45 replies to this topic

[Sarkikos]

OK.  I finally succumbed to the positive field reports of the optical performance of the Baader Morpheus eyepieces, as well as their smaller size and lighter weight compared to 100-degree eyepieces.  Within the last couple months, I've bought three Morpheus used and the other three new.   I intended to buy all six used, but I got tired of waiting for them to pop up.  When they did pop up, other buyers usually beat me to them, sometimes within just an hour or two of my offering to buy them.  

 

Now I have a complete set of Morpheus.  I'll still keep my 100-degree eyepieces, or at least most of them.  I'll probably sell the largest and heaviest, as well as my 31 Nagler and 41 Pan.  Not because anything is wrong with their optical performance, but entirely because of their size and weight. 

 

Case in point:  my Pelican 1550 case of 100-degree eyepieces weighs 35 lbs.  That's a lot to lug outside by the handle and hoist up onto an equipment table.   But I don't feel like dividing these eyepieces into two cases.  In fact, I mostly just bring out a small subset of them in a smaller equipment bag for observing sessions.

 

Now I want to load the full set of Morpheus and a few other eyepieces into one case.  I recently bought an Apache 3800 case from Harbor Freight Tools for this purpose.  Here are the eyepieces I intend to set up in the 3800 case:

 

2.5 Nagler

3.5 Nagler

4.5 Morpheus

6.5 Morpheus

9 Morpheus

12.5 Morpheus

14 Morpheus

17.5 Morpheus

24 UFF

30 UFF

34 ES 68-Degree

40 Titan II-ED or 40 XW

 

I already have all these eyepieces, so I have nothing else to buy.   They certainly cover a wide range of focal lengths.  They all have AFOVs between about 65 degrees and 82 degrees.  I don't want to go wider or narrower than that.

 

The total weight of all these eyepieces in the 3800 case is 16 lbs.  That's less than half the weight of the 100-degree eyepieces in the bigger Pelican 1550 case.

 

The intended objects for this set of eyepieces will be deep sky, planets, lunar, double stars.  In other words, everything except solar.  I don't do solar ... yet.  The intended telescopes for this set of eyepieces will be just about every telescope in my sig that can handle them. 

 

Any comments or suggestions?  Should I leave out some eyepieces?  Should I substitute other eyepieces for some in my list?  I haven't plucked out the foam yet, so I still have time to decide exactly what eyepieces I'll put in the case with the Morpheus.  

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 07:53 AM.

[Neanderthal]

Sweet! I think you will tire of the pluck foam, but it'll work for a little while. I don't see how you could fit all your EP's into a 3500. Here's my Apache 3800 with the following:

 

30mm UFF

17.5mm

12.5mm

9mm

6.5mm

2" UHC/Oiii/CB/M&S/ND filters

1.25" TuBlug

1.25" laser

2" Cheshire

VIP Barlow

 

I removed the pluck foam and went with DYI TrekPak. Been very happy with it!

 

Corrective edit... I have the 3800. Regardless of size though, the TrekPak conversion is still valid.  

Edited by Neanderthal, 07 August 2024 - 10:13 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Sweet! I think you will tire of the pluck foam, but it'll work for a little while. I don't see how you could fit all your EP's into a 3500. Here's my 3500 with the following:

 

30mm UFF

17.5mm

12.5mm

9mm

6.5mm

2" UHC/Oiii/CB/M&S/ND filters

1.25" TuBlug

1.25" laser

2" Cheshire

VIP Barlow

 

I removed the pluck foam and went with DYI TrekPak. Been very happy with it!

CN TrekPak.jpg

 

edit... I need to verify exactly which case I have - it might not be the 3500. I'll correct this post this evening. Regardless of size though, the TrekPak conversion is still valid.  

You can save a lot of space by storing eyepieces vertically.  I keep the eyepieces in focal length order, so I don't need to see the side of an eyepiece to know what focal length it is.

 

Storing eyepiece vertically allows you to store more in the case.  But it also increases the weight.  That's why my Pelican 1550 case of 100-degree eyepieces is 35 lbs!  The Morpheus 3800 case will only be 16 lbs.  That's not bad.

 

I've never used anything but pluck foam in all my cases.  It doesn't stand up well for the bigger, heavier eyepieces.  But I'm reluctant to get something more expensive and more permanent.   I might change my mind later about which eyepieces I want to put in a case.  It's easy to remove or insert pluck-foam pieces as you make changes.  A little Elmer's glue or similar is all you need to keep inserted pieces of foam attached to surrounding pieces.

 

The Apache 3800 case is the one from Harbor Freight Tools.   I've also used their 4800, 2800 and 1800 cases. 

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 07 August 2024 - 08:18 PM.

[Migwan]

Definitely a rugged case.  I stand my EPs up in a 3800.  Like that.   Maybe a bit tight on the E13.

 

Precautionary tail.   Too much stuff inside can make it quite heavy.

 

Save some of the pluck for future maintenance and or changes.     The foam is (or was in mine) over-cut and wants to come undone here and there.   Any changes are on you.    

[Neanderthal]

I changed my post - it is indeed the 3800. I think I tried to stand them vertically and a couple didn't fit. I've got all I want in there anyway. 

[SeattleScott]

I would only include one of the 30UFF and 34ES. Too close in magnification and field of view. Just decide which one you like best and go with it. Arguably the 30mm is a better gap fit between 24 and 40, if you care. 

 

Otherwise it looks like a good lineup. Personally I would have skipped over the 14mm but you bought it so might as well make a place for it and see if you use it.

[Exnihilo]

So far pluck foam has worked OK for me, even though I’m not a huge fan, it’s obviously easy to work with. I’m using a Morpheus case and two other comparable size cases. 

[Sarkikos]

I would only include one of the 30UFF and 34ES. Too close in magnification and field of view. Just decide which one you like best and go with it. Arguably the 30mm is a better gap fit between 24 and 40, if you care. 

 

Otherwise it looks like a good lineup. Personally I would have skipped over the 14mm but you bought it so might as well make a place for it and see if you use it.

Yes, I thought about thinning out the long focal-length area of the case.   Choosing either the 30 UFF or the 34 ES-68 and leaving the other out might make sense.   But since I have the 34 ES-68, and it would fit in the case, and the focal length is about halfway between the 30 and the 40, I kept it in.

 

I also have the 28 UWA.  It is 82 degrees but is even bigger than the 34 ES-68 and is too close to the 30 UFF in focal length.   On the other hand, if I put in the 28 UWA and leave out the 34 ES-68, the focal length spacing toward the long end might make more sense:  24 28 40.  Or maybe not.

 

I wanted the complete set of Morpheus, which is why I included the 14.  I know some have said the 14 between the 12.5 and 17.5 is not necessary or at least not optimal, but I don't necessarily see it that way. 

 

An option in a different direction would be to take out the 34 ES-68 and put in my 55 TV Plossl on the other side of the 40 XW.   I don't know how often I would use it, though.  But then, how often would I use the 2.5 and 3.5 Naglers?   Maybe better to have it in the field when you do need it? 

 

Also, the 55 TV Plossl's AFOV is only 50 degrees, below my intended AFOV range for this set.  But I can break my own rules if I want to!    

 

Alternatively, in the space for the longest focal length, I could put in a 48 Brandon or a 60 Masuyama, depending on what telescope I'm using and what I want to observe during a session.  The 48 Brandon has a 68-degree AFOV, the 60 Masu has 46 degrees.  

 

About different eyepieces having the same field of view:  Toward the long focal-length end, this is pretty much par for the course.  Often, eyepieces with different focal lengths will have different AFOVs but virtually the same TFOV.  But the essential difference would be in the exit pupil.  A wider exit pupil can be useful, for instance, with some filters when observing some DSO.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 07 August 2024 - 09:13 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Here's my schematic for the original layout for the case.   Notice that since the eyepieces are put in vertically, there's plenty of space between them.

 

Mike

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sarkikos]

40 AT Titan-II ED or 40 XW in the case?  The Titan-II has a 68-degree AFOV.  The XW has 70 degrees.  The XW is bigger and heavier.  Which should I choose?

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 07 August 2024 - 09:18 PM.

[Exnihilo]

Here's my schematic for the original layout for the case.   Notice that since the eyepieces are put in vertically, there's plenty of space between them.

 

Mike

Lol, I never even thought of laying out a plan for eyepiece location in a case. That’s a great idea!

[25585]

My case has 6 Morpheus, a 30 UFF, a 2x Barlow, and a space for filters which can be used for an extra optic if wanted.

[Retentive]

Ive got 3 Morpheus, 35 Panoptic, 2x Barlow, 4.7 ES 82, 16 ES 68, 20 TV Plossl and a 2 inch TV diagonal (i have 2 so extra is in case. All in a Storm 2300. But as you will find out, mine needs redoing because my collection evolved.

[AaronF]

OK. I finally succumbed to the positive field reports of the optical performance of the Baader Morpheus eyepieces, as well as their smaller size and lighter weight compared to 100-degree eyepieces. Within the last couple months, I've bought three Morpheus used and the other three new.

:o :o :o
Omg you joined the Morpheus club! I never thought I'd see the day
Now you can talk about *knowing* what they're like
(I'm joking of course)

[CrazyPanda]

Lol, I never even thought of laying out a plan for eyepiece location in a case. That’s a great idea!

Take it to the extreme and use the plan as a cutting template

 

[Neanderthal]

Take it to the extreme and use the plan as a cutting template

 

gallery_212818_19394_246680.jpg

Are you cutting Kaizan foam? Can you cut the foam that precise, or is someone else cutting it (laser) for a fee?

Edited by Neanderthal, 08 August 2024 - 07:32 AM.

[CrazyPanda]

Are you cutting Kaizan foam? Can you cu the foam that precise, or is someone else cutting it (laser) for a fee?

Yep, it's Kaizan, and if you have a template to go by, you can cut it extremely precisely by hand - it's quite easy. I use a simple 9mm snap blade knife for the cutting. Sharp blades are the key. I recommend Olfa blades. If you have tight corners to get into, usually you can start the cut in the waste part of the foam, though I typically take some liberty with the templates and don't cut all the smaller details as it's not necessary. I need to go back to my templates and refine them to remove unnecessary details (the lip on 4.7mm and 3.7mm ethos, as well as the step down from the dust caps to the barrels for instance). You CAN cut those if you want, but it's really not that important and actually makes it harder to get the eyepiece out anyway.

 

For the round holes, I use various cans/tubes I sharpened with a file.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 08 August 2024 - 07:37 AM.

[Sarkikos]

Ive got 3 Morpheus, 35 Panoptic, 2x Barlow, 4.7 ES 82, 16 ES 68, 20 TV Plossl and a 2 inch TV diagonal (i have 2 so extra is in case. All in a Storm 2300. But as you will find out, mine needs redoing because my collection evolved.

My 34 ES 68-Degree is a near equivalent of the 35 Pan.  They are also about the same size and weight.  When I bought the ES, it was less expensive than it is now.  Now it's only $9 less than the Pan.   If I were to buy one of the two at this time, I'd probably get the Pan instead of the ES.  ES has gone crazy with some of their prices.  

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

Take it to the extreme and use the plan as a cutting template

 

gallery_212818_19394_246680.jpg

That's a little more work than my basic laziness will allow.      The outlines are simpler if you set the eyepieces vertically.

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

Yep, it's Kaizan, and if you have a template to go by, you can cut it extremely precisely by hand - it's quite easy. I use a simple 9mm snap blade knife for the cutting. Sharp blades are the key. I recommend Olfa blades. If you have tight corners to get into, usually you can start the cut in the waste part of the foam, though I typically take some liberty with the templates and don't cut all the smaller details as it's not necessary. I need to go back to my templates and refine them to remove unnecessary details (the lip on 4.7mm and 3.7mm ethos, as well as the step down from the dust caps to the barrels for instance). You CAN cut those if you want, but it's really not that important and actually makes it harder to get the eyepiece out anyway.

 

For the round holes, I use various cans/tubes I sharpened with a file.

Yeah, I imagine it'd be easier to remove/insert the eyepieces if you just made the cuts straight as a basic rectangle rather than cutting in all the little nooks and crannies.  At least that would be my excuse for not putting in the extra work. 

 

Mike

[SeattleScott]

40 AT Titan-II ED or 40 XW in the case? The Titan-II has a 68-degree AFOV. The XW has 70 degrees. The XW is bigger and heavier. Which should I choose?

Mike

Which one performs better? I assume the XW performs significantly better, based on price.

[Sarkikos]

Which one performs better? I assume the XW performs significantly better, based on price.

You can't base performance on price.  Well, you can but you shouldn't. 

 

I haven't used the 40 Titan-II ED in years.  I've only used the 40 XW in my Cats and slow refractors.  I would need to compare them in a good, fast scope, maybe the NP101is or an f/5 Newt with a Paracorr.

 

Practically speaking in terms of fitting out the case, the 40 XW is wider and would need a larger hole in the foam.  The 40 XW is also heavier than the 40 Titan-II, 24.7 oz vs 18 oz.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 08:53 AM.

[f18dad]

I used the Apache 4800 for my set including adapters and 30mm APM UFF stowed vertically.

 

I prefer my eyepieces in the recumbent position for several reasons: 1) I don't like having to dig my fingers deeply in to pull them out. 2.) When you do pull them out from the vertical position the lens caps are more likely to disengage and the foam sometimes gets pulled out along with the eyepiece. Then you have to extract the lens caps from the deep cavity below, if they haven't fallen out of the case altogether. Hence the rubber band as shown around the UFF. 3.) It's easier to see and stow the lens caps in the horizontal cavity when they are not not in use. 4.) Stowing in the vertical position means you will put more eyepieces in the case which leads to more weight. 5.) Some eyepieces are too long and will not have enough padding on top or bottom, or will have too much pressure placed on their ends, or you may not be able to close the case at all. Anyway something like this configuration works well for me. I just eyeballed it. No fancy planning or preparation. YMMV

 

 

[yuji22]

If the Morpheus eyepieces are Sarkikos approved then they have to be good. I will sell off my small collection of 1.25 ES eyepieces and replace them with Morpheus. I read his posts about TSFLAT2 and purchased one and it’s my best Astro decision yet.  Wait, my ES24 68 will still stay for now. If memory serves me right, there is always an annual sale on Morpheus. 

[Sarkikos]

I used the Apache 4800 for my set including adapters and 30mm APM UFF stowed vertically.

 

I prefer my eyepieces in the recumbent position for several reasons: 1) I don't like having to dig my fingers deeply in to pull them out. 2.) When you do pull them out from the vertical position the lens caps are more likely to disengage and the foam sometimes gets pulled out along with the eyepiece. Then you have to extract the lens caps from the deep cavity below, if they haven't fallen out of the case altogether. Hence the rubber band as shown around the UFF. 3.) It's easier to see and stow the lens caps in the horizontal cavity when they are not not in use. 4.) Stowing in the vertical position means you will put more eyepieces in the case which leads to more weight. 5.) Some eyepieces are too long and will not have enough padding on top or bottom, or will have too much pressure placed on their ends, or you may not be able to close the case at all. Anyway something like this configuration works well for me. I just eyeballed it. No fancy planning or preparation. YMMV

 

 

ap4800.morph.jpg

It's all a matter of prior experience and personal preference.  But I'll give some respectful rebuttals:

 

1)  Many cases have two or even three layers of foam in the bottom half of the case.  Depending on how long an eyepiece is, you can cut through only the first layer or both layers.  In cases where there's only one thick layer of foam, I've even pushed in a divot of foam in the bottom of the hole for a short eyepiece so it won't sink down into the foam.  There are ways to set things up so no eyepiece is difficult to extract.

 

2) Yes, if an eyepiece is stored vertically, sometimes the cap on the field lens will come off and remain in the bottom of the hole.  But that's OK.  I would have removed it anyway before I put the eyepiece in the focuser.  For some eyepiece cases and some eyepieces, I might even leave the field-lens cap in the house.  I've never had an instance where the cap on the eye lens of an eyepiece came off when stowed vertically in an eyepiece case.

 

3) I always arrange eyepieces in focal-length order.  I have no problem locating, removing, stowing a specific focal length eyepiece.  This is also why I think the glow-in-the-dark focal-length numbers on the Morpheus was not a very smart idea.

 

4) Stowing in the vertical position means you can use a smaller case for the same number of eyepieces.  Probably a good idea to first place all the eyepieces in the case without plucking the foam, just to see how heavy a load it will be.  If too heavy, change your plan before you start plucking.

 

5) If a specific eyepiece is too long to stow vertically, you have two options:  store that eyepiece horizontally or get a deeper case.   For example, I was thinking about stowing the 3.7 Ethos-SX in the Morpheus-based case.  But I decided not to because I'd have to place the Ethos-SX horizontally to fit, and also, I didn't want to include any 100-degree eyepieces.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 02:00 PM.