Your best/favourite EP?

[RobertI]

1 hour ago, F15Rules said:

I see you've just ordered the Morpheus 17.5mm..it's a cracking eyepiece and I'd agree it's probably the best of the bunch (closely followed by the 9mm and 12.5mm IMO)..

Just something to consider that might also help you in terms of versatility: you have the Hyperion Zoom Barlow, which is also excellent. Using this at 2.25x with your new Morpheus 17.5mm would give you a really good 7.77mm medium-high power (c 91x in your F7 frac with Barlow and c 40x native)..

Also, I'd respectfully suggest that you don't need both 21mm and 24mm eyepieces as they seem too close to one another..so you could keep the 24mm and sell the 21mm, leaving the new Morph 17.5mm nicely bridging the gap between medium and long focal lengths.. if you feel you need something around 11-12mm, try the barlowed 24mm Hyperion, giving 10.66mm..if you like it, then I'd recommend the Morpheus 12.5 (or 9mm if you want more power)..the Morpheus 14mm is a nice ep, (it was the first one I bought), but it does have a bit of field curvature (less than the Pentax XW 14 that it replaced in my set, though)..so I personally would go for the Morpheus 12.5mm.. (and then the 10mm Hyperion might suddenly become surplus to requirements 😱😊..

So you could end up with:

5mm (could be sold if you liked the next option below)

5.55mm (barlowed Morpheus 12.5mm if you buy one)

7.7mm (barlowed Morpheus 17.5mm)

10mm Hyperion (could be sold if you liked the next option below)

10.6mm (barlowed Hyperion 24mm)

12.5mm Morpheus

17.5mm Morpheus 

24mm Hyperion

38mm wide angle

You could potentially recoup some of your Morpheus outlay by selling the 5mm, 10mm and 21mm units.

This would also cut down your number of fixed length EPs to 5, plus the Hyperion zoom plus its' 2.25x Barlow, to give you 9+ usefully varied magnifications (I wouldn't recommend barlowing the 38mm SWA as it's a 2" ep, and if barlowed would only give you similar magnification to your new Morpheus 17.5mm with reduced optical quality).

Note also that the Morpheus are all at least 76deg fov, a couple are a bit more..you WILL see the difference vs your Hyperions!

HTH..and Don't be Scared!😁👍

Dave

 

 

Thanks Dave for the considered analysis and excellent suggestions. I hadn’t thought about the Hyperion Barlow idea and that’s a really good way of getting the most out of my Morpheus. The addition of the 12.5mm is also a compelling proposition, when you look at the range I will get. The 21mm and 5mm are looking increasingly redundant. I’m sure I’ll love the Morpheus and I hoping it will rouse my interest in eyepieces. I shall of course post a full report. 🙂

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Note also that the Morpheus are all at least 76deg fov, a couple are a bit more

The older focal lengths all seem to be about 78 degrees, but most reports peg the newer 17.5mm at 74 degrees.  Since I already have a 17mm ES-92, 17mm NT4, and 17mm AT AF70, I just don't feel a compelling need to add a 17.5mm Morpheus to see if that number is true and if it bests those.  Perhaps someone on here with one could perform a flashlight/torch test on it to determine the AFOV.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Louis D

[Don Pensack]

Ernest Maratovich has tested the Morpheus eyepieces.

Yellow means the eyepiece is excellent and stacks up against the best eyepieces.

His results show:

Baader, Morpheus	4,5	78	4	5(10)	6(14)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +13%
Baader, Morpheus	6,5	79	4	10	10(16)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +20%
Baader, Morpheus	9	78	5	11	8(14)	diffr.	diffr.(?)	6	Ast.,FC,CA +18%
Baader, Morpheus	12,5	78	5	12	16	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +14%
Baader, Morpheus	14	78	5	18	24	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +17%
Baader, Morpheus	17.5	72	1.3	5.5	12				Ast.,Coma,CA

Column 1 is the focal length.

Column 2 is the measured apparent field

Column 3, 4, and 5 are the spot sizes in minutes at f/4 in center, middle, and edge

Column 6, 7, and 8 are the spot sizes at f/10  "Diffraction" means the spot size is smaller than the Airy disc at that f/ratio.

The last column mentions the main issues with the eyepiece.  They are listed in order of severity, but note that he doesn't mention how bad the issues are.  I think they're quite minimal.  The last figure there is distortion %.

10' would be considered essentially perfect.  At that level, the stars appear as, essentially, points.

The figures in parentheses are the actual spot size including fainter parts of the star image you won't see visually.  The figures outside the parentheses are the comparative figures for what your eye sees.

 

Two focal lengths are less sharp at f/4 but excellent at f/10.  I can also tell you they are excellent at f/5.75 with a coma corrector.

Nonetheless, they are still quite good at f/4 compared to other eyepieces.

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Don Pensack

[RobertI]

8 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Ernest Maratovich has tested the Morpheus eyepieces.

Yellow means the eyepiece is excellent and stacks up against the best eyepieces.

His results show:

Baader, Morpheus	4,5	78	4	5(10)	6(14)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +13%
Baader, Morpheus	6,5	79	4	10	10(16)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +20%
Baader, Morpheus	9	78	5	11	8(14)	diffr.	diffr.(?)	6	Ast.,FC,CA +18%
Baader, Morpheus	12,5	78	5	12	16	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +14%
Baader, Morpheus	14	78	5	18	24	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +17%
Baader, Morpheus	17.5	72	1.3	5.5	12				Ast.,Coma,CA

Column 1 is the focal length.

Column 2 is the measured apparent field

Column 3, 4, and 5 are the spot sizes in minutes at f/4 in center, middle, and edge

Column 6, 7, and 8 are the spot sizes at f/10  "Diffraction" means the spot size is smaller than the Airy disc at that f/ratio.

The last column mentions the main issues with the eyepiece.  They are listed in order of severity, but note that he doesn't mention how bad the issues are.  I think they're quite minimal.  The last figure there is distortion %.

10' would be considered essentially perfect.  At that level, the stars appear as, essentially, points.

The figures in parentheses are the actual spot size including fainter parts of the star image you won't see visually.  The figures outside the parentheses are the comparative figures for what your eye sees.

 

Two focal lengths are less sharp at f/4 but excellent at f/10.  I can also tell you they are excellent at f/5.75 with a coma corrector.

Nonetheless, they are still quite good at f/4 compared to other eyepieces.

 

 

 

Thanks Don, interesting to see the AFOV of the 17.5 is quite a bit less - I’ll have to measure this myself (once I’ve learned how to do it properly!). Also no indication of field curvature or distortion in the 17.5 - is that possible? Good to know they performed well. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by RobertI

[F15Rules]

9 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Nonetheless, they are still quite good at f/4 compared to other eyepieces.

Interesting analysis.

Don's final statement perhaps deserves some clarification, due to a different emphasis in "English" and "American" versions of the expression "quite good"..

In the UK we would describe an eyepiece as being "very good" or "really good"..in other words, an impressive performer:  however, our US friends would describe that same eyepiece as being "quite good".. a term that might leave Brits feeling underwhelmed as to its' performance..when, in fact, they really think the eyepiece is "very good"!

Hope that makes sense, but this link may help.

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-trickiest-word-in-american#comments

I first noticed this difference on the US astro site a few years ago..thinking at first how hard to please astronomers in the US must be!🤦😂

Dave

Edited October 19, 2022 by F15Rules
Typo

[IB20]

I have noticed some form of aberration (I’d say it would probably fit under the astigmatism description) in the 17.5mm Morpheus when paired with my 3” refractor but it was after <10 minutes acclimation and soon disappeared when the OTA was better cooled.

[cajen2]

32 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I have noticed some form of aberration (I’d say it would probably fit under the astigmatism description) in the 17.5mm Morpheus when paired with my 3” refractor but it was after <10 minutes acclimation and soon disappeared when the OTA was better cooled.

Then I'd venture to suggest that the problem was with the scope, not the EP. An EP will only reproduce the image which is supplied to it, so if the scope's optics weren't at their best because it hadn't cooled properly, a good eyepiece would show that.

There's an analogy in hi-fi: there's no point in buying expensive, wonderful speakers if the source (turntable, CD, etc) is poor. The speakers will just faithfully reproduce the rubbish signal!

[IB20]

1 hour ago, cajen2 said:

Then I'd venture to suggest that the problem was with the scope, not the EP. An EP will only reproduce the image which is supplied to it, so if the scope's optics weren't at their best because it hadn't cooled properly, a good eyepiece would show that.

There's an analogy in hi-fi: there's no point in buying expensive, wonderful speakers if the source (turntable, CD, etc) is poor. The speakers will just faithfully reproduce the rubbish signal!

It’s the only non-regular thermal aberration I have ever seen in this particular scope though. No other eyepiece I own has ever shown similar. The XWs don’t seem to show it and they are only 6° smaller than the Morpheus.

[Padtwo]

I have had some of my best views with a 9mm circle t ortho, but have recently got myself a 7mm Nirvana which is looking promising. The world of 82 degree apparent FOV is an inviting one!

[cajen2]

2 hours ago, IB20 said:

It’s the only non-regular thermal aberration I have ever seen in this particular scope though. No other eyepiece I own has ever shown similar. The XWs don’t seem to show it and they are only 6° smaller than the Morpheus.

I don't quite understand. You said the aberration disappeared when the scope was fully cooled. Are you suggesting the aberration is somehow related to the EP temperature?

I also own Pentax XWs as well as a range of Morpheus and I've never seen an aberration with any of them which disappeared when the scope was cooled. In the scope, yes, of course.

Maybe try an experiment. Take the scope out and observe before it's cooled. Swap the Pentax and Morpheus around and see if you can reproduce the aberration.

[Don Pensack]

16 hours ago, RobertI said:

Thanks Don, interesting to see the AFOV of the 17.5 is quite a bit less - I’ll have to measure this myself (once I’ve learned how to do it properly!). Also no indication of field curvature or distortion in the 17.5 - is that possible? Good to know they performed well. 

Distortion figures for the 17.5mm are absent because not measured or tested.

NO eyepiece above 50° or so is free of distortion.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, cajen2 said:

I don't quite understand. You said the aberration disappeared when the scope was fully cooled. Are you suggesting the aberration is somehow related to the EP temperature?

I also own Pentax XWs as well as a range of Morpheus and I've never seen an aberration with any of them which disappeared when the scope was cooled. In the scope, yes, of course.

Maybe try an experiment. Take the scope out and observe before it's cooled. Swap the Pentax and Morpheus around and see if you can reproduce the aberration.

This ..... Right here.  Its experiment time and see whats actually going on.  

[RobertI]

14 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Interesting analysis.

Don's final statement perhaps deserves some clarification, due to a different emphasis in "English" and "American" versions of the expression "quite good"..

In the UK we would describe an eyepiece as being "very good" or "really good"..in other words, an impressive performer:  however, our US friends would describe that same eyepiece as being "quite good".. a term that might leave Brits feeling underwhelmed as to its' performance..when, in fact, they really think the eyepiece is "very good"!

Hope that makes sense, but this link may help.

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-trickiest-word-in-american#comments

I first noticed this difference on the US astro site a few years ago..thinking at first how hard to please astronomers in the US must be!🤦😂

Dave

I didn’t know this Dave, very illuminating, thanks! Puts a different light on things.

[cajen2]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

I didn’t know this Dave, very illuminating, thanks! Puts a different light on things.

Quite illuminating, in fact! 😉

[Guest]

Hey now.  American clarifying things here.  We say quite good too you know.  We just say very good to keep people on the east side of the pond guessing LOL

Edited October 20, 2022 by Mike Q

[Louis D]

This has been quite the interesting thread. 😉

[Mr Spock]

I normally say fascinating, but, in this instance, 'interesting' will suffice.

[MalcolmM]

34 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I normally say fascinating, but, in this instance, 'interesting' will suffice.

When my partner uses the word 'interesting' with a certain tone, I run for cover!

Malcolm 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

The Vixen SLV 4/5/6mm I have for primarily (but not exclusively) planetary use paired with my refractor are quite superb. Having gone through various low to low-mid range eyepieces leading up to their purchase, I've no qualms about recommending them, especially if you're lucky enough to find them used. The increased clarity over my previous purchases was immediately obvious at first use. I've tried much more expensive eyepieces since and was not convinced they improved the view enough to justify the £100s extra outlay.

[niallk]

10mm Ethos - beautiful performer in my 15" f4.5 dob.

Though I love the Pan24, and the N13T6 is a little gem 😉

[RT65CB-SWL]

On 20/10/2022 at 01:47, Louis D said:

This has been quite the interesting thread. 😉

 

On 20/10/2022 at 06:38, Mr Spock said:

I normally say fascinating, but, in this instance, 'interesting' will suffice.

I am going to say: It's quite an eye-opener... from the TeleVue Apollo 11 [page 1] to my 'budget' Skywatcher 2"/28mm LET|LER [page 3] and everything in between.

[Guest]

On 20/10/2022 at 02:13, MalcolmM said:

When my partner uses the word 'interesting' with a certain tone, I run for cover!

Malcolm 

Thats like when they say whatever.  Oh man you are in trouble now

[JimB1]

Televue 32mm plossl.
This is my go to when starting a session and usually I spend the most time just enjoying the views though it.

-Jim

[bosun21]

My 9mm & 17.5mm Morpheus are my most used eyepieces followed by my ES 24mm 68 degrees 

[F15Rules]

10 hours ago, Philip R said:

 

I am going to say: It's quite an eye-opener... from the TeleVue Apollo 11 [page 1] to my 'budget' Skywatcher 2"/28mm LET|LER [page 3] and everything in between.

What did I start??🤦😂

Dave