Zoom eye piece choice help

[White9870]

Just recently bought a SKYWATCHER EVOSTAR 120MM EQ3-2 REFRACTOR TELESCOPE.

Want to get a zoom eye piece,  have a choice between a baader Hyperion Universal Mark IV, 8-24mm Zoom eyepiece or celestron Zoom eyepiece 8-24mm 1.25.

I know the baader is the beter of the two, but is it worth the extra money?

Also want to add a 1.25 Barlow 2x aswell 

Any input would be appreciated thanks

 

 

 

[Zeta Reticulan]

Yes.

 

[cajen2]

Also check out the OVL Hyperflex as a mid-price option. Mine gives excellent views, with the only caveat that the action is rather stiff.

[bomberbaz]

Depends how much you want to spend. I did a recent posting about the stellalyra zoom and it appears from what input I received it is nearly on a parr with the baader but at much less cost.

StellaLyra 8-24mm 1.25" Lanthanum Zoom Eyepiece | First Light Optics

As for a barlow, I also own the BST short barlow, which a chunky zoom will benefit from not adding too much extra length, weight and possible flexture to the business end of things.  It is a nice bit of kit at a very affordable price. 

BST StarGuider 2x Short Barlow Lens | First Light Optics

HTH

Steve

Edited August 22, 2022 by bomberbaz

[Knighty2112]

Thumbs up for the Baader Mark IV. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[bosun21]

Another vote for the Baader MkIV Hyperion Zoom and Barlow. Perfect match.

[Zermelo]

There's a Barlow designed specifically for the Baader zoom.  Not cheap, but if you can stretch to the zoom, you might want to go for that too. If you buy them both from FLO, there's a discount at the moment.

I have the OVL Hyperflex mentioned above (also appears under various other branding). It's a very decent performer, though it won't be the equal of the Baader.

[Spile]

I am very happy with the Baader and Barlow combination https://astro.catshill.com/the-zoom-eyepiece/

[Second Time Around]

Here are some thoughts on the zooms I've used so far:

Hyperflex 9-27mm.

I compared it with my Baader during the day on my shed. Even though the focal lengths are lower, the actual field of view at 27mm is about the same as the Baader 8-24mm at 24mm. Nor was it as sharp as the Baader in my f/6 refractor. I was planning to try it on the sun with my Quark, but there were no sunny days or clear nights before I passed it on to two of my grandkids to use with the 70mm f/10 I bought them for Xmas. Not surprisingly, it was better at f/10.  Not compatible with a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector.

Svbony 7-21mm.

I tested it on a very low down Saturn, and surprisingly found that on my f/6 refractor it was as good as the Baader on axis. Sharpness fell off somewhat off axis and the field of view was quite a bit smaller. However, trying it on prominences with my Quark it was way behind the Baader, seemingly because of lower contrast. I bought this firstly for outreach rather than risking my Baader zoom. Secondly, it's very small and light, even compared to other Svbony models, so I thought it might therefore be useful in binoviewers. I need to test it further at night when my binoviewers come back from repair, but will almost certainly keep it for the reasons given. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.

Celestron 8-24mm.

The version I bought was the spotting scope one, so it might be different to the astro model. The first thing I noticed was that it was even less parfocal than my Baader. In fact, none of these 4 zooms are parfocal (no refocusing required when changing power) to my aged eyes, but might be to someone younger. The field of view was also smaller. What disqualified it completely though was that it wasn't threaded for filters or screw in Barlows (the astro model is). I therefore returned it without further testing.  Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.

Baader 8-24mm.

This is much more expensive than those above, and not surprisingly outclassed all of them, both in sharpness/contrast and field of view. It's by far my most used eyepiece, although I also own a selection of quality fixed focal length eyepieces. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.  The only downside, that's really important only for binoviewing with a Dioptrx, is that unlike most zooms the eyelens rotates when zooming.

APM 7.7-15.4mm Superzoom

I've just got this and been able to use it only briefly.  Easily the sharpest of all, but then it's a lot more expensive.  Constant 66 degree field of view.  Parfocal from about 7.7mm to 12mm for me, probably fully to someone younger.  Dioptrx compatible with adapter.

[Carl Au]

I used nothing but a Baader Zoom with matched Barlow for years. I highly recommend one

[Second Time Around]

I see you mentioned a Barlow.

The multiplication factor of a Barlow varies but 2x is most common.  Some of these 2x Barlows can also be used at 1.5x, although it's not always mentioned in the blurb, and it's one of these I'd recommend.  However, retailer Agena Astro states whether this is possible in their specifications.  Go to https://agenaastro.c...-extenders.html  These dual 1.5x/2x Barlows allow the black lens cell to be unscrewed from the body of the Barlow and then screwed into the filter thread at the bottom of an eyepiece to give approx 1.5x.   First Light Optics sell an inexpensive such Barlow under their own label that's almost certainly a rebadged GSO Shorty but priced at only £25.  It also has a T-thread for attaching a dSLR.  Go to https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/astro-essentials-125-2x-barlow-with-t-thread.html

Another tip with most zoom eyepieces is to use the lowest amplification Barlow possible.  This is because most zooms have the widest apparent field of view at the shortest focal length.  For instance, if you want the magnification of a 6mm focal length then using a zoom at 9mm with a 1.5x Barlow will give you a wider field of view than using the zoom at 12mm with a 2x Barlow.

With an 8-24mm zoom such a Barlow would give you magnifications of approx 42-125x without the Barlow, 63-188x with the Barlow used at 1.5x, and 85-250x with the Barlow set at 2x.

It would be rare to find that you'd use more than 250x on a 115mm scope.  In fact, in the UK you wouldn't often be able to use more than 250x anyway, regardless of the aperture of the scope.  This is because we're so often under the jetstream here, which leads to atmospheric turbulence (poor seeing).

[Zeta Reticulan]

The Pentax XL is similar to the Baader in many respects. The XF is basically a portable spectroscope (obvious CA) for astronomy, although excellent for daytime use. 

[Ratlet]

I've got the SVBONY 8-24.  It's a heavy beast.  I can't decide if I like it though.  But that's mostly because I usually stick my 32mm Plossl in and go with that.

The focus does shift somewhat as you change the power, but not much.

I did make a comment it had some weird flares coming of stars but I retracted that comment on the thread.  It's decent and pretty good for the price but is HEAVY

[Zeta Reticulan]

9 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

 First Light Optics sell an inexpensive such Barlow under their own label that's almost certainly a rebadged GSO Shorty but priced at only £25.  It also has a T-thread for attaching a dSLR.  Go to https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/astro-essentials-125-2x-barlow-with-t-thread.html

 

I've been looking at the pictures of that Astro Essentials shorty. I'm pretty convinced it isn't GSO. The element resembles my comparatively recently purchased Orion 2x 'Shorty'. I have no idea where Orion source from now. I also have the GSO short Barlow. The Orion has a filter thread, and the Astro Essentials appears to have one. I thought my 2x Orion was a tad sharper than my GSO. I'm really tempted to buy the Astro Essentials now to see if the elements are the same lol. 

[Second Time Around]

19 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

I've been looking at the pictures of that Astro Essentials shorty. I'm pretty convinced it isn't GSO. The element resembles my comparatively recently purchased Orion 2x 'Shorty'. I have no idea where Orion source from now. I also have the GSO short Barlow. The Orion has a filter thread, and the Astro Essentials appears to have one. I thought my 2x Orion was a tad sharper than my GSO. I'm really tempted to buy the Astro Essentials now to see if the elements are the same lol. 

Thanks for that!  

I'd be interested in what you find.

[Zeta Reticulan]

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

Thanks for that!  

I'd be interested in what you find.

OK (if I pull the trigger lol).

[Don Pensack]

7 hours ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

The Pentax XL is similar to the Baader in many respects. The XF is basically a portable spectroscope (obvious CA) for astronomy, although excellent for daytime use. 

The XL (on the right) was very significantly darker at each focal length than the corresponding XW fixed focal length eyepiece--almost the difference of adding a neutral density filter.

It's OK in bright daylight, where the light loss doesn't matter as, for example, in spotting scopes.  But for astronomy?  My advice is to look elsewhere.

[Zeta Reticulan]

43 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

The XL (on the right) was very significantly darker at each focal length than the corresponding XW fixed focal length eyepiece--almost the difference of adding a neutral density filter.

It's OK in bright daylight, where the light loss doesn't matter as, for example, in spotting scopes.  But for astronomy?  My advice is to look elsewhere.

Yeah, well, I never expected it to be like a fixed length EP. I think it was designed for spotting scopes. I thought it compared well to the BHZ however. I also tend to only use it in my f/7, 102mm Starwave. I might notice the light loss more in a slower scope, or a reflector.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Zeta Reticulan

[Don Pensack]

I noticed the light loss in daytime use in an 80mm Pentax ED spotting scope of f/6.5.

Use of telescope eyepieces in that scope made the images so much brighter it was a different scope.

It didn't matter than much in daylight use.  At night, though......

[Zeta Reticulan]

3 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I noticed the light loss in daytime use in an 80mm Pentax ED spotting scope of f/6.5.

Use of telescope eyepieces in that scope made the images so much brighter it was a different scope.

It didn't matter than much in daylight use.  At night, though......

Good job my eyes are light sensitive then lol.

[F15Rules]

9 hours ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

The Pentax XL is similar to the Baader in many respects. The XF is basically a portable spectroscope (obvious CA) for astronomy, although excellent for daytime use. 

The XF is rubbish at night, but people rave about it for solar..it's meant to be for spotting scopes. 

The XL zoom is superb, so well built and optically has a slight edge over the very fine Baader zooms. It's expensive but will I've longer than any of us will.

Baader zooms, all of them are great. I have the MKIII currently and very happy with it.

Buy either a Baader or Pentax and you won't ever need another one unless you want two for binoviewing 😊👍

Dave

[Stu]

53 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

Good job my eyes are light sensitive then lol.

Like everyone’s I guess?

 

5 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Buy either a Baader or Pentax and you won't ever need another one unless you want two for binoviewing 😊👍

 

Or you decide you want a Leica 8.9 to 17.8mm ASPH 👍👍

[Zeta Reticulan]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

Like everyone’s I guess?

 

Everyone who wears prescription shades and has had two strokes I guess. Although my eyes have always been light sensitive (photophobia), it's an inherited condition. Like high blood pressure. I've needed shades since I was very young. It's not a fashion statement. 

[Zeta Reticulan]

14 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

The XF is rubbish at night, but people rave about it for solar..it's meant to be for spotting scopes. 

The XL zoom is superb, so well built and optically has a slight edge over the very fine Baader zooms. It's expensive but will I've longer than any of us will.

Baader zooms, all of them are great. I have the MKIII currently and very happy with it.

Buy either a Baader or Pentax and you won't ever need another one unless you want two for binoviewing 😊👍

Dave

The XF has a fair few problems. I think Don has a fair point in the fact that the XL's transmission could be better, but I agree with you that it is superb. I had one of the best views I've ever had of the Ring Nebula (89x) with my XL and 102mm Starwave. 

[Zeta Reticulan]

This is my reaction to bright light ...