95 replies to this topic

[No mans land]

Hi everyone! I’m having a hard time deciding between the Morpheus and apm to build a set of (or maybe a combination of both) and I would appreciate if you could share your experience with each eyepiece to make a clearer decision.
They’ll be used on a 10” F4.7 dob, currently I own the ES 30/82, ES 20/68 and baader baader zoom eyepieces.
The 30/82 gets very little use as it is too wide most of the time (and too heavy), the 20/68 is a great EP but the Fov is too narrow for my liking and I plan to keep the baader zoom as a planetary eyepiece + Barlow. (I don’t wear glasses ).
I’ll appreciate any input that helps with the decision, thanks in advance!

[jrazz]

What do you like about each? What makes you pause?

[No mans land]

My main issue is if the added comfort of the Morpheus compensates for the smaller fov, as far as I know the XWAs have quite tight eye relief and in my scope a CC would be mandatory. On the other side, does the 100 fov make up for the extra hassle of a CC and tighter ER? I guess the discussion is about comfort vs fov.
Could the eye relief of the Morpheus be “too long”?

[rgk901]

I've been decided on this same thing... it's been 3 years and still can't make up my mind.

you could buy one of each, try them out, then continue with your choice and sell the other one..they are both popular and easy to sell

Edited by rgk901, 09 March 2025 - 06:27 PM.

[Nut2But]

I just got off this boat. For me I just switched from Morpheus to XWA's. I had no eye position issues with the XWA's the eye relief felt fine to me. The eyepiece gets out of the way for me. One issue with the XWA's is with real cold weather and fogging. Just something for me to be aware of when the temps drop too far below freezing. More me than the eyepiece. To me sharpness, contrast, comfort between them was equal. XWA weighs more, are physically larger, but give that impressive FOV. Going back and forth between the XWA's and the Morpheus, things definitely felt cramped with the Morpheus. No balance issues with the XWA for me. To me they don't give up anything to the Morpheus line, only build upon them.

 

As a shameless plug, I just listed my 6.5 and 9 mm Morpheus in the classifieds. The 9mm is discounted a bit due to imperfections. (Images are still impeccable) But you could get one for a little less than the going rate to try out the gate.

[Astro-Master]

Hi everyone! I’m having a hard time deciding between the Morpheus and apm to build a set of (or maybe a combination of both) and I would appreciate if you could share your experience with each eyepiece to make a clearer decision.
They’ll be used on a 10” F4.7 dob, currently I own the ES 30/82, ES 20/68 and baader baader zoom eyepieces.
The 30/82 gets very little use as it is too wide most of the time (and too heavy), the 20/68 is a great EP but the Fov is too narrow for my liking and I plan to keep the baader zoom as a planetary eyepiece + Barlow. (I don’t wear glasses ).
I’ll appreciate any input that helps with the decision, thanks in advance!

If the ES 30/82 is too wide and too heavy and the ES 20/68 has too narrow a FOV with a power of 60x but only a 1.1* FOV, then what about the TV 27/68* Panoptic with a power of 44x and a 1.5* FOV with an ideal 5.7mm exit pupil for low power views using a nebular filter, and it only weighs 18 ounces compared to 2.2lbs for the ES 30/82.

 

I compared the TV 22 Nagler 82* with my 27mm Panoptic 68* in my 6" F/4.8 Mak-Newt, on wide open clusters and discovered they both had the same TFOV, but 27 Panoptic framed the cluster better with the lower power, while the view at the higher power with the 22 Nagler was like I was almost looking through the cluster.  

 

I've been using 100* FOV eyepieces in my 18" Dob for years, they're great for high power views with a wide FOV, but for low power views of large clusters I have a light weight 31mm/72* AFOV eyepiece with a 1.06* TFOV that allows me to see the cluster at a lower power rather than the feeling of looking through the cluster at higher power.

[ABQJeff]

I mix the two.  Baader Morpheus line, then the 20mm XWA.  Morpheus are more comfortable to use and for me, give a better image, but yes narrower FoV.  The 20mm XWA slots nicely as a larger TFoV eyepiece above the Morphei but below max TFOV eyepieces.

 

I like the 20mm so much I got the 13mm thinking I would replace the 12.5 and 14 Morphei.  Nope.

 

I don't like the 13mm XWA for faint fuzzies.  It is not as clear as the Morphei and has more background and edge light scatter (ie less contrast).  So I solely use the 13mm XWA for bright large open clusters.  I am contemplating a 13mm Ethos hoping to get rid of the 13mm XWA issues.

 

(note: after the 20mm XWA I have ES 25mm 100, ES30-82. Pentax 40XW and Masuyama 50mm for wider fields larger exit pupils.)

 

Scope: C11 Edge operating at F/7.

[vrodriguez2324]

I had a mixture of XWAs and Morpheus in my set. I like them both for different reasons. Each has unique characteristics and a different presentation.

 

Now I have two sets.

 

As far as too much eye relief. The included eyegaurd extender and foldable eye cups provide enough options to dial in the best "eye to lens" distance. Once you find a good position holding the exit pupil is easy.

 

Victor 

Edited by vrodriguez2324, 09 March 2025 - 11:50 PM.

[Piero DP]

Both are fine eyepieces.
Apart from ergonomics, aFOV and eye relief, both would benefit from a coma corrector at f4.7. Coma will be more visible at the edge of the XWAs of course.

I don't have telescopes with that focal ratio.
In my 12" F6 WITHOUT PC2, the comatic smear at the very edge of the XWAs is negligible to my eye.
In my 16" F4 WITHOUT PC2, the comatic smear from about a bit more than 1/2 the FOV of my Delos is unacceptable to my eye (e.g. target details are compromised and lost).
I have not formally calculated the comatic smears for my findings above - just based on my eye.

At f4.7 without CC or plan to get one, I would go for the Morpheus.

Why don't you get one of either from the s/h market and try yourself?

[No mans land]

I just got off this boat. For me I just switched from Morpheus to XWA's. I had no eye position issues with the XWA's the eye relief felt fine to me. The eyepiece gets out of the way for me. One issue with the XWA's is with real cold weather and fogging. Just something for me to be aware of when the temps drop too far below freezing. More me than the eyepiece. To me sharpness, contrast, comfort between them was equal. XWA weighs more, are physically larger, but give that impressive FOV. Going back and forth between the XWA's and the Morpheus, things definitely felt cramped with the Morpheus. No balance issues with the XWA for me. To me they don't give up anything to the Morpheus line, only build upon them.

As a shameless plug, I just listed my 6.5 and 9 mm Morpheus in the classifieds. The 9mm is discounted a bit due to imperfections. (Images are still impeccable) But you could get one for a little less than the going rate to try out the gate.

I’m surprised the 9mm Morpheus being discontinued, as far as I’ve read it is the special one of the line and highly praised virtually by anyone who has it.
Fogging isn’t a real issue here in Spain, it tends to be very dry and I could use a dew heater, but that’s a good point and I’ll take it into account, thanks!

[No mans land]

If the ES 30/82 is too wide and too heavy and the ES 20/68 has too narrow a FOV with a power of 60x but only a 1.1* FOV, then what about the TV 27/68* Panoptic with a power of 44x and a 1.5* FOV with an ideal 5.7mm exit pupil for low power views using a nebular filter, and it only weighs 18 ounces compared to 2.2lbs for the ES 30/82.

I compared the TV 22 Nagler 82* with my 27mm Panoptic 68* in my 6" F/4.8 Mak-Newt, on wide open clusters and discovered they both had the same TFOV, but 27 Panoptic framed the cluster better with the lower power, while the view at the higher power with the 22 Nagler was like I was almost looking through the cluster.

I've been using 100* FOV eyepieces in my 18" Dob for years, they're great for high power views with a wide FOV, but for low power views of large clusters I have a light weight 31mm/72* AFOV eyepiece with a 1.06* TFOV that allows me to see the cluster at a lower power rather than the feeling of looking through the cluster at higher power.

Unfortunately all televue gear is out of my budget and really hard to get used in Spain as Vsiual Astronomy is non existent except for a few free wheelers, the APM XWA and Morpheus are easy to get and the cost exactly the same, that makes the decision even harder

[No mans land]

I had a mixture of XWAs and Morpheus in my set. I like them both for different reasons. Each has unique characteristics and a different presentation.

Now I have two sets.

As far as too much eye relief. The included eyegaurd extender and foldable eye cups provide enough options to dial in the best "eye to lens" distance. Once you find a good position holding the exit pupil is easy.

Victor

Doesn’t it feel like “hovering” over the EP? I don’t like brushing my eye laces against the glass, neither hovering over it. I feel like being close to the rubber helps with eye positioning.

[No mans land]

Both are fine eyepieces.
Apart from ergonomics, aFOV and eye relief, both would benefit from a coma corrector at f4.7. Coma will be more visible at the edge of the XWAs of course.

I don't have telescopes with that focal ratio.
In my 12" F6 WITHOUT PC2, the comatic smear at the very edge of the XWAs is negligible to my eye.
In my 16" F4 WITHOUT PC2, the comatic smear from about a bit more than 1/2 the FOV of my Delos is unacceptable to my eye (e.g. target details are compromised and lost).
I have not formally calculated the comatic smears for my findings above - just based on my eye.

At f4.7 without CC or plan to get one, I would go for the Morpheus.

Why don't you get one of either from the s/h market and try yourself?

I plan on getting a GSO CC, I think it should work fine at f4.7, I’ve read they are quite finicky to set up, the paracorr is out of budget unfortunately.
There isn’t a single XWA/morpheus on the used market in Spain, I have to get them new if a want to give it a try, that’s why I would like to get the definitive one but I guess I won’t know which one is the definitive until I compare them side by side.

[vrodriguez2324]

I just got off this boat. For me I just switched from Morpheus to XWA's. I had no eye position issues with the XWA's the eye relief felt fine to me. The eyepiece gets out of the way for me. One issue with the XWA's is with real cold weather and fogging. Just something for me to be aware of when the temps drop too far below freezing. More me than the eyepiece. To me sharpness, contrast, comfort between them was equal. XWA weighs more, are physically larger, but give that impressive FOV. Going back and forth between the XWA's and the Morpheus, things definitely felt cramped with the Morpheus. No balance issues with the XWA for me. To me they don't give up anything to the Morpheus line, only build upon them.

 

As a shameless plug, I just listed my 6.5 and 9 mm Morpheus in the classifieds. The 9mm is discounted a bit due to imperfections. (Images are still impeccable) But you could get one for a little less than the going rate to try out the gate.

The 9mm is not being discontinued as far as I know. Nut2But was just mentioning that he has one for sale in the classifieds at a discount. 

 

I’m surprised the 9mm Morpheus being discontinued, as far as I’ve read it is the special one of the line and highly praised virtually by anyone who has it.
Fogging isn’t a real issue here in Spain, it tends to be very dry and I could use a dew heater, but that’s a good point and I’ll take it into account, thanks!

Edited by vrodriguez2324, 10 March 2025 - 01:28 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

I have complete sets of both the XWAs and the Morpheus's.  I also have an almost complete set of 1.25 inch Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers as well as the 13mm, 10mm and 8mm Ethos.  I use a Paracorr 2 and my Dobs range from F/4.06 to F/5.5 with the most used being F/4.4 and F/5,  I do not wear glasses at the eyepiece.

 

Both are very good eyepieces.  From darker skies, I like the XWAs and Ethos's but part of that is that I am using them in relatively large scopes. The wider field at higher magnifications is helpful. In my 10 inch, the Morpheus are lighter, easier to balance and have plenty of field of view.  In some ways, the views are very similar.  It's questionable how useful the outer field of view is, that outer beyond 80 degrees is more about context and framing, not about actually observing an object.  

 

With the XWAs, that field is out there but the eye relief is not sufficient for eye glass wearers. With the Morpheus, that added field is missing but they are using the large eye lenses to get more eye relief..  

 

If you lived around here, I would invite you over and let you compare them.

 

Edit:

 

Thinking about the Morpheus's.  The eyepieces themselves are very good but as a set, the spacings are goofy.  17.5mm, 14mm, 12.5mm, 9mm, 6.5mm (6.8mm ?), 4.5mm (4.8mm?)   The XWAs are better spaced and cover a wider range.  Both sets have 6 eyepieces but the Morpheus's have some overly close spacings and cover a narrower range of focal lengths.  That is a big reason, I prefer the XWA/Ethos for deep sky and the Naglers for Planetary/double star stuff.

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 10 March 2025 - 06:24 AM.

[SeattleScott]

Doesn’t it feel like “hovering” over the EP? I don’t like brushing my eye laces against the glass, neither hovering over it. I feel like being close to the rubber helps with eye positioning.

That’s the point of the eyecup extension. You make the eyecup (eye relief) as long or short as you want, but your eyelashes won’t touch. Most people don’t want to actually touch the rubber eyecup. They just want it to use as a guide for where to put their eye, and maybe to block ambient light.

[SeattleScott]

I plan on getting a GSO CC, I think it should work fine at f4.7, I’ve read they are quite finicky to set up, the paracorr is out of budget unfortunately.
There isn’t a single XWA/morpheus on the used market in Spain, I have to get them new if a want to give it a try, that’s why I would like to get the definitive one but I guess I won’t know which one is the definitive until I compare them side by side.

Remember, the trick to the GSO coma corrector is making all your eyepieces parfocal. And the XWAs aren’t parfocal with each other. You can still go this route, just expect to spend more on parfocal rings and eyepiece extensions.

Edited by SeattleScott, 10 March 2025 - 07:21 AM.

[jrazz]

My main issue is if the added comfort of the Morpheus compensates for the smaller fov, as far as I know the XWAs have quite tight eye relief and in my scope a CC would be mandatory. On the other side, does the 100 fov make up for the extra hassle of a CC and tighter ER? I guess the discussion is about comfort vs fov.
Could the eye relief of the Morpheus be “too long”?

I think the differences are smaller than you might think.

 

The XWA's relief isn't super tight for people who don't need glasses but on the other hand the difference in AFOV is not as large as you might think looking at the numbers. Both feel wide and comfortable. 

 

Both are excellent choices. Pick the one that looks nicest to you

 

 

Edit:

There is one big difference though that might make you want to consider one over the other. I have a 10" f/4.7 and don't feel a need for a CC. If, however, you do want to use a CC I believe the Morpheus are parfocal. The XWA are not. This would make using a CC much easier and would singularly be a reason to choose Morpheus over XWA. 

Edited by jrazz, 10 March 2025 - 10:01 AM.

[f18dad]

The 17.5mm Morph isn’t parfocal with the rest of the lineup. But hey, life’s not perfect! Or parfocal either!

[SeattleScott]

The 17.5mm Morph isn’t parfocal with the rest of the lineup. But hey, life’s not perfect! Or parfocal either!

True, although the 17.5 is frankly the last Morpheus I would get for a 10” Dob.

And a Nikon 17.5 is the same focal length, same AFOV, and I believe parfocal with the other Morpheus when using 1.25” barrel. Similar price also, in the States at least. However it doesn’t have a 2” barrel like Morpheus.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

There is one big difference though that might make you want to consider one over the other. I have a 10" f/4.7 and don't feel a need for a CC. If, however, you do want to use a CC I believe the Morpheus are parfocal. The XWA are not. This would make using a CC much easier and would singularly be a reason to choose Morpheus over XWA.

 

The 9mm though the 3.5mm are parfocal.  With a Paracorr, it's not a big deal, with others it might be.  For me, the real issue with the Morpheus's is the spacings and the range.  4.5mm/4.8mm is just not enough, it's around 250x..  In general, eyepieces should be spaced more closely at shorter focal lengths.  17.5-12.5-9-6.5-4.5 is decent except that the 17.5 mm is only 72 degrees.

 

I am trying hard to like the Morpheus's but they just aren't working as well as the type 5 and type 6 Naglers or the XWA/Ethos's.  

 

I agree about XWA eye relief, I don't wear glasses at the eyepiece, I find them comfortable.

 

Jon

[SeattleScott]

Yeah, the Morpheus do get a little wonky at the end. The 12.5 field stop is 48% more than the 9, and the 17.5 field stop is only 27% more than the 12.5. And there is the oddball 14, with 8% larger field stop than the 12.5 and 17% less than the 17.5, so it kind of becomes either/or, with people either getting the 14, or the 12.5 and 17.5.

[Jon Isaacs]

Yeah, the Morpheus do get a little wonky at the end. The 12.5 field stop is 48% more than the 9, and the 17.5 field stop is only 27% more than the 12.5. And there is the oddball 14, with 8% larger field stop than the 12.5 and 17% less than the 17.5, so it kind of becomes either/or, with people either getting the 14, or the 12.5 and 17.5.

 

If you choose the 14mm and 12.5 mm, there is very little difference in magnification..  I have them all, I use them all when I use them.. If the 14mm were a 3.5mm, that would be great.

 

Jon

[No mans land]

I have complete sets of both the XWAs and the Morpheus's. I also have an almost complete set of 1.25 inch Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers as well as the 13mm, 10mm and 8mm Ethos. I use a Paracorr 2 and my Dobs range from F/4.06 to F/5.5 with the most used being F/4.4 and F/5, I do not wear glasses at the eyepiece.

Both are very good eyepieces. From darker skies, I like the XWAs and Ethos's but part of that is that I am using them in relatively large scopes. The wider field at higher magnifications is helpful. In my 10 inch, the Morpheus are lighter, easier to balance and have plenty of field of view. In some ways, the views are very similar. It's questionable how useful the outer field of view is, that outer beyond 80 degrees is more about context and framing, not about actually observing an object.

With the XWAs, that field is out there but the eye relief is not sufficient for eye glass wearers. With the Morpheus, that added field is missing but they are using the large eye lenses to get more eye relief..

If you lived around here, I would invite you over and let you compare them.

Edit:

Thinking about the Morpheus's. The eyepieces themselves are very good but as a set, the spacings are goofy. 17.5mm, 14mm, 12.5mm, 9mm, 6.5mm (6.8mm ?), 4.5mm (4.8mm?) The XWAs are better spaced and cover a wider range. Both sets have 6 eyepieces but the Morpheus's have some overly close spacings and cover a narrower range of focal lengths. That is a big reason, I prefer the XWA/Ethos for deep sky and the Naglers for Planetary/double star stuff.

Jon

Seems like there isn’t a wrong choice in this case, rather preferences. I think I’ll give the XWA’s a try as I don’t wear glasses and the 100FOV is intriguing to me. I won’t buy a full set right away and will start either with the 9 or 13 to see if I actually enjoy that extra fov.
Many thanks for the info, it’s been really helpful.

[No mans land]

I think the differences are smaller than you might think.

The XWA's relief isn't super tight for people who don't need glasses but on the other hand the difference in AFOV is not as large as you might think looking at the numbers. Both feel wide and comfortable.

Both are excellent choices. Pick the one that looks nicest to you


Edit:
There is one big difference though that might make you want to consider one over the other. I have a 10" f/4.7 and don't feel a need for a CC. If, however, you do want to use a CC I believe the Morpheus are parfocal. The XWA are not. This would make using a CC much easier and would singularly be a reason to choose Morpheus over XWA.

Unfortunately on my es 30/82 coma is evident and somewhat distracting so a CC is for sure on my way, either for Morpheus or APM. Is that much of a pain to parafocalize non parafocal eyepieces?