Are cheap zoom eyepieces worth it?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Louis D said:

But you've felt no need to raise the twist-up eye cup due to excessive eye relief?

The only time I have adjusted it was by accident.  I leave it right where it is.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Second Time Around said:

This Lanthanum zoom sounds interesting.

@MikeQ.  How parfocal is it compared with the other zooms you've tried?

What's the maximum width? I'm wondering whether it can be used in binoviewers.

Can the eyecup be removed?  If so, what's the diameter under the eyecup?  This is to see whether a Dioptrix can be fitted.

Many thanks.

 

The parfocal part is pretty good.  Very little fine tuning is really needed when changing power. 

If I remember correctly we were using a Oberwerk BT100 and we were able to put different eyepieces side by side in it. That is how we did the comparison with Celestron and Baader.

I don't think I have ever tried to take the eyecap off, but I don't believe it does.  

I will attach the link to the video that gives the details on the eyepeice.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Guest

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Mike Q said:

I don't think I have ever tried to take the eyecap off, but I don't believe it does.  

The twist-up eye cup on my Celestron Regal 8-24mm zoom unscrews if you keep twisting down the eye cup.  It's counterintuitive on purpose, I believe.  The resulting exposed thread is perfect for winged eye guards for binoviewer use both because of its diameter and because it doesn't rotate during zooming like the BHZ's top.

Did I see that right in the video at the 2:25 mark?  The eye lens cap screws on over the entire eye cup assembly?  That is so cool!  I can't think of another eyepiece with such a cover.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

The twist-up eye cup on my Celestron Regal 8-24mm zoom unscrews if you keep twisting down the eye cup.  It's counterintuitive on purpose, I believe.  The resulting exposed thread is perfect for winged eye guards for binoviewer use both because of its diameter and because it doesn't rotate during zooming like the BHZ's top.

Did I see that right in the video at the 2:25 mark?  The eye lens cap screws on over the entire eye cup assembly?  That is so cool!  I can't think of another eyepiece with such a cover.

Yes the cap screws on and off.  I don't know if I like that or not.  If I get time this evening I will see if it comes apart like yours does.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Guest

[200pman]

Depends how deep your pockets are.

 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Mike Q said:

Yes the cap screws on and off.  I don't know if I like that or not.

Check to see if the eye cup is 2" in diameter.  The one on my Celestron Regal zoom is, and a soft plastic 2" cap fits over it perfectly:

You could then store away the original thread-on cap in the original eyepiece box if you want to resell it later.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Check to see if the eye cup is 2" in diameter.  The one on my Celestron Regal zoom is, and a soft plastic 2" cap fits over it perfectly:

You could then store away the original thread-on cap in the original eyepiece box if you want to resell it later.

Good to know info there.

[Don Pensack]

specs show 3.9" tall, 2.0" wide, 11 oz. for the Orion Pro / Stella Lyra 1.25" Lanthanum Zoom.

I don't know about a DioptRx, but if the 20mm eye relief figure is true, one would be usable as long as it can attach.

Someone else would have to remove the eyecup to test.  I cannot advise.

 

I would just call FLO and ask.

[Guest]

Well now that I am home I can answer the question.  And the answer is no you can't unscrew it.  You can remove the rubber cover, I have no idea why you would, but that is about all you can do.

[Second Time Around]

Thanks, Mike.  That unfortunately knocks it out for me. 

Might be good for outreach though, especially if it's parfocal or nearly so.  Guests love to be able to zoom into objects like the moon, double stars and globulars.

[Carl Au]

The starguider zoom was ridiculously good value for money 

[Guest]

On 04/04/2022 at 14:51, Second Time Around said:

Thanks, Mike.  That unfortunately knocks it out for me. 

Might be good for outreach though, especially if it's parfocal or nearly so.  Guests love to be able to zoom into objects like the moon, double stars and globulars.

Sorry to hear that it won't work for you as it really is a kick butt eyepiece.  It gives very good planetary views and I have used it for some DSO stuff.  The Orion Nebula looks beautiful with it.  Want to split doubles it can pull that off no problem.  This eyepiece is the one that gets used the most.

[Mark2022]

On 23/02/2022 at 15:43, spacegalaxy said:

I recently found this:

https://tejraj.com/multi-coated-zoom-eyepiece.html

So, is this worth it? I am used to 25mm kellner (and its fov), but the 10mm is way too small, and the idea that I might do planetary, doubles and globular clusters in a single eyepiece is pretty exciting, and I can only get two plossl with that money so is this a good zoom ep?

All  I can say is that I just bought an SVBony  9 - 27mm a couple of weeks ago for £29.99 off ebay and I love it. I was very surprised as to just how good it was. I'd never buy a Baader,  I don't need to. I know they are 'better' but, to be frank, it is minimal and the price difference is astonishing.

[Jim L]

19 hours ago, Mark2022 said:

All  I can say is that I just bought an SVBony  9 - 27mm a couple of weeks ago for £29.99 off ebay and I love it. I was very surprised as to just how good it was. I'd never buy a Baader,  I don't need to. I know they are 'better' but, to be frank, it is minimal and the price difference is astonishing.

I believe there’s good reason to believe that the Baader is not “better”.

If I’m interpreting Ernest Maratovich’s evaluations of the SvBony 7-21mm , SvBony 9-27mm, and the Baader MkIV 8-24mm zooms correctly, it appears Ernest found the SvBony zooms optically superior to the Baader, and decidedly so in the case of the 7-21mm zoom.

https://astro--talks-ru.translate.goog/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4585&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_sch=http

https://astro--talks-ru.translate.goog/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2695&p=77035&hilit=Baader&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp#p77035

Having read Ernest’s reviews I came to the same conclusion you did, and passed on the $340 Baader zoom in favor of the $32 7-21mm SvBony zoom. In fact I’ve done that at least five times so far.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Jim L

[John]

I have the Mk IV Baader 8-24 zoom and feel that it's pretty good. It compares quite well with my Pentax XW's in the 16mm-10mm part of it's range. Not too keen on the narrow AFoV at 24mm and there is quite a bit of re-focusing needed through the focal length range though. 

The only Svbony zoom that I've used is the 8mm-3mm one but that I guess is quite a different design to the mid-range Svbony zooms mentioned on here ?

 

 

[Mark2022]

21 minutes ago, Jim L said:

I believe there’s good reason to believe that the Baader is not “better”.

If I’m interpreting Ernest Maratovich’s evaluations of the the SvBony 7-21mm , SvBony 9-27mm, and the Baader MkIV 8-24mm zooms correctly, it appears Ernest found the SvBony zooms optically superior to the Baader, and decidedly so in the case of the 7-21mm zoom.

https://astro--talks-ru.translate.goog/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4585&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_sch=http

http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2695&p=77035&hilit=Baader#p77035

Having read Ernest’s reviews I came to the same conclusion you did, and passed on the $340 Baader zoom in favor of the $32 7-21mm SvBony zoom. In fact I’ve done that at least five times so far.

Just read his reports (I don't know who he is, however. Is he well respected for this sort of thing?). I noticed he said the 9 - 27mm is not parfocal and that is true BUT I literally just have to 'nudge' my focus and I'm there. Based on my 9 - 27mm, these SVBony zooms are superb.

[bosun21]

I have tried several of the SVbony zooms of which the 7-21x is the best of the bunch. I sold mine recently as the FOV Is too tight for my liking. The images through them were fine though. I do prefer the Baader zoom though (but at a cost).

[Mark2022]

4 minutes ago, John said:

I have the Mk IV Baader 8-24 zoom and feel that it's pretty good. It compares quite well with my Pentax XW's in the 16mm-10mm part of it's range. Not too keen on the narrow AFoV at 24mm and there is quite a bit of re-focusing needed through the focal length range though. 

The only Svbony zoom that I've used is the 8mm-3mm one but that I guess is quite a different design to the mid-range Svbony zooms mentioned on here ?

 

 

I'd find it interesting to compare the Baader with the SVBony just for the heck of it. Vlad of AVT Astro on youtube has and I tend to respect his opinion while even he has suggested, while the Baader wins, it's by a hair or two. I just didn't wish to spend 10x more for a hair and now, having the zoom, I realise I don't need to. People go  on about FOV differences of one eyepiece against another and  debate till the cows come home. I say, you use the kit you have and the kit you have is the 'norm' for you and, if it does the job, who cares about an extra degree or two at the highest mag?

[John]

2 minutes ago, Mark2022 said:

I'd find it interesting to compare the Baader with the SVBony just for the heck of it. Vlad of AVT Astro on youtube has and I tend to respect his opinion while even he has suggested, while the Baader wins, it's by a hair or two. I just didn't wish to spend 10x more for a hair and now, having the zoom, I realise I don't need to. People go  on about FOV differences of one eyepiece against another and  debate till the cows come home. I say, you use the kit you have and the kit you have is the 'norm' for you and, if it does the job, who cares about an extra degree or two at the highest mag?

The margins of performance gain between eyepieces (and other optical systems for that matter) are usually quite fine these days. The "other" brands have been continually pressing closer and closer to the "premium" branded products for the past few years so the value for money equation for the top performers is looking very marginal these days.

It's good news really - you don't need to spend big for good performance today and for those who value those extra "hairs" and who don't worry so much about the cost, there are options there as well 🙂

 

 

[Franklin]

For me, fixed focal length eyepieces win over zooms by some margin but zooms have their uses but there is a compromise. I use a zoom eyepiece for a) In a lightweight travel set up where the advantage of having just one eyepiece with multiple magnifications outweighs the tight low-power field and b) In a solar set up where the zoom allows multiple magnifications without having to swap out filters all the time. Another use for zooms is to find the optimum magnification for the sky conditions at hand and when found, swap to a fixed focal length eyepiece. 

Years ago zooms were a bit of a novelty and not very popular but as @John states above, with todays improvements in manufacturing, they are really good quality and that's not just the premium products. If you intend using a zoom a lot then it may be worth splashing out on a premium unit but the more budget models have some great reviews from people on here who actually use them and know what they're talking about. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Franklin

[Jim L]

46 minutes ago, Mark2022 said:

Just read his reports (I don't know who he is, however. Is he well respected for this sort of thing?). I noticed he said the 9 - 27mm is not parfocal and that is true BUT I literally just have to 'nudge' my focus and I'm there. Based on my 9 - 27mm, these SVBony zooms are superb.

The difference between Ernest’s reviews and most everyone else’s is the difference between objective and subjective analysis. Ernest bench tests eyepiece optics; to my knowledge that makes his analyses quite rare in the amateur astronomy community, if not unique.

Quantitative analyses takes no prisoners, makes no allowances for the name on the eyepiece or its price, and feelings be damned. It doesn’t replace the expert subjective analysis of extraordinarily experienced and astute reviewers such as our own Don Pensack and Bill Paolini, but it is an extraordinarily powerful approach and one well worth paying close attention to. 

[John]

28 minutes ago, Jim L said:

The difference between Ernest’s reviews and most everyone else’s is the difference between objective and subjective analysis. Ernest bench tests eyepiece optics; to my knowledge that makes his analyses quite rare in the amateur astronomy community, if not unique.

Quantitative analyses takes no prisoners, makes no allowances for the name on the eyepiece or its price, and feelings be damned. It doesn’t replace the expert subjective analysis of extraordinarily experienced and astute reviewers such as our own Don Pensack and Bill Paolini, but it is an extraordinarily powerful approach and one well worth paying close attention to. 

The french magazine "Ciel et Espace" used to include optical bench tests in their eyepiece group tests. They stopped a while back but while they were doing it, they were the most comprehensive equipment reports I've seen in any publication. 

Here are a couple of examples (in french): 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110622011950/http://cieletespace.fr/files/InstrumentTest/201102_test_oculaires.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20130829052725/http://www.cieletespace.fr:80/files/InstrumentTest/201306__6_oculaires_10mm.pdf

 

[bosun21]

The SVbony 3-8mm zoom is a good example demonstrating just how much the gap is closing to the top premium brands. It’s a case of a much larger cost for small incremental gains in performance. To truly enjoy astronomy today it’s no longer necessary to bust your bank account.

[Don Pensack]

One Zoom that gives sharp images, excellent contrast, and adequate eye relief PLUS a constant 66-67° over its range is the APM 7.7-15.4mm "Super Zoom".

You can run into in-focus issues if it's used as a 1.25" eyepiece, but used as a 2" one shouldn't have focus issues.

I liked the optics a bit better than the Baader over the same range (8-16mm on the Baader).

Maybe it doesn't qualify as cheap, though.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Don Pensack

[John]

6 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

One Zoom that gives sharp images, excellent contrast, and adequate eye relief PLUS a constant 66-67° over its range is the APM 7.7-15.4mm "Super Zoom".

You can run into in-focus issues if it's used as a 1.25" eyepiece, but used as a 2" one shouldn't have focus issues.

I liked the optics a bit better than the Baader over the same range (8-16mm on the Baader).

Maybe it doesn't qualify as cheap, though.

Yes, I felt the same when I compared those two recently.