74 replies to this topic

[TheChosen]

A lot has been said about this nice zoom everywhere online, so obviously I was very eager to get my hands on one.

 

The most important thing that should be stated right from the start is that I am using it in a 12" DOB at f/5 without a coma corrector. If used in a different telescope, at a different focal ratio or with a CC, the performance of the zoom may be radically different. So whatever conclusions I make, are strictly for my telescope and my use case.

 

Physical Build

 

What can I say. It is truly a well thought out, well designed, well-constructed eyepiece. I especially love the top where you can turn the eye shield in or out depending on the changing exit pupil. But SVBony Zoom (the pricier 7-21mm) already has this, so it is not unique to Baader.

 

The weight is OK for my taste , just the right weight. I also like the modular approach with an adjustable adapter for either 1.25 or 2". I love using my eyepieces in a 2" mode.

 

The changing of focal lengths is very satisfying with a nice click/stop action. Truly a pleasure to work with it.

 

Long story short, it is an excellent eyepiece in this area. This is where most of the money has clearly went in building this eyepiece.

 

Optics

 

Long story short, I remember reading Ernest calling the Hyperion Zoom a mediocre optical eyepiece in a premium package, marketing and barrel. This is exactly my feeling as well from using it at f/5 without a CC.

 

Everything is relative however, you may say you get what you pay for? Maybe, or maybe not. I was absolutely shocked that my AngelEyes 14mm which cost me 83$ performed better in every way than the Baader Zoom.. with an AFOV of 65 degrees. Of course, a fixed eyepiece should be better.. but not a fixed eyepiece that is almost 200$ cheaper.

 

So what is the problem? 

 

The Angel Eyes is sharper on-axis. To be fair, this is an exceptionally sharp eyepiece. I am talking Plossl levels of sharpness. This to me is much more important than edge astigmatism as the center is where the action is. The Baader Hyperion is a little bit less sharpt, but not by much. 

 

The edges are also quite a let down. The astigmatism at the edges compared to the AngelEyes 14mm is roughly double. That is quite a lot and very visible. I thought the AngelEyes 14mm was a bad eyepiece, now I have easily reconsidered that opinion. It was bad compared to the SkyRover 30mm , but it is an absolute winner compared to the Baader Zoom.

 

On the other hand, if I compare it to my SVBony 7-21mm zoom that costs 50$, there is no contest.

 

The SVBony is notable less sharp on axis and has astigmatism towards the edges as well, only his edges are already at 56 degrees, more like 50 degrees around the 9-11mm focal length. Here the Baader wins hands down.

 

Another bad point I see with the Zoom is that dust can get inside. At 24mm I can clearly see a small hair like dust particle which is clearly visible against strong light. It disappears when I increase the FL to 16 and higher. Which is fine as I mainly use the Zoom from 12 to 8, which will see less use as I am getting the MaxVision 11mm these days. I tried cleaning it but didn't quite make it as the dust is somewhere in the upper portion which I am hesitant to open. 

 

Conclusion

 

In my case, the situation is simple:

 

• The Baader is not worth the 275$ asking price NEW. It is however OK buying it used for about 190$. I made the right call to wait for it for a month to show up on the local marketplace. It is very re-sellable, so it makes for a risk-free choice to buy it new.. try it out.. and sell it with minimal loss if it doesn't reach your expectations.
• Even though a Zoom is not my most used or primary eyepiece, I do love having a Zoom in my now minimalistic collection for many reasons. It brings comfort, quickness, ability to optimize magnification for certain objects or simply have fun on the moon.
• With this being said. I am keeping the Baader Zoom for the time being and will probably be selling the SVBony Zoom.

As I needed to put together the bottom portion after cleaning I did manage to find on this forum the design. As can be seen, it is a mid tier design so it makes sense it can't compete with the AngelEyes 14mm which has more fixed lenses.

 

As can be read pretty much everywhere. The main value of a Zoom is comfort and convenience. Fixed eyepieces (even mid budget) remain the king if optical performance is priority. 

 

 

 

[Jon Isaacs]

The Chosen:

 

That was nice review..  I wonder how different it would have been with a Paracorr.. 

 

I have a Baader zoom that I mostly used in my 16 inch f/4.4 and 22 inch F/4.4 with a Paracorr 2..  They are operating at about F/5.06  I thought it performed reasonably well considering that I was using it to fill the gap between the 13mm Ethos and the 8 mm Ethos... 

 

It wasn't as sharp as the Ethos, no big surprise there, but it wasn't an Erfle either, the off-axis aberrations were mild in comparison to some eyepieces.   

 

Jon

[quilty]

Sorry, The Chosen

by whom?

The Baader Mark V: does it rattle when you shake it?

Q.
Loc: middle edge of the milky way

[Princess Leah]

When I compare this zoom to my most expensive Opticron zoom for birdwatching, I would say it is slightly better. But I almost never use zooms for birdwatching; not sharp enough.

But I'm glad you shared your opinion.

I can't get used to this zoom for astronomy at all. Compared to a fixed EP it seems poor in terms of sharpness.

A lot of fuss about nothing in my opinion.

 

If someone could give me a reason for keeping this zoom please let me know.

[TheChosen]

When I compare this zoom to my most expensive Opticron zoom for birdwatching, I would say it is slightly better. But I almost never use zooms for birdwatching; not sharp enough.

But I'm glad you shared your opinion.

I can't get used to this zoom for astronomy at all. Compared to a fixed EP it seems poor in terms of sharpness.

A lot of fuss about nothing in my opinion.

 

If someone could give me a reason for keeping this zoom please let me know.

That won't be me. I ordered the SVBony SV191 as it is very similar to the Hyperion Zoom (a friend has it) , only about 200$ cheaper brand new for 68$ including shipping.

 

I put the Hyperion Zoom on the second hand market yesterday.. It was nice to play with it for a night so I could make up my own mind about it, after reading so much about it.

[TheChosen]

Sorry, The Chosen

by whom?

The Baader Mark V: does it rattle when you shake it?

Q.
Loc: middle edge of the milky way

TheChosen - It is my old nickname from Ultima Online, I just use it everywhere I go.. makes things simple. Chosen by the gods of course, who else?

 

The Baader Mark IV , not V .. it does not rattle.. just a tiny bit.

[quilty]

Is there a V already, I didn't notice. So the IV rattles but not the V.

There can be just ONE

[Highburymark]

I’ve wondered for a while if Baader zooms vary in sharpness a little more than other zooms. I had the Leica zoom for many years, but replaced it with the Baader for several reasons:
- I can use it with my PVS-14 image intensifier. Zooming in on globular clusters with night vision is wonderful.
- It’s far lighter and smaller for travel.
- It’s much more compatible with my Baader diagonals and clicklocks.
- Its range is much greater.
- And finally, mine is very sharp. I rate the Baader pretty highly in my F/7 and F/7.5 apos.
It’s my main travel eyepiece. I take a TV85, and only need a 40mm plossl, 24mm Panoptic, BHZ and Delite 3mm, together with a barlow, for all astronomy, night vision and birding uses. No other zoom ticks so many boxes.

[Princess Leah]

Maybe I need to try it in a slower scope!

[Chuck2]

Great review, nice to read how optics differ among brands and individual users, important with so many eyepiece options available.

 

For me, the Baader Mark IV Zoom with mating Baader 2.25x Barlow is as sharp in the center as my Tele Vue DeLite. The edges do show more lateral color, but for my observing style, that’s a small trade off for when I only want to grab 1 eyepiece and go. I’m using a 4” f/7 APO Triplet with FPL 53 glass, if that changes my perspective. Results do vary across all of my eyepieces.

 

Eyepieces production quality does vary, but the human eye varies even more. Astigmatism, detached vitreous liners, retinal holes and tears, floaters, cataracts, and age does change the performance of any given eyepiece for any given user.  Eye relief, exit pupil, kidney bean, IPD distance and eye orbital shape impact each person differently.

 

Telescopes and accessories have always been a personal acquisition, that’s why manufactures produce such a wide variety of styles, performance and price ranges… and CN members identify the specific brand, performance and price point that matches their physical needs and observing style.

Edited by Chuck2, 12 June 2024 - 12:00 AM.

[Princess Leah]

Mmmm I will try my Baader zoom with my 80F7 ED this weekend.

 

I find the idea that it could be that sharp on axis surprising.

 

I know many birders that use the Baader, never met one that claims it is as sharp on-axis as a fixed mag eyepiece.

I don't think EPs vary that much between viewers. A reasonable amount sure. But the Baader zoom is miles off being as sharp as a Delite on axis at F5.

[SeattleScott]

Mmmm I will try my Baader zoom with my 80F7 ED this weekend.

I find the idea that it could be that sharp on axis surprising.

I know many birders that use the Baader, never met one that claims it is as sharp on-axis as a fixed mag eyepiece.
I don't think EPs vary that much between viewers. A reasonable amount sure. But the Baader zoom is miles off being as sharp as a Delite on axis at F5.

The zoom is optimized for the 8mm end of the range. But even at 8mm it still isn’t as crisp as a premium 8mm. Reasonably close though.

[Princess Leah]

The zoom is optimized for the 8mm end of the range. But even at 8mm it still isn’t as crisp as a premium 8mm. Reasonably close though.

Thanks that's interesting. What kind of 8mm did you compare it with?

[Highburymark]

I’d agree it’s not quite up to Delite levels on axis, and certainly not off axis. Nor, I should be clear, does it rival the Leica optically in any way. But in my F/7 TV85 and F/7.5 TSA-120, it’s a very nice performer. It doesn’t surprise me that it’s not a good fit with an F/5 scope. But it’s a decent option for slower scopes - particularly as a travel eyepiece.

[Princess Leah]

I've tried it at F6, and it was rubbish. Will try 7.5 tomorrow.

[SeattleScott]

Thanks that's interesting. What kind of 8mm did you compare it with?

8LVW.

[John Huntley]

I've owned and sold Baader zooms three times now, one very recently (a Mk IV). They are decent and quite useful for outreach but nothing special with regards to sharpness, even with my slower scopes.

 

I bought a cheap Svbony 7-21mm zoom for outreach (cost about 1/3rd as much as the Baader) and I will stick with the Nagler 2-4mm zoom and Svbony 3-8mm zooms for personal observing I think.

 

I must resist buying another Baader zoom in the future. The eventual outcome always seems to be the same - we part company 

[Princess Leah]

I've owned and sold Baader zooms three times now, one very recently (a Mk IV). They are decent and quite useful for outreach but nothing special with regards to sharpness, even with my slower scopes.

 

I bought a cheap Svbony 7-21mm zoom for outreach (cost about 1/3rd as much as the Baader) and I will stick with the Nagler 2-4mm zoom and Svbony 3-8mm zooms for personal observing I think.

 

I must resist buying another Baader zoom in the future. The eventual outcome always seems to be the same - we part company 

Thanks for sharing this. Makes sense to me.

[Jon Isaacs]

I've tried it at F6, and it was rubbish. Will try 7.5 tomorrow.

 

I have used my Baader zoom in an 80mm F/6 and it was a reasonable performer.. Not quite as sharp as a T-6 Nagler but quite decent.

 

Rubbish is not much of a description.  What were you observing, what aberrations did you see?

 

Jon

[PKDfan]

Strange that Leah.

I used mine constantly at F/6.45 and its image drawing is nearly exemplary.

Maybe you got a mangy dog ?


I can say use it with a 5X PowerMate and its PERFECT holding parfocality for longer and cleaning up edge disturbances until pristine.


CS

[Princess Leah]

My problem is exactly as The Chosen states in his original post.

A £20 Plossl is sharper on-axis, even a Kelner.

 

Lack of on-axis sharpness is my complaint.

Any eyepiece that soft on-axis goes into the rubbish category.

I couldn't care less about the edges if there's no jam in the middle.

 

However I will compare mine with others, as perhaps mine is a poor example.

(However the chap who I bought it from, is a fellow club member at the observatory and he swore by it, at F6!).

[PKDfan]

My problem is exactly as The Chosen states in his original post.
A £20 Plossl is sharper on-axis, even a Kelner.

Lack of on-axis sharpness is my complaint.
Any eyepiece that soft on-axis goes into the rubbish category.
I couldn't care less about the edges if there's no jam in the middle.

However I will compare mine with others, as perhaps mine is a poor example.
(However the chap who I bought it from, is a fellow club member at the observatory and he swore by it, at F6!).

Hi Leah !!

Exactly !! Everyone is different and so comparisons are mostly moot i think.



The edges @F/6.45 are not ideal but on-axis mine is very sharp and my eyes not to shabby either but sample to sample quality does exist.

And

I think your eyes might be special too !



CS

[SeattleScott]

Certainly some people are more picky than others. It could depend on what they are comparing with. There are people who use Erfle superwides at F5 and are perfectly content, even if they acknowledge that the edges of the view are a bit rough. And then there are those who question the point of buying a wide angle eyepiece if the outer portion of the view is going to be messy, and not particularly useful other than maybe some context/framing. 

 

Ultimately the people who like the BHZ like it for the convenience of zooming. Maybe they have some nice fixed eyepieces for their main observing kit, but have the BHZ and a 2" eyepiece and a barlow for their grab and go, casual observing kit. They generally aren't comparing the view to other eyepieces, or if they are, it is usually being compared with cheaper zooms. The people who swear by the BHZ for planetary viewing aren't saying it is sharper than Tak Orthos and Delites. They are saying it is convenient to dial in precise magnification to match seeing. Sometimes I wonder if they have even compared the BHZ with premium eyepieces in order to gauge how much contrast they are giving up in order to be able to match magnification to seeing conditions? Usually it seems like they are barlowing the BHZ which I hear helps, so that could be part of it. I didn't barlow it. My buddies and I felt the LVW was about 10% sharper. So would you rather have 10% sharper view, or perfect magnification? Perhaps one can have both by barlowing the zoom, but that isn't as useful for DSO. I feel like the people who like it for DSO are more the SCT crowd, where it can be a convenient option for many targets, their GoTo system can generally land targets within the FOV so they don't even need to swap in a 2" eyepiece most of the time, 8mm represents about the max magnification, and the edges should be good. But it mostly boils down to this: do you want to basically one and done, just zoom to fit? Or do you want to take a little more time fiddling with eyepieces in order to get the best possible view? The one and done folks aren't doing shootouts to see what they are missing in terms of edge correction, or central contrast. Remember they don't even want to swap eyepieces back and forth to get the best view. They certainly aren't messing around with eyepiece shootouts. They are focused on the convenience, and the views are acceptable, and that's what matters.

[Jon Isaacs]

I used my Baader Mk4 in my 16 inch and 22 inch Dobs with a Paracorr 2 to span the range between the 13 mm Ethos and the 8 mm Ethos. 

 

I thought it did a good job on-axis and while it wasn't TeleVue sharp off-axis, it was decent. I eventually purchased a 10 mm Ethos which was a better fit.

 

Jon

[turtle86]

The Chosen:

 

That was nice review..  I wonder how different it would have been with a Paracorr.. 

 

I have a Baader zoom that I mostly used in my 16 inch f/4.4 and 22 inch F/4.4 with a Paracorr 2..  They are operating at about F/5.06  I thought it performed reasonably well considering that I was using it to fill the gap between the 13mm Ethos and the 8 mm Ethos... 

 

It wasn't as sharp as the Ethos, no big surprise there, but it wasn't an Erfle either, the off-axis aberrations were mild in comparison to some eyepieces.   

 

Jon

 

My experience is similar to yours and also wonder if the results would've been different had the zoom been paired with a coma corrector. I find coma very noticeable at f/5.

 

I have a Baader zoom that I use mostly with a GSO coma corrector in an f/4.7 Orion XT10i.  I've also used it in my Starmaster Dobs. The Baader zoom isn't as sharp as fixed length Ethos or Nagler eyepieces, but the views are certainly pleasant enough. I did a side-by-side with the Celestron zoom and the Baader was clearly superior as one would expect.

 

I really like the convenience of the Baader zoom for a short observing session or for when I'm sharing the scope with friends or family.  I think it's actually a pretty good buy for what it does at its mid-range price point.  By most accounts the Leica zoom is the best but it's over three times more expensive and has a narrower range.