Baader Hyperion Modular Eyepieces

[Mandy D]

I have a Baader Hyperion 8 mm modular eyepiece, but it is currently in France, so I plan to buy another from the same range which I can use here in the UK until such time as I can get to France to retrieve the 8 mm then have both to choose from. Looking at the table of focal lengths these eyepieces can offer, I think the 17 mm is the best option to reduce overlap and give me a sensible range of magnifications with my scopes, RC6, 200P, 250PX.

Near the bottom of this linked page is a table of the Hyperions and the focal lengths they offer,

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-hyperion-1252-modular-eyepiece.html

The table below shows the magnifications obtained over the full ranges of the 8mm and 17mm eyepieces in the 200P (or 250PX) and RC6. My question is whether this results in a sensible range of magnifications, disregarding the improbable 319x for the RC6, of course and gives me a useful range in the UK for now.

Eyepiece

F/L

200P

RC6

8.0	4.3	279x	319x
8.0	5.0	240x	274x
8.0	6.0	200x	228x
8.0	6.9	174x	199x
8.0	8.0	150x	171x
17.0	9.2	130x	149x
17.0	10.8	111x	127x
17.0	13.1	92x	105x
17.0	14.6	82x	94x
17.0	17.0	71x	81x
Either	21.8	55x	63x

Edited October 7, 2022 by Mandy D
Added clarification

[Don Pensack]

3 hours ago, Mandy D said:

I have a Baader Hyperion 8 mm modular eyepiece, but it is currently in France, so I plan to buy another from the same range which I can use here in the UK until such time as I can get to France to retrieve the 8 mm then have both to choose from. Looking at the table of focal lengths these eyepieces can offer, I think the 17 mm is the best option to reduce overlap and give me a sensible range of magnifications with my scopes, RC6, 200P, 250PX.

Near the bottom of this linked page is a table of the Hyperions and the focal lengths they offer,

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-hyperion-1252-modular-eyepiece.html

The table below shows the magnifications obtained over the full ranges of the 8mm and 17mm eyepieces in the 200P (or 250PX) and RC6. My question is whether this results in a sensible range of magnifications, disregarding the improbable 319x for the RC6, of course and gives me a useful range in the UK for now.

Eyepiece

F/L

200P

RC6

8.0	4.3	279x	319x
8.0	5.0	240x	274x
8.0	6.0	200x	228x
8.0	6.9	174x	199x
8.0	8.0	150x	171x
17.0	9.2	130x	149x
17.0	10.8	111x	127x
17.0	13.1	92x	105x
17.0	14.6	82x	94x
17.0	17.0	71x	81x
Either	21.8	55x	63x

The primary issues, as I see them, are:

--how comfortable will you be in the dark to be unscrewing the lower section of the eyepiece and installing the fine tuning rings?

--the eye reliefs change as the magnifications change.  Will you be uncomfortable if the eye reliefs change?

--you will quickly learn that the eyepieces sans lower lens are not very good.  With the bottom lenses added, the eyepieces are a LOT better.

Would you be better off with the 21mm and 10mm as a pairing?

--the eyepieces will display some possibly noticeable (varies from observer to observer) vignetting with 42mm of rings added.

Could you get by without the 2 rings together is not going for close double stars?

 

[Mandy D]

On 07/10/2022 at 22:14, Don Pensack said:

The primary issues, as I see them, are:

--how comfortable will you be in the dark to be unscrewing the lower section of the eyepiece and installing the fine tuning rings?

--the eye reliefs change as the magnifications change.  Will you be uncomfortable if the eye reliefs change?

--you will quickly learn that the eyepieces sans lower lens are not very good.  With the bottom lenses added, the eyepieces are a LOT better.

Would you be better off with the 21mm and 10mm as a pairing?

--the eyepieces will display some possibly noticeable (varies from observer to observer) vignetting with 42mm of rings added.

Could you get by without the 2 rings together is not going for close double stars?

 

Thanks for the reply. I think what you have said is very helpful. I certainly understand the challenge of fiddling with these modular eyepieces in the dark as I already have one (8 mm) and it can be confusing to remember which bits go together to give what focal length or magnification.

So, if I ignore the mag provided by having both extension rings fitted and also the Baader filter, that leaves me with 4 useful mags for the 17 mm including without the first group, which as you say is not good, but I can still use that purely for finding objects and not for viewing intensively. For the 200P and 17mm the mags will be 55, 71, 92 and 111x. With my exisiting 8mm, it will add 150, 200 and 240x. I think that may be OK. I am not a visual observer, so don't want to go nuts on collecting eyepieces, hence the Hyperion approach.

As my main interest at the moment is lunar and planetary and not splitting doubles, I am not too bothered about losing the max mag offered by the 8 mm and it's lowest is only a smidge above the max offered by the 17mm. I'm also not really bothered about widefield, so the 21 mm is of little interest to me at this point. Is this now a sensible approach?

Does that look better?

Thanks, again.

[Don Pensack]

If the interest is more for high powers, then yes, it makes sense.

[rwilkey]

The Baader Hyperions do not work well in f/5 scopes, the view gets fuzzy towards the outer 10%.

[Mandy D]

2 hours ago, rwilkey said:

The Baader Hyperions do not work well in f/5 scopes, the view gets fuzzy towards the outer 10%.

Good to know, but not generally a problem for me as I'm mostly imaging anyway and my two main scopes are longer than f/5.

[TheLookingGlass]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:11, rwilkey said:

The Baader Hyperions do not work well in f/5 scopes, the view gets fuzzy towards the outer 10%.

True for most, but I use the 21mm with a 14mm fine tuning ring and with the FTR installed it eliminates EOFB, some astig and the field is now fully illuminated.

This is with a 10" Orion Intelliscope -- F/4.7, and the end result is very acceptable. The 17mm is pretty good as well. The rest are, meh.

Cheers!

Edited November 16, 2022 by TheLookingGlass