Baader Hyperion eyepieces in a Skywatcher Mak150

[Searching81]

Anyone have any experience using a Baader Hyperion eyepiece in one of the newer Skywatcher BD Mak 150 that comes with a 2" diagonal? I've heard some diagonals won't fit the Hyperions with the rear elements attached. Keen to know if anyone can confirm or deny the fit on this scope.

Cheers

[mental4astro]

Hyperions are a great optical match to SCTs & Maks. They really are good together.

There's a simple solution to your question. If the field lens touches the diagonal mirror, use the 1.25" adapter. Hyperions are really 1.25" EPs with a 2" collar higher up. You aren't taking anything away from these EPs by using them only as a 1.25".

Mental.

[Searching81]

Thanks Mental. That's an easy solution. :)

I'd just discovered that Baader sell a 2" stop ring specifically for the purpose of protecting the mirror in the diagnoal... but that might be troublesome if the eyepieces aren't inserted far enough to be stable... plus I'd either need to buy a stop ring for each of the three eyepieces or mark the point the ring should be and swap it on the go... even more complicated as i'm thinking of getting some of the fine-tuning rings too, which would mean different points on the lens to place the ring depending what element is inserted.

A bit off topic, but since you seem familar with this setup, what do you think of a 21mm, 13mm and 8mm set of lens for the Mak 150 (FL 1800mm)... the 8mm with fine tuning ring would take me to the theoretical limit of magnification with this scope... I don't think I'd get much mileage out of the 5mm as it would be past the magnification limit. I like that the 21mm can be converted to 32mm by removing the bottom element too. From looking around, this seems like a fairly cost effective and flexible set, but I'd be interested in any advice you have.

[MattT]

Cameron,
Very close to the 21 13 8 FL's you mention, I use the ES 100º, 20 14 and 9mm on my 150 f8 refractor. Put em with a 2X 2" barlow and it's a terrific combo. Have had the 5 and 8mm Hyperions with the two tuning rings and while nice in theory the rings are really a waste of space. I never ever used them.
Matt

[mental4astro]

Those three Hyperions are all a nice crop for the Mak. The typical magnification limit for a scope is usually given as 50X per inch of aperture. BUT, 60X is not unrealistic, & I take it as the upper limit just to suit the scope I've got. So a 5mm wouldn't be out of the question for a 6" Mak, if it's got good optics.

There's a more limiting factor though, & that is the atmosphere. Typical upper limit is around 120 to 150X. Good conditions will allow 250X. Exceptional conditions 400X, or more - but not too often. I use my 8" SCT for the Moon & planets. Not often I can use my 5mm Hyperion to get to 400X, but for those occasions when I can, I'm glad I've got it. You can use fine tuning rings, but the problem with these is you will introduce dust into the EP, & it means more stuffing around in the dark. I considered them too, but didn't go with them. But others have & are happy with them.

Also, don't dismiss low power with your Mak. Longer focal length EPs work well with them too. Only thing you need to be mindful of is the size of the bore in the back of the scope - if it is smaller than the clear field aperture (field stop) of the EP, you'll see what is called vignetting, which is a softening of the edge if the field of view instead of seeing a nice sharp edge. Some people scream blue bloody murder if they see this. Bit silly really this reaction. If it happens, & it bugs you, well, just use a shorter focal length EP, or one with a smaller apparent field of view.

Mental.

[mental4astro]

Ah, Matt, 100 deg AFOV EPs. <sigh> I don't like them, I don't use them, but I can see why others do.

Cameron, what Matt's brought up is something you should consider before splashing out any more money. Get to a star party & look through these exotic EPs & others. Maybe borrow one to use in you Mak. Then see what feels most comfortable for you. THIS is most important, not what I or Matt prefer (though I think Matt is just wrong! :P). No use getting an new EP if you end up unhappy with it from hyped up expectations.

Mental.

[Wavytone]

Won't need a Barlow in Mak :rofl::rofl:

Cameron,

I have the bigger brother to your Mak (the 180mm f/15 Skywatcher), Hyperions will be fine. For your Mak focal lengths in the range 10-36mm are ideal, and occasionally you might use 8mm. FWIW my eyepieces are a set of Vixen LVW's, though the 5mm is only useful on my f/7 refractor (not the Mak).

[Steffen]

In my 1800/150 Mak the 12mm and 17.5mm eyepieces are the most used, followed by the 24mm. The 7.5mm (previously) and 8.5mm (now) work well, too. On good nights I got great planetary views with 6mm and 5mm orthos, even.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Searching81]

Thanks for all the great info, guys. :)

Wavytone - I debated long and hard about whether to get the 150 or the 180 Mak... i ended up going with the 150 as it comes with an aluminium case and will be more portable... my original plan was to get a 190 Mak-Newt as I'm keen on eventually geting into photography... but that thing looks too unweldy for use as a casual observing scope... maybe in a couple of years. :D

Mental & MattT - I did wonder at how much of a pain those fine tuning rings would be in the dark... I might pass on them given your experience... would be nice to be able to get a little lower than the 8mm though without buying a 5mm and the rings were my cunning plan to do that.

I should point out, I don't actually have the Mak yet... ordered today, should be on my doorstep Friday... already have the EQ6 Pro... can't wait... my last scope was a horrid, horrid Bushnell Northstar Goto Newt than had NO INTERNAL CLOCK, so aligning the Goto was a completely pointless exercise... took me a while to figure that out. I wasted so many long nights with that thing trying to make it work... ended up using it just in manual mode... excited to have some real equipment now :lol:

[Searching81]

Is that the Skywatcher Mak 150? Would you recommend an 8mm or 5mm, assuming the next step up you had was a 13mm? I feel a little like I'm boxing myself into a corner with the 5mm

[Steffen]

No, it's the Intes MK-67.

I wouldn't worry about the 5mm. It's not totally useless but also not nearly as useful as 10mm and up. For many years the shortest eyepiece I used semi-regularly was the 7.5mm (240x), even then viewing conditions really became a huge factor.

Your plan of getting the 8, 13 and 21mm is not bad. Have you considered the 10, 17 and 24 instead? I bet you get even more use out of those.

Or, instead of spending $600 on three Hyperions you could spend $660 on two Delosses, say the 12mm and the 17.3mm.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Wavytone]

Cameron,

If I'm not mistaken the Skywatcher 150mm is f/12, which means the upper practical limit for magnification is 225X (1.5 the aperture, in mm) and the lowest useful focal length (6mm exit pupil) is 48mm.

Eyepiece FL vs magnification

4mm : 450X - way too high
6mm : 300X - still too high
8mm : 225X - practical upper limit, you should see diffraction rings easily around bright stars.
10mm: 180X - good for high power on DSO's, you should just begin to discern teh diffraction patter round stars. Ideal for planets.
13mm: 135X - optimal in average seeing
17mm: 106X
22mm: 82X
28mm: 64X - good, worth trying
36mm: 50X - good low power, probably the lowest for your scope
42mm: 43X - unlikely to fill the field of a big 2" eyepiece (vignetting)
50mm: 36X - unlikely to fill the field of a big 2" eyepiece (vignetting)

Regarding eyepiece sets, a set of Edmund RKE's would work well with that scope covering 8-28mm in 1.25" barrels though their apparent FoV is smaller than the Hyperions.'


My other scope is an Intes M703 (180mm f/10), but the Skywatcher is the one that is used most.

[Searching81]

Wow, great info! Thanks! :)