a 72ED frac, but it does help with getting targets centered and for showing better context since it reveals 2.9 times as much sky by area and 70% more by linear measure.  Since I already have all the required bits, it seems silly not to use them just to remain a 1.25" purist.  That, and I can use my ES-92 eyepieces which are 2" only.

[Don Pensack]

Since the scope is a long focal length, narrow field, scope, the zoom just makes it narrower still.

I owned one for several years and found either a 32mm Plössl (50°) or a 24mm Widefield (68°) ideal as a low power eyepiece.

A great inexpensive set would be a 24mm, 17mm, 12mm, and 8mm 60° to 68° eyepiece set, for 64x, 91x, 128x, 193x

It's not that you couldn't use more eyepieces, but that would give you 4 different magnifications, with a low power nearly 1.1°.

It's important that the lowest power be a widefield eyepiece for starhopping.

Some examples:

Baader Hyperion 68° 24, 17. 13, and 8mm  Get the fine tuning rings and this gives you focal lengths from 24mm down to 4.3mm

I don't recommend adding and subtracting them in the field at night, but preparing the eyepieces to yield particular focal lengths on particular nights is easy.

These eyepieces aren't very good at f/5-f/6, but they work great at f/12+.

or

Celestron X-Cel LX 60° 25, 18, 12, and 9mm

or

Astrotech/Starguider  60° 25, 18, 12, 8mm

or 

a mixed set, like an APM/Altair 24mm UltraFlatField with a 17mm Hyperion, a 12mm X-Cel LX, and an 8mm Starguider.

Many ways to keep the cost down or to have a set compatible with glasses if needed.

My feeling is the Zoom works if the scope has a wide enough true field to yield decent size true fields in the zoom, but the 127mm Mak is not such a scope.

You need wider fields in the eyepieces to bring out the scope's potential, especially when the mount is not driven.

The Baader Zoom, as good an eyepiece as it is, just has too narrow an apparent field in the 24-12mm range.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Don Pensack

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi @Yubnub and welcome to SGL. 

I borrowed one from a member of my local club/society and tried it in my ‘re-modded’ ETX105 and Celestron C6/SCT a few years ago. It wasn’t too bad.
As I have a 7-21mm zoom [images below] that I purchased from a European astro-reseller that used to ship to/from GB/UK and/or Sweden* a few years earlier.

* at the time of writing and due to BREXIT, they now sell and ship from Sweden to EU customers only.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Philip R

[PeterC65]

1 hour ago, Don Pensack said:

The Baader Zoom, as good an eyepiece as it is, just has too narrow an apparent field in the 24-12mm range.

@Don Pensack makes a good point.

The question about using a zoom eyepiece with the MAK made me think about my own eyepiece journey, and it is the zoom's lack of apparent field of view at 24mm that set me off buying fixed focal length eyepieces. The Baader Zoom was my first eyepiece and at the time I thought it would be the ONLY eyepiece I would need. At 8mm the field of view is 68°, which is the maximum the eye can take in without 'looking around', but at 24mm it is more like 44°. I use it more at 24mm and the lower magnification means I'm wanting to see more of the sky but the zoom didn't give me that. As a result I bought an Explore Scientific 68° 24mm which shows me as much sky as it is possible to see with a 1.25" barrel. I love the ES eyepiece and that was the beginning of a slippery slope (I now have five of them!).

It also took me a while to realise why people put their eyepieces in a foam lined case. It's so that you can keep all your eyepieces safely at your feet while observing, allowing you to easily swap and change them. Last night for example, I did use the Baader Zoom (for alignment) and then used all five of the ES eyepieces.

[Zermelo]

I had a similar experience with the Hyperflex 7.2 - 21.5mm.  It gives nice, sharp views, but the FOV at the long end is a bit narrow. Same story with most, I believe. Hence the interest in this, although it only goes up to 15.4mm.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Zermelo

[LaurenceT]

As a complete novice in astronomy, only started last year, I bought a 127Mak purely for lunar and planetary observation and photography with an Altair planetary camera.

I've used the Baader zoom eyepiece on the moon with the Baader moon filter and the views were wonderful and exquisitely detailed.

For a wider view I have a 130pds Newtonian and my new little baby an Orion ST80.

[Don Pensack]

17 hours ago, LaurenceT said:

As a complete novice in astronomy, only started last year, I bought a 127Mak purely for lunar and planetary observation and photography with an Altair planetary camera.

I've used the Baader zoom eyepiece on the moon with the Baader moon filter and the views were wonderful and exquisitely detailed.

For a wider view I have a 130pds Newtonian and my new little baby an Orion ST80.

Well, as I said, a zoom can be a good choice when the narrow apparent fields of the zoom still yield wide true fields in the scope (like your short focal length scopes).

Or, I should have added, when narrow fields are preferred (Moon, planets, double stars).

It isn't the best choice for the Maksutov in question for general use, which is also on an undriven mount, where width of field is more important still.