Jump to content


Photo

DO BAADER HYERIONS COME CLOSE TO PENTAX XW

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:30 AM

im hearing there great eyepieces,im mostly into the planets.thx

#2 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2008
  • Loc: San Diego Ca.

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:42 AM

No. David

#3 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

really,ok thx much

#4 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11478
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:08 PM

Next time, let's control the urge for lengthy responses... :lol:

#5 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:16 PM

i would have like a little more elaboration.but i guess reviews could be somewhat bias.

#6 coutleef

coutleef

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4053
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Saint-Donat, Quebec, Canada

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:40 PM

it all depends what you call close and in which scope.

but unfortunately they are in a different league in terms of price and performance.

#7 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11478
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:48 PM

I do agree with David though.

#8 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44725
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:06 PM

i would have like a little more elaboration.but i guess reviews could be somewhat bias.


In general terms, swapping telescopes make the big, hit you in face, can't miss differences, swapping eyepieces make subtle differences.

People argue about whether the Nagler T-6 or Delos is better than the Pentaxes, (depends on your scope) but they Hyerions are not quite at that level.

Jon

#9 howard929

howard929

    Member

  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Low End of High Ground

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:17 PM

To my tiny brain, the ES 82's for $99 make all of those $60-$70 eyepieces into also rans and the Hyperions for $139 seem like ... Well, I can't say it.

Eye relief and the annoying large FOV that some report non withstanding. YMMV.

#10 tomharri

tomharri

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2008
  • Loc: along the I-10 corridor

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

The Hyperions are terrible in short focus scopes. Tried the 13 and 17 in my f/5.6 and the outer third of the field is out of focus. The Pentax XW's work in any scope and are the best planetary lenses just like the Delos and Zeiss.

#11 Starman81

Starman81

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2115
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:28 PM

In terms of comfortable viewing experience, yes, they come close. Hyperions have the 20mm of eye relief which many of us find very comfy. Also, like the XW's, the exit pupil is not 'fussy', meaning the Hyperions are not prone to blackout or kidney bean if you look around the apparent field of view.

Viewing aesthetics, most of the Hyperions I think do not have a sharp field stop. I have the 17 and 10mm and used to have the 8mm and only the 17mm has a sharp field stop, while the others had blurry ones, which detracts from the view and makes the FOV seem a little smaller to me than the 68* that it really is.

Light-throughput wise, XW's are among the highest rated. The XW's are known for crisp, sharp views and while the Hyperions can deliver decently, some observers with more experience than myself have characterized the views as a little 'soft'. Soft or not, while doing some casual A/B/C testing with three different 10mm eyepieces not long ago (XW/Hyperion/Delos), I could see the same detail in Messier objects in the Hyperion that I saw in the XW and Delos. I was careful to choose faint detail and stars in the objects in order to have a basis for my comparison but perhaps some more thorough testing or critical observers would be able to ferret out the differences.

As far as edge correction is concerned, the Hyperions are not so close to the XW's from what I have read. My primary scopes are not 'slow', so I cannot speak from experience on this.

In terms of size and weight, they are close as well. Price-wise, big difference, of course.

#12 stellar62

stellar62

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:33 PM

I do agree with coutleef though.
Plus, the ES 82 degree is better than Hyperions.

#13 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12035
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:41 PM

im hearing there great eyepieces,im mostly into the planets.thx


IMO they are not close. Hyperions are good eyepieces and I had most of them for quite a long time in the stall and enjoyed them very much. Very comfortable to use and nice sized eye lens and wide AFOV, plus the fine tuning rings were a blast to use. But the XWs have a much better off-axis in faster scopes, on-axis they are crisper with a higher apparent contrast to the image, they are also very neutral toned so colors are more vibrant. Overall a much more refined view than the Hyperion...and of course you pay for it. And in the 10mm and shorter focal lengths the XWs are essentially as good as it gets over their entire FOV. FWIW, the XWs are the only wide fields I have used that I find much more than simply acceptable for planetary observing (I'm very picky about planetary)...they are really quite capable in that specialized observing role!

#14 Eigen

Eigen

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

In my opinion, with the prices of the ES82 line, the Hyperion is basically redundant. The Hyperion is a very decent eyepiece but the XW is a different league.

#15 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11478
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:56 PM

Compared to cameras, Hyperions are Kodak, Pentax are, well, Pentax.......

#16 astro_baby

astro_baby

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:02 PM

I have owned the 5mm Hyperion and a 5mm Pentax XW. The difference is NOT subtle its HUGE.

The Pentax is more comfortable to use, doesnt incline to bean or blackout, is sharp to the edge, has fantastic contrast.

In fairness the XW is three times the price so you'd expect it to be a lot better and it is.

#17 howard929

howard929

    Member

  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Low End of High Ground

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

I'm asking cause I don't know. Is the Pentax that much better then a ES 82?

#18 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5454
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:18 PM

In my opinion, with the prices of the ES82 line, the Hyperion is basically redundant.



I agree. The ES82s are amazingly good, unbelievably so for the price. They have made a LOT of eyepiece lines redundant, IMO.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#19 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:33 PM

thank you very much,its been years an im back into astronomy.ive been using old celestron ultimas for my work in daylite with mercury and venus.i will get a few of those pentax.one at at time an thanks to you all.my scope is a c-8.

#20 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5454
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:36 PM

The Celestron Ultimas is nothing to sneeze at. Very fine eyepieces. Originally a Baader design, made by Masuyama. Better than the Hyperions, if you ask me...


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#21 coutleef

coutleef

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4053
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Saint-Donat, Quebec, Canada

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:38 PM

Compared to cameras, Hyperions are Kodak, Pentax are, well, Pentax.......


:lol: that sums it up nicely.

in a f/10 sct. i found that the hyperion ( or stratus) was very close to naglers or even an ethos. many use the hyperions with success in sct. once your scope becomes faster or once you want to get the best view wth very small detail, suddenly the price increases significantly.. that is life,

for a designated planetary EP i would prefer a UO ortho to the hyperion. but that is very personnal

i agree with others that the ES eps are a good value for the price

#22 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:43 PM

well i do get nice images on the planets but will the pentaxes show even better.sublte details on venus i can see real good.but mercury is rare.i have seen some peculiar things in the past so im thinking a few high power pentaxes xw might just be better?

#23 ROBERT FREE

ROBERT FREE

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2011
  • Loc: SARASOTA,FL

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:47 PM

yes,they are fine but i think bill p convinced me.i get 1 or two high power ones an let you all know,but im sure most know this already.ive seen in the past many pecularities on venus but mercury is rare a few shadings from time to time an again a pentax ill try.

#24 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5454
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

I personally doubt that the Pentax XW's will show more planetary detail than the excellent Celestron Ultimas. Mercury is a real nasty lil' bugger and a C8 will struggle with it visually. I'd say your chances of seeing more on Mercury (or any planet) by getting different eyepieces is marginal at best. If you want drastic improvement, invest the same amount of money in a 12" newtonian and you'll be blown away by the huge difference. I know I was. My 12" Meade Lightbridge, with its astigmatic secondary and slightly overcorrected primary totally smokes my excellent C8 on planetary details. Well, it smokes it on anything, actually.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#25 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5454
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:02 PM

Except double stars in summer. Here I've yet to see anything better than my C8. But the new secondary for the 12" might change that.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics