Delos v pentax v nagler v morpheus

[bish]

I want a really nice wide fov  14mm ep. I  like decent eye relief so my eye lashes don't stick to the glass.  The choices are delos, pentax xw, morpheus or 13mm nagler. I had an 11mm nag that I regret selling. If the morpheus is really close to the others then maybe I should save £120 +  ? It 2hat have to be a very close match though.

Thanks

Bish

[Don Pensack]

The 13 Nagler is out--too little eye relief compared to the others.

Pentax--69.4° (measured)

Delos--72° (one report of 73° but anecdotal)

Morpheus--78° (measured)

I can only report what I see in my 12.5" dob at f/5.75 (with Paracorr coma corrector).  You might see something different without a coma corrector or in a shorter scope with more field curvature.

Pentax--edge of field very slightly astigmatic, but excellent contrast.  Easy to use with glasses.  Eyecup rolls up but very slowly due to fine thread.

Delos--edge of field sharpest of the 3, but needs about 1/2" of inward focusing compared to the other 2.  Excellent contrast. Easy to use with glasses.  Eyecup slides up and locks in place.

Morpheus--edge of field sharp, parfocal with the Pentax,  superb contrast, Easy to use with glasses.  An eyeguard extender is included, giving 4 different heights for the rubber eyeguard.

 

You can't lose with any of the 3, but the apparent and true field of the 14mm Morpheus is widest, and noticeably so, if that matters to you.

 

I wear glasses and went with the widest field, but none of the 3 is lesser compared to the others. 

If I didn't wear glasses, the 13mm Nagler would be a contender.  It's 79° (measured) and excellent in every way except eye relief (you might get eyelash oils on the lens).

Plus, it's very small compared to the others, a remarkable feat.

 

You picked 4 really high-end eyepieces.  Which do you prefer: Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, or McLaren?😄

[bish]

4 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

The 13 Nagler is out--too little eye relief compared to the others.

Pentax--69.4° (measured)

Delos--72° (one report of 73° but anecdotal)

Morpheus--78° (measured)

I can only report what I see in my 12.5" dob at f/5.75 (with Paracorr coma corrector).  You might see something different without a coma corrector or in a shorter scope with more field curvature.

Pentax--edge of field very slightly astigmatic, but excellent contrast.  Easy to use with glasses.  Eyecup rolls up but very slowly due to fine thread.

Delos--edge of field sharpest of the 3, but needs about 1/2" of inward focusing compared to the other 2.  Excellent contrast. Easy to use with glasses.  Eyecup slides up and locks in place.

Morpheus--edge of field sharp, parfocal with the Pentax,  superb contrast, Easy to use with glasses.  An eyeguard extender is included, giving 4 different heights for the rubber eyeguard.

 

You can't lose with any of the 3, but the apparent and true field of the 14mm Morpheus is widest, and noticeably so, if that matters to you.

 

I wear glasses and went with the widest field, but none of the 3 is lesser compared to the others. 

If I didn't wear glasses, the 13mm Nagler would be a contender.  It's 79° (measured) and excellent in every way except eye relief (you might get eyelash oils on the lens).

Plus, it's very small compared to the others, a remarkable feat.

 

You picked 4 really high-end eyepieces.  Which do you prefer: Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, or McLaren?😄

Thanks for your informative reply Don.

[Louis D]

The 12.5mm APM Hi-FW yields a wider true field of view than the 14mm Morpheus (19.8mm field stop vs 18.4mm FS).  It's nicely sharp across the field as well and quite usable with eyeglasses (both have 18mm of measured, usable eye relief).  It has a very different distortion (barrel) from the others on your list (pincushion) in that it doesn't stretch the edges but compresses them instead.  In fact, it is slightly wider than my 12mm ES-92 (19.8mm FS vs. 19.7mm FS) because of this.  I'm still comparing it to the ES and Morpheus, but so far, it's a winner.  I think Don may have used the 12.5mm APM as well.

My 14mm Pentax XL has noticeable field curvature.  Reportedly, the 14mm XW did not fix this shortcoming.  However, if you're young and your eyes still focus, you won't notice it.  It is astigmatism free at the edge once refocused.

To my eye, the 14mm Morpheus has a slight bit of field curvature and astigmatism at the edge that can't be focused out.  I disagree with Don on this point.  He doesn't see either, so YMMV.  It's extremely minor, but it's there in a field flattened f/6 refractor.  By comparison, the 9mm Morpheus has neither to my eye and is just about as perfect as my 10mm Delos, only with a wider AFOV.  That, and it has just a slightly smaller FS (12.5mm vs 12.8mm).

Here's some images of and through eyepieces I own in the 12mm to 15mm range:

[Mr Spock]

In terms of image quality the Morpheus wins. But it sure is ugly... 

[Louis D]

12 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

In terms of image quality the Morpheus wins. But it sure is ugly... 

I'm most off-put by the cartoonish font and color used for text on the Morpheus.  I think the color was dictated by the glow in the dark requirement.  I can't think of another eyepiece using a fat outline font.

Compare it to the 14mm Pentax's refined looking metal plate and lettering that just exudes Japanese quality.  That eyepiece is 24 years old and still looks terrific!  I used it during every observing session for 18 of those years, so it wasn't mollycoddled, either.

[Davesellars]

I don't know about the Morpheus.   I thought that the Pentax XW 14mm and above may add to field curvature though in fast optics - so may not be suitable?  The 14mm Delos is superb and is my main deep sky object eyepiece with my f7.5 and f7 refractors.  At f/5 I use the 10mm Delos to get to the same exit pupil.

[Louis D]

I was kind of put off by the 14mm Delos needing a negative profile 2" to 1.25" adapter to make it parfocal with the majority of my eyepieces that focus at their shoulder.  I'm not even sure it would fit down inside the necessary distance thanks to its rather thick lower barrel.  Tele Vue sells their In-Travel Adapter ($53!!!) for it, but I'm not sure it actually recesses the eyepiece a full 0.25" when you figure in the adapter's lip thickness.  Here you've already paid a premium for the eyepiece, and it's not even parfocal with most other eyepieces, nor does it come with an adapter to help it be more parfocal.

My 25mm Paradigm (BST Starguider) already won't come to focus in my Dob's low profile focuser with the GSO CC in place, so I know I'm close to my in-focus limits.  I've already shifted my primary mirror forward as much as I'm comfortable doing.  My focuser's 2" to 1.25" adapter is already a zero profile adapter, so that leaves a negative profile adapter as my only option.

[Don Pensack]

Probably the reason I don't see any issues at the edge with the 14mm Morpheus is because I use it with a Paracorr, which eliminates coma and provides some field flattening.

That and the 1826mm focal length in the scope which results in a very flat field in the scope.  I do see some FC in my refractor, with a 714mm focal length and typical short radius of curvature of refractors.

My bête noire is edge of field brightening.  Louis' photos don't show that.  Several of the eyepieces he imaged above have that characteristic and I find them unusable as a result.

[Louis D]

You're right about EOFB.  It's way too subtle to show up in my images.

The worst for EOFB I've found is the 12mm NT4.  It has a lightening that starts out bright at the edge and gradually gets dimmer toward the center, but never goes away completely.  I swapped between it and the 12mm ES-92, 14mm Morpheus and 10mm Delos, and none of them were showing any field brightening like that.  I'll have to check the 12.5mm APM for that next time I'm out since I didn't have it at the time I noticed EOFB in the Nagler.  I can't recall it being objectionable so far in it, but I also haven't been faint fuzzy hunting with it.

My images also don't reveal field curvature since the taking lens has quite a bit of depth of focus mimicking human focus accommodation.

[Don Pensack]

5 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I was kind of put off by the 14mm Delos needing a negative profile 2" to 1.25" adapter to make it parfocal with the majority of my eyepieces that focus at their shoulder.  I'm not even sure it would fit down inside the necessary distance thanks to its rather thick lower barrel.  Tele Vue sells their In-Travel Adapter ($53!!!) for it, but I'm not sure it actually recesses the eyepiece a full 0.25" when you figure in the adapter's lip thickness.  Here you've already paid a premium for the eyepiece, and it's not even parfocal with most other eyepieces, nor does it come with an adapter to help it be more parfocal.

My 25mm Paradigm (BST Starguider) already won't come to focus in my Dob's low profile focuser with the GSO CC in place, so I know I'm close to my in-focus limits.  I've already shifted my primary mirror forward as much as I'm comfortable doing.  My focuser's 2" to 1.25" adapter is already a zero profile adapter, so that leaves a negative profile adapter as my only option.

The Delos fully inserts in the TeleVue In-Travel adapter.  The Paracorr adapter has a +10.5mm height, and the In-Travel adapter is -1.5mm, or 12mm lower.

That is merely to make the 14mm and 17.3mm Delos parfocal with all the other focal lengths in the Paracorr.  The 14mm and 17.3mm can be used in the Paracorr with the Paracorr adapter, but they focus much farther in than the other focal lengths.

That is why they do not provide a free adapter to make them parfocal with the other focal lengths of Delos.  They can be used without it by refocusing the scope or Paracorr top.

Judging by what I see in the field and comments from observers, most people simply don't care whether their eyepieces are parfocal and only run into an issue of in-travel if the scope runs out of the necessary amount of it.

By the way, the In-Travel adapter of TeleVue does not make the 14mm Delos parfocal with other eyepieces that have their focal planes at the 1.25" barrel shoulder--it makes the 14mm parfocal with the other Delos, all of which have their focal planes 0.25" below the shoulder.

 

[jetstream]

16 hours ago, bish said:

I want a really nice wide fov  14mm ep

Delos.

[Don Pensack]

1 minute ago, Louis D said:

You're right about EOFB.  It's way too subtle to show up in my images.

The worst for EOFB I've found is the 12mm NT4.  It has a lightening that starts out bright at the edge and gradually gets dimmer toward the center, but never goes away completely.  I swapped between it and the 12mm ES-92, 14mm Morpheus and 10mm Delos, and none of them were showing any field brightening like that.  I'll have to check the 12.5mm APM for that next time I'm out since I didn't have it at the time I noticed EOFB in the Nagler.  I can't recall it being objectionable so far in it, but I also haven't been faint fuzzy hunting with it.

My images also don't reveal field curvature since the taking lens has quite a bit of depth of focus mimicking human focus accommodation.

Also look for EOFB in the 13mm AF70, where it is quite excessive.

[Louis D]

Just now, Don Pensack said:

Also look for EOFB in the 13mm AF70, where it is quite excessive.

It's so hard to get past the rainbow stars in the last 30% of the field in the 13mm AF70 that I've never noticed EOFB out there.  That level of chromatic aberration would surely smear any faint fuzzies out there into even more unrecognizable blobs.

[jetstream]

45 minutes ago, Davesellars said:

The 14mm Delos is superb and is my main deep sky object eyepiece with my f7.5 and f7 refractors.  At f/5 I use the 10mm Delos to get to the same exit pupil.

Great choices. I do the same with the 17.3mm Delos and 10mm Delos. The Delos line offers a near unbeatable combination of "DSO deepness", contrast and planetary/lunar sharpness.

[Louis D]

4 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

By the way, the In-Travel adapter of TeleVue does not make the 14mm Delos parfocal with other eyepieces that have their focal planes at the 1.25" barrel shoulder--it makes the 14mm parfocal with the other Delos, all of which have their focal planes 0.25" below the shoulder.

Exactly!  I figured that out long ago when shopping for a 14mm to replace my Pentax XL once presbyopia set in.  I'm already annoyed by having to crank my focuser a 0.25" outward to bring the 10mm Delos to focus.  I suppose I should just add 0.25" of O-rings to it and be done with it.  Such a simple solution is not possible with the 14mm Delos, thus I went with the 14mm Morpheus which does focus more or less at the shoulder.

 

8 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

Judging by what I see in the field and comments from observers, most people simply don't care whether their eyepieces are parfocal and only run into an issue of in-travel if the scope runs out of the necessary amount of it.

It makes swapping eyepieces a royal pain when searching for the best magnification.  That, and coma correction is not ideal with the fixed distance of the GSO CC when not focusing at the shoulder where I set it.

[scarp15]

Certainly as said, Delos or maybe 15mm DeLite, combining both lines are largely near to being parfocal. 

[Highburymark]

I’d go Delos 14 too. Such lovely eyepieces. Though have to admit I’ve never looked through a Morpheus.

[cajen2]

9 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

I’d go Delos 14 too. Such lovely eyepieces. Though have to admit I’ve never looked through a Morpheus.

I was hoping someone hated his Morpheus, so (s)he could sell it to me! 🤑

[swsantos]

7 hours ago, Louis D said:

I'm most off-put by the cartoonish font and color used for text on the Morpheus.  I think the color was dictated by the glow in the dark requirement.  I can't think of another eyepiece using a fat outline font.

Compare it to the 14mm Pentax's refined looking metal plate and lettering that just exudes Japanese quality.  That eyepiece is 24 years old and still looks terrific!  I used it during every observing session for 18 of those years, so it wasn't mollycoddled, either.

Not sure if you have seen a Morpheus live but I was also put off by the cartoonish font and its general appearance but ordered a pair anyway for my Maxbright II binoviewer. In person they are cool looking and not at all cartoonish or low rent. The optics were so good I have since gotten two more pairs.

 

Steve

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, swsantos said:

Not sure if you have seen a Morpheus live but I was also put off by the cartoonish font and its general appearance but ordered a pair anyway for my Maxbright II binoviewer. In person they are cool looking and not at all cartoonish or low rent. The optics were so good I have since gotten two more pairs.

 

Steve

I have the 9mm and 14mm, and the overall design is fine.  I just find the font and color ridiculous.

Compare my 14mm Morpheus in the middle to a couple of actual cartoon font samples:

OR

Admittedly, the Morpheus font is nice and even with no slanting, but it just doesn't look understated or matter of fact like most eyepiece lettering.  It sort of screams "Look at me!!!".

[vagk]

I think the most immersive is ES 12mm 92°.

Does it performs well ?

 

[F15Rules]

On 16/03/2022 at 23:59, Mr Spock said:

In terms of image quality the Morpheus wins. But it sure is ugly... 

..says a large Dob user!..😋😂😂

Seriously, beauty is such a subjective thing..I often think scopes can look beautiful (as long as they're fracs!😜), but I rarely think of eyepieces as beautiful or ugly..FWIW, of the 4 I like the look of the Pentax best (not the views though!) and the Nagler the least (it's a bit small for my liking)..but really not an issue on any of them.

Coming back to the what counts factors..I've owned Morpheus 14mm, Pentax XW 14mm and the Nagler 13mm T6.

The Nagler is excellent, but very light (so not convenient match to my Morpheii and Axiom LXs).

I have an excellent Nagler T2 12mm in that spot which is much heftier and has both 2" and 1.25" capability.

The Delos is by all accounts excellent optically, but far too expensive for my wallet and has the dreaded undercuts.

The Pentax was nice but has significant field curvature at F7-F8 and, in side by side comparisons with my then Morpheus 14mm, the latter was a clear winner to my eyes and significantly wider fov.

I've since sold the Morph 14mm and replaced it with the 9mm Morph which is superb, and I also have the 12mm T2 Nag and Morph 17.5 which is also superb, so the 14mm size is superfluous.

As Don says you can't go wrong with any of your choices really. I've never used the APM mentioned, so can't comment on that.

Good luck with your choice 👍.

Dave

 

 

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, vagk said:

I think the most immersive is ES 12mm 92°.

Does it performs well ?

 

Yes.  It is just about perfectly flat of field and astigmatism free edge to edge.  It's also easy to take in and hold the view with eyeglasses.  However, it is massively heavier and larger than the other contenders listed as well as being 2"-only.

[IB20]

The Pentaxes have gone up to £299 😭😭