45 replies to this topic

[Sarkikos]

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. 

Unfortunately, when I've finally decided to buy an eyepiece or other gear, the sales are usually long over and won't be back anytime soon.  

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

In situations where I might alternately stow a larger or smaller eyepiece in a specific hole in an eyepiece case, I could retain a square ring of foam to insert in the hole whenever I wanted to put the smaller eyepiece in it.  This could be a possibility for the 40 Titan-II ED and 40 XW.   I haven't done this yet, but it's an option.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 02:03 PM.

[Sarkikos]

At this point, I'm leaning towards leaving out the 34 ES-68, 40 XW, and 60 Masuyama, and keeping in the 40 Titan-II ED and the 55 TV Plossl.  This would lighten the load a bit and also keep all the eyepiece holes in the foam no larger than a 3x3 square.  The 40 XW and 60 Masu would each be heavier than the other two, and each would have required a 4x4 hole in the foam.   

 

The 40 Titan-II ED and 55 TV Plossl are not bad eyepieces.  I wanted the eyepieces in this case to be good for a wide variety of scopes.  The 40 XW and 60 Masu are better suited to Cats and slow refractors.  I know the 60 Masu definitely is.  Well, maybe the same could be said for the 55 TV Plossl, but at least it is lighter and fits better than either of them. 

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 02:35 PM.

[f18dad]

We all have our preferential particularities! That’s what’s fun about it. I love the Apache cases. Wish I owned stock in them. Great value. I’m not a member of the Royal Geographical Society and I never went on an expedition with Sir Ranulph Fiennes, though I wish I did and could, so I don’t really need a Pelican case, though arguably they must be the best of the best. The Apache cases are way overkill already, but they really do a great job for organizing, storage and transport. 

[Sarkikos]

The Pelican cases are overkill for the wallet, the Apaches not so much. 

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

Looking back at these optical diagrams for the XW eyepieces, it seems that the 40 XW and 30 XW have the least field curvature, though some astigmatism might be seen in fast scopes.  So, on second thought, either of these should be OK for a wide variety of telescopes.  I just wish they weren't so wide and so heavy compared to the other eyepieces I'm putting in this case.

 

Mike

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 03:14 PM.

[Sarkikos]

The updated schematic after taking out the 34 ES-68, 40 XW, and 60 Masuyama, and keeping in the 40 Titan-II ED and the 55 TV Plossl.  At least the layout looks more consistent now. 

 

A focal length spread from 2.5mm to 55mm in 12 steps and about 15 lbs.  Not too shabby. 

 

I think this is going to be my final update.  

 

Mike

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 04:56 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Yep, like many have mentioned, the 14 Morpheus is at an odd spacing between the 12.5 and 17.5 Morpheus.   Only 1.5mm between the 12.5 and 14.   But after reading some recent good reviews of the 14, I decided to get it along with the other Morpheus.  

 

If I sold the 14 Morpheus, what could I do with the available space?   I don't think I'd replace it with a different eyepiece in focal length between 12.5 and 17mm.   Maybe put the 60 Masuyama at the long focal length end?  Stick my 1.6 HR at the other end?   Bring the 34 ES-68 back between the 30 UFF and 40 Titan-II ED?  Not a lot of good options here.  Maybe just keep the 14 Morpheus? 

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 05:05 PM.

[mondo1948]

I prefer storing my eyepieces horizontally, rather than vertically.  I don't want to memorize positions of eyepieces in my case because sometimes I have several out at a time.  Also, I don't want to have caps numbered because it is too easy to mix up the caps when they're sitting on my tripod's eyepiece tray.  Here's a photo of my Harbor Freight Apache 400 case with most of my 100 degree eyepieces.

 

Clear Skies,

Mondo

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sarkikos]

I prefer storing my eyepieces horizontally, rather than vertically.  I don't want to memorize positions of eyepieces in my case because sometimes I have several out at a time.  Also, I don't want to have caps numbered because it is too easy to mix up the caps when they're sitting on my tripod's eyepiece tray.  Here's a photo of my Harbor Freight Apache 400 case with most of my 100 degree eyepieces.

 

Clear Skies,

Mondo

Yep, putting focal length numbers on the caps never made sense to me.  I never bothered to do it.  It would be too easy to mix up the caps.

 

I don't memorize the positions of eyepieces in the case.  That's not necessary if they are arranged in focal length order.  I learned the order of numbers by heart a long time ago. 

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

I'd prefer to put the 40 XW into the case rather than the 40 Titan-II.  The optical performance of the 40 XW is apparently better, judging from what I read online and from using them in the field. 

 

But I don't like how the XW is so big and wide.   Darn those bulbous adjustable eye guards.  They are useless to me, since I keep all my eye guards twisted down or rolled down all the way.  I would be tempted to take that rotund eye guard off the 40 XW if it were possible, like those old Meade eyepieces.  Does it come off?  If so, can it be put back on if I want to sell it later?  I don't want to damage the eyepiece.

 

Judging from what I've found online, the answer appears to be "No."  You can screw off the eye guard itself, which is only the top of the assembly.  But the rest of the bulbous body will remain.  If I'm wrong, let me know.  I don't what to start unscrewing the fat body itself and have optics fall out.  

 

On the other hand, this does seem pretty drastic, taking apart a nice eyepiece just to keep from plucking out a bigger hole in the foam! 

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 August 2024 - 08:04 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Final product ... for now.     This is the same as the schema in post #32 above, except I decided to shift the 2.5 and 3.5 Naglers over to the left one square.

 

Weight of the fully loaded case:  16 lbs.

 

Mike

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[HellsKitchen]

I'm in a process of making a Morpheus-based case right now. I'm gonna put all the Morpheus in it, my collimation tools, filters, and a few ancillary eyepieces and tools. I'm gonna lay the eyepieces on their side horizontal, coz that's what I prefer works for me in my existing case. Also that way, I can put the eyepiece in without caps and without the foam touching the lens during the session for easy use, and after the session when I dry them out. 

[Sarkikos]

I'm in a process of making a Morpheus-based case right now. I'm gonna put all the Morpheus in it, my collimation tools, filters, and a few ancillary eyepieces and tools. I'm gonna lay the eyepieces on their side horizontal, coz that's what I prefer works for me in my existing case. Also that way, I can put the eyepiece in without caps and without the foam touching the lens during the session for easy use, and after the session when I dry them out. 

You're not going to bring out any caps for the Morpheus?   I can see leaving the caps for the field lens in the house, since that end of the eyepiece will not suffer dewing when sitting in the telescope.  But in my area, an eyepiece without a cap on the eye lens, if left in the focuser or in an eyepiece rack, can experience dewing on the eye lens within a half hour on some nights.

 

Mike

[HellsKitchen]

You're not going to bring out any caps for the Morpheus?   I can see leaving the caps for the field lens in the house, since that end of the eyepiece will not suffer dewing when sitting in the telescope.  But in my area, an eyepiece without a cap on the eye lens, if left in the focuser or in an eyepiece rack, can experience dewing on the eye lens within a half hour on some nights.

 

Mike

 

I always bring my eyepieces out capped in the case, then the ones I use I uncap, and when I am done with them I put them back in their place in the case uncapped during the session, as I might come back to them, and leave them uncapped with the case open for several hours after the session is done. I'm a big believer in letting things dry out and evaporate.  This has never let me down to date. 

 

Dew here, despite the dry climate, can be legit severe during the cool half of the year. When I say severe, I deadset mean it. The dew here can get to the point where there is water dripping off your roof upon sunrise.  I'll always leave all my optical equipment, whether its telescopes or eyepieces, and cases, uncapped and open for several hours inside after a session before putting them away. Let everything dry out properly. 

 

This applies to any optical equipment I own that I use, when it comes back inside, it gets aired out. 

Edited by HellsKitchen, 17 August 2024 - 12:26 AM.

[Sarkikos]

Yes, after an observing session, I let the eyepiece case sit open in my house until morning the next day.   

 

Also, I keep all my optics inside the house, not in the garage.  My garage is not insulated.  The temps in there can go very low, very high, and the humidity can be as high as 75%.  So, not a good place for optics.  I do keep some mounts, adapters and other non-optical items in there. 

 

Mike

[f18dad]

But in winter it can be the opposite. So during winter if the eyepieces are not damp, I close the case and let it gradually warm back up overnight, then open it in the morning.

Cold optics returning to a warm and more humid environment will collect moisture from that environment and on the internals if not sealed. Let them return to ambient temperature gradually. Then expose them and air them as appropriate. Desiccant is a good idea regardless.

[CrazyPanda]

Yeah in the cold of winter you're not going to be getting much in the way of fungal growth anyway, and generally the latent humidity is very low. As long as you're not leaving the case lid open during the observing session, it will maintain enough internal heat from whatever environment it was in to prevent any sort of dew formation for the brief moments you open the lid to retrieve an eyepiece. When you close the lid, any air that is trapped inside should be relatively low humidity, and as you bring it inside to a warm environment (closed), as it warms up, the already low relative humidity in the case will get even lower.

[Sarkikos]

But in winter it can be the opposite. So during winter if the eyepieces are not damp, I close the case and let it gradually warm back up overnight, then open it in the morning.

Cold optics returning to a warm and more humid environment will collect moisture from that environment and on the internals if not sealed. Let them return to ambient temperature gradually. Then expose them and air them as appropriate. Desiccant is a good idea regardless.

No dew during the cold months.  We have frost instead. 

 

Mike

[f18dad]

No dew during the cold months.  We have frost instead. 

 

Mike

You got that right! And we also at times get condensation from warmer more humid air indoors when we transfer our cold optics from colder outside to warmer and more humid inside. Indeed no dew, only frost at times. So it depends on the particular conditions each time and the season. 

Edited by f18dad, 17 August 2024 - 01:13 PM.

[davidgmd]

You got that right! And we also at times get condensation from warmer more humid air indoors when we transfer our cold optics from colder outside to warmer and more humid inside. Indeed no dew, only frost at times. So it depends on the particular conditions each time and the season. 

  
This is almost as frequent a problem around here as dew forming outside at night.