Baader Hyperion zoom IV vs original zoom eye-piece on Celetsron M2 80 (1 Viewer)

[NatureLvrCanada]

I have the Celestron M2 80 and find it decently sharp. It has a 20-60x zoom eye-piece. Does the Baader Hyperion zoom IV have the same reach as the 20-60x eye-piece on the M2 80?

I have read that the Baader Hyperion is sharper at greater magnifications which is good. But is the zoom reach the same between he two eye-pieces?

 

[jring]

Hi,

the M2 in 80mm has a focal length of 480mm as per the Celestron web page, so yes, the Baader zoom with its focal length of 24-8mm will result into the same 20-60x magnification as the original zoom.

There also seems to be no non-ED version of the Regal M2 80mm - so you should have an ED body which in theory should be able to deliver a sharp view at 60x. If it actually does depends on the aberrations of your example - have you done a star-test?

Joachim

 

[NatureLvrCanada]

Hi,

the M2 in 80mm has a focal length of 480mm as per the Celestron web page, so yes, the Baader zoom with its focal length of 24-8mm will result into the same 20-60x magnification as the original zoom.

There also seems to be no non-ED version of the Regal M2 80mm - so you should have an ED body which in theory should be able to deliver a sharp view at 60x. If it actually does depends on the aberrations of your example - have you done a star-test?

Joachim

Thanks Joachim. I don't want to lose any reach with a new eye-piece. Since the Baader will give me the same reach but will be sharper, looks like I will be ordering the Baader soon.

My M2 80 at 60x is still decently sharp but not as sharp as in the lower zoom ranges (this is to be expected). It depends too on the lighting as it can affect contrast. But if I can improve the IQ by using the Baader Zoom, I'm all for it vs buying a more expensive scope. I am quite happy with the IQ of the M2 80 but sharper is better.

I have not done any star test but will Google and U-Tube it now.

 

[Tringa45]

Thanks Joachim. I don't want to lose any reach with a new eye-piece. Since the Baader will give me the same reach but will be sharper, looks like I will be ordering the Baader soon.

Joachim was stating that the sharpness at higher magnifications is dependent on the scope body, not the eyepiece.
A different eyepiece may have a different FoV or edge correction, but for the same magnification on terrestrial objects you would be unable to detect any differences in central sharpness.

John

 

[NatureLvrCanada]

Joachim was stating that the sharpness at higher magnifications is dependent on the scope body, not the eyepiece.
A different eyepiece may have a different FoV or edge correction, but for the same magnification on terrestrial objects you would be unable to detect any differences in central sharpness.

John

Thanks John. Obviously I will need to educate myself more on this. I use my scope 99.99% on terrestrial objects. Birds to be specific. Mainly large birds like owls and falcons.

 

[jring]

Hi,

as John has clarified, indeed in most cases the objective quality is the limiting factor for image quality.

There are rare cases of a bad eyepiece holding back the scope - an example were the Kowa TSN-3/4 fluorite bodies of old which did have few decent EPs back in the days (the 30 wide was and is still quite nice, the old 20-60 zoom was terrible and the higher mag fixed EPs were fairly narrow) and when Swaro countered with the AT80 HD with a quite usable 20-60 zoom EP, they quickly lost their appeal.

On the other hand a good example with a modern zoom can still deviver very good views.

So please read up on star testing (either under the skies or with a diy artificial star at 20-30m) and share the results before investing $$$ in a Baader zoom (unless you want it anyways fore astro).

Joachim

 

[Jkloz]

Joachim was stating that the sharpness at higher magnifications is dependent on the scope body, not the eyepiece.
A different eyepiece may have a different FoV or edge correction, but for the same magnification on terrestrial objects you would be unable to detect any differences in central sharpness.

John

This isnt true . The cheap eyepiece that is supplied with the regal goes soft at higher magnification and wont focus . The baader is sharp throughout its range .

 

[Tringa45]

This isnt true . The cheap eyepiece that is supplied with the regal goes soft at higher magnification and wont focus . The baader is sharp throughout its range .

I stand by my statement. If the supplied eyepiece (zoom?) is unsharp at the higher magnifications, it either achieves a higher magnification than the Baader, in which case you would be seeing objective deficiencies, or the eyepiece is defective.
On a good scope even a $30 Plössl would show a sharp central image.
Or have you been viewing in sunny conditions with unstable air?

 

[exup]

I have both the Baader MK4 zoom and 82003 M2 zoom (Spotting Scope Zoom Eyepiece | Celestron).

From memory, there is not a lot of difference. The Baader probably has the edge, but not by a large margin.
I am not at home and can't do another check at present.

This 82003 zoom is better than the standard zoom that comes with Trailseeker scopes. I suspect the astronomy version of the zoom is the same as the Trailseeker zoom.

I use the Regal M2 100mm scope and at full zoom the image degrades marginally.....as would be expected.

 

[JimL]

Another zoom worth considering is the SvBony SV135 7-21mm eyepiece, which is often available for around $50 US. There are some very experienced observers who feel the SV135 zoom is superior to the Baader Mk III and IV zooms, one of whom is Ernest of the website Astro_Talks. He has published detailed reviews of all three zoom eyepieces.

I use a SV135 for both terrestrial and Astro observing in scopes from 50mm to 102mm, and find them quite good. Small, light, sharp, and affordable. I haven’t viewed through either Baader zoom so I cannot comment from direct experience.

 

[Jkloz]

I stand by my statement. If the supplied eyepiece (zoom?) is unsharp at the higher magnifications, it either achieves a higher magnification than the Baader, in which case you would be seeing objective deficiencies, or the eyepiece is defective.
On a good scope even a $30 Plössl would show a sharp central image.
Or have you been viewing in sunny conditions with unstable air?

Ive used the factory supplied regal eyepiece in all conditions and distances and it goes soft at higher magnifications . This same phenomena is written about in alot of articles , reveiws and posts like this and that is what led me to the baader zoom . The reason is its that the factory eyepieces are inferior . Both eyepieces have the exact same range - 8-24 mm and i cant see how there could be much difference between the two in regards to focal lenth i know the scope fl dont change. You mention a $30 plossi which is a fixed ep , i use fixed ep’s also and have had no problems with those . The factory supplied zoom eyepice is just an inferior product . Saying it is defective isnt right either , if so from what i have read that issue is industry wide because i have read about it in many places in regards to alot of different scopes . Non removable ep’s seem to be the worst culprits it seems . The regal zoom is better than some of those i have tried though.

 

[Tringa45]

Ive used the factory supplied regal eyepiece in all conditions and distances and it goes soft at higher magnifications . This same phenomena is written about in alot of articles , reveiws and posts like this and that is what led me to the baader zoom . The reason is its that the factory eyepieces are inferior . Both eyepieces have the exact same range - 8-24 mm and i cant see how there could be much difference between the two in regards to focal lenth i know the scope fl dont change. You mention a $30 plossi which is a fixed ep , i use fixed ep’s also and have had no problems with those . The factory supplied zoom eyepice is just an inferior product . Saying it is defective isnt right either , if so from what i have read that issue is industry wide because i have read about it in many places in regards to alot of different scopes . Non removable ep’s seem to be the worst culprits it seems . The regal zoom is better than some of those i have tried though.

For the scope body conditions are of utmost importance, for the eyepiece distances are irrelevant.
What you are saying is that the eyepiece is good at 24 mm and bad at 8mm. It may indeed be a poor design or badly manufactured, but your arguments are unconvincing if based on false premises and hearsay. I'm out now.

 

[mayoayo]

I am also in agreement with the opinion that the Regal Zoom is not a bad zoom at all..It offers a view with a larger FOV than most zooms(I owned the scope and zoom,but im writing from memory)and image quality was not bad at all..My copy of the Regal 65 was AMAZING and the zoom was up to the job,I wish i had kept it,because it was a very good scope.The problem i had with the zoom was mechanic ..My copy got frozen at high power and couldnt zoom out,never again ,done ,gone..I also used the scope with two very good and sound astronomy eyepieces and in comparison the zoom was as good or pretty much as good in terms of image quality.I agree that the Baader its a better eyepiece..It offers a wider view,and its image quality might be as good or better ,plus is more reliable and of better quality in therm of finish ,materials,fit,coatings,etc,etc..(yes,previous Baader versions also had mechanic problems,but the mark IV specifically adressed this issue)...

 

[wllmspd]

I’ve got the mark2 and recently the 4 of the Baader, both work just fine. The later one is a bit more compact, but I’ve not had an y mechanical issues with the older one, should It?

Peter