• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Zoom Eyepiece Test: Baader, Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon (1 Viewer)

Henry,

Thanks for the link. I will go check it out.

On a related note, Can Popper and I have been discussing the performance of the various eyepieces he sent me to try to on the Celestron scope. The specific issue was why specific eyepieces were catching part of the prism edge and others weren't. CP's thought was that it had to do with the smythe lens. The ones that have it don't seem to show the prism cutoff. That would make the Baader definitely worthy of consideration assuming we can remove the silver collar.
 
did a quick eval of the hype zoom this saturday, again at the local hawk watch, using my at66 'fractor, and for a "control" of sorts, a nikon 82ed. my celestron c-fed, which i had to return due to a malfunctioning power dial, has not returned from their service department, so i will not be able to try the baader on that spotter for awhile yet.

first impresssions out of the box were very positive. quite a robust build, and extremely smooth and precise rotation of the power collar. love dem click stops! i have no other experience with variable power EP's, save for the celestron one that didnt work, so really dont have a base of comparison from a mechanical standpoint. but i wouldnt doubt that this would be about as good as it could get. i do note the hype sits very far down on the rim of both the 45-degree erect-image and 90-degree star diagonal, to the point where it interferes with the tightening of the set screw. not really a problem, as i just pulled the EP a hair off the thumb screw and all was well.

i was able to verify, as i have read in the past, and as mentioned by henry, that the 45 degree erect image diagonal does degrade the image substantially, esp above about 30-power. below that, i dont think the scale was large enough to really tell too much diff. at 50X though, max power for the baader on the at66, there was a distinct murkiness and loss of detail, as well as enhanced CA comparing the two accessories. numbers on a power transformer were barely distinguishable as numbers in the erect image diagonal, but could be clearly made out in the dielectric-mirror unit (albeit backwards!). maybe oneday someone will make one of these (for a reasonable price...) capable of holding onto 75-100X? i for one would be willing to spring for say, $100 or so. the baader top-shelf unit with input and output couplings would tip the scales at nearer to $300, i think, and that's a substantial outlay. also, a 90-degree star diagonal is not as neck-friendly to me as the 45-degree bend of the prism. plus the "think right? move left!" handling of the scope is a bit offputting, although i am sure i could get used to it. back to the ocular: the AFOV is somewhat restrictive at the 24mm setting, but as others have remarked, expands out rapidly once you hit the 21 or 20mm mark. eyerelief might be a problem for some with large, bulky frames. i tend to remove my glasses when using a scope so this wasnt a huge issue for me.

fair numbers of olive-sided flycatchers are beginning their neotropical trek southwards, tend to perch still for long periods at the tops of bare branches, and make a decent target for testing resolution performance, it seems, though of course with results not as repeatable or technical as a chart. the "olive sides" contain and are in part composed of long blurry, fat steaks running the lenght of the flanks of the birds. i was interested in how well the zoom, at max power especially, would render this detail. the nikon was fitted with the 50X fixed power ocular, an MC model i think (it has a rotating rigid eyecup). i have always considered the nikon fixed power oculars some of the best i have looked thru.

the birds were perched at several hundreds of feet distant, so that at 50X they were still fairly small in the image. fortunately, the early morning air was still, and the scene was lit by direct sunlight.

what i found, on the resolution of fine detail part, was to my eye the two were very, very close. at times i felt the nikon a bit superior at delineating the extent and number of flank streaks, then again after studying them thru the hyperion i wasn't so sure. if there was an advantage in this area to the nikon, it was small. i think this speaks well of the zoom!

there were a couple of areas though, where i did feel the hype suffered by direct, real-time comparison. one is what i would call contrast. at all power settings, particularly the 12 and 8-by stops, the hype's rendition seemed flatter, with a slight, but noticable, almost milky, washed out appearance to the scene . this had the effect of desaturating the colors of sky, branch and leaf in particular, at least when switching to the nikon, whose view was quite three-dimensional, with a cleaner rendering of color and tone. i also did not find the hyperion to be able to keep up with the fixed power ocular in terms of unity of focus across the field, whereas the 50X MC is one of the most uniform of EP's in this regard i have available, even considering some highly regarded astro ones. branches and small twigs, for example, were cleanly in focus from center to edge in the nikon, whereas the hyperion displayed some defocus beginning at, i'd guess, about 60%, maybe a bit more, out from the center.

perhaps it's not entirely fair to expect any zoom to compare point for point with an exemplary fixed-power ocular. i have to say the convienence of just dialing in a closer look is pretty cool, and overall the hyperion is quite an elegant piece of gear, and a good performer optically as well, particularly as regards detail retrieval. it certainly beats toting and switching out EP's on the fly!

regards,
UTC
 
I just bought a new Baader Hyperion zoom for use on my wife's birding scope (a Tak FC-50). I already have one of the early versions (chrome barrel, incorrectly labeled focal lengths) so I was able to compare the different versions.

The new version is surprisingly different from the early one. A close examination reveals slightly different mechanical parts and different reflection colors coming from the coatings. The adjustable eyecup is a few mm longer on the new one and it weighs about 1 oz less than the original. About half of the weight difference comes from a lighter 1.25" barrel, but the rest must come from internal changes. The new version is not parfocal with the old one, perhaps because of some changes in the barrel adapter rings.

The most important optical change I found is that the apparent field is narrower in the new version across the entire zoom range. I measured the "true" apparent fields of the new and old versions using Ron's (Surveyor) method of rotating the telescope on a tripod with a degree scale while sighting a target through the objective end as it moves from one edge of the eyepiece fieldstop to the other. This gives the true angle subtended by the apparent field including distortion. I measured the new one at each of its clickstops and the old one just at 24mm and 8mm since it has no accurate intermediate stops. You can expect about 2-3 degrees less apparent field in the new version at any given focal length. This is particularly unfortunate at the low magnification end since that was one of the original Baader's strong points compared to most other zooms. Here are the measurements.

New version

24mm - 42 degrees, Old version - 45 degrees

20mm - 49 degrees

16mm - 52 degrees

12mm - 58 degrees

8mm - 67 degrees, Old version - 69 degrees


I also found the center field sharpness and contrast at 8mm in my sample of the new version to be slightly inferior to my sample of the original. The new eyepiece is still pretty good, but during two nights of viewing Jupiter I was always aware that low contrast details were slightly easier to acquire and remained more stable through the original. Both eyepieces were good enough to reveal the superior image quality of an Astro-Physics Stowaway compared to a Takahashi SKY 90 at 63x, so even the new one is not going to be the limiting factor on a birding scope. Still, I would not have been quite as enthusiastic about this eyepiece if my original review had been of this particular specimen of the new version.

I also tried the idea from the Cloudy Nights thread of combining the Smyth element nosepiece from a Hyperion 17mm with the zoom, which I found makes a zoom with a range of about 12mm-4mm. I don't recommend this as the resulting eyepiece is truly terrible with bad on axis resolution and even worse off-axis performance with loads of lateral color, astigmatism and pincushion distortion. Clearly these things were not designed to be used together, so the 17mm will be going back. I'm also considering returning the zoom in hopes of getting a better specimen.
 
Last edited:
Interesting Henry as this is the first report that was even the slightest bit negative of v2.0. Like you, I was one of the first to buy the first version. Actually bought two to use in my binoviewer, but the out-of-whack zoom levels soon drove me mad so I sold them both within a few months. Always wanted to get another to use with my C5SE travel kit after reading v2.0 "fixed" the issue but just never got around to ordering. Hopefully, if get an exchange you can say it is just sample error!

cheers,
Rick
 
Thought I would add a little more information to this thread. Here are the results of some "true" focal length measurements I made of my two Baader zooms and my Zeiss zoom.

Old Baader - 8.38mm-22.9mm

New Baader - 8.44mm-24.6mm

Zeiss - 8.31mm-25mm

From these measurements it appears to me that most, if not all, of the apparent field difference I measured for the two Baaders at "24mm" results from the difference in their true focal lengths, since the field stop diameter is the same for both.
 
Last edited:
Henry:

Did either of the version of the Baader zoom eyepiece vignette at the wideest setting?

I have one that FrankD used to have and I noticed recently that that the longest focal length setting the edge of the field stop isn't crisp. A bit of playing around shows the edge of field is vignetting below perhaps 21mm (where it has a nice field stop).

I see this was reported in CN (so there might even be three versions of the EP).
 
Last edited:
Kevin,

Both of mine do the same thing. It looks like two things are happening at once. As the field group retreats into the eyepiece at low magnification the fieldstop goes out of focus and at the same time the end of the tube (which is also out of focus) comes into view and replaces the fieldstop as the aperture that limits the field width.

Henry
 
Thanks, Henry.

I was thinking that with the tweaks in focal length that you've shown that it was right at the edge of the design limits and perhaps there was some variation in revisions. Apparently not.

The odd thing was I didn't notice it first time I tried out the EP. I suspect I didn't spend much time at the long focal length end. So when I spotted it in the field I was a little puzzled until I realized what was happening.
 
Although I've looked at the moon through all kinds of scopes including 12"+ scopes, the first view of it with this combination nearly knocked my sox off. It's a huge, very bright, and amazingly detailed 50 degree orb in this eyepiece. Eye relief is such that I can see the entire fov while wearing glasses.

I agree - I've found the Meade 4.7 + 80 mm Diascope fantastic for casual astronomy and really useful for long distance work. You do need some sort of sighting device though. I've got a red dot sight (a tenner on ebay) which works very well.

Pete
 
Henry,

What is the exact model# on the Nikon zoom that you tested in this report a few years ago? Nikon's current web page says that the "MC" is a 20x-45x magnification range, not 20x-60x. Confusing! Adorama.com has this MC version on sale for $49.95, manufacturers part# 7466. The "new" MCII that you say you wish you had is going for $224.95 and is part#7467. Sounds like they switched part numbers and maybe kept the same old name on the (current) smaller zoom???

It matters. Camerlandny.com is selling part# 8339, a 3x zoom for Nikon Prostaff spotting scopes for $79.99 but those are inferior zooms to the MC Series, including the new MC smaller 2.5x zoom. All MC Series zooms have fully multicoated lenses on all of the lenses, not just some of them.

Very interested in your response. Thanks!
 
I think Henry refers to an older version of the current MCII. The older 20x-60x MC II v1.0 (my designation, not Nikons) is no longer available. Since the difference is mainly cosmetic I do not think Nikon changed the product# for MC II v2.0. So the #7467 20x-60x MCII is the one you want. It is superior to the #7466 20x-45x MC which is a completely different design.
 
Since the difference is mainly cosmetic I do not think Nikon changed the product# for MC II v2.0. So the #7467 20x-60x MCII is the one you want. It is superior to the #7466 20x-45x MC which is a completely different design.

Curious, how do you know that part# 7466 is a completely different design? It is listed in Nikon's current web page describing the whole MC Series listed as "13-30x/20-45x/25-56x MC zoom eyepiece" (the web page conveniently ignores part#'s, I got those from Adorama and CameraLandNY). It does have a different listed eye relief, being 1.2mm smaller. If you are right, then all the other MC Series eyepieces are also of the old design, since they all say "MC" and not "MCII"?? How do we KNOW what is of an old design and what is not, based on Nikon's current web page?

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/scopes/mc/index.htm

Henry tested an older MC Series 3x zoom, I assume it had a different part# than 7467. Was there an older MC Series 2.5x zoom, too???? What part# was it? AND, why is part# 7466 adjacent to the new 7467 if 7466 is of the old design?? Aren't Engineers at Nikon are usually picky about naming and numbering their redesigns? I would think that if the new 3X zoom had an older 2.5X counterpart, they would have numbered them together as a pair, just like it is now! Perhaps they are getting sloppy after all these years. Or perhaps purposely obfuscating the part#'s so we can't know what is a new design??? I tend to think that Engineers are logical and Marketing folks are NOT!!!

If all we are assuming is just based on some letters in a name, then I find it hard to believe one way or another that part# 7466 is of the older design. I need more facts but don't know where to get them.

Thanks for any clarification and thank you for trying to help me! I am new to birding and want to get the cost way down and not overspend....if possible.

:)
 
You are making the wrong assumptions. The page you reference above shows MC eyepieces #1,#2 & #7 are low-cost NARROW FIELD designs. These were the eyepieces that came with the old Fieldscope II and ED78. If you read the chart CAREFULLY you will see #3,4,5,6 are WIDE FIELD designs. These along with #8 MCII were introduced with the current Fieldscope III and ED82.

If you search the forum you may find pics showing the old MCII v1.0 and current MCII v2.0. Actually just look at the search results here. The pic for Adorama is v1.0. These are cosmetic differences that were recognized by users but Nikon never announced a change. Some users report optical differences but Nikon has never acknowledged changing the optical formula. I am sure the part# did not change. I have the list and it sequentially complete without any gaps.
 
Last edited:
Rick is correct about my Nikon zoom. It's the first version of the current 20x-60x zoom, not the 20x-45x model. Part # 7467 is printed on the box. Mine looks like the example on the right in Rick's link. Kimmo Absetz posted a detailed comparison of the old and new versions of 7467 here a few years ago. My recollection is that he found the differences to be slight. If you search his posts you can probably find it.
 
Rick and Henry,

Thank you so much for the time spent to explain it to me. I see the notes now at the bottom and how they affect which models are the old vs. new. Also, I see all the new ones can accept the digiscope adapter in the pictures. I will look for Kimmo's article which should be informative!

Tom
 
Obvious Mark 3 differences: It has Mark III on the EP. ;) Two different eyecups?

Opt Corp say they've been getting them from Aug 12th but are still filling backorders. So no one will have stock. They do call out the new features.

http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=9246

Features Of The New Mark III Version...

Optical quality further enhanced by optimizing the curve geometry of inner lenses
Internal zoom actuators and lens group centering made more rigid while allowing less play
Thermal response of mechanical system further improved with thermally matched metal components to allow use under even harsher environmental conditions
Greaseless movement of internal zoom lens group
Clickstop mechanics improved with greater smoothness and almost noiseless operation
Focal zoom positions optimized and refocusing requirements minimized
Dust protection enhanced throughout and front (telescope side) lens-group actuator sealed
Eyelens-group made watertight to seal eyepiece from rain during terrestrial operation
Large eyerest rubber cover redone to make the eyerest scratchproof for eyeglasses
Eyerest height adjustment made greaseless with step-curved click rest - as found on high quality binoculars
Now Optimized for Binoviewer use. The adjustable height eyerest assembly is now fully detachable for creating "nose space" when using two Zooms in a binoviewer. A pair of Zooms now provides the ultimate eyepiece set for binoviewing.
M43 threading accepts popular astigmatism correctors
Small Hyperion rubber eyecup added to fit M43 thread
Camera adapter thread changed from SP 54 to M43(SONY) for a variety of afocal camera adaptations
Accepts photo-adapter HTA43T2 (M42x0.75) for easy and rigid adaptation of various DSLR-T-Mount rings

I think "Eyelens-group made watertight to seal eyepiece from rain during terrestrial operation" is the one that most catches my eye for birding. A waterproof Zeiss EP without the yellow tint. Hurrah!

But the other improvements are nice too.

The picture they use is interesting too:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop...erion_Zoom/Hyperion-Zoom-MarkIII-Spektive.jpg

So that's a Celestron Ultima, Zeiss 85FL, Zeiss 65FL and ... the Promaster ELX ED 65mm scope. The latter is rather stubby and distinctive. And already comes with a "Hyperion-like" EP.

Curiously their town got hit with a tornado earlier in the year: http://www.baader-planetarium.de/kuppeln/baaderkuppel-im-orkan.htm

Translated by Google: http://translate.google.com/transla...netarium.de/kuppeln/baaderkuppel-im-orkan.htm
 
Last edited:
Mark III

Did someone compared the AFOV and eye-relief of the Mark III with the Mark I?
Found recently that my NEX 5 with the Sigma 30mm doesn't vignette at any magnifications on the Mark I, on my Optolyth 100. However the Mark I that I have is a recovered version with dust inside and would consider to purchase a Mark III if it will not vignette also...;)
 
It must be great to have a passion like that. We've learned a lot about birds in our biology classes, I even had an essay writing assignment once on local birds. I still lack practice so there's room for improvement in my case. Any advice for an interested beginner?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top