10 replies to this topic

[ABQJeff]

For my birthday I got myself a 13mm Ethos for use with my C11 Edge with 0.7x reducer.  I got this to split the difference between my 12.5 mm Morpheus and 14mm Morpheus as my “main eyepiece”, while giving wider field of views vs my 17.5mm Morpheus.

 

I had earlier tried the AT 13mm XWA but didn’t find it as comfortable in use as the Morpheus and it did not have as good of light scatter control.  Enter the 13mm Ethos.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Morphei.  And you will see they are still in my line up, just I found myself switching between the 12.5 and 14, and then having to use the 17.5 to fit targets.  So really it was about reducing number of EPs on my tray (three down to one ideally.)

 

Evaluation was done using my C11 Edge with 0.7x reducer, on galaxies in my home mpsas ~20.0 skies and dark site mpsas -21.9 skies.  No clouds, no wind, transparency very good.  

 

I do not wear glasses observing.

 

Note: I fully realize galaxies come small and come fairly large, some face on, some edge on, some bright mag 9, some mag 13.  This is about finding the best ~2mm exit pupil ‘main eyepiece’ that is most useful across the spectrum on average.  Of course if wanting to zoom in or out to optimally view a given galaxy, a different magnification could and would be used.

 

1) I first tried the 13mm Ethos vs the AT 13mm XWA, both with eye cups up.  The Ethos was more comfortable (more eye relief, didnt have to press as hard to get full FoV) also it had better light scatter control when a bright star was near (not that the AT 13mm was bad).  As far as image itself, the Ethos was a tad more “transparent” (ie could see a little more of the galaxies).  So Ethos 13mm won over AT 13mm XWA.  And the AT13mm XWA now awaits future sale.  But that was expected.

 

2) Now the real tests:

 

Home Skies:

For comfort and crispness of view to the edge,  I found the Morphei and Ethos both on par with each other.  The 14mm showed a brighter image but due to light pollution it was more washed out and galaxies not as easily seen vs the 13mm Ethos.  The 12.5 mm had higher contrast and galaxies were easier to see mainly because of punching thru the LP vs the 13mm Ethos.  So 12.5 mm Morpheus stays my default home galaxy eyepiece.

 

Versus the 17.5mm, the 13mm Ethos had a wider field of view and if I was wanting a larger exit pupil I would just go to my AT 20mm XWA.   So the 17.5mm really takes it on the chin, as I don't have a real use case for it on galaxies.

 

At dark site:

Since AT13mm XWA and 17.5mm were now both out of contention, it was just the Ethos 13mm vs Morpheus 14mm and 12.5mm.  Again the 14mm while having larger exit pupil/lower mag showed a slightly brighter image, the Ethos showed more detail across more galaxies.  Now using the 13mm Ethos vs the 12.5mm Morpheus, the extra mag that helped the 12.5mm in light pollution hurt it in dark skies.  The galaxy extensions and arms were over magnified and not as easily seen on average vs the Ethos.  So the Ethos 13mm is now my default dark sky site galaxy eyepiece.  And again if lower mag/ more exit pupil is needed I will use the AT 20mm XWA.

 

Bonus eval:  at home or dark site, on Milky Way targets (planetary nebula, open clusters, diffuse nebula, double stars), I also found the 13mm Ethos to be on average a better “main eyepiece” vs the 12.5mm Morpheus.

 

So my F/7 C11 Edge default line up is now:

Home: Pentax 40XW, ES 25mm 100, AT 20mm XWA, Ethos 13mm, Morpheus 12.5mm, 9mm, 6.5mm

Dark Site: Masuyama 50mm, Pentax 40XW, ES25mm 100, AT 20mm XWA, Ethos 13mm, Morpheus 9mm, 6.5mm

 

7 eyepieces for each (you can see why I had to free up the tray a little.)

 

Thank you to all those that chimed in on my earlier contemplation of getting the Ethos 13mm.

 

Jeff

Edited by ABQJeff, 29 April 2025 - 11:58 PM.

[Ernest_SPB]

So, suddenly in DSO observing new 100° costly EP wins against used 76° midprice!     

[Procyon]

I'm looking at your situation and it mirrors mine but in f/10 land with the C11. From the backyard on galaxies it's usually my 20mm TS Optics XWA that wins out with it's 2mm exit pupil. But sometimes I'll want something with more magx than the 20 but less than the 17mm. Say an 18.5mm (1.85mm exit pupil, same as your 13E at f/7), but nothing really good exists there. 19mm would feel to close to my 20mm, 18mm to my 17mm. I would get an 18mm, but which one?

From dark sites the 17mm Nikon HW comes in and stays in. Some galaxies look better in the 14mm Nikon HW. But usually it's the 17mm all night. A bit of a lower exit pupil vs the 12.5 Morpheus at f/7 but both sound about right with 1.7-1.78mm exit pupil. Dare you to try a 12mm Delos though lol.

Love your eyepiece set, how do you find the ES 25 100 at f/7? Can only imagine what the Masuyama looks like but I shouldn't derail your topic about your specific eyepieces on Galaxies. Clear skies.

Edited by Procyon, 30 April 2025 - 06:26 AM.

[ABQJeff]

I'm looking at your situation and it mirrors mine but in f/10 land with the C11. From the backyard on galaxies it's usually my 20mm TS Optics XWA that wins out with it's 2mm exit pupil. But sometimes I'll want something with more magx than the 20 but less than the 17mm. Say an 18.5mm (1.85mm exit pupil, same as your 13E at f/7), but nothing really good exists there. 19mm would feel to close to my 20mm, 18mm to my 17mm. I would get an 18mm, but which one?

From dark sites the 17mm Nikon HW comes in and stays in. Some galaxies look better in the 14mm Nikon HW. But usually it's the 17mm all night. A bit of a lower exit pupil vs the 12.5 Morpheus at f/7 but both sound about right with 1.7-1.78mm exit pupil. Dare you to try a 12mm Delos though lol.

Love your eyepiece set, how do you find the ES 25 100 at f/7? Can only imagine what the Masuyama looks like but I shouldn't derail your topic about your specific eyepieces on Galaxies. Clear skies.

I actually have a Delos 12, and optically it’s fine. Problem is I don’t like the adjustable eye relief twist lock. I can’t get them to stay put so always end up having to reset when I use it. I think Pentax XW has the best eye variable relief adjustment.

Thank you for the compliment. I find my ES 40mm 68 degree has slightly better stars than the Pentax 40XW but with a big bulk penalty, so these are my main line ups.

As far as the 25mm 100degree, it and the Masuyama 50mm do great in the Edge operating at F/7. I was hesitant due to mixed reviews along the lines of bad edge stars and “has to be F/10+” to be sharp. These eyepieces have not presented any optical problems at all.

Only thing with the 25mm 100 is you really have to press your face down to get the whole FoV. But if all you are trying to do is match the FoV of the ES 30mm 82 degree but with a bit higher magnification (to counter light pollution, see more detail, etc, like I was) it’s been great.

(of course there is always the fear of accidentally knocking this $1000 EP off the eyepiece tray.)

Edited by ABQJeff, 30 April 2025 - 08:53 AM.

[Procyon]

Forgot to mention I have a 25mm ES 100, bought during an ES sale in 2018 for 400. It's been my most used and liked eyepiece ever since. I find it so easy and comfy to use, with a gigantic nice sharp view.

I'm curious how the view will look like with a focal reducer, I'll try it this week. Will I see a true field of 1.4 Degrees at 70x f/6.3 or..

Edited by Procyon, 30 April 2025 - 10:07 AM.

[25585]

I actually have a Delos 12, and optically it’s fine. Problem is I don’t like the adjustable eye relief twist lock. I can’t get them to stay put so always end up having to reset when I use it. I think Pentax XW has the best eye variable relief adjustment.

Thank you for the compliment. I find my ES 40mm 68 degree has slightly better stars than the Pentax 40XW but with a big bulk penalty, so these are my main line ups.

As far as the 25mm 100degree, it and the Masuyama 50mm do great in the Edge operating at F/7. I was hesitant due to mixed reviews along the lines of bad edge stars and “has to be F/10+” to be sharp. These eyepieces have not presented any optical problems at all.

Only thing with the 25mm 100 is you really have to press your face down to get the whole FoV. But if all you are trying to do is match the FoV of the ES 30mm 82 degree but with a bit higher magnification (to counter light pollution, see more detail, etc, like I was) it’s been great.

(of course there is always the fear of accidentally knocking this $1000 EP off the eyepiece tray.)

I have never compared my 40mm XW to ES68, must do that someday.  I preferred the 34mm to a 35mm Panoptic, but use a 30mm UFF or XW most often.

[CowTipton]

...

 

You can tell the difference in magnification between 150x (12.5mm) and 156x (13mm?)

I need to switch to your diet.

[ABQJeff]

You can tell the difference in magnification between 150x (12.5mm) and 156x (13mm?)

I need to switch to your diet.

160x (12.5) vs 153x (13) but point is taken.  Yeah I can.  In reality the 12.5 is really more like 12.4, the 13 more like 13.1.  And it is not just these EPs, I can tell difference in other close pairs (which I more subscribe to round off by manufacturers vs any miracle eyes)

[CosmicWreckingBall]

I found the Morphei and Ethos both on par with each other.  The 14mm showed a brighter image but due to light pollution it was more washed out and galaxies not as easily seen vs the 13mm Ethos.  The 12.5 mm had higher contrast and galaxies were easier to see mainly because of punching thru the LP vs the 13mm Ethos.  So 12.5 mm Morpheus stays my default home galaxy eyepiece.

 

Versus the 17.5mm, the 13mm Ethos had a wider field of view and if I was wanting a larger exit pupil I would just go to my AT 20mm XWA.   So the 17.5mm really takes it on the chin, as I don't have a real use case for it on galaxies.

So these two comments are fascinating to me.  I've owned both the 13 Ethos and currently the 12.5 & 17.5 Morphei.  I didn't own them concurrently unfortuantely so didn't test them side by side.  You've got me wishing I had.  I loved the view through the Ethos, just as much as I've loved the views through the 12.5 & 17.5.  But I have wondered if the galaxies popped as much in the 13 as they do in the 12.5.  

As for the 17.5 taking it on the chin, I find I go straight to a giant FOV for anything past the 12.5 these days ( a Masuyama 32 ) which often reveals those open clusters that the 12.5 and 17.5 hide.  

Anywho, I'm going to have to track down a 13 ethos and make these comparisons myself. 

Thanks for your post. . Following for sure.

Edited by CosmicWreckingBall, 30 April 2025 - 01:38 PM.

[vrodriguez2324]

Jeff, 

 

Have fun with the 13E!

 

You're right that 13XWA (I have the 13.5 Optimus) is still a very good eyepiece. I haven't listed mine yet because I am hesitant to break up my Optimus set. However, I am slowly building up the courage to do so.

 

-Victor

[ABQJeff]

So these two comments are fascinating to me.  I've owned both the 13 Ethos and currently the 12.5 & 17.5 Morphei.  I didn't own them concurrently unfortuantely so didn't test them side by side.  You've got me wishing I had.  I loved the view through the Ethos, just as much as I've loved the views through the 12.5 & 17.5.  But I have wondered if the galaxies popped as much in the 13 as they do in the 12.5.  

As for the 17.5 taking it on the chin, I find I go straight to a giant FOV for anything past the 12.5 these days ( a Masuyama 32 ) which often reveals those open clusters that the 12.5 and 17.5 hide.  

Anywho, I'm going to have to track down a 13 ethos and make these comparisons myself. 

Thanks for your post. . Following for sure.

The 13mm Ethos vs 12.5mm Morpheus in suburban skies is subtle but noticeable.