764 replies to this topic

[areyoukiddingme]

I only had the 14 Delos, but found it easier to use than XWs.

[cimar]

Last night I was able to use my new 14mm Morpheus eyepiece the first night intensively with my 10" f/5 dobsonian telescope as well as with my 72mm f/6 FD apochromatic refractor.

 

In general, I experience the Morpheus eyepieces as affordable and lightweight with flexible 2" and 1.25" barrels and a comfortable wide field of view. But in addition to their warm tint, I have to tolerate some inconsistencies. I find the 17.5mm less immersive, my 6.5mm has a fuzzy field stop, the 4.5mm has a very sensitive and nervous eye placement as well as a pronounced edge of field brightening. I find the 9mm most convincing.

 

Because I haven't used the 12.5mm a lot, I decided to return the 17.5mm and the 12.5mm and ordered a 14mm. The 14mm is parfocal to all shorter ones, has a immersive wide apparent field and bright image at the first glance. Unfortunately, the following is annoying and intolerable:

Stars that are exactly in focus at the very center of the field of view defocus to radial dashes from right next center to close to the edge (10%...95% from center to edge). I could be a combination of field curvature and astigmatism. Right at the field stop stars focus to compact stars again. The deformation starts right off-center and this is not a minor effect. It is so present that I couldn't distinguish the Eskimo nebula in the constellation Cancer from neighborhood stars.

Edited by cimar, 24 February 2025 - 12:36 PM.

[Starman1]

Last night I was able to use my new 14mm Morpheus eyepiece the first night intensively with my 10" f/5 dobsonian telescope as well as with my 72mm f/6 FD apochromatic refractor.

 

In general, I experience the Morpheus eyepieces as affordable and lightweight with flexible 2" and 1.25" barrels and a comfortable wide field of view. But in addition to their warm tint, I have to tolerate some inconsistencies. I find the 17.5mm less immersive, my 6.5mm has a fuzzy field stop, the 4.5mm has a very sensitive and nervous eye placement as well as a pronounced edge of field brightening. I find the 9mm most convincing.

 

Because I haven't used the 12.5mm a lot, I decided to return the 17.5mm and the 12.5mm and ordered a 14mm. The 14mm is parfocal to all shorter ones, has a immersive wide apparent field and bright image at the first glance. Unfortunately, the following is annoying and intolerable:

Stars that are exactly in focus at the very center of the field of view defocus to radial dashes from right next center to close to the edge (10%...95% from center to edge). I could be a combination of field curvature and astigmatism. Right at the field stop stars focus to compact stars again. The deformation starts right off-center and this is not a minor effect. It is so present that I couldn't distinguish the Eskimo nebula in the constellation Cancer from neighborhood stars.

This does not describe my experience with the 14mm Morpheus.

My usage is in a 12.5" f/5, using a Paracorr, so 1826mm FL at f/5.75.

The long focal length and the field flattening of the Paracorr is likely influential in what I see, but without the Paracorr, coma is terrible.

 

I would expect you to see field curvature in the 72mm f/6 refractor.  Short refractors have notably curved focal planes.

The 10" f/5 would display significant coma if used without a coma corrector, but that aberration would worsen right to the edge, not correct itself at the edge.

 

I have no clue about what you are experiencing with the eyepiece, but it sounds like perhaps an internal lens is reversed.

That's not very likely, but also not impossible, as I have seen it in other eyepieces.

I used mine last night on a number of star clusters that pretty much filled the field and saw sharp star images everywhere in the field.

You are describing something similar to what is called "mustache" distortion, but the 14mm does not have that, so I'm at a loss other than to suggest you try another sample.

[areyoukiddingme]

Last night I was able to use my new 14mm Morpheus eyepiece the first night intensively with my 10" f/5 dobsonian telescope as well as with my 72mm f/6 FD apochromatic refractor.

 

In general, I experience the Morpheus eyepieces as affordable and lightweight with flexible 2" and 1.25" barrels and a comfortable wide field of view. But in addition to their warm tint, I have to tolerate some inconsistencies. I find the 17.5mm less immersive, my 6.5mm has a fuzzy field stop, the 4.5mm has a very sensitive and nervous eye placement as well as a pronounced edge of field brightening. I find the 9mm most convincing.

 

Because I haven't used the 12.5mm a lot, I decided to return the 17.5mm and the 12.5mm and ordered a 14mm. The 14mm is parfocal to all shorter ones, has a immersive wide apparent field and bright image at the first glance. Unfortunately, the following is annoying and intolerable:

Stars that are exactly in focus at the very center of the field of view defocus to radial dashes from right next center to close to the edge (10%...95% from center to edge). I could be a combination of field curvature and astigmatism. Right at the field stop stars focus to compact stars again. The deformation starts right off-center and this is not a minor effect. It is so present that I couldn't distinguish the Eskimo nebula in the constellation Cancer from neighborhood stars.

Is your 14 Morpheus brand new?

 

If you aren't seeing normal field curvature and coma from your scopes, then I also think there's a batch issue here.

[rgk901]

I also only see coma in my 14 morph and my 10 F/5 Dob... my f/6 also has stuff going on in outer field...read we'd need a TSFLAT2 corrector for that in our short focal length scopes


I also don't see anything correcting itself at extreme edge vs inner edge..

but sometimes, depending on eye/head tilt you can make stars better at edges... that I noticed but not necessarily in the 14 just overall

stange indeed

Edited by rgk901, 24 February 2025 - 05:22 PM.

[cimar]

Thanks. I will reach out to Baader.

[25585]

This does not describe my experience with the 14mm Morpheus.

My usage is in a 12.5" f/5, using a Paracorr, so 1826mm FL at f/5.75.

The long focal length and the field flattening of the Paracorr is likely influential in what I see, but without the Paracorr, coma is terrible.

 

I would expect you to see field curvature in the 72mm f/6 refractor.  Short refractors have notably curved focal planes.

The 10" f/5 would display significant coma if used without a coma corrector, but that aberration would worsen right to the edge, not correct itself at the edge.

 

I have no clue about what you are experiencing with the eyepiece, but it sounds like perhaps an internal lens is reversed.

That's not very likely, but also not impossible, as I have seen it in other eyepieces.

I used mine last night on a number of star clusters that pretty much filled the field and saw sharp star images everywhere in the field.

You are describing something similar to what is called "mustache" distortion, but the 14mm does not have that, so I'm at a loss other than to suggest you try another sample.

The 4.5mm is a little as you say. I have no issues with the other FLs. 9 and 17.5mm are my favourites.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

I also don't see anything correcting itself at extreme edge vs inner edge..

 

The only thing I can think of is some sort of partial illumination/vignetting...

 

Jon

[cimar]

Thanks. I will reach out to Baader.

I concacted Baader and sent them my 14mm Morpheus eyepiece. They checked it and confirmed the problem. They are going to replace my eyepiece. Let's see ...

[Starman1]

I concacted Baader and sent them my 14mm Morpheus eyepiece. They checked it and confirmed the problem. They are going to replace my eyepiece. Let's see ...

Excellent.

I will await your comments.

[RAKing]

I concacted Baader and sent them my 14mm Morpheus eyepiece. They checked it and confirmed the problem. They are going to replace my eyepiece. Let's see ...

 

Glad it worked out for you.  I have absolutely no problems with the 14mm Morph in my 80 f/6 and 90 f/6 apos.  It works well across the entire field of view and allows me to estimate variable stars with no problems.

 

And based on what I've read, I might be the only person who likes that eyepiece!    I preferred it over the 17.5 and enjoy using it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

[Neanderthal]

I concacted Baader and sent them my 14mm Morpheus eyepiece. They checked it and confirmed the problem. They are going to replace my eyepiece. Let's see ...

Glad to see Baader is interested in taking care of the issue. I think this is the first I can recall reading about someone having to send in a Morpheus for repair. As with anything manufactured, there's always going to be a defect here or there, but it seems the Morpheus series must have an excellent record.

 

@Don - did you have many returns or exchanges do to manufacturing defect?

[25585]

Glad it worked out for you.  I have absolutely no problems with the 14mm Morph in my 80 f/6 and 90 f/6 apos.  It works well across the entire field of view and allows me to estimate variable stars with no problems.

 

And based on what I've read, I might be the only person who likes that eyepiece!    I preferred it over the 17.5 and enjoy using it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

I like my 14 Morph too. Its a turret eyepiece and is parfocal with shorter FL Morphs. 14-12.5-9-6.5 are my main Tak turret gang. 

[Starman1]

Glad it worked out for you.  I have absolutely no problems with the 14mm Morph in my 80 f/6 and 90 f/6 apos.  It works well across the entire field of view and allows me to estimate variable stars with no problems.

 

And based on what I've read, I might be the only person who likes that eyepiece!    I preferred it over the 17.5 and enjoy using it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

Ron,

I'm with you and also prefer it to the 17.5mm (17.2), so you aren't alone.

[Starman1]

Glad to see Baader is interested in taking care of the issue. I think this is the first I can recall reading about someone having to send in a Morpheus for repair. As with anything manufactured, there's always going to be a defect here or there, but it seems the Morpheus series must have an excellent record.

 

@Don - did you have many returns or exchanges do to manufacturing defect?

One, out of several hundred.  It had a scratch on an internal lens, visible when looking at a bright sky through the eyepiece.

[areyoukiddingme]

I concacted Baader and sent them my 14mm Morpheus eyepiece. They checked it and confirmed the problem. They are going to replace my eyepiece. Let's see ...

 

That's very interesting news that potentially reconciles big differences that people have seen in this particular eyepiece. I wonder if there have been variations on the issues with the 14.

 

In any case, it will be interesting to hear how they compare.

[RichD]

Glad it worked out for you. I have absolutely no problems with the 14mm Morph in my 80 f/6 and 90 f/6 apos. It works well across the entire field of view and allows me to estimate variable stars with no problems.

And based on what I've read, I might be the only person who likes that eyepiece! I preferred it over the 17.5 and enjoy using it.

Cheers,

Ron

Love my 14mm morph too, wonderful in my scope on globs. Great sharpness and contrast

[TayM57]

Rather than create yet another thread on the Morpheus, I will just add to this one.

 

I have three of the Morphii, with a 4th on the way. I plan to complete the set by summer.

 

There has been a lot of interesting comments regarding the Morphii. These comments vary widely on the spectrum. Some observers see deeper with the Morphii. Some observers think they are too dim. Some observers see EOFB in the 4.5mm. Some observers report that the Morphii don't do well in fast scopes.

 

I've found all of the above to be true, except for them being dim compared to other EPs, but I think there could be an explanation for why some observers perceive these Morphii to be too dim relative to other EPs in their collection.

 

On my 24' f/3.17 with the Paracorr II in the focuser, while comparing the 12.5 Morphii to the 12ES92 on M3 and M5. With the 12.5 Morpheus in the focuser, the blue hues in the foreground stars of M5 were readily apparent against the dirty snow white core of M5. (M5 was 46° in alt at the time of observation) The 12.5 Morpheus renders those foreground stars with a blue hue carrying a vibrancy that gives depth to M5. Immediately switching to the 12ES92, the same blue hue is present although it is muted. I would not say it is flat, but it is noticeably muted and has the effect of reducing the depth of M5. It's also quite possible that the wider AFOV of the 12ES92 reduces perceived contrast since the black field stop is further out into my peripheral vision. I cannot dismiss that as being the cause.

 

I likewise found the same to be true on M3. The 12.5 Morpheus rendered the foreground stars with a blue vibrancy not seen in my 12ES92. The dirty white structure interspersed with blue pinpoint pricks in the core of M3 also showed granular detail that the 12ES92 did not quite show, but hinted at.

 

It made me realize that perhaps some observers could be insensitive to blue colors, and therefore, these EPs would appear dim to them. I personally loathe blue light and am  sensitive to blue light. I have my monitors set all the way to 0%, and my bedroom TV is set to the lowest possible brightness setting. I also use the built in night filter in the Arch Linux OS on my computer, to reduce the amount of blue light that reaches my eyes. My classroom at work is consistently set in the 25-40% range, and thank goodness it is 2700k. This was based on my feedback during the design process of the new academic building. My most extensive feedback during the design process related to lighting in the building. I was quite vocal and passionate during the academic staff meetings about the importance of proper lighting during the staff meetings with the design team for the new academic building.

 

I've also switched out all the light fixtures in my house AND my RV to 2700k light fixtures, because I cannot tolerate anything over 3000k, as it is too blue and bright to my eyes. My house, and my RV as well, have dimmers that control the lumens of the lights. I also have the wallpapers on all of my computers set to a red hued version of the Orion constellation because it is easier on the eyes than blue-hued wallpaper is.

 

I've also found the comments regarding EOFB in the 4.5 Morpheus to be true, although I cannot say for certain it is actually EOFB and not SAEP. I suspect that 4.5 Morpheus has SAEP that causes the 70% zone to darken in relative to the edge, giving the appearance of EOFB at the very edge. When I position my eye just so, I can make the EOFB disappear entirely. This is corroborated by Ron (RAking) who has installed specific spacers on his Morphii to reduce the appearance of EOFB.

 

To show this effect in pictures, I used my wife's phone set to a cream color from www.whitescreen.dev while positioned on the kitchen island countertop. I then place my Morphii on top of my wife's phone, and I photograph the edges in my Morphii EPs. You can clearly see the EOFB effect in the 4.5 Morpheus, which is triggered by inducing the SAEP in the EP. It does appear to me that the 4.5 Morpheus has more SAEP than any of the other EPs. I will share pictures below.

 

Last night, after a period of getting dark adapted in my dark bedroom, I held up my phone set to a black screen from whitescreen.dev and looked through all of my EPs with the illuminated black screen of my phone set against the bottom of my eyepieces. Only the 4.5 Morpheus showed edge brightening under this test.

 

Pictures below. Each picture has a small subtitle indicating which eyepiece it is on the bottom left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Starman1]

The 4.5mm (4.8mm) could also be caused by moustache distortion, in which case you won't see it at night.

Personally, I don't see it, but, due to environmental conditions, there are all too many nights when I can see it in EVERY eyepiece.

So caution, before you say definitively, use the eyepiece on nights of excellent transparency.

[25585]

Of my 12/.5s, the Noblex wins.

[TayM57]

The 4.5mm (4.8mm) could also be caused by moustache distortion, in which case you won't see it at night.

Personally, I don't see it, but, due to environmental conditions, there are all too many nights when I can see it in EVERY eyepiece.

So caution, before you say definitively, use the eyepiece on nights of excellent transparency.

 

I've had several nights, mostly in late autumn, where every EP shows EOFB.

 

I'll revise my comments once I get some nights with the 4.5 Morpheus.

 

Of my 12/.5s, the Noblex wins.

 

I think it is a luxury to have different classes of EPs at the same focal lengths. I did find that as the night got into the small hours, that I preferred the ease of the Morpheus.

 

But if this were done at a class 1 site like Steens Mountain, there is no doubt which EPs I would choose- the ES92s. Many DSOs benefit from the context the 92° AFOV affords. I would feel constricted with the Morpheus.

[PKDfan]

EOFB is kinda bizarre in the 4.5Morpheus as sometimes its not there at all and other times is just barely noticeable. As far as a problem when it does show up, its not IMO.

That eyepiece is so sharp and contrasty that its occasional extremely minor EOFB is a total nonstarter and anyone who rejects it out of hand because of reports of it are truly missing out.

Perhaps other samples are more susceptible to it ?
Or maybe other eyes are just more sensitive to the occasional slightly uneven field illumination that it presents in different conditions ?
Possibly some eyes see more warmth than others ?

When i have seen it it affects only a few degrees at the perimeter and to reiterate-- its Barely there when it does manifest-- which does seem tied to transparency.

IMHO the 4.8Morpheus is a very special eyepiece with a very easy pupil to catch and keep with cutting sharpness across its field- so whats not to love ?

Lunar edge sharpness as well is particularily good in the two shortest Morphii with only the extreme FS edge losing slight sharpness.

A nice non plus ultra.

The 4.5M is my GnG eyepiece for quick lunar observations with my 62mm apo and if seeing is on i'll add a 2X Barlow for ~166X.

I must caution others that the 3 shortest Morpheus have 1 (or maybe 2 i'm guessing) lanthanum elements and a corresponding warmth that IMO paints a great tonal image for certain objects but that can mislead one (including me) into the erroneus belief that the scopes objective is tempered Tonality-wise a certain way and it wasn't until i used a Plössl that the whole Tonal 100ED truth was finally (and gloriously!) revealed to me.

As well, others may not enjoy that particular Morpheus look as much as I do, reading about others lacklustre experiences with them.

So try before you buy !


I discovered that my 100ED has indeed a pure white brutally ice cold tone instead of the overt warmth from the different Morphii i used, that i erronously believed made it seem the F/9 was tuned a particular way, instead of the balanced real view that it actually has.

So the three Morphii i have have varying amounts of this warmth with my samples showing abit more 'hotness' with the 6.5M then the 9M and finally the 4.5M with a minimal amount of this (IMHO) wonderful tint bias.

I must stress that in my experience with this tint look, weighted with more robust Reds and Oranges, it dramatically lifts into prominence details that other eyepieces struggle with and which has given me a Mars view of a lifetime @270X (6.7Morpheus + 2X Barlow).

The vivid Blues seen by others i've not noticed as much except for some barges on Jupe. I don't use them much for DSO's, just what i've mentioned.

However Mars Syrtis Major visible mix of green and blues were OMG type stuff.

It was difficult to decide and choose either the 17.5M or 17.3Delos so trying the Delos out in the store and seeing very pure whites and great white differentiation made the decision much easier despite not comparing them.

Surprisingly the Delos has a lanthanum element too but that i can only see with a 5X PowerMate observing the moon and just perceiving a slightest of yellow biases on her at 116X in Evolux.

I love the long Delos and place it on a pedestal too with its brilliantly white stars. A very slight & minimal field curvature doesn't hinder the view at all but in the interest of completeness and fairness must be stated.

That was in the Evolux, my Evostar 100ED use is extremely limited as i was mainly testing the white transmissivity of the 11mm & 8mm TV Plössls of which they both excell at.

I'm glad & thankful for my purchase of my three Morpheus but if i want a 14mm eyepiece i think a T7 Nagler is in order rather than 13.9Morpheus.

I'll definitely try out both before purchasing, when or if it happens.

A nice selection of eyepiece designs, the best of the best, has always worked out well for me rather than sticking to just one specific line.



CSS
Lance

[25585]

I prefer the 9mm in a 2x Barlow (Zeiss Abbe) for the 4.5x magnification. Having two of the 9s makes it easier. 

[Jon Isaacs]

I prefer the 9mm in a 2x Barlow (Zeiss Abbe) for the 4.5x magnification. Having two of the 9s makes it easier. 

 

What do you do when you need high magnifications?  My current scheme is to use a 3x Barlow.  With the 12.5 mm, that gives me 4.1 mm, the 9mm gives me 3mm, the 6.7 mm gives me about 2.3mm and the 4.8mm gives me about 1.6 mm.  I can fill in the gaps if needed with a 2x Barlow.  

 

Jon

[25585]

What do you do when you need high magnifications?  My current scheme is to use a 3x Barlow.  With the 12.5 mm, that gives me 4.1 mm, the 9mm gives me 3mm, the 6.7 mm gives me about 2.3mm and the 4.8mm gives me about 1.6 mm.  I can fill in the gaps if needed with a 2x Barlow.  

 

Jon

I have 2.5x, 3x, 4x and 5x Barlows, so am well covered.