74 replies to this topic

[Princess Leah]

You asked about the performance without a coma corrector.  The coma corrector does not significantly affect on-axis performance, I hope you knew that..  So why did you ask?

 

Jon

No I thought the Paracorr might help on-axis too. Thanks for explaining this.

[Princess Leah]

I tried the Baader zoom at various settings last night on the moon, with a Vixen firstscope (80mm F11).

At 24mm I compared it with my favourite 25mm plossl (Svbony), and an Ostara 25mm plossl and a Maxivision 24mm 68 degrees.

I did similar with increasing magnification.

At 24mm the Baader zoom gave an acceptable performance, but not as sharp as the other eyepieces tested. At 16mm I thought the image from the Baader zoom was average. As magnification increased I thought it was poor.

I couldn't wait to see the moon without the Baader zoom. The views through the 80mm F11 were outstanding. Especially so with the Svbony 25mm, the ES 16mm 68 and the 9mm and 5mm Celestron X-cel. I compared the last two eyepieces with the equivalent Meade HD. I thought the Meade were very slightly sharper/brighter.

 

The Svbony plossl I bought out of curiosity, as a chap on CN gave it glowing reviews. It's the sharpest 25mm plossl I have tried and the cheapest. I often use it, instead of my wider field EPs because it is so sharp on-axis.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[Jon Isaacs]

I have to think your zoom is not performing as it should.

 

Jon

[Princess Leah]

I will try another at my club.

[SeattleScott]

On axis the BHZ should be close to the performance of the Celestron/Meade 9mm. It might not quite keep up as Ernest's review indicated these are very strong performers, but it should be close anyway. Off axis I can't really say as I didn't focus on edge aberrations when I tested the BHZ.

[Princess Leah]

So I just compared the Baader zoom with the acclaimed opticron SDL V3

https://www.tringast...iece-2488-p.asp

The Baader is actually slightly better, a little brighter, a little sharper. But in reality very little difference. 

However both zooms don't compare with a fixed mag astro eyepiece in my eyes.

So I guess my eyes just aren't happy with zoom EPs. There's many people on the birdforum that feel like I do. They tell newcomers not to waste their money with zooms. However plenty others would disagree!

[TheChosen]

Everything is relative, and these days for 275$ a lot of good stuff can be obtained.

 

I got a new eyepiece yesterday for father's day, a MaxVision 11mm 82 degrees, 120$ new with shipping from AliExpress. When I unpeeled the stickers from the box, it revealed the logo of ExploreScientific on all four sides of the box. This is the same eyepiece as the ES 11mm minus the whole 'Argon Purged' which is a questionable benefit to say the least.

 

The eyepiece is majestic, stars sharp edge to edge all the way to 82 with the only thing remaining Coma.. I did not believe a relatively cheap eyepiece can do this. I've only seen it in my SkyRover 30mm which is one of the best eyepieces.

 

The reason I say this is because the Hyperion Zoom is really really bad compared to the MaxVision at the 11mm, which is very close to the optimized focal length of the zoom. Even though the field is smaller, the stars at the edges are full with astigmatism. So this is not just coma we are talking about here.

 

Long story short, today I resold the Zoom with a 20$ loss.. I think the guy got a good deal for it at 170$.

 

I'll give few more reasons on why I totally fell out of love with it, and I really wanted to love it and keep it. I just couldn't:

• Price 275$ new, even the 190$ used I paid for it. That is a lot of money. The SV191, which is very very similar to the Baader Zoom with similar AFOV (I tried it out few months ago with a friend), including the adjustable eyecup, is 68$ new with shipping from SVBony directly. I'll bet the edges performance will be very similar as well. I am getting it in few weeks and then selling my 7-21mm. Curious to see about the contrast.
• The Zoom is optimized for certain focal lengths. At 12mm the field stop is super sharp and everything is nicely in balance, this is where it has the best performance. Going to 8mm it gets muddy, going to 16mm gets muddy as well.
• In my view, the Zoom range from 24mm to 16mm is useless as the field of view is pretty small and other problems appear (see below), Plossl levels, so at best it maybe useful to only find an escaping target and bring it back to the center. For any serious observing in this range, literally any other budget eyepiece will offer more FOV and a simple Plossl will offer better sharpness.
• This may spoil other people's view of Zooms forever as you don't even know it is there until you look at it. Do this:
•  - Put the zoom into 24mm mode
•  - Put it against a bright light, without using a telescope, and enjoy the mess that is inside
• At this focal length, the focus is inside the eyepiece and the eye lens is magnifying everyting many times. Literally every single speck of dust, or hairlike mess will be easily and readily visible. This can also be a problem in real life observation if looking at the Sun in white light or looking at the bright, featureless parts of the Moon .. or maybe when using the Zoom in daylight for bird watching, these things may become visible. Even if all these things disappear at 16mm , 12mm and 8mm .. my OCD wouldn't allow me to relax knowing I spent so much money for sub-par performance.
• You may say at this point this is somehow unique to my zoom, maybe a bad piece. Not really .. Don Pensack (Starman1) confirmed on the SGLounge that this is typical of all Zooms as there are moving parts and the eyepiece is not water sealed. Sure enough I checked my SVBony 7-21mm and also has some specks at 21mm. I used that eyepiece for 2 years without ever realizing this is a problem so if you don't know, chances are you won't ever notice it.
• I investigated online and sure enough a lot of people have discovered this at the end of the focal range. Some people have returned it to Baader only to get a new one where again there were some specks left. Some have tried cleaning it and either completely failed or some poor guy ruined his zoom forever with things rattling inside. Baader sometimes puts adhesives so you can't open it. One guy managed to clean his successfully. Even if you have it pristine clear, only a matter of time until some dust gets inside through the many holes for the zoom mechanism. I am curious to see if my new SV191 will have it as well. I bet it will.
• None of these problems were present in any of my other fixed eyepieces when challenged against a bright light. I am sure there are some specks there but they are never in focus, unlike the Zoom.

The only optical thing going for the Zoom was the contrast. Baader has some really nice coatings and it seemed to me there was a tiny bit more contrast on the Moon yesterday.. but really tough to say if this was placebo or there was something going on. Again, not worth the price difference for something which may or may not be there to my eyes.

 

The click-stop is pretty good if you use it in a bino-viewer.. but for 550$ total for two Zooms, you may have other better options there.

 

And yes of course, convenience. If you are not after the best optical performance for your buck but rather convenience and light weight for your grab & go and you don't have an OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) like me for the lower focal lengths and the specs of dust visible there, then maybe the Zoom is fine.

 

Bottom line, in my view - a Zoom eyepiece is fine for 68$ new to play around as a secondary eyepiece or the super light 7-21mm for 49$ .. 275$, not so much.

Edited by TheChosen, 17 June 2024 - 05:25 AM.

[quilty]

My point at most zooms is the limited FOV. The Baader is good between 68° and 58°, say at 8-16mm .
There's a Svbony which has 57° minimum for all focal lengths.
My 8-24 mm zoom wich is optically quite ok I use as 8 mm only @ 62°

[Corcaroli78]

 

Bottom line, in my view - a Zoom eyepiece is fine for 68$ new to play around as a secondary eyepiece or the super light 7-21mm for 49$ .. 275$, not so much.

This is a very elaborated and well done argumentation. I have same eyepieces ES1182 and the BHZ. I still keep the Baader Zoom not because of its optical properties but because of its convenience. There are nights when i am too lazy to bring several EP´s on my pockets or the weather do not alllow for long observations. here the BHZ shines. Transmission is quite good and, when paired with a wide field ES 2468 and a barlow, it is the perfect combo.

 

Carlos 

[3C286]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

It's an interesting review of the Baader Hyperion Zoom (BHZ). Though I'm not entirely sure it's fair to compare it against a fixed focal length EP... A more interesting question for me would be how the BHZ performs against other zooms. It's something of a relief that the BHZ did better in your comparison against the SVBony 7-21mm zoom  .

 

Good question about if it's worth it though... I should conduct my own tests against my Celestron 8-24mm zoom on my own scopes and take a hard look at the value...

 

Regarding the astigmatism in the BHZ near edge of the field, I may be wrong but adding a Barlow might reduce the astigmatism, especially with the f/5 scope you tested it with? I mention this because I almost always use a Barlow (2x or 1.5x-ish) with my zooms. As everyone complains, the 24-mm end of most zooms is a bit useless because the AFoV narrows down. I find that the reduced effective focal length of 4-12mm and 5-16mm-ish more useful for my scopes and the narrow field of view at the long-end isn't that important.

 

 

Make the coatings that difference? The C 8-24 was advertised as "APO" super Plössl with just 4 elements.
It should have a good transmission. I have the omegon branded version and did not notice an improper light loss yet
(Quite in fact I can't believe in those just 4 elements for the zoom)

It was just something I noticed in passing that Baader Hyperions (not zoom) seemed to have better transmission compared to the Celestron 8-24mm. I haven't compared it properly so I don't know if that's the case.

 

Regarding Astroshop/Omegon's site that the Omegon 8-24mm zoom is a super Plössl must be an error?

 

 

I have five zooms and the Baader is the best I have used. Although still disappointed!

If you like zooms then I imagine the Baader is a good choice.

I feel the zooms I use birdwatching (including the Baader) are OK as I'm usually observing below 40X

I like both my Celestron 8-24mm zoom and the Baader Hyperion Zoom. But then again, I'm probably not that sensitive to optical imperfections nor discerning, which is probably a blessing financially .

 

I suppose we all have different targets we're into and we observe differently, not to mention different scopes.

 

For lunar and solar observing, I almost only use zooms with a Barlow. For lunar, I get a lot of fun out of zooming in to study features and zooming out to orientate myself. For solar, I find that a zoom is a lot of more convenient and comfortable than having a load of Plössls and swapping eyepieces around all the time. As others have commented, I'm happy to trade off some image quality for practicality and convenience.

 

 

The reason I say this is because the Hyperion Zoom is really really bad compared to the MaxVision at the 11mm, which is very close to the optimized focal length of the zoom. Even though the field is smaller, the stars at the edges are full with astigmatism. So this is not just coma we are talking about here.

...

The only optical thing going for the Zoom was the contrast. Baader has some really nice coatings and it seemed to me there was a tiny bit more contrast on the Moon yesterday.. but really tough to say if this was placebo or there was something going on. Again, not worth the price difference for something which may or may not be there to my eyes.

 

The click-stop is pretty good if you use it in a bino-viewer.. but for 550$ total for two Zooms, you may have other better options there.

 

Bottom line, in my view - a Zoom eyepiece is fine for 68$ new to play around as a secondary eyepiece or the super light 7-21mm for 49$ .. 275$, not so much.

 

BTW, I also love the click stop action on the BHZ. It's got such a nice tactile feel to it. I've had it with other nicely machined moving parts from Baader. They're a joy to use.

 

 

Apologies for the long-winded multi-part post

Tak

[SeattleScott]

Yes a barlow would improve edge correction. If your scopes can make better use of the resulting focal lengths using a barlow, then the BHZ will perform better for you. Especially if the scope itself isn’t F5 to start with.

The BHZ has repeatedly been graded higher than the Celestron zoom. There is however some debate about whether the amount of improvement is worth the large difference in price.

The irony of the BHZ to me: ultimately the whole point is convenience. Yet it is about the least parfocal zoom out there, and the barlow you are supposed to get with it is a screw on. So you spend less time swapping eyepieces, but more time tweaking focus and screwing barlow on and off.

[vtornado]

In comparison with a celestron zoom 8-24, Svbony 8-24 and Svbony 7-21 I thought the Baader was superior in every aspect for Lunar.  AFOV, on and off axis sharpness. 

 

However ... It was not a giant step up.  For the money it costs, I could not justify it and sold it.  The Svbony 8-24 was about as good as the Celestron, but the zooming feature was hard to use with gloves.  I am keeping both the svbony 7-21 and Celestron 8-24. 

 

If the Celestron is $100, I would say the BHZ should be priced around $150.00-$200 not $300.  That's my economics.

[TheChosen]

It's an interesting review of the Baader Hyperion Zoom (BHZ). Though I'm not entirely sure it's fair to compare it against a fixed focal length EP... A more interesting question for me would be how the BHZ performs against other zooms. It's something of a relief that the BHZ did better in your comparison against the SVBony 7-21mm zoom  .

 

Good question about if it's worth it though... I should conduct my own tests against my Celestron 8-24mm zoom on my own scopes and take a hard look at the value...

 

Regarding the astigmatism in the BHZ near edge of the field, I may be wrong but adding a Barlow might reduce the astigmatism, especially with the f/5 scope you tested it with? I mention this because I almost always use a Barlow (2x or 1.5x-ish) with my zooms. As everyone complains, the 24-mm end of most zooms is a bit useless because the AFoV narrows down. I find that the reduced effective focal length of 4-12mm and 5-16mm-ish more useful for my scopes and the narrow field of view at the long-end isn't that important.

Well now that I think about it, I haven't cleaned my SVBony 7-21mm in 2 years since I've had it, so maybe it will be a bit sharper with a proper clean of the lenses.

 

In either case I am getting the improved SVBony zoom SV191 in few weeks, so that will be a much more interesting comparison. At 68$ new it is a very interesting comparison, especially that they are trying to copy the Baader with this one in every way, including the AFOV.

 

A Barlow will of course reduce astigmatism but it will also reduce the AFOV. I rarely go above 8mm.. this means I would have to be using the zoom at 16-20mm range with a Barlow and suffer the very small AFOV. Not to mention that one shouldn't be fixing astigmatism with a Barlow in a 275$ eyepiece.

 

The theme I am getting here from several people is that the Zoom is a fine eyepiece, but not 275$ fine.. more like 130-150$, especially given the current prices of SVBony.

[quilty]

there's a SVbony with AFOV like 57°-77° or so while the Baader does down to 48°

[Princess Leah]

Strange thing. I just tried the Baader zoom in my 80ED F7.5. It was sharp and pretty flat across all magnifications. I was actually delighted by it's performance. Being the Mark  111 version, it was virtually parfocal. This set up makes a fantastic birding scope for sunny days (if you can handle the weight).

 

It doesn't perform like this in my F5 newts or my F6 triplet, or even my F11 Vixen.

 

This is something beyond my understanding. However sometimes a particular eyepiece seems to make a happy marriage with a particular telescope. Not sure if this is possible?

 

PS I was ready to sell both the Baader zoom and 80ED. How often do we threaten to sell a possession, for it to come up trumps.

 

PPS 700mm focal length in a refractor, seems about the minimum length to achieve a useable flat image at all magnifications with the zoom.

Edited by Princess Leah, 18 June 2024 - 05:15 AM.

[SeattleScott]

The 80mm F6 could have some field curvature of its own, as you note. No idea why it didn’t play well at F11. Are there other eyepieces that don’t do well in your F11?

[PKDfan]

I'm confused Leah,

Did you try both the Mark III & IV ?


CS
Lance

[SeattleScott]

She only specified the model once and said it was the Mark 3.

[Princess Leah]

I only have the Mark 111.  Never had any other eyepieces being a problem with the F11.

 

The problem in the F6 and F11 isn't field curvature. It's on-axis sharpness.

[PKDfan]

I only have the Mark 111. Never had any other eyepieces being a problem with the F11.

The problem in the F6 and F11 isn't field curvature. It's on-axis sharpness.

Ak ok Thanks!

Your experience is consistent with #3 design more parfocal but a slight loss of sharpness vrs the #4 as Ernests tests indicate solid gains in view quality and since coatings are the same i would say little gain in contrast.

If a club member is willing to lend you a Mark IV then with your good eyes you can confidently say ya or nay.



CS

[3C286]

In comparison with a celestron zoom 8-24, Svbony 8-24 and Svbony 7-21 I thought the Baader was superior in every aspect for Lunar.  AFOV, on and off axis sharpness. 

 

However ... It was not a giant step up.  For the money it costs, I could not justify it and sold it.  The Svbony 8-24 was about as good as the Celestron, but the zooming feature was hard to use with gloves.  I am keeping both the svbony 7-21 and Celestron 8-24. 

 

If the Celestron is $100, I would say the BHZ should be priced around $150.00-$200 not $300.  That's my economics.

 

The theme I am getting here from several people is that the Zoom is a fine eyepiece, but not 275$ fine.. more like 130-150$, especially given the current prices of SVBony.

You both raise thought-provoking points, which is what I liked about @TheChosen's review of the BHZ. I need to have a hard think and decide whether to hang on to my BHZ. I do love the way the mechanism moves though...

 

 

In either case I am getting the improved SVBony zoom SV191 in few weeks, so that will be a much more interesting comparison. At 68$ new it is a very interesting comparison, especially that they are trying to copy the Baader with this one in every way, including the AFOV.

The design of that SV191 does look evocative of the BHZ. I look forward to your review. You should have kept your BHZ to do a side-by-side comparison .

 

The BHZ has repeatedly been graded higher than the Celestron zoom. There is however some debate about whether the amount of improvement is worth the large difference in price.

The irony of the BHZ to me: ultimately the whole point is convenience. Yet it is about the least parfocal zoom out there, and the barlow you are supposed to get with it is a screw on. So you spend less time swapping eyepieces, but more time tweaking focus and screwing barlow on and off.

Yes, the BHZ x2.25 Barlow is an odd one... The second-hand BHZ I got came with the Barlow so I've been using it. It's modular in true Baader fashion so I tried turning it into a more conventional Barlow by attaching a T2-to-1.25" adapter. It didn't really work for me for various reasons. I normally have the Barlow screwed into the BHZ but it's a bit awkward finding a safe place for it when I want to unscrew it and observe without the Barlow. I'm in two minds about it; mainly on the practicalities...

 

Tak

[TheChosen]

The design of that SV191 does look evocative of the BHZ. I look forward to your review. You should have kept your BHZ to do a side-by-side comparison .

I already saw what I needed to see with the BHZ and how it rates in sharpness and edges compared to my AngelEyes 14mm and SVBony 7-21mm. Once I get my hands on the SV191 I will know how it compares.

 

Also it is one of those things that I was so disappointed with Baader and the Zoom that I just wanted to get it out of my sight and re-invest the money into something more meaningful.  

[Princess Leah]

Try giving it a piece of your mind next time.

It seemed to work for me.

[TheChosen]

Try giving it a piece of your mind next time.

It seemed to work for me.

After several peaceful nights , nope .. no regrets

[Echolight]

My Mark IV is pretty nice I think.