26 replies to this topic

[rushhourjohn]

Possibly Interested in buying one of these two for my 8in f/5.9 dob.

Does anyone have experience comparing these two eye pieces?

(I'm also interested in the 13mm nagler t6 and the 12mm delos.)

Im not looking to spend 13mm ethos, 12mm es92 or 12.5 Nikon kind of money. plus, I'm not sure I would even like the 100°, 92°, or 102° field of view.

Mostly just looking for comfortable eyepieces that aren't finicky with eyeplacement. But I don't use glasses.

Thanks in advance.

(The APM intrigues me but I can't find too much info on it)

[StarryHill]

I spent an hour or so one evening comparing both my Delos 12 and Morpheus 12.5. Both excellent and I can say nothing bad about either one. But I can say that eye placement was better with the Morpheus -- I could get my eye into the right place easier and faster with it. The difference, though, is not huge and it could be personal and not something others would experience. The Morpheus is also quite a bit lighter which may be a benefit. Both are superb eyepieces.

[rushhourjohn]

I spent an hour or so one evening comparing both my Delos 12 and Morpheus 12.5. Both excellent and I can say nothing bad about either one. But I can say that eye placement was better with the Morpheus -- I could get my eye into the right place easier and faster with it. The difference, though, is not huge and it could be personal and not something others would experience. The Morpheus is also quite a bit lighter which may be a benefit. Both are superb eyepieces.

Interesting and im glad to hear you liked both.

Did you find the extra 4° degrees noticable in the Morpheus?

[SeattleScott]

The APM is known for EOFB due to its considerable AMD. This will especially be noticeable in light pollution. Otherwise I hear it is a great eyepiece, and it has a significantly larger TFOV (in part due to the AMD).

Scott

[StarryHill]

Interesting and im glad to hear you liked both.

Did you find the extra 4° degrees noticable in the Morpheus?

Yes, it is noticeable and all easily useable due to the excellent eye relief. I have Naglers with less 'easily' useable FOV... not that I'm complaining -- they're all good. Bottom line to me: Morpheus' offer comparable performance (perhaps even better) at a much lower price-point and it's great to have such an option.

[rushhourjohn]

The APM is known for EOFB due to its considerable AMD. This will especially be noticeable in light pollution. Otherwise I hear it is a great eyepiece, and it has a significantly larger TFOV (in part due to the AMD).

Scott

You will have to forgive my ignorance Scott but what is AMD?

[BillP]

The APM is known for EOFB due to its considerable AMD.

True.  I have both on hand now.  Views are still very nice in the APM but there is the EOFB which detracts and many do not like AMD (Angular Magnification Distortion - so the focal length changes some as you progress towards the field stop making the magnification change).  Also quite a heavy eyepiece for its size...make me wonder if it is lead lined   Beautiful build.  Overall though prefer the Morpheus.

Edited by BillP, 04 February 2021 - 10:43 PM.

[rushhourjohn]

True.  I have both on hand now.  Views are still very nice in the APM but there is the EOFB which detracts and many do not like AMD (Angular Magnification Distortion - so the focal length changes some as you progress towards the field stop making the magnification change).  Also quite a heavy eyepiece for its size...make me wonder if it is lead lined   Beautiful build.  Overall though prefer the Morpheus.

I didn't think anyone would have both.

 

If you had to give both eye pieces a letter grade. 

 

What would you give them?

[luxo II]

This topic has been done before. 

 

https://www.cloudyni...-apm-125-hi-fw/

https://www.cloudyni...eyepiece/page-4

 

... and many more links just in CN, if you bothered to google it.

 

And yes FWIW excellent eyepiece, I have one and its still in my turret despite it being a monster for the focal length.

Edited by luxo II, 05 February 2021 - 12:59 AM.

[SeattleScott]

Ok so EOFB is easier to start with. Edge of field brightening. Basically the sky background is brighter at the edge . Distracts some people more than others.

Magnification impacts brightness. I like to say the best moon filter is a high power eyepiece. Moon is too bright? Hurting your eyes? Increase magnification.

AMD is angular magnification distortion. The magnification at the edge of the field is lower, causing the edge to be brighter (EOFB).

It also kind of makes things look squished as they pass through the edge of the field. This is mainly an issue for panning star fields. If you use a lower power eyepiece to find stuff and then just plop the APM in, not a big deal. However if you start panning around, like checking out the various sections of Veil, you will likely notice the odd behavior of stars moving out of view.

All wide angle eyepieces have distortion. Most astro eyepieces tend to control AMD more and allow more RD. The APM controls RD but allows AMD, and quite a bit of it. Really doesn’t seem like that much distortion is necessary for a 84 AFOV eyepiece but they were aggressive with the field stop.

The APM certainly is an intriguing eyepiece. Shoot, a 12.5mm UWA with a larger field stop than my 17LVW? Sweet! But using such a large field stop comes at the cost of extra AMD.

Scott

[gregbradley]

I have both. But the APM is a new arrival for me and no chance to test it out yet.
The Morpheus 12.5 is wonderful. The 17.5mm is my favourite in an AP130GT scope (819mm F6.3).
But that has 24mm of eye relief. Long eye relief is a big deal as it means you can comfortably view something
for some time. It also has very little blackout. I prefer them to the excellent Naglers. I have a Nagler 16mm T5 and
I prefer the view from the Morpheus mainly due to the eye relief as the views in both are superb and very close.

The 12.5 is another very good eyepiece. I got the APM as it seems to be an attempt to copy the Docter.

I read as much as I could find and overall it is rated very highly. Super well built and solid as the other poster
mentioned.

Hopefully over the weekend I can report more. Its cloudy of course at the moment after being sunny all day!

Greg.

[noisejammer]

I have a pair of APM 12.5 Hi-FW that I've reported first and second light on here.

 

Don (Starman1) commented on this eyepiece's angular magnification distortion -

 

As I see it in my scope, the APM seems to have reduced angular magnification distortion, so most of its field distortion is in the form of RD, in this case positive (pincushion). [emphasis mine]

 

That makes it seem quite like other premium ultra-wide field eyepieces.

 

The Noblex (formerly Docter) has reduced RD, so a lot of its field distortion is in the form of AMD instead.  This won't be noticeable in tracking scopes, but is quite noticeable as "rolling ball" or "globe" distortion when the field is moving (and full enough of stars you can notice it).

 

In neither case does the form of distortion affect the sharpness of the star images, but if you've been used to using Explore Scientific, Meade, or TeleVue eyepieces over the years, the Noblex will seem quite different.  That may make no difference to you at all.

 

My scope was mounted on a DM-6 and I used the eyepieces at native focal length for 88x. Targets were the Moon, Mars, M42, IC434 under excellent seeing.  Like Don, I did not note objectionable AMD, even when panning around. Overall, it's a very sharp, comfortable eyepiece.

 

The edge of field brightening is visible if your vision sweeps a long way off axis, so it might be a problem if you're using a single eyepiece. I've had cyclone Eloise / rain / clouds since second light and haven't had a chance to investigate the central brightening that I reported on.

 

I'll run it up against several in a similar focal length once the sky turns blue. Unfortunately, there won't be a Morpheus in the mix.

[Echolight]

The APM looks like it has superior build quality to me. On the outside at least. Kind of looks like a simplified Pentax XW.

 

Just to add more confusion, I ultimately chose the Orion LHD 14mm, and it is optically excellent. I think part of my thinking was because of the 2 inch only form I thought it would require less out-focus adjustment in 2 inch mode, without using spacers or 1.25 adapters.

Real or imagined, I like the solidity of the 2 inch fit with larger eyepieces. Especially when extended in a barlow. The APM Hi-FW, Morpheus, and the LHD 14mm are all on the larger side.

And because 2 inch filters will fit.

And in part because my scopes have a little longer focal ratio, so almost 2mm exit pupil. Although 2.37 doesn't look to bad in an f/5.9 scope.
It is very good, with long eye relief and easy to take in the 80 degree field. A very sharp eyepiece.

But only 85x in a 1200mm focal length scope, so some day, eventually, I'll want a wide field eyepiece in the 10 to 11mm range. 

Although it seems just about anything can be improved upon in some way, one gripe, which I easily got past the first day I had it, is the screw up eyecup didn't go high enough for my eye. I solved the problem by borrowing the stretch fit rubber eyecup from my WO SWAN 40mm, which was near perfect.

[25585]

Echolight, I am so glad you like your Orion 14mm LHD, I find mine an excellent performer. Its good too when Barlowed, giving me an UWA 7mm. Use the Orion in preference to 14mm Morpheus.

 

I have a 12.5mm Morpheus & Noblex, also 12mm ES92. They are an élite trio! All have enough eye relief for glasses, all give immersive views and edge to edge sharp stars, no astigmatism. At the magnifications 12mm gives me, I only do slow hand tracking so am unaffected by motion issues. On the Moon, my Noblex is especially superb. For DSOs, my ES92 is in a class of its own especially globulars - with a little head and eyeball movement its easy to see edge to edge making its 92° seem more than that . The Morpheus is like a smaller ES92, or vice versa with 76° AFOV.

 

Sadly Noblexes are no longer made, so the 84° choice is only the APM now. To the OP, I recommend 12.5mm Morpheus. Its other merit is being part of a great range of 6 other focal lengths, and being parfocal with 4 of the others, they are all 1.25" fit so can be binoviewed with.

 

If 2" is OK, and you think an ES92 too heavy, the Orion 14mm LHD 80° is a good choice optically and for comfort.  

[Echolight]

Echolight, I am so glad you like your Orion 14mm LHD, I find mine an excellent performer. Its good too when Barlowed, giving me an UWA 7mm. Use the Orion in preference to 14mm Morpheus.

Yes, it's very good for the money. And the weight fits nicely with my set. Aside from the eyecup, a really solid feel to it.

 

I generally like your taste in gear. The TV-85's (though the brass might be wasted on me... I like the green). Probably should have got one when I had the chance... but giant achro was calling my name.

And the Messier/Firstlight dobs. 

[BillP]

I didn't think anyone would have both.

 

If you had to give both eye pieces a letter grade. 

 

What would you give them?

The APM is on loan, the Morpheus I own.  They actually both get A's.  I can get past the EOFB and the AMD of the APM as does not bother me (I am not so picky about my off-axis).  They both present very nice star points and have great contrast (excepting that EOFB near the field stop of course which reduces contrast uniformity).  The eye relief on both is very comfortable.  The weight of the AMP gets a little annoying for me, especially when in a smaller scope like an 80mm and moving various eyepieces in and out of the focuser.  The larger AFOV of the APM in conjunction with its comfortable ER, like the Morpheus, also makes it so much nicer than conventional 82 deg eyepiece...probably why so many really liked the Dokter when it first came out and attributed magical qualities to it

Edited by BillP, 05 February 2021 - 10:04 AM.

[SteveG]

I've been comparing the Morpheus 12.5 with my N13T6. They are very different experiences, but I have yet to conclude one is better than the other. AFOV feels very much the same, but eye relief is different of course. They are both excellent, and I will likely keep them.

[clivemilne]

I had the chance to evaluate the APM, Docter, Morpheus and Nagler type 4 side by side.

 

Whilst there are differences, they are more alike than they are different.

 

Even without cost being a consideration...  I kept the Morpheus and moved the rest on.

 

The Morpheus was comfortable for me to use with my glasses on.... None of the others could match it in that respect.  This is a function of me requiring +1.5 to see distance which effectively shortens eye relief.

 

I really, really wanted to love the Docter... but the slightly shorter eye relief counted against it

and the qualities which would otherwise set it apart weren't significant enough to bridge the distance.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the APM has different internals, it's pretty obvious that the design brief was

to make a Chinese Docter...  I think they were more or less successful in that regard.   There's a lot to like about the APM. It has an excellent feel.  It's a solid, quality eyepiece.  Subjectively, I'd put it somewhere between E.S. and T.Vue with bonus points for not persisting with the cursed undercut barrels.   I would hope Al Nagler has taken note that APM didn't get struck by lightning or contract the bubonic plague as a result of listening to what people want.

 

However, wrt to the APM:

It's my contention that they would have been better off trying to meet the original specification target:  90° AFOV with a genuine 20mm of eye relief which is usable in the real world ~ as distinct from the claimed "theoretical" 24mm which is in no way meaningful other than as an intellectual exercise or serving as advertising hyperbole.    

Edited by clivemilne, 05 February 2021 - 10:07 PM.

[25585]

12.5 Morpheus and Docter I can see all the fov but with the latter (as for the ES92 12mm), I need to press their eyecups against my glasses lens.

 

Morpheus 12 & 14mm, and the Orion LHD 14mm are slightly easier. Next easy eye placement and LER 12 to 14 is a Pentax XW14mm 70°.

 

12mm FL has a very well populated range of choices, many very high quality FL , as is the same for 17mm.  

[cloudypatio]

I had the chance to evaluate the APM, Docter, Morpheus and Nagler type 4 side by side.

 

Whilst there are differences, they are more alike than they are different.

 

Even without cost being a consideration...  I kept the Morpheus and moved the rest on.

 

The Morpheus was comfortable for me to use with my glasses on.... None of the others could match it in that respect.  This is a function of me requiring +1.5 to see distance which effectively shortens eye relief.

 

I really, really wanted to love the Docter... but the slightly shorter eye relief counted against it

and the qualities which would otherwise set it apart weren't significant enough to bridge the distance.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the APM has different internals, it's pretty obvious that the design brief was

to make a Chinese Docter...  I think they were more or less successful in that regard.   There's a lot to like about the APM. It has an excellent feel.  It's a solid, quality eyepiece.  Subjectively, I'd put it somewhere between E.S. and T.Vue with bonus points for not persisting with the cursed undercut barrels.   I would hope Al Nagler has taken note that APM didn't get struck by lightning or contract the bubonic plague as a result of listening to what people want.

 

However, wrt to the APM:

It's my contention that they would have been better off trying to meet the original specification target:  90° AFOV with a genuine 20mm of eye relief which is usable in the real world ~ as distinct from the claimed "theoretical" 24mm which is in no way meaningful other than as an intellectual exercise or serving as advertising hyperbole.   

Did you try the APM with the eyeguard completely folded down?

You can gain some effective eyerelief milimeters in that way, if you don't wear glasses like me it also provide some floating effect, this is increased if you completly remove  the eyecup like in the Morpheus eyepieces.
 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by cloudypatio, 06 February 2021 - 03:05 AM.

[j.gardavsky]

I had the chance to evaluate the APM, Docter, Morpheus and Nagler type 4 side by side.

 

Whilst there are differences, they are more alike than they are different.

 

Even without cost being a consideration...  I kept the Morpheus and moved the rest on.

 

The Morpheus was comfortable for me to use with my glasses on.... None of the others could match it in that respect.  This is a function of me requiring +1.5 to see distance which effectively shortens eye relief.

 

I really, really wanted to love the Docter... but the slightly shorter eye relief counted against it

and the qualities which would otherwise set it apart weren't significant enough to bridge the distance.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the APM has different internals, it's pretty obvious that the design brief was

to make a Chinese Docter...  I think they were more or less successful in that regard.   There's a lot to like about the APM. It has an excellent feel.  It's a solid, quality eyepiece.  Subjectively, I'd put it somewhere between E.S. and T.Vue with bonus points for not persisting with the cursed undercut barrels.   I would hope Al Nagler has taken note that APM didn't get struck by lightning or contract the bubonic plague as a result of listening to what people want.

 

However, wrt to the APM:

It's my contention that they would have been better off trying to meet the original specification target:  90° AFOV with a genuine 20mm of eye relief which is usable in the real world ~ as distinct from the claimed "theoretical" 24mm which is in no way meaningful other than as an intellectual exercise or serving as advertising hyperbole.    

"APM as the Chineese DOCTER" is actually the le mot of the day.

 

Thank you for the chuckle,

JG
 

[clivemilne]

Did you try the APM with the eyeguard completely folded down?

 

Yes,

Even with the rubber eye guard completely removed 

I could only just see the field stop with my glasses physically touching the metal barrel of the eyepiece

[cloudypatio]

Yes,

Even with the rubber eye guard completely removed 

I could only just see the field stop with my glasses physically touching the metal barrel of the eyepiece

A too risky way to see the field stop

[gregbradley]

I had a nice clear moonless (up to 2am) night last night. Semi rural dark skies and average seeing (could not see
routinely the E and F Orion Trap stars but occasionally got a brief glimpse of them).

I checked out several new eyepieces to me on an AP130GT 819mm Focal length and F6.3 mounted on a PME mount..

I had the APM 12.5mm Hi FW, the 12.5 Morpheus, The APM 20 XWA, Pentax XW 7, APM 30 UFF and a n 18mm Fujiyama Ortho to check out.

Also a Tak 1.6Q extender and an old Meade Telecentric 2X 1.25 inch barlow.

I spent a fair bit of time comparing the APM 12.5mm against the Morpheus.

Well as others have mentioned these are quite close in performance. The APM is slightly brighter.
The Morpheus a bit more comfortable to view through. Stars seem slightly tighter in the APM but its close. Both show tiny
pinpoints for dimmer stars.

Morpheus was good to the field stop. The APM was not. It showed some distortions, a bit of seagulling
whereas the Morpheus was good to the edge. EOFB is not something I really noticed but if I put my attention on that and compared it to
Morpheus there was some slight evidence of that.

Using a barlow or the Q extender the APM was good to the edge.

Overall the APM is a keeper and a good buy (it was 50% more expensive than the Morpheus) but if I had
to keep only one it would be the Morpheus. Again, its the Morpheus comfortable view that is so nice. Morpheus
has great contrast, pinpoint stars, easy viewing angles, the APM is a little bit more sensitive to the viewing angle.

The stand out lens for the night though was the new to me APM 20 XWA. Wow, what an immersive view.
The Q extender worsened edge performance surprisingly. I don't have a 2 inch barlow yet so perhaps that would work better.

The 30 UFF is also very good. It takes a little bit to get used to the very flat field but its nice and wide and sharp.

The Pentax XW 7 surprised me. Compared to these other lenses it was not very appealling. Very sensitive to viewing angle
where it would blackout quite easily. But looking through it for a while I can see why its popular. No distortion
out to the edge, good eye relief and sharp (though virtually all my eyepieces are "sharp").

The 18mm Fujiyama is very good but I am not much of a fan of the small FOV but perhaps on the moon or for planets
it would be good.

I compared it to an 8 and 15mm RKE eyepiece and it seemed similar. Perhaps a bit brighter and sharper - hard to say
as I did not spend that much time with them. But the RKE's are very good for that type of viewing.

So I hope that helps.

My favourite eyepieces now are the Morpheus 17.5mm (it really suits this focal length) and the APM XWA 20mm.

A good 2 inch barlow has become higher on my wishlist. Also a way to use the AP flattener and attach a visual back to it.
I think that would make all the eyepieces work better.

Another eyepiece I keep finding wonderful is the Masuyama 10mm 85 degrees. The central view is sensational with
a very pleasing contrast, sharpness and detail. Some star distortion further out. That corrects with the Q extender.
Shorter eye relief though but it does not blackout easily. Its a tiny lens. An optical marvel.
I decided to get a 20mm Masuyama seeing that 17 to 20mm works so well on this scope and I may be able to
get the flattener working with the diagonal.

Edited by gregbradley, 06 February 2021 - 05:26 PM.

[25585]

gregbradley, I found exactly the same with 7mm XW for viewing angle, ditto with a 5 XW. Those were sold when I got 6.5 and 4.5 Morpheus eyepieces (though XLs are OK). 14mm Morpheus is better than a XW 14 too.