Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Celestron Zoom vs Baader Hyperion Zoom.

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 mark david

mark david

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2010

Posted 17 October 2021 - 09:09 AM

I am currently using a Celestron 7-21mm Zoom.  It was traded for an extra 2" 50mm.  The kind you get when you buy a telescope.

I use a 120 f/5 achromat and a 10' Zhumell reflector.   

The Celestron is about as good as some cheaper plossls I have.

I did notice that when I viewed Saturn in all positions the view seemed a wee bit darker than my individual eyepieces.  Not enough to be a real concern.

I read many reviews of zoom EPs on this forum but didn't find any real comparisons between the two.

I do like the convenience of a zoom for the most part.   I also have a 4.8nn Nagler and a 20mm TeleVue plossl.

Any thoughts or shared viewing experience would be helpful.

Unfortunately I live pretty far from any star parties (southwest Virginia).  

My skies are about 3 on the Bortle scale.

 

Thank you for your time. 


  • sevenofnine likes this

#2 Bean614

Bean614

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,258
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Mass.

Posted 17 October 2021 - 09:50 AM

The Celestron (and Meade, Orion, Svbony, etc.) Zooms can be considered 'entry level' while the Baader 8-24 Zoom can be considered 'Intermediate' (at the very least!).  70* FOV at the highest powers, Excellent Coatings, Smooth Mechanism.

I swear by them.


  • REC and ShaulaB like this

#3 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,920
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 17 October 2021 - 10:07 AM

I have an earlier Baader Mark III hyperion and it has always been excellent. I do very little eye piece observations now preferring to image so the Baader along with a Televue Nagler 31 mm Eyepiece meets all my requirements. The Baader Hyperions are excellent value for money & I have the 2.5 Barlow as well which is a great addition when it comes to needing the power to collimate the C14.



#4 Jethro7

Jethro7

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,346
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: N.W. Florida

Posted 17 October 2021 - 10:09 AM

Hello Mark,

I started off with the Celestron Zoom, and it was respectable and thoroughly  enjoyed using it.  I acquired a BHZ plus the 2X Barlow  and sold off the Celestron zoom after it came into disuse. The BHZ definatly has the edge in clarity over the Celestron and is smoother throughout  the focal ranges, allowing you to easily use the intermediate power settings. The BHZ is a little brighter in the Longer focal length settings. The Celestron zooms field of view is 40° - 60° the BHZ field of view is 50° - 68°. The BHZ's actual field of view as advertised has been heatedly argued at length here on CN, it does appear to be wider to me. The only issues that I have with the BHZ is they are not parfocal. This is only a minor issue with me and I am used to it and I dont really notice this issue any more.  If this is a issue that will bother you, the Tele Vue 3X6  Nagler Planetary Zoom is parfocal. Here is the big issue, if you are using the Baader 2X Barlow make sure that the Barlow does not bottom out on the mirror or prism in your diagonal, I had to put a parfocalizing ring on the BHZ's skirt to prevent this problem. For Lunar and Planetary as well as splitting tight double stars the BHZ is a pleasure to use and I have worn the focal length numbers nearly off the eyepiece body on mine. 

 

TAKE CARE AND REMEMBER TO KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro



#5 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,903
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 17 October 2021 - 10:14 AM

Take your pic, they all perform top of the line for the average astronomer on a black, clear nite  My stable of various size refractors (12) love them on those short, quick viewing nites, they are a great change of pace and challenge eeking out those myriad of dso's  PS:  These caused me to sell my Meade, Orion and that model of Celestron zooms

 

436A00E6-DCD1-4468-9D35-0B4EC9E5088E.jpeg


Edited by LDW47, 17 October 2021 - 10:19 AM.

  • therealdmt likes this

#6 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,145
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 17 October 2021 - 10:58 AM

The Celestron zooms field of view is 40° - 60° the BHZ field of view is 50° - 68°. The BHZ's actual field of view as advertised has been heatedly argued at length here on CN, it does appear to be wider to me.

 

 

I don't think anyone who has measured the AFOV of the BHZ has argued, we all seem to be in agreement.  

 

What I measured for the Baader Hyperion Mark IV Zoom:

 

24mm:  43.8 degrees

20mm:  48.9 degrees

16mm:  54.0 degrees

12mm:  59.4 degrees

  8mm : 68.4 degrees

 

What I measured for a Celestron 24mm-8 mm Zoom:

 

24mm: 38.8 degrees

18mm: 46.5 degrees

12mm:  54.5 degrees

  8mm:  63.3 degrees

 

Basically, the Celestron has a 5 degree narrower AFoV at all focal lengths I measured. 

 

I used David Knisely's projected beam method:

 

AFOV Measuring .jpg
 
To my eye, the Baader zoom is a very good eyepiece. It's not super sharp off-axis in a faster scope but it's quite good. The difficulty with mine is that the clicks are essentially inaudible and the stops cannot be felt but optically it is quite good.  I don't use it a great deal because of the narrow field at the long focal lengths.
 
Jon
 
Edit: Super sharp off-axis = Nagler/Etnhos

  • paulsky, stevew and sunrag like this

#7 Mitchell M.

Mitchell M.

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 391
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Mountains of Western NC

Posted 17 October 2021 - 11:31 AM

I've been using the Celstron Zoom eyepiece in my grab&go rig (at80ed/twilight I) and it appears to eliminate nearly all chromatic aberration, at least to my eye, when viewing the moon. Could be imagining it since I've never really paid much attention to the CA.



#8 bergkamp_

bergkamp_

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 17 October 2021 - 11:52 AM

Baader Hyperion Zoom all the time! I had used many different brands zoom like celestron and Orion. Nothing comes close to Baader Hyperion Zoom.



#9 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 18 October 2021 - 01:45 AM

I have the Meade 4000 series version and a BHZ. I like both, but for different reasons.

I like the meade because it it's cheap and is a perfect kids lens. But I don't use it much personally since having the BHZ. The BHZ along with the ES68 24mm is a perfect minimalist set. Add a barlow if needed and it's all you really need.

Any "better" eyepieces will get you that last 10% in clarity and contrast. Or maybe you are paying AFOV.

Otherwise it does it's job well. In fact it is essentially glued to the diagonal of my little 80 APO as my grab and go, unless I drop a wide field eyepiece in.

Edited by YeloSub, 18 October 2021 - 10:43 AM.


#10 pregulla

pregulla

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Israel

Posted 18 October 2021 - 02:22 AM

It has been mentioned before (I can't recall by whom) that Celestron 7-21mm and Celestron 8-24mm are different quality, 8-24 being the better one, so the replies that you get about 8-24 might not apply to your zoom.



#11 PKDfan

PKDfan

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 717
  • Joined: 03 May 2019
  • Loc: Edmonton

Posted 18 October 2021 - 03:36 AM

Hi Mark!

The first eyepiece I purchased was a Baader Mk. IV zoom.

As with all products there is variation in quality but I must say for mine I see no difference in comparison with my 6.5mm Morpheus.

The 2× Barlow and zoom combo at the same power has perhaps the tinniest bit less contrast but there is a couple more pieces of glass in the path.

Cant go wrong with a good quality product like the BHZ.

Its my lunar tool, with the Barlow, now.


Should work exceptional in your Zhumell 10 inch.



Clear skies & Good seeing

#12 clearwaterdave

clearwaterdave

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 27 May 2014
  • Loc: Western Maine

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:06 AM

I have an old Baader zoom (pre mark) and  a Meade 8x24 zoom and the Orion 7x21.

  The Baader is heavier than the others.,which is why I bought the Meade for my smaller setups.,

As for the views.,They all are sharp and very pleasing to view through,.but the Baader has a more emmersive feeling.,almost 3-d.,.to my eyes anyway.,

  For me they are all valuable additions to my eyepiece case.,and I use them day and night.,

These pics were taken through the Meade zoom.,

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20210717_160244.jpg
  • 20210523_082115.jpg

  • therealdmt, sunrag and Voyager 3 like this

#13 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,699
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:37 AM

Wonderful bird pic ! 

PQ: what is the name of it ? 



#14 clearwaterdave

clearwaterdave

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 27 May 2014
  • Loc: Western Maine

Posted 18 October 2021 - 09:33 AM

Wonderful bird pic ! 

PQ: what is the name of it ? 

Thanks.,It's a  Common Flicker.,the yellow shafted race.,They have a large range in the United States, from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska.,mostly in the Eastern half of the continent. 


Edited by clearwaterdave, 18 October 2021 - 09:34 AM.

  • doctordub and Voyager 3 like this

#15 spongebob@55

spongebob@55

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,420
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2011
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:17 AM

Three of us did a shoot out with the Baader Mark IV, SVBony 7-21, and the Celestron 8-24.  

The conclusion was that all were very good optically.   The SVBony was a hair better than the Celestron optically, and a touch better in regard to eye relief.  The Baader had better fov, and perhaps a tiny hair better optically than the SVBony, but the eye relief was similar to the Celestron. 

Since we use zooms toward the higher power side, with planets and the like, we decided to keep the SVBony, especially at its price point. 

So you really have to decide what you want and will use in a zoom.   YMMV

Good luck


  • therealdmt likes this

#16 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,145
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 04:01 PM

Three of us did a shoot out with the Baader Mark IV, SVBony 7-21, and the Celestron 8-24.  

The conclusion was that all were very good optically.   The SVBony was a hair better than the Celestron optically, and a touch better in regard to eye relief.  The Baader had better fov, and perhaps a tiny hair better optically than the SVBony, but the eye relief was similar to the Celestron. 

Since we use zooms toward the higher power side, with planets and the like, we decided to keep the SVBony, especially at its price point. 

So you really have to decide what you want and will use in a zoom.   YMMV

Good luck

 

What scopes were you using?  

 

I compared the Baader to the Celestron in my 10 inch F/5 Dob with the Paracorr.  The Celestron was quite good at higher magnifications, at lower magnifications, it's off-axis sharpness suffered.  The Baader was quite good at all magnifications but not quite Nagler-Ethos sharp.

 

Jon



#17 sevenofnine

sevenofnine

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,825
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Santa Rosa, California

Posted 19 October 2021 - 07:12 PM

I have the Celestron 8-24 zoom and the Baader Mark IV 8-24 zoom. If center sharpness is your main concern then you will not gain much by upgrading to the Baader. If overall performance is what you want then the Baader is definitely better. Is it 3x the cost better? Only you can answer that question. Best of luck to you and your decision! hmm.gif


  • eyespy likes this

#18 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,920
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 20 October 2021 - 02:16 PM

I have the Celestron 8-24 zoom and the Baader Mark IV 8-24 zoom. If center sharpness is your main concern then you will not gain much by upgrading to the Baader. If overall performance is what you want then the Baader is definitely better. Is it 3x the cost better? Only you can answer that question. Best of luck to you and your decision! hmm.gif

It's the little increments that cost the most. The separation between quality and sublime quality is often subtle but to buy into the privilege can cost thousands more.


Edited by pyrasanth, 20 October 2021 - 02:17 PM.


#19 CowTipton

CowTipton

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2020
  • Loc: NW Chicago Suburbs

Posted 20 October 2021 - 04:53 PM

Three of us did a shoot out with the Baader Mark IV, SVBony 7-21, and the Celestron 8-24.  

The conclusion was that all were very good optically.   The SVBony was a hair better than the Celestron optically, and a touch better in regard to eye relief.  The Baader had better fov, and perhaps a tiny hair better optically than the SVBony, but the eye relief was similar to the Celestron. 

Since we use zooms toward the higher power side, with planets and the like, we decided to keep the SVBony, especially at its price point. 

So you really have to decide what you want and will use in a zoom.   YMMV

Good luck

I have to assume you were all using slower scopes.

In my f6 newtonian I compared the Svbony 7-21mm with an old Baader MkII zoom.  The Baader crushed it.  No contest.  Better sharpness across the wider FOV and better contrast.

The MkIV should be even better.



#20 vtornado

vtornado

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,585
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: 42N 88W

Posted 20 October 2021 - 05:04 PM

A nice thing about the 8-24  Celestron is that the eyecup is removable,

under that it is threaded so an SLR can be attached to it.

 

Now you have an afocal  variable camera eyepiece that is simple to use.

No funky holder for your camera, twist and change the mag.

 

I used it during the conjuction and worked well.

 

VT.


  • sunrag and CowTipton like this

#21 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,903
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 21 October 2021 - 11:18 AM

I have to assume you were all using slower scopes.

In my f6 newtonian I compared the Svbony 7-21mm with an old Baader MkII zoom.  The Baader crushed it.  No contest.  Better sharpness across the wider FOV and better contrast.

The MkIV should be even better.

Tell that to my f4.8 and f5.4 scopes, lol



#22 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,145
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 October 2021 - 12:01 PM

Tell that to my f4.8 and f5.4 scopes, lol

 

How did you test sharpness?  I use a double and move it from the center to the edge.  I find inexpensive zooms are pretty good at high mags but suffer at low mags.  Polaris is a good test at low mags.

 

Jon



#23 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,903
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 21 October 2021 - 12:13 PM

How did you test sharpness?  I use a double and move it from the center to the edge.  I find inexpensive zooms are pretty good at high mags but suffer at low mags.  Polaris is a good test at low mags.

 

Jon

I just use the general overall quality of the views, I look at certain sections, certain objects in the view and if they look good to my eyes thats good enough, I do that everytime so that I can acertain the overall performance under varying sky conditions  What more do I and many other astronomers need, want  Whether this is that sharp or that is this sharp is all the same in my eyes  Anything more technical, more scientific is just ..........  PS  I guess I am just one of the nonpicky observers but I am picky at certain times but I haven't seen anything to be picky about the vast majority of times


Edited by LDW47, 21 October 2021 - 12:19 PM.


#24 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,145
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 October 2021 - 06:51 PM

I just use the general overall quality of the views, I look at certain sections, certain objects in the view and if they look good to my eyes thats good enough, I do that everytime so that I can acertain the overall performance under varying sky conditions  What more do I and many other astronomers need, want  Whether this is that sharp or that is this sharp is all the same in my eyes  Anything more technical, more scientific is just ..........  PS  I guess I am just one of the nonpicky observers but I am picky at certain times but I haven't seen anything to be picky about the vast majority of times

 

I don't pretend to know what other amateur's want.  When I evaluate an eyepiece, I want to have a good idea of it's strengths and weaknesses.  I do want to have a good measurement of the performance so when I say "it's sharp across the field", I can say something someone else can get an handle on. 

 

The other night I was observing Pi Aquliae with my 10 inch F/5 with the Paracorr 2, it's a 1.4" double, using the 5 mm Paradigm.  The split was still quite sharp as it drifted past the field stop. I consider that very good, especially for a $60 eyepiece.

 

When I compared the Celestron zoom to the Hyperion zoom in my 10 inch F/5, I used Polaris and it's companion.  At the lower powers, the Hyperion was able to make he split right up to the edge. The Celestron was not, the aberrations became too much. At higher magnifications, the Celestron was quite good.

 

Jon



#25 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,903
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 21 October 2021 - 06:59 PM

I don't pretend to know what other amateur's want.  When I evaluate an eyepiece, I want to have a good idea of it's strengths and weaknesses.  I do want to have a good measurement of the performance so when I say "it's sharp across the field", I can say something someone else can get an handle on. 

 

The other night I was observing Pi Aquliae with my 10 inch F/5 with the Paracorr 2, it's a 1.4" double, using the 5 mm Paradigm.  The split was still quite sharp as it drifted past the field stop. I consider that very good, especially for a $60 eyepiece.

 

When I compared the Celestron zoom to the Hyperion zoom in my 10 inch F/5, I used Polaris and it's companion.  At the lower powers, the Hyperion was able to make he split right up to the edge. The Celestron was not, the aberrations became too much. At higher magnifications, the Celestron was quite good.

 

Jon

I don't pretend either but out of all the thousands of astronomers in this world, these forums, surely I am not the only one that looks at this issue as I just posted, it can't be but I am not speaking for anyone in particular save myself  As I described is plenty good for my eyes to confirm that what I see is what I get ie excellent viewing, what more can I say  People that read my posts can make their own judgements and decisions, as it should be and if they don't care to then again its their choice  I leave it up to others to do the convincing, I am not a convincer just an experiencer


Edited by LDW47, 22 October 2021 - 03:49 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics