86 replies to this topic

[Mike W]

Have YOU had a chance to compare them? The delos 12 was an exciting purchase for me as it was my first new "big" purchase in this hobby for me and i think it is a fine, fine eyepiece. Optically its great. Its adjustment works great. (just dont (whoever) be afraid to "crank" it tight a little bit) it wont move after you do, if it does you haven't tightened it enough.

 

It will be compared in tele vue visual paracorr. My predictions are....i will like the naglers 82(roughly) fov but will have to contend with correct eyeplacement, maybe some coma toward the edge, I dont think there will be a significant change in color tones, resolution between the two. I think (based upon my experience with the 17 nag 4) there will be a difference between them in "perspective". I'm guessing based upon that line. What people say about the 22 nag t 4, ie, very immersive not as sharp to the edge as the 20mm nag t5. And so....Can the delos 12 feel slightly closed in and slightly less immersive than the 12 nag t4 because of these two different designs and afov's? The delos 12 has a flat lens while the 12 nag a curved fish eye. In viewing i think i can feel a difference in experience between these to different execution of the lens closest to the eye? if ever so slight?

 

72 degree and 82 degree is fairly significant and the footprints of both are quite different. The larger fov is a big motivator for me especially if it is more "engaging immersive" for reasons already stated but only if i can get the whole eyeplacement and instaguard "figured out" such that it does not take away from the overally  quality and the pleasure of using it? Perhaps the delos is for the scientist? and the nagler for the hobbyist? if you know what i mean?  I suspend judgement , as i should!

Instaguard too loose? Remove the ring and squeeze the open end together to make an oval shape. Do NOT bend into a circle, that will loosen it and it will get stuck in the groove! Don't ask how I know.........

[rgk901]

also just ran out with my 4.5 morph lol

original AT72ed F/6 (51 glass not 53)

was windy so couldn't do tree, did chimney instead

did see blue line can also be seen in photo

no orange rings of fire

didn't notice any vignetting when holding pupil in right spot.

but looks pretty darn good to me

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by rgk901, 09 May 2025 - 08:41 AM.

[nkoiza]

 

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.

 

 

Really good post with lots of useful information. Owning the 17.5mm, 12.5mm and 9mm Morpheus, I view it in pretty much the same way for these 3 eyepieces.

[Procyon]

Wouldn't it be great if Don made similar reviews on every eyepiece he's used in the main the eyepiece list. That would make for some great reading. 

Edited by Procyon, 09 May 2025 - 08:12 AM.

[Starman1]

Wouldn't it be great if Don made similar reviews on every eyepiece he's used in the main the eyepiece list. That would make for some great reading. 

Like most people, my knowledge of eyepieces has grown over the last 6 decades, so I wouldn't have had much valuable to say about most of the over 400 eyepieces I've owned or used.

Only whether they worked well in my scopes of the era and whether I liked them or not.

And a lot of them are so long gone I could not tell you which focal length in a series was the best performer.

I have to defer to other reviewers for most of today's eyepieces that I have neither seen nor used.

I have, however, used a lot of eyepieces that I never owned because I sold them over the years 2005-2023.

Sometimes I wish I had all the money I spent on eyepieces that I no longer own, but that is paltry compared to what I spent on auto racing in the '80s and '90s.

As they say, "There are no pockets in shrouds".

 

I recommend you visit Ernest Maratovich's website for a lot of measurement data:

https://astro-talks....2&t=1483#p41976

https://astro-talks....2&t=1483#p90458

[vertigo777]

also just ran out with my 4.5 morph lol

original AT72ed F/6 (51 glass not 53)

was windy so couldn't do tree, did chimney instead

did see blue line can also be seen in photo

no orange rings of fire

didn't notice any vignetting when holding pupil in right spot.

but looks pretty darn good to me

I don't know if this was meant as a comment to my post on my experience with the 4.5 morph or not? Probably not. It seems in fact to be true that there are some 4.5 morphs who exhibit this "edge of field brightness" eofb (for those who didnt know (like me) what the abbreviation means.) Its not a phantom if people are talking about it. The question is why? the answer is beyond my knowledge.

 

Is it manufacturing? is it design? is it interface with differing scopes? I don't know. With mine i saw it it a fast dob and a slower TV 85 refractor. My other morphs DID NOT exhibit this phenomena.

 

Your results to be a "good scientist" i think, require you to test it at night? Whats interesting to me is you DO have a blue eof , will this turn red? at night because of how the prism of light behaves or does not behave ? again i don't know. It might? My point is, i dont think a daytime test is the right test if your post is a response to MY post UNLESS you are a daytime use user.

 

I will say it again....I found the 4.5 very sharp and I liked that but in a dark site viewing environment is saw a "ring of fire" which is really weird? it was like the color of those red lights we use to keep our night vision!

 

If as amateur astronomers we talk shop then it must be discussed a manufacturing or design difference between televue and baader. The baader ARE more "economical" and perhaps there is something to be said about that if eyepieces can leave their factories like this? to be fair I dont know how hard or easy it is to avoid this issue or not? it would seem to me you dont sell an eyepiece that does this until the problem is solved on the design platform table? has anyone heard of televue's or pentax exhibiting this problem? delos? etc. Its just trippy when you have a black sky and a red ring in your view! lol sharp though!

[vertigo777]

Instaguard too loose? Remove the ring and squeeze the open end together to make an oval shape. Do NOT bend into a circle, that will loosen it and it will get stuck in the groove! Don't ask how I know.........

I just checked my 17mm nag T4 and barring a stiff "jerk" it stays put so thumbs up to tele vue, however, I don't like that the top section can spin, opposite to the bottom. I like this piece and so I plan to set the height in field then do a nice clean attractive addition of some tape to "fix" everything in place. I won't worry that i have to employ a bit of tape! (probably black tape) 

 

To my mind an eyepiece (in the dark) should not have real time moving parts but when you pick it up it should be one solid / non moving piece of equipment. I think its especially "hard" when all the other pieces in the eyepiece box dont move and so you are not expecting it and when you realize "oh something is loose" in that moment its a bit disconcerting. My reflex is that if something is moving, something might fall. I think this is why some people have not like it because it makes them FEEL nervous when using it when being "out there" should make you FEEL relaxed and happy.

 

Just like no one likes to be slewing their scope and to discover oh, i didnt tighten that grub screw to lock the eyepiece in place!

[Procyon]

I don't know if this was meant as a comment to my post on my experience with the 4.5 morph or not? Probably not. It seems in fact to be true that there are some 4.5 morphs who exhibit this "edge of field brightness" eofb (for those who didnt know (like me) what the abbreviation means.) Its not a phantom if people are talking about it. The question is why? the answer is beyond my knowledge.

 

Is it manufacturing? is it design? is it interface with differing scopes? I don't know. With mine i saw it it a fast dob and a slower TV 85 refractor. My other morphs DID NOT exhibit this phenomena.

 

Your results to be a "good scientist" i think, require you to test it at night? Whats interesting to me is you DO have a blue eof , will this turn red? at night because of how the prism of light behaves or does not behave ? again i don't know. It might? My point is, i dont think a daytime test is the right test if your post is a response to MY post UNLESS you are a daytime use user.

 

I will say it again....I found the 4.5 very sharp and I liked that but in a dark site viewing environment is saw a "ring of fire" which is really weird? it was like the color of those red lights we use to keep our night vision!

 

If as amateur astronomers we talk shop then it must be discussed a manufacturing or design difference between televue and baader. The baader ARE more "economical" and perhaps there is something to be said about that if eyepieces can leave their factories like this? to be fair I dont know how hard or easy it is to avoid this issue or not? it would seem to me you dont sell an eyepiece that does this until the problem is solved on the design platform table? has anyone heard of televue's or pentax exhibiting this problem? delos? etc. Its just trippy when you have a black sky and a red ring in your view! lol sharp though!

Call the factories and find out what's happening. 

[Starman1]

I don't know if this was meant as a comment to my post on my experience with the 4.5 morph or not? Probably not. It seems in fact to be true that there are some 4.5 morphs who exhibit this "edge of field brightness" EOFB (for those who didn't know (like me) what the abbreviation means.) It's not a phantom if people are talking about it. The question is why? the answer is beyond my knowledge.

 

Is it manufacturing? is it design? is it interface with differing scopes? I don't know. With mine I saw it in a fast dob and a slower TV 85 refractor. My other morphs DID NOT exhibit this phenomenon.

 

Your results to be a "good scientist" I think, require you to test it at night? What's interesting to me is if you DO have a blue EOF, will this turn red at night because of how the prism of light behaves or does not behave? again I don't know. It might? My point is, I don't think a daytime test is the right test if your post is a response to MY post UNLESS you are a daytime use user.

 

I will say it again.... I found the 4.5 very sharp and I liked that but in a dark site viewing environment is saw a "ring of fire" which is really weird? it was like the color of those red lights we use to keep our night vision!

 

If as amateur astronomers, we talk shop then it must be discussed a manufacturing or design difference between Tele Vue and Baader. The Baader ARE more "economical" and perhaps there is something to be said about that if eyepieces can leave their factories like this? to be fair I don't know how hard or easy it is to avoid this issue or not? it would seem to me you don't sell an eyepiece that does this until the problem is solved on the design platform table? has anyone heard of Tele Vues or Pentaxes exhibiting this problem? Delos? etc. It's just trippy when you have a black sky and a red ring in your view! lol sharp though!

Q1.  How did you see an edge of field color ring at night?  Especially red, where the dark-adapted eye has virtually no response.  Were you looking at the Moon?

And if you are looking at the Moon, was the Moon below 45° altitude, where atmospheric dispersion causes chromatic aberration?

Q2. Were you close enough to the eyepiece to be at the exit pupil, or so close you were inside it?  Many widefield eyepieces display color aberrations near the exit pupil but none at the exit pupil.

A Classic case is the Pentax XW eyepieces, which have scattered yellow light in the field until you get to the exit pupil, where it disappears (seen in daylight testing).

Q3. Was there a haze in the air?  This can cause EOFB to appear in all eyepieces that have slightly different magnification at the edge than they do in the center (in other words, all wide field eyepieces).

 

The main issue, as I see it, is that you are the only person to report an orange or red edge of field in the 4.5mm Morpheus.  No, the thin blue line at the field stop doesn't become red under any circumstances.

But I presume you are not talking about a thin color line at the very edge of the field, but rather a strong color tint that goes well into the outer field of the eyepiece.

 

I cannot rule out a defective eyepiece (it happens), but what I suspect is that you were too far away from the eyepiece, and at that distance red light was more defocused than other colors, and moving in to the exit pupil likely would have eliminated it.

The 4.5mm has the least eye relief of the Morpheus series, so you have to be closer to it than the other focal lengths.

Edited by Starman1, 09 May 2025 - 11:10 AM.

[vertigo777]

Call the factories and find out what's happening. 

lol. No. I'm not that type of person. I leave it to them to hear about their own eyepieces and decide how they want to proceed. I'm just a simple guy looking for some nice eyepieces to enjoy the night skies. I more practical than theoritical. Its interesting to me but i don't want to get lost in the math and the theory, though i believe everything in the universe can be reduced to forms...or math if you will.

 

Its pretty cutthroat out there and I don't mean any harm but if an eyepiece isnt' "doing it for me.." it gets sold. No hard feelings!

 

I also wish to add more information in regards to post #50 that the red "ring of fire" with the 4.5 morph ( i possessed)(can't speak for how ubiquitous this is or isnt) was seen not viewing the moon but a patch of stars and stars only, no planets no moon. So very dark patch in my view with this orange ring (at night, not day) in a dark site with no stray light around entering the eyepiece. I cant speak for day use only night time astronomy.

[TayM57]

I have the 4.5 Morpheus. I do not see a ring of fire of any kind. I did however, notice that the 4.5 has an exit pupil that is spherical to the point where I notice it. When I back out, the 4.5 starts to exhibit kidney beaning/blackouts. I don't see this in my 6.5M, 9M, or 12M. With those eyepieces, the FOV vignettes as I back out which is normal behavior for most EPs. 

 

The 4.5M is an excellent eyepiece on the moon, despite the EOFB. It is tack sharp, sharper than the 6.5M or any of the other Morphii. 

 

For what it's worth, the ring of fire is only a problem during daytime. I would think it nearly impossible to see the orange color associated with the ring of fire during astronomical observations. That would be surprising to me. 

Edited by TayM57, 09 May 2025 - 01:05 PM.

[vertigo777]

I have the 4.5 Morpheus. I do not see a ring of fire of any kind. I did however, notice that the 4.5 has an exit pupil that is spherical to the point where I notice it. When I back out, the 4.5 starts to exhibit kidney beaning/blackouts. I don't see this in my 6.5M, 9M, or 12M. With those eyepieces, the FOV vignettes as I back out which is normal behavior for most EPs. 

 

The 4.5M is an excellent eyepiece on the moon, despite the EOFB. It is tack sharp, sharper than the 6.5M or any of the other Morphii. 

 

For what it's worth, the ring of fire is only a problem during daytime. I would think it nearly impossible to see the orange color associated with the ring of fire during astronomical observations. That would be surprising to me. 

I think you might be right.

 

I think this is what happened?

 

Often, when i am switching out eyepieces i turn on my red lamp . It sits on my forehead. Often I will focus leaving that lamp on and then when i am in focus, turn it off for a better complete  look. Sometimes i might leave it on and get distracted by my interest in the view or if i am panning or something in case i still need it. So, it goes on and off quite a bit. Sometimes i switch eyepieces if i have enough dark adaptation without the lamp.

 

I don't remember this ring of fire experience with any other eyepiece! no other exhibited this issue. I have quite a few and so when they didn't show this ring I then logically assumed the ring was unique to the 4.5 and it is....but i think it was my red lamp light leaking light somewhere, somehow into the eyepiece.

 

Through the diagonal where the eyepiece/diagonal meet ?

Through the outside body of the eyepiece barrel?

Through the eyepiece itself by its front lens?

 

It must be that I hadn't noticed that the light was on its low setting since the light produced in the view is like the light produced by my lamp. I feel stupid! lol

 

As I said, I thought it was weird? As a newbie at night I've seen at the outer edge where things can distort blues produced on one side of an object say...jupiter...so with the red I thought well, i guess a flaw in an eyepiece can produce a red too! Though the blue was localized on one side of jupiter (lateral chromatic abberation is that the term??) whereas the red formed a perfect eof red !

 

I suppose if i use it in bortle 7, in the city ,where the backyard has a few street lamps ....fairly close by... i would probably get it as well but not that red. Too bad, it WAS nice and sharp.

 

So, I want to correct that for readers and to Baader and to the 4.5

 

Well, I hope you found that cute. At least i / we figured it out.

 

I was scratching my head too how can it be that bright in my eyepiece eof in a dark site looking at a swatch of sky where there are no significant sources of light there?

 

It would be interesting to see if someone would like to experiment to see how and where on the 4.5 the "leak" enters the light pathway?

 

Fwiw tonight i will try with my morph 12.5, 9 and some other brand eyepieces to see if IN THEM i can produce johnny cash's "ring of fire."

 

Happy Friday

 

John

 

 

 

I now think I might have sold a perfectly fine eyepiece which exhibits either no or minor eofb. I don't know how eofb appears in an eyepiece?

[TayM57]

I don't know how eofb appears in an eyepiece?

Good question. I've been involved in quite a few discussions on CN regarding EOFB. To answer your question, EOFB manifests itself as a soft brightening right at the field stop, that gradually lessens as you get to the outer 95-97% of the FOV.

 

Here is a picture of EOFB looks like, from BillP (click the post number to enhance the contrast- ignore the share post dialog box that pops up and look at the image).

 

And here is a contrast-enhanced version by Don for computer monitors.

 

You can see the EOFB I pictured in the 4.5M here.

 

The 4.5M shows EOFB in both my 24" f/3.17 and 10" f/5.6. I haven't used the 4.5M enough in the 10" to determine whether it is less severe in slower scopes.

Edited by TayM57, 10 May 2025 - 08:54 AM.

[TayM57]

In the case of the 4.5M, I suspect the cause of the EOFB to be correlated with the SAEP, rather than in the polish or the baffling. 

[Starman1]

Good question. I've been involved in quite a few discussions on CN regarding EOFB. To answer your question, EOFB manifests itself as a soft brightening right at the field stop, that gradually lessens as you get to the outer 5-7% of the FOV.

 

Here is a picture of EOFB looks like, from BillP (click the post number to enhance the contrast- ignore the share post dialog box that pops up and look at the image).

 

And here is a contrast-enhanced version by Don for computer monitors.

 

You can see the EOFB I pictured in the 4.5M here.

 

The 4.5M shows EOFB in both my 24" f/3.17 and 10" f/5.6. I haven't used the 4.5M enough in the 10" to determine whether it is less severe in slower scopes.

I see the vignetting in the 4.5mm in your photo, with a brightening right near the edge.

However, the brightness of the edge is still less bright than the center of the field in your image, but brighter than the vignetting adjacent to it.

I noticed the vignetting in daylight use, but not the brightening at the edge.  That was at f/7.

[vertigo777]

Update:

 

Tonight i set up the tele vue 85 , put on my red lamp which sits on my forehead , turned it on, left it on, put in a morph 12.5, looked in with light on, no eofb (no red ring despite lite being left on) , repeat with 9mm morph, nothing, delos 12, nothing. With all 3 i had the red lamp on as i looked down into the eyepieces and saw no red ring. I did this at night.

 

So, I'm not crazy!

 

Or crazy to leave the light on when I look in to see my object. I KNOW its not ideal but it has never effected my viewing or led me to see, habitually the same thing with all eyepieces having left the light on. I always want to view without the lamp on (and do ) as I believe and KNOW you want complete darkness.

 

My point is that even if i did leave the lamp on with the 4.5 it did what no other eyepiece i own would. Therefore it is uniquely different from all the rest. Leaving a red lamp on shouldn't produce a problem but does.

 

It's not a big deal, I would just have to remember (its in transit to its new owner ) when using it that the lamp is producing it and it has some issue the others don't otherwise why is the 4.5 alone produce the effect when all other things are equal in the test? how else do you get a red ring right around the entire field stop at the edge about 3-4% wide.? The centre is black (the other 97%) ! and the image , stars, easily viewable. It works but the "leak" of red light (the ring) is distracting.

 

I'm considering the 4.7 delos or the pentax 5 xw maybe somewhere down the road.

 

Since when should leaving your red astronomy lamp on be an issue when you are peeking through an eyepiece?

 

 

I do not have this issue with my other eyepieces, with them i can leave my lamp on and still work at the eyepiece. As a newbie I did know that this kind of thing could happen or how it could possibly present itself.

[vertigo777]

correction: As a newbie I didn't know that this kind of thing could happen or how it could possibly present itself.

[Starman1]

correction: As a newbie I didn't know that this kind of thing could happen or how it could possibly present itself.

If you leave your light on, it will reflect from the scope and the environment around the scope.

You should always turn off all lights when observing and cover red LED operating lights in and around the scope.

There should be NO light on anywhere around you when you are observing.

Red headlamps all tend to be fairly bright as well, and useful when packing up, but otherwise too bright to have on anywhere around an observing area.

Once you've dark adapted, the light is unnecessary anyway, even in Bortle 1 conditions, unless you are recording notes or reading them.

[TayM57]

I never considered that it could be vignetting I'm seeing instead of EOFB when I'm looking at, say, M5.

 

That would be the most particular type of vignetting I've seen. The vignetting I'm used to seeing, tends to start with a soft darkening of the image all around the 100% zone of the FOV, that extends to the 95% of the FOV. Similar to what happens with the Nikon 17 SW + Paracorr II.

 

I've not seen vignetting that starts at the 95% zone of the FOV, as you suggest. That would be novel to me. It would explain why I see what I perceive to be EOFB + SAEP in the 4.5M.

 

As a point of emphasis, I've revised my comment in post #63 for clarity as my description was a little confusing and inaccurate.

[vertigo777]

If you leave your light on, it will reflect from the scope and the environment around the scope.

You should always turn off all lights when observing and cover red LED operating lights in and around the scope.

There should be NO light on anywhere around you when you are observing.

Red headlamps all tend to be fairly bright as well, and useful when packing up, but otherwise too bright to have on anywhere around an observing area.

Once you've dark adapted, the light is unnecessary anyway, even in Bortle 1 conditions, unless you are recording notes or reading them.

Sure. As I said I know this and my practice is to avoid my red lamps use. People have different viewing regimes. I am not out there 5 hours. It usually begins quickly and ends on average after 2.5 hours. So i go in, do some viewing and because i'm "home" my viewing is probably more frequent then people who have to go out to dark areas and make the most of it by doing long hours of viewing. And so, with that qualifier I go from the house to outside quite abruptly where I have responsibilities to do that require some white lights in the house before I go outside. There's no way around this so I take what i can get and am for the most part satisfied. I need a red lamp to set up and while my eyes are close to dark adapted i dont want to mess up with expensive equipment and so i use the light. Also, while I can know from memory when i reach into my eyepiece box where a certain power is sometimes in the process i am not sure of the power i am reaching for and so i will use the red lamp to confirm. This i'm sure is a very reasonable protocol within the astronomical community and not every astronomer is so ferverent that they refuse to even use red light because they fear losing their dark adaptation. Which is fine but not for every astronomer.

 

I want to re emphasize that I did nothing wrong RATHER the 4.5 leaks light....UNLIKE my entire eyepiece set which consists of what? 10 eyepieces? occasionally leaving the red lamp on while focusing, or checking if i have the right eyepiece there has never been a problem in the past with this practice , except for the first time with the 4.5 morph.

 

Unfortunately I figured out what was really going on AFTER i sold it because my personality is to act swiftly otherwise I would have to just to have understood that if i see a ring in the 4.5 morph , ask, "is your red lamp still on?" and simply shut it off. It a sincere newbie mistake and a weak design somewhere with the eyepiece in one paramater in its design, not to take away from its virtues. Everything is fine.

 

I now want to do some checking between the rest of my morph's against the tele vue and pentax products. what? see if baadar morpheus's have a brand artifact where they overlay on to its tonal color rendition a "shade like" color over everything or NOT?

 

Do pentax and tele vue render colors more true to life? or not? and see if this matters to me or not?

 

This is high level nit picking for , (relative to the poverty that exists in the world ,) the "rich" ! since relatively speaking they are all fine eyepieces!

 

It will be interesting and fun to do, so I do it.

 

The pentax 5 and the delos 4.5 are no slouches and so there are lots of fun , nice options out there. A luxurious problem to have. Your tips are great and I thank you for your assistance.

[Starman1]

I never considered that it could be vignetting I'm seeing instead of EOFB when I'm looking at, say, M5.

 

That would be the most particular type of vignetting I've seen. The vignetting I'm used to seeing, tends to start with a soft darkening of the image all around the 100% zone of the FOV, that extends to the 95% of the FOV. Similar to what happens with the Nikon 17 SW + Paracorr II.

 

I've not seen vignetting that starts at the 95% zone of the FOV, as you suggest. That would be novel to me. It would explain why I see what I perceive to be EOFB + SAEP in the 4.5M.

 

As a point of emphasis, I've revised my comment in post #63 for clarity as my description was a little confusing and inaccurate.

I see barrel distortion in the 4.5mm Morpheus, which would tend to brighten the edge due to a lower magnification.

The vignetting seems to offset this.  It makes me wonder whether the eyepiece has moustache distortion.

https://en.wikipedia...rtion_(optics) 

[vertigo777]

If you leave your light on, it will reflect from the scope and the environment around the scope.

You should always turn off all lights when observing and cover red LED operating lights in and around the scope.

There should be NO light on anywhere around you when you are observing.

Red headlamps all tend to be fairly bright as well, and useful when packing up, but otherwise too bright to have on anywhere around an observing area.

Once you've dark adapted, the light is unnecessary anyway, even in Bortle 1 conditions, unless you are recording notes or reading them.

Yes. It would be nice if my baseline in terms of exposure to manmade lights  was zero and the only exposure I have to light is that of the night sky above me. When I have the will and the energy to get to such places its great thing. Due to constraints imposed by life I happily accept even viewing out of the backyard. Why? Because some viewing is better than no viewing even if it is in a polluted environment. Being new I take what i can get and its still a good learning classroom to get a baseline understanding of constellations and objects within those constellations. All of which can prepare me for when I do get to darker skies.

 

And Because I can be up and viewing in 7 minutes in the backyard ! I can put out the scope hours before it gets dark , leave the scope safely and return to add the final items needed to begin viewing, tear down is about the same.

 

Before finding astronomy I learned about dark adaptation as a salmon fisherman on the west coast of BC waters. How? when I had to take a "wheel shift" we had to keep the navigation area (when travelling all night) ....dark. When i'd get called out of my bunk for my shift, I would enter the wheelhouse "blind". I couldn't see faint navigational lights ahead of me or around me. Very dangerous! It's a disconcerting feeling, moving on the water, in the dark and not knowing where you are with lives below depending on you not to strike ground or another vessel doing the same as you perhaps coming behind you or from starboard or port or in front of you of which you can't tell what his course is exactly? So, dark adaptation was vitally important. Often we would cover the lit numbers on a CB radio to squeeze out that last bit of dark adaptation. Going through the wheelhouse one by one making it as dark as possible.

 

As for my red lamp. I found it too bright so awhile back I darkened it with several layers of red nail polish.

 

In my city conditions I CAN'T escape ambient light reaching my viewing spot. To the east of my viewing spot I stacked two winemaking barrels to block the street lamp there to get some cover. To the north of me, someone loves to keep their backyard light on for their car? i guess? so there I try and put up a large piece of cardboard and so you can see THIS baseline is quite high in bortle 7 skies! but! i'm still out there with resolve to see and learn the night sky. I find the quiet quite therapeutic. No people, no commercials! quiet. ha. I like the night sky. Its not contentious or adversarial, its just there...

 

I say all this to just give some context to my red light protocols to say its not really my big issue but its my whole viewing spot altogether. And that whether I leave the red light lamp on or off  while finding focus , while important won't significantly change my circumstances since anything i save with that, I constantly lose any significant dark adaptation by my whole environment. I always try my best to avoid those two bright areas (when working or turning my head) where ambient light still reaches me...

 

I'm grateful for still being able to get out there even if these are my conditions. I have some plans to extract more light from the night sky even in this area and in these conditions.

[Starman1]

Yes. It would be nice if my baseline in terms of exposure to manmade lights was zero and the only exposure I have to light is that of the night sky above me. When I have the will and the energy to get to such places its great thing. Due to constraints imposed by life I happily accept even viewing out of the backyard. Why? Because some viewing is better than no viewing even if it is in a polluted environment. Being new I take what i can get and it's still a good learning classroom to get a baseline understanding of constellations and objects within those constellations. All of which can prepare me for when I do get to darker skies.

 

And Because I can be up and viewing in 7 minutes in the backyard! I can put out the scope hours before it gets dark, leave the scope safely and return to add the final items needed to begin viewing, tear down is about the same.

 

Before finding astronomy, I learned about dark adaptation as a salmon fisherman on the west coast of BC waters. How? when I had to take a "wheel shift" we had to keep the navigation area (when travelling all night) .... dark. When I'd get called out of my bunk for my shift, I would enter the wheelhouse "blind". I couldn't see faint navigational lights ahead of me or around me. Very dangerous! It's a disconcerting feeling, moving on the water, in the dark and not knowing where you are with lives below depending on you not to strike ground or another vessel doing the same as you perhaps coming behind you or from starboard or port or in front of you of which you can't tell what his course is exactly? So, dark adaptation was vitally important. Often, we would cover the lit numbers on a CB radio to squeeze out that last bit of dark adaptation. Going through the wheelhouse one by one making it as dark as possible.

 

As for my red lamp. I found it too bright so awhile back I darkened it with several layers of red nail polish.

 

In my city conditions I CAN'T escape ambient light reaching my viewing spot. To the east of my viewing spot, I stacked two winemaking barrels to block the streetlamp there to get some cover. To the north of me, someone loves to keep their backyard light on for their car. I guess? so there I try and put up a large piece of cardboard and so you can see THIS baseline is quite high in Bortle 7 skies! but! I'm still out there with resolve to see and learn the night sky. I find the quiet quite therapeutic. No people, no commercials! quiet. ha. I like the night sky. It's not contentious or adversarial, it's just there...

 

I say all this to just give some context to my red-light protocols to say it's not really my big issue but it's my whole viewing spot altogether. And that whether I leave the red-light lamp on or off while finding focus, while important won't significantly change my circumstances since anything i save with that, I constantly lose any significant dark adaptation by my whole environment. I always try my best to avoid those two bright areas (when working or turning my head) where ambient light still reaches me...

 

I'm grateful for still being able to get out there even if these are my conditions. I have some plans to extract more light from the night sky even in this area and in these conditions.

Well, you make my point--that the observing area is bright enough you can't dark-adapt fully and, hence, don't need the light.

[vertigo777]

Well, you make my point--that the observing area is bright enough you can't dark-adapt fully and, hence, don't need the light.

I do need the red lamp light BECAUSE... I CAN'T dark adapt.

 

Despite the surrounding lights, (which close my pupils TO A DEGREE...) (therefore I am not dark adapted enough) such that....when i look down at say "the 14mm delos" in these conditions....I CAN'T SEE if its a 14 or a 12? , and so...i NEED the red lamp to show me its the 14 otherwise 14mm identifier on the eyepiece would just appear ....black ! without the red lamp.

 

Whether OR NOT, i can see this or that in my immediate area will depend on several factors and WHAT exactly i am looking at. For example. i have the paracorr which has 3 grubs screws on it, sometimes a 1/4-2" adaptor which has 1 grub screw, so depending on how and where i have inserted the adaptor and which moving position the paracorr grub screw is in...i can be hard sometimes without the light to know which screw i am turning and sometimes , so as to not frustrate myself and turn the wrong grub screw i will use the red light, then quickly turn it off.

 

I know if i can or cant see or read something.

 

Contrast this challenging scenerio with just going into a very dark site with NO ambient extraneous lights, dark adapting and you are good to go with no need of a red lamp.

 

I'm happy for those who have homes in bortle 4 skies or lower and just view in dark skies right there. No loading, no driving! I'm happy for them!

 

(happily, i received my pentax 40 xw-R and my nice 12mm nag t4.) the nag. came from california in only 4 days. Customs had to have just let it threw with these kinds of times. I am curious to see how both of these will interface with my two scopes in terms of low mag magnification and "finding things"...in the sky?

[vertigo777]

ps actually the paracorr has 5 grub screws...