27 replies to this topic

[Starman1]

I've had all my eyepieces for several years, now and used them frequently in a 12.5" f/5 (f/5.75 with Paracorr) and a 4" f/7 triplet apo.

All the eyepieces have been used often, with the 3.7mm Ethos seeing the least use, but still used many times in both scopes.

Sites have varied from 20.9-21.8mpsas skies.

 

I have some seat-of-the-pants comments, and the only reason I make this post is to see if other users have noted the same things and to note some misgivings.

There is no perfect eyepiece, and an eyepiece need not be perfect to be enjoyable to use.  My use is 99.9% deep sky use, not planets and Moon.

All but one of these eyepieces exhibited slight chromatic smear of star images at the edge, but that aberration is so common in eyepieces I just ignore it unless it is egregious, which it isn't in any of these eyepieces.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them to another observer, though I might not recommend some of them for an f/3 scope user.

 

So, I will post what I like, and what I don't like about each eyepiece.  If the eyepiece is glasses compatible, my comments include glasses use because without glasses I cannot honestly evaluate an eyepiece.

Ditto the use of a Paracorr in the dob.  Without a Paracorr, I could not evaluate the edge of the field in the eyepieces because I would blame poor image quality on the eyepiece when it is really the scope's fault.

These will solely be my opinions and not applicable to other scopes, users, and sites.

 

Feel free to disagree or point out something I omitted.  Do point out what scope you use, however.

 

30mm APM Ultra Flat Field:

What I like:

• Flat field
• sharp star images
• superb contrast
• ease of use
• lightness of weight for its focal length
• edge of field control of aberrations (No CA or Astigmatism!)
• cheap price
• no lower barrel undercut

What I don't like:

• blue stars have less luster than in, say, the 31mm Nagler
• only 70° field

--------------------------------------------------

22mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 4

What I like:

• ease of use--very comfortable.
• sharp star images 
• ultra-wide field
• Instadjust eyeguard when sharing the view with others--<1 second, one-hand adjustment.
• brightness of the star images
• immersion in the field

What I don't like:

• the low power it produces, which means it doesn't get used as much as other eyepieces
• weight.  This is one dense eyepiece.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17.5mm (17.2mm) Baader Morpheus

What I like:

• comfortable to use
• 98% of the field very sharp
• good contrast
• very light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• narrower apparent field than all the other Morpheus eyepieces
• eye relief a bit too long and I have to use o-rings under the eyecup to make it the same as my other eyepieces
• stars in the last 2° of field astigmatic
• No-Man's Land for magnification--always too low or too high in my scopes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

14mm (13.9mm) Baader Morpheus

What I like:

• superb contrast
• superb light transmission
• excellent sharpness until very close to the edge.
• ultrawide field
• light weight
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• that it isn't a 13mm.  14mm is just a *trace* too low a magnification
• slight edge of field CA.

-------------------------------------------------------------

12.5mm (12.4mm) Baader Morpheus

What I like:

• One of the sharpest [star images] eyepieces I've ever used.  Globular clusters resolve to the very core.
• superb contrast.  About as little scattered light in the eyepiece as I've seen.
• a great magnification for lots of objects.
• ultrawide field
• ease of use
• light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• too close to my 11mm in magnification
• seems a bit darker than my 11mm and 14mm
• 12.0mm would have fit my magnification scheme a little better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

11mm Tele Vue Apollo11

What I like:

• 85° field
• image contrast!
• very sharp star images
• light transmission
• eye relief
• zero vignetting
• the thinnest blue edge to the field that I've ever seen in an eyepiece

What I don't like:

• the 2" steel adapter.  It could/should have been aluminum to save weight.
• slight astigmatism at the very edge
• field stop not in focus for my eye.
• very slight field curvature in my scope.
• it's not a 10mm
• undercuts on 1.25" barrel and 2" adapter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

9mm (8.9mm) Baader Morpheus

What I like:

• Ultrawide field
• exit pupil position narrows visible top of the eyepiece to a thin black ring around the field for a floating in air effect
• light weight
• very good contrast
• sharp star images
• works great on a lot of DSOs
• very bright image for its focal length
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• eye relief was too long until I tamed it with an o-ring under the eyecup.
• edge of field CA
• *slightly* softer star images than the Morpheus focal lengths on either side.

-----------------------------------------------------------

7mm APM XWA

What I like:

• 100° field
• very sharp star images to *just* shy of the field stop
• Superb contrast
• excellent control of light scatter
• entire field is easy to use
• smooth lower barrel and smooth 2" adapter--no undercuts
• light weight for focal length and field of view--can use as a 1.25" with no risk to the barrel.

What I don't like:

• needs another mm of eye relief.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.5mm (6.7mm) Baader Morpheus

What I like:

• superb contrast
• superb light transmission
• excellent sharpness until very close to the edge.
• ultrawide field (79°--the widest of the Morpheus)
• light weight
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• magnification doesn't match my scopes well.
• edge of field CA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0mm Tele Vue Ethos

What I like:

• ultra sharp right to the field stop
• superb contrast
• easy to use without glasses
• no noticeable astigmatism at all
• extremely slight CA right near the edge
• light weight
• field seems wider than 100°
• used as 1.25", there is no undercut on the barrel

What I don't like:

• the 2" skirt has an undercut
• the 2" skirt is not removable
• it can't be used as a 2" eyepiece in the Paracorr without adding a long barrel extender

------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5mm (4.8mm) Baader Morpheus 

What I like:

• the sharpest of all the Morpheus
• flat field
• superb color rendition for planetary nebulae
• very good contrast
• light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• ultrawide field

What I don't like

• slight CA at the edge of the field
• slight barrel distortion (noted in daylight--at night the field is too narrow to really notice)

----------------------------------------------------------------

3.7mm Tele Vue Ethos SX

What I like:

• very sharp star images
• excellent contrast results in very faint details seen in planetary nebulae
• hyper-wide 110° field results in longer views between nudges of the scope
• light weight even though a long eyepiece
• CA seen only at/near the very edge

What I don't like:

• undercuts on 1.25" barrel and 2" adapter
• 110° field was unnecessary and 100° would have been enough, and less head movement would have been required.
• the shortest eye relief of the Ethos series.  It's OK, but less than the 6-21mm Ethos.
• the fact I can't use 500x every night I go out.

[rfcooley]

Don,

 

Thank you for sharing. I often wondered what eps you used most often. Now I know. Most of those are out of my budget range for eps but I is good info to have in case I experience a windfall.

 

Clear Skies Never Lose the Wonder,

 

RF

[Sam M]

Thanks for the insight!  I didn't notice you mentioning edge of field brightness anywhere.  Curious if you are ever bothered by that in any of these eyepieces?

[AstroDani89]

<p>

I've had all my eyepieces for several years, now and used them frequently in a 12.5" f/5 (f/5.75 with Paracorr) and a 4" f/7 triplet apo.
All the eyepieces have been used often, with the 3.7mm Ethos seeing the least use, but still used many times in both scopes.
Sites have varied from 20.9-21.8mpsas skies.

I have some seat-of-the-pants comments, and the only reason I make this post is to see if other users have noted the same things and to note some misgivings.
There is no perfect eyepiece, and an eyepiece need not be perfect to be enjoyable to use. My use is 99.9% deep sky use, not planets and Moon.
All but one of these eyepieces exhibited slight chromatic smear of star images at the edge, but that aberration is so common in eyepieces I just ignore it unless it is egregious, which it isn't in any of these eyepieces.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them to another observer, though I might not recommend some of them for an f/3 scope user.

So, I will post what I like, and what I don't like about each eyepiece. If the eyepiece is glasses compatible, my comments include glasses use because without glasses I cannot honestly evaluate an eyepiece.
Ditto the use of a Paracorr in the dob. Without a Paracorr, I could not evaluate the edge of the field in the eyepieces because I would blame poor image quality on the eyepiece when it is really the scope's fault.
These will solely be my opinions and not applicable to other scopes, users, and sites.

Feel free to disagree or point out something I omitted. Do point out what scope you use, however.

30mm APM Ultra Flat Field:
What I like:

• Flat field
• sharp star images
• superb contrast
• ease of use
• lightness of weight for its focal length
• edge of field control of aberrations (No CA or Astigmatism!)
• cheap price
• no lower barrel undercut

What I don't like:

• blue stars have less luster than in, say, the 31mm Nagler
• only 70° field

--------------------------------------------------
22mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 4
What I like:

• ease of use--very comfortable.
• sharp star images
• ultra-wide field
• Instadjust eyeguard when sharing the view with others--<1 second, one-hand adjustment.
• brightness of the star images
• immersion in the field

What I don't like:

• the low power it produces, which means it doesn't get used as much as other eyepieces
• weight. This is one dense eyepiece.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.5mm (17.2mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• comfortable to use
• 98% of the field very sharp
• good contrast
• very light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• narrower apparent field than all the other Morpheus eyepieces
• eye relief a bit too long and I have to use o-rings under the eyecup to make it the same as my other eyepieces
• stars in the last 2° of field astigmatic
• No-Man's Land for magnification--always too low or too high in my scopes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
14mm (13.9mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• superb contrast
• superb light transmission
• excellent sharpness until very close to the edge.
• ultrawide field
• light weight
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• that it isn't a 13mm. 14mm is just a *trace* too low a magnification
• slight edge of field CA.

-------------------------------------------------------------
12.5mm (12.4mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• One of the sharpest [star images] eyepieces I've ever used. Globular clusters resolve to the very core.
• superb contrast. About as little scattered light in the eyepiece as I've seen.
• a great magnification for lots of objects.
• ultrawide field
• ease of use
• light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• too close to my 11mm in magnification
• seems a bit darker than my 11mm and 14mm
• 12.0mm would have fit my magnification scheme a little better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
11mm Tele Vue Apollo11
What I like:

• 85° field
• image contrast!
• very sharp star images
• light transmission
• eye relief
• zero vignetting
• the thinnest blue edge to the field that I've ever seen in an eyepiece

What I don't like:

• the 2" steel adapter. It could/should have been aluminum to save weight.
• slight astigmatism at the very edge
• field stop not in focus for my eye.
• very slight field curvature in my scope.
• it's not a 10mm
• undercuts on 1.25" barrel and 2" adapter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9mm (8.9mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• Ultrawide field
• exit pupil position narrows visible top of the eyepiece to a thin black ring around the field for a floating in air effect
• light weight
• very good contrast
• sharp star images
• works great on a lot of DSOs
• very bright image for its focal length
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• eye relief was too long until I tamed it with an o-ring under the eyecup.
• edge of field CA
• *slightly* softer star images than the Morpheus focal lengths on either side.

-----------------------------------------------------------
7mm APM XWA
What I like:

• 100° field
• very sharp star images to *just* shy of the field stop
• Superb contrast
• excellent control of light scatter
• entire field is easy to use
• smooth lower barrel and smooth 2" adapter--no undercuts
• light weight for focal length and field of view--can use as a 1.25" with no risk to the barrel.

What I don't like:

• needs another mm of eye relief.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.5mm (6.7mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• superb contrast
• superb light transmission
• excellent sharpness until very close to the edge.
• ultrawide field (79°--the widest of the Morpheus)
• light weight
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• kerfs on lower barrel

What I don't like:

• magnification doesn't match my scopes well.
• edge of field CA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0mm Tele Vue Ethos
What I like:

• ultra sharp right to the field stop
• superb contrast
• easy to use without glasses
• no noticeable astigmatism at all
• extremely slight CA right near the edge
• light weight
• field seems wider than 100°
• used as 1.25", there is no undercut on the barrel

What I don't like:

• the 2" skirt has an undercut
• the 2" skirt is not removable
• it can't be used as a 2" eyepiece in the Paracorr without adding a long barrel extender

------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5mm (4.8mm) Baader Morpheus
What I like:

• the sharpest of all the Morpheus
• flat field
• superb color rendition for planetary nebulae
• very good contrast
• light weight
• kerfs on lower barrel
• perfect eye relief for me with my glasses right out of the box
• ultrawide field

What I don't like

• slight CA at the edge of the field
• slight barrel distortion (noted in daylight--at night the field is too narrow to really notice)

----------------------------------------------------------------
3.7mm Tele Vue Ethos SX
What I like:

• very sharp star images
• excellent contrast results in very faint details seen in planetary nebulae
• hyper-wide 110° field results in longer views between nudges of the scope
• light weight even though a long eyepiece
• CA seen only at/near the very edge

What I don't like:

• undercuts on 1.25" barrel and 2" adapter
• 110° field was unnecessary and 100° would have been enough, and less head movement would have been required.
• the shortest eye relief of the Ethos series. It's OK, but less than the 6-21mm Ethos.
• the fact I can't use 500x every night I go out.

. Excuse my ignorance, and I tried to look this term up before asking, but what are kerfs? I only found that it has something to do with material being removed, but could not correlate this to eyepieces.

[rexowner]

. Excuse my ignorance, and I tried to look this term up before asking, but what are kerfs? I only found that it has something to do with material being removed, but could not correlate this to eyepieces.

Good question.

 

Kerfs are the little slits in the attached pic of the nosepiece (aka "lower barrel")

from a Baader eyepiece.  The kerfs resist the eyepiece falling out from a focuser, and don't have as many

issues as "undercuts" which can hang up the eyepiece in a focuser.  There are many discussions about

undercuts on the site, and many think kerfs are the best answer.

 

From dictionary:

1.a slit made by cutting with a saw.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[CrazyPanda]

Don,  for the 7XWA...
 

needs another mm of eye relief.

If you have a spare Tele Vue rubber eye cup lying around, replace the stock XWA eye cup with the Tele Vue one. You'll gain 1mm of effective eye relief. That's what I did on mine. It's wonderful to use.

 

 

. Excuse my ignorance, and I tried to look this term up before asking, but what are kerfs? I only found that it has something to do with material being removed, but could not correlate this to eyepieces.

See the little ridges in the 2" and 1.25" barrels: https://cdn.shopligh...eg-eyepiece.jpg

 

Those are kerfs (safety kerfs). If the eyepiece is loose in the focuser, it will likely tilt, and when it tilts, the kerfs will snag somewhere on the edge of the focuser or adapter, thereby potentially preventing it from falling out. They're less hostile to the user than undercuts, but are not quite as good a safety mechanism as an undercut.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 05 March 2025 - 11:17 PM.

[robertasumendi]

Thanks for sharing! Morpheus 12.5 vs 14 are closer in magnification/exit pupil than, say, the 9mm and 6.5mm. Do you find yourself favoring one for other reasons? (I have to buy two of everything so I don't have my own complete set yet lol.)

[PKDfan]

Great summation Don !

Should be a sticky somewhere.

Your making it hard not to compare my T2 12mm Nagler to the 12.4Morph. They probably have nearly same AFOV. Maybe Morpheus beats it ! Lol.

Darn you Starman1 your not playing fair when you give this kind of peerless review !


CSS
Lance

[Skyscratcher88]

Great summary.

I have the,
APM30/70
Nagler22t4
M17.5
M12.5
M9
Eyepieces mentioned in your list. I have a 20”F5, 14”F4.6, C8Edge.

When I have both my Pelican cases out observing I struggle between the APM30 and Stellarvue 28/82 deciding which one to use as my WF finder. The APM is razor sharp and FF but I use the SV28/82 80% of the time. The SV28 isn’t quite as razor sharp but it has the “spacewalk” feeling missing in the APM. The APM is “sterile/clinical” feeling. They are both very good-excellent EPs.

This past weekend I went to observe at a B3 site 20”F5 and had my first “in your face” view of the Horsehead nebula complex. I have observed it before many times but I always came away with maybe I am imagining it.
I spent some time in it.

APM 30 Flame easy direct vision/IC434/B33 possible with effort averted vision.
SV28 Flame easy and slightly more prominent/IC434/B33 slightly better than APM30 and easily held averted.
Now!
Nagler22t4 Flame best of 3, IC434/B33 direct vision and best AFOV for framing. With the Hb Filter the Horsehead popped in all its glory-unmistakable!

Of course not exactly a fair comparison due too decreasing Exit Pupils.

(A observing partner had his 22”F4.4 setup next to me and he was using an Ethos 21 while I used the N22. I was thinking of picking up a E21 but now after getting to compare them on the same objects I personally don’t think the difference is all that significant…hmmm.

I have the whole Nt4 set, 22,17,12 and I love observing with that set. “Immersive-spacewalk” to summarize! The only thing is the often noted “I think I’m going to drop it” when the eyeguard slips!

I could write a lot more-but the APM30 set with my Morpheus 17.5,12.5,9 set it fantastic! I am debating between an Ethos 6 or a Morpheus 6.5 for next HP EP. I am currently using a N7t6 as my highest power EP. It is a fine EP but I’m growing to love huge lenses and not peepholes! My favorite DSO are planetary Nebulae and I need more power!

Edited by Skyscratcher88, 06 March 2025 - 12:35 AM.

[PKDfan]

Don,
If you want to know my kit and how it aligns with your findings then it'll have to be the short Morpheus only and they correlate 100%.

I want immersion easy engagement full field sharpness and high contrast render in all my eyepieces.

Long 2" XWs works for me. Two Type2's the longest Delos and a TOE with the three Morpheus and Baaders zoom add a 2X Barlow or 5X PM for high power and that's a do it everything playground for whatevers within reach.



Steady Clear Skies
Lance
Edit jeesh forgot my two medium short 11mm & 8mm TV Plössls !

Edited by PKDfan, 06 March 2025 - 12:49 AM.

[Starman1]

Thanks for the insight!  I didn't notice you mentioning edge of field brightness anywhere.  Curious if you are ever bothered by that in any of these eyepieces?

Some people have mentioned they saw it in the 4.5mm Morpheus.

I have not, and I'm pretty sensitive to it.

I don't know why this is true, but my last use of the 4.5 Morpheus, I tried to see it and didn't see any.

None of the others has any, as far as I can tell.

[Starman1]

Don,  for the 7XWA...
 

If you have a spare Tele Vue rubber eye cup lying around, replace the stock XWA eye cup with the Tele Vue one. You'll gain 1mm of effective eye relief. That's what I did on mine. It's wonderful to use.

 

 

See the little ridges in the 2" and 1.25" barrels: https://cdn.shopligh...eg-eyepiece.jpg

 

Those are kerfs (safety kerfs). If the eyepiece is loose in the focuser, it will likely tilt, and when it tilts, the kerfs will snag somewhere on the edge of the focuser or adapter, thereby potentially preventing it from falling out. They're less hostile to the user than undercuts, but are not quite as good a safety mechanism as an undercut.

I always use the eyecup on the 7mm folded down, so a shorter eyecup would have no effect.

[vrodriguez2324]

Don,

 

Thank you for sharing the comments about your eyepiece set. I have a few questions:

 

1. Does that set comprise the entirety of your eyepiece collection?

2. What characteristics of the 30UFF, already mentioned or otherwise, compelled you to select it over the 31NT5?

3. Why is there no 40/41 68 degree class eyepiece in your kit?

 

I observe most frequently with an 8" f/5 reflector + Paracorr and a 4" f/7 doublet ED refractor. Less frequently a 14" f/4.6 + Paracorr. Used mostly under light polluted San Diego suburban skies with some trips to the Laguna Mountain area peppered in. 

 

I have two main eyepiece sets:

 

Hyperwide: 20 Optimus - 13 Ethos - 9 Optimus - 7 XWA - 4.7 Optimus - 3.6 Optimus

Ultrawide LER: 31NT5 - 22NT4 - 17NT4 - 14M - 9M - 6.5M - 4.5M

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 Ethos

What I like:

• It's 13mm
• Easy to use
• Excellent control of light scatter
• A nice low - medium power

What I am okay with:

• Hybrid lower barrel. I prefer the screw on adapters of the XWA. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 NT4

What I like:

• A noticeably wider field than the 17.5M (I still have the Morpheus but tend to reach for the NT4)
• Razor sharp field stop (I know it is of little consequence during night time observing but for some reason it is a quality I like)
• Very immersive

What I am okay with:

• Weight. The heaviest of the NT4s and maybe the densest eyepiece produced. In fact I've had people pick up the 31NT5 and the 17NT4 in each hand at the same time most will say the 17NT4 is heavier. 
• A lot of my eyepieces are heavy. It's fine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.6 Optimus

What I like:

• Gets me to right about 200x in my refractor.
• 200x is doable almost every night for the moon and planets in my skies.
• Long drift time
• Good contrast

What I am okay with

• Bench tests (at f/4) show it isn't the best performing hyperwide. I use it at f/7, sometimes at f/5.75. To my eye it is a really nice EP. Someday it may be replaced with an Ethos. 

-Victor

Edited by vrodriguez2324, 06 March 2025 - 02:16 AM.

[Starman1]

Thanks for sharing! Morpheus 12.5 vs 14 are closer in magnification/exit pupil than, say, the 9mm and 6.5mm. Do you find yourself favoring one for other reasons? (I have to buy two of everything so I don't have my own complete set yet lol.)

The 12.5mm is close to the 14 in magnification, but the 14mm has a larger true field.

There are some objects where the 14mm works best and others where the 12.5mm works best.

I usually start out the night with the 14mm, as it quickly reveals if the sky is dark enough for the fainter objects.

40% jumps are 17.5>>12.5>>9>>6.5>>4.5, bypassing the 14mm.

14mm was the longest focal length in the original design,

The 17.5 is a revised version with more eye relief and a smaller apparent field.

[Starman1]

Don,

 

Thank you for sharing the comments about your eyepiece set. I have a few questions:

 

1. Does that set comprise the entirety of your eyepiece collection?

2. What characteristics of the 30UFF, already mentioned or otherwise, compelled you to select it over the 31NT5?

3. Why is there no 40/41 68 degree class eyepiece in your kit?

 

I observe most frequently with an 8" f/5 reflector + Paracorr and a 4" f/7 doublet ED refractor. Less frequently a 14" f/4.6 + Paracorr. Used mostly under light polluted San Diego suburban skies with some trips to the Laguna Mountain area peppered in. 

 

I have two main eyepiece sets:

 

Hyperwide: 20 Optimus - 13 Ethos - 9 Optimus - 7 XWA - 4.7 Optimus - 3.6 Optimus

Ultrawide LER: 31NT5 - 22NT4 - 17NT4 - 14M - 9M - 6.5M - 4.5M

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) At the moment.  In the last 2 years I sold 10 others.

2) weight, flatness of field, absence of CAEP and CA in the APM, and the fact I use my lowest magnification very infrequently.

3) At f/5.75, a 40mm yields a radically too-large exit pupil.  At f/7, in the refractor, too low a power for the conditions in which the scope is used.

I use 3.7-7mm eyepieces 90% of the time in that scope because it is used on the Moon, planets, double stars and in a severely light polluted place and I don't like how bright the field is with longer than 9mm.

With my dark-adapted pupil only 4mm, I try to stay with exit pupils below 5mm at a dark site, and under 2mm here in LA.

 

You have some nice eyepieces.

Edited by Starman1, 06 March 2025 - 02:29 AM.

[vrodriguez2324]

The XWA has a different eye cup than the Optimus/Tele Vue. 

 

I think what CrazyPanda is trying to say is that folded down the Tele Vue/Optimus style eyecup may fold down a little flatter. 

 

I replaced the XWA eyecup with an Optimus eyecup and top cap. Not to gain eye relief but for storage and uniformity of my hyperwide set. The XWA has a smaller cap that won't fit if the eyecup is folded down. I like to store them with the eyecup folded down. Now I can. 

 

I always use the eyecup on the 7mm folded down, so a shorter eyecup would have no effect.

 

Don,  for the 7XWA...
 

If you have a spare Tele Vue rubber eye cup lying around, replace the stock XWA eye cup with the Tele Vue one. You'll gain 1mm of effective eye relief. That's what I did on mine. It's wonderful to use.

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by vrodriguez2324, 06 March 2025 - 08:26 AM.

[NiteGuy]

Hey, thanks Don. Very much appreciated info, especially from someone with your viewing experience and eyepiece expertise.

 

Time for me to thin the herd here a bit (13mm & 9mm Naglers going bye-bye) and fill in some gaps at the same time:

 

22mm Nagler

17.5 Morpheus

14mm Morpheus

13mm Nagler

9mm Morpheus

9mm Nagler

8mm Delos

4.5mm Morpheus

 

And yes, I do just want to know everything about everything!

[PKDfan]

Hi Don,

Rereading your post i felt an awkward vibration in the force but couldn't put my finger on it then i had a breakthrough- TINT BIAS between the three shortest Morphs.

You didn't notice it ?

The three have varying amounts of it to my eye and i think for lunar and planetary its a huge asset.

I noticed also no zoom use and i see that those very rarely get a mention in your commentary. I'd say if you had a Baader zoom and use it against the Morpheus it'd be notable the tint offsets between them.



Cheers !
Lance

Edited by PKDfan, 06 March 2025 - 08:22 AM.

[CrazyPanda]

I always use the eyecup on the 7mm folded down, so a shorter eyecup would have no effect.

Same here, I never use eye cups up. But folded down you you still gain about 1mm (I measured with caliper depth gauge).

 

The stock XWA eye cup is rather thick AND wide when folded down. This not only means it reduces effective eye relief because of its thickness, but the extra width means it makes contact with your face at a point that further reduces your ability to get closer to the eye lens (depending on facial geometry).

 

Tele Vue eye cups when folded down are not only thinner, but narrower. You can get your eye closer the eye lens. I estimate at least 1mm gain in effective eye relief, maybe a bit more.

 

Take an eye guard off one of your Ethoi and put it on the XWA and try it (folded down). I think you'll find it grants you the 1mm more eye relief you're looking for. It did for me. It made the XWA more comfortable than my 8 and 6 Ethoi.

 

I'll post some pictures and measurements later today when I can.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 06 March 2025 - 08:39 AM.

[PJ Anway]

Don

Very nice review/analysis of your eyepieces! I'm a little surprised and not surprised at your pick for a 30mm; the APM Ultra Flat Field.

I purchased mine as a specific-use-eyepiece; one that would perfectly frame the Veil nebula in my 4.3" f/5.6 apo.

 

I was at NEAF (in 2017?) and was looking for such an eyepiece when I stopped by and talked to Markus. I was not aware of the UFF series at the time as they had just come out.

I've known Markus since back in the Supermono days and have always liked him and trusted his judgement. When I told him of my requirements (frame the nebula, not a weigh a ton, etc.) he said: "I got just what you're looking for". He brought out a few samples of the 30mm UFF's, looked carefully through each one and handed me his "choice" and said, "you'll like this one". (not sure if he was actually looking for the "pic of the litter" or it was just a little showmanship  ). In explaining the specs, he said it was closer to 72° AFOV than the advertised 70°.  Anyway, I love it! Shown many people the Veil through it over the years and have heard many positive comments from experienced observers. Just a great eyepiece (and it weighs a lb. less that the Nagler 31).

Edited by PJ Anway, 06 March 2025 - 11:20 AM.

[davidgmd]

Really nice summary Don. Of those, I have:

  
30mm APM Ultra Flat Field

Agree on all counts. The 31 mm N5 sees more use due to the wider field and bluer blues.

  
11mm Tele Vue Apollo11

Agree as well, though I haven’t noticed the astigmatism at the edge, and the weight and undercuts don’t really bother me. They could have made it better with aluminum and no undercuts.

  
6.0mm Tele Vue Ethos

I haven’t had this one long enough to be familiar with all of its nuances. First nights out were consistent with your positives. Would be nice to be able to unscrew the 2” barrel and use it as a 1.25” like the Apollo 11.
 

[Starman1]

Really nice summary Don. Of those, I have:

  
30mm APM Ultra Flat Field

Agree on all counts. The 31 mm N5 sees more use due to the wider field and bluer blues.

  
11mm Tele Vue Apollo11

Agree as well, though I haven’t noticed the astigmatism at the edge, and the weight and undercuts don’t really bother me. They could have made it better with aluminum and no undercuts.

  
6.0mm Tele Vue Ethos

I haven’t had this one long enough to be familiar with all of its nuances. First nights out were consistent with your positives. Would be nice to be able to unscrew the 2” barrel and use it as a 1.25” like the Apollo 11.
 

You can use the 6mm Ethos as a 1.25", but it really needs the Paracorr 2 or Tele Vue Hi-Hat adapter to support the 1.25" barrel well up inside the 2" skirt.

On the Apollo 11, I simply filled in the undercuts with metal tape and it slides in and out easily.

 

In my refractor, I use the Antares Twist-Lock adapter on all the 1.25" eyepieces EXCEPT the 6mm Ethos, where I use the Paracorr adapter from the Paracorr.

Ironically, I don't use the Paracorr adapter in the Paracorr (except on the 6mm Ethos), preferring the Astrosystems flat top adapter, which is >4mm shorter, has a smooth side, and is threaded for 2" filters. 

That brings all my 1.25" "A" eyepieces up to B or C, where they are parfocal with the eyepieces I use as 2" (Apollo--C, Nager 22--B, 30UFF with 2 parfocalizing rings--C).  So all the eyepieces fall in the A-D range (0.3") in the Paracorr.

One of these days, I'll get around to parfocalizing all of them so they all use the same Paracorr setting. 

[davidgmd]

Don, the 1.25” barrel on the 6 mm Ethos doesn’t insert into a Baader 2” to 1.25” ClickLock far enough to instill a lot of confidence. It seems solid when I tug on it but…

 

I’d prefer using it as a 1.25” since the eyepieces on either side of it are 1.25”. Would switching to a HiHat adapter be a solution? Will my other 1.25” eyepieces play nicely with it?

[Starman1]

Don, the 1.25” barrel on the 6 mm Ethos doesn’t insert into a Baader 2” to 1.25” ClickLock far enough to instill a lot of confidence. It seems solid when I tug on it but…

 

That's what I said.  For safety, it needs the Paracorr 2 adapter or the Hi-Hat adapter, both of which extend well up into the 2" skirt.

 

I’d prefer using it as a 1.25” since the eyepieces on either side of it are 1.25”. Would switching to a HiHat adapter be a solution? Will my other 1.25” eyepieces play nicely with it?

 

The High Hat adapter will work with all 1.25" eyepieces.

Just be aware it is 16.5mm tall for eyepieces that sit on its entry lip.  It's not that tall for the 6mm Ethos, whose 2" skirt rests on the bottom lip of the adapter.

At any rate, it will require more in-travel than just about any other 1.25" adapter.

I would call Tele Vue and ask if they sell the Paracorr 2 adapter, which is only 10.5mm tall but built like the Hi-Hat adapter.

Edited by Starman1, 08 March 2025 - 06:44 PM.

[davidgmd]

 

Don, the 1.25” barrel on the 6 mm Ethos doesn’t insert into a Baader 2” to 1.25” ClickLock far enough to instill a lot of confidence. It seems solid when I tug on it but…

 

That's what I said.  For safety, it needs the Paracorr 2 adapter or the Hi-Hat adapter, both of which extend well up into the 2" skirt.

 

I’d prefer using it as a 1.25” since the eyepieces on either side of it are 1.25”. Would switching to a HiHat adapter be a solution? Will my other 1.25” eyepieces play nicely with it?

 

The High Hat adapter will work with all 1.25" eyepieces.

Just be aware it is 16.5mm tall for eyepieces that sit on its entry lip.  It's not that tall for the 6mm Ethos, whose 2" skirt rests on the bottom lip of the adapter.

At any rate, it will require more in-travel than just about any other 1.25" adapter.

I would call Tele Vue and ask if they sell the Paracorr 2 adapter, which is only 10.5mm tall but built like the Hi-Hat adapter.

 

  
Thank you Don. Excellent advice as always.