Baader Zoom

[garymck]

Hi,
wondering how good the Baader zoom eyepiece is? Usage will be in a C11. I have a 31mm Nagler as my deep sky eyepiece and that sits in the scope 90% of the time. Looking at the zoom for planetary viewing as I often have to chase the seeing - I'm in Geelong, and the seeing is incredibly variable from appalling to magnificent- sometimes in the same night. It is a real pain changing eyepieces to determine optimum viewing, so thinking about this one eyepiece to make things easier.

I must wear specs due to severe asigmatism, so also wondering how it fares wearing them?
TIA
cheers
Gary

[Camelopardalis]

They're pretty good...in the right scope. IMO the focal range isn't good for a C11...for a C8 it would be a better fit.

I'm not being funny, but if changing eyepieces is a "real pain", then maybe this isn't the hobby for you :lol:

Seeing - especially with a scope with the focal length of a C11 - comes and goes regardless. Pick a focal length, stick it in the scope and be patient. As the seeing will come and go - and there is nothing we can do about that - just sit and watch and every now and again you will be rewarded with moments of decent seeing that will make it worthwhile.

One eyepiece that I find works well in my C11 is the Pentax XF 12.5mm. The magnification isn't too high, so you increase your chances of getting more moments of good seeing, it's nice and sharp and the eye relief is good for specs (20mm iirc).

[gaseous]

I use my Baader Zoom in a large dob, so not sure of the viewing differences between that and a C11 other than the much longer focal length, but I really enjoy it. I wouldn't say changing eyepieces is a real pain for me, but certainly limiting the number of times I have to faff about with EPs in the dark was a contributing factor to its purchase, so I understand where you're coming from. Can't comment on the astigmatism/glasses issue, but in the reviews I read prior to purchasing it, it was a well regarded eyepiece, and I would certainly recommend it, all things being equal. In your C11 I think it would give about 350x maximum mag, which is pretty good for planetary I would have thought. Others with more knowledge of SCTs could probably provide more insight.

[garymck]

Hi,
well I bought a new Mark 4 version with matching Baader zoom barlow (have other scopes I can use it in). Got it from the UK. The cost of the eyepiece and barlow plus DHL Express delivery was cheaper than buying a Mark3 plus postage here! Plus based on shipping time here, I'll probably get it quicker than I would if I bought it in Australia....

cheers
Gary

[Camelopardalis]

The zoom barlow will be redundant with your C11 but it's a nice little barlow and works well with shorter focal length scopes or if you get into planetary imaging ;)

[bigjoe]

I agree also; I just use the zoom to find the ideal magnification for the seeing conditions and object that night . Usually then I'll change to a 13mm Nagler in a similar scope ; a 10" Sct for doubles ,planets etc.
bigjoe.

[garymck]

Hi,
Im aware that the zoom will be redundant in the C11, however as I mentioned I have other scopes.....

I use my nagler 31t5 for 90% of my viewing - it gives 90x, fine for almost all deep sky.

I will use the zoom at
16mm - 175x
12mm - 233x
8mm - 350x (can use this on a couple of nights a year)
so I actually think it's a reasonable spread of magnifications with a good degree of user friendliness :-)

cheers
Gary

[Camelopardalis]

You know you can still see through it when it's in between, right? ;) :P

[skysurfer]

And a zoom EP will *never* produce an 82 deg FOV, which is particularly useful in a long FL C11.

[sil]

The Baader Zoom works fine in a C11, its what I was using. Makes star hopping handy and it was far more comfortable than the celestron eyepiece that came with my scope and also clearer.

[bigjoe]

I agree skysurfer; one really needs those widefields at such looong focal lengths from experience in my 10" SCT.
bigjoe.

[Merlin66]

To me a zoom eyepiece comes into it's own when doing solar observing.
Nothing to beat whizzing in from a full disk to the detail in and around active areas.

[bigjoe]

Hi Ken .I certainly wouldn't be without one for judging the optimal magnification for the seeing ; especially on certain double stars !
bigjoe.

[Merlin66]

Joe,
Good point.....

[AEAJR]

Gary,

How about an update on your new Zoom? Like it? Mistake?



I have two zooms, a Baader Hyperion (original) and a Celestron, both 8-24. Love 'em. Zoom is my most used eyepiece in all of my scopes.

The Baader, the original, not a Mark III or IV, is a bit too wide for my ETX 80 and 125 in that it blocks access to the screw to lock it in. On these I use the Celestron.

On my Orion XT8i I use the Baader for the wider FOV. I use the 2" collar rather than the 1.25 adapter that comes with the scope.

90% of the time I stay with the zoom rather than switching to a single FL eyepiece. very very convenient.

[AG Hybrid]

Hersey!!

I'll have you know good sir that the Hyperion Zoom Mark 3 is my go to eyepiece for grab and go use because I specifically don't want to bother changing eyepieces!!!!

I will drive to Queensland. Meet you at Astrofest, AND FIGHT YOU! :camera:

[garymck]

Hi,
extremely happy with it. Combined with my Nagler 31mm, I don't feel the need for any other eyepieces. Love being able to zoom in and out. Using it on a C11- the Nagler is most used, the zoom for any medium/high power stuff. Don't need wide angle for that...Would highly recommend the eyepiece.

cheers
Gary

[AEAJR]

Thanks for the update. Similar to my experience.

[MortonH]

FYI - the new Mk IV version is now showing on the MyAstroShop website.

http://myastroshop.com.au/products/details.asp?id=MAS-057A

[AEAJR]

Anyone else have one of these? I would like to read more user reports.

[AEAJR]

Last two observation sessions have been focused on Jupiter. Both nights had very good seeing. Both started with a low power wide eyepiece then I went to the Baader Hyperion Zoom and that is what I used all evening.

Orion XT8i Dob- With this one I had the BHZ sitting in my GSO 2X 2" barlow pushing all the way to 300X but really doing best around 240X.

Last night I used my 5" Meade ETX 125 Mak - barlow needed for this one. Best view was around 160-180X

[FourOwls]

Howdy
Although new to this field, upon recommendation and a lot of research (between getting fixed length EP or the Baader zoom) I got the zoom and have been using briefly. Already totally loving it, so handy, great views and gee the quality and contrast! I am using it through a fast Dobsonian 12" that admittedly is about 10 years old and not the best but I recommend this zoom!
I am now wondering about either a 2 or 3x Barlow...hehehe!
Peace to all.
Andrew H

[AEAJR]

I use mine in an F5.9 8" Dob. A 2X barlow is well matched for my scope.

[AEAJR]

I love my BHZ and use it more than any other eyepiece, but I do have other eyepieces. Last night I decided to leave the BHZ in the case. I was using my Orion XT8i Intelliscope, but was using it manually, no computer.

I pulled out my 2" Explore Scientific 25 mm 70 degree, no longer available, ES 82 8.8 and 6.7, Meade 5000 SWA 5.5 and HD60 4.5, for a zoomless night with Orion. This is how I used to observe before I had a zoom.

The ES 82s and the Meade 5000 are really nice eyepieces and I always enjoy using them BUT last night I was reminded why I have become a zoom junkie. Swapping is a pain. Selection of eyepieces becomes part of the observation process taking my attention from the target.

Perhaps if I tended to stay with one target a long time I might feel differently, but I tend to observe for 5-15 minutes then move on in most cases. That involves moving between higher and lower mag to find the best view or to help with the hopping for each target.

Before I had the zoom eyepieces this never bothered me, it was just how it worked. Swapping was even fun, trying this and trying that. But not anymore.

Now I have known the convenience of the BHZ and how the eyepiece now disappears in my observing. I don't think about FL or FOV, I don't think about the eyepiece at all. I focus on the targets and move in or out at will with no thought to the eyepiece. My attention is on the target, not the equipment.

It was a fun exercise, and I have no intention of selling my eyepieces, but the BHZ will be back in the focuser most of the time going forward. This might not be your cup of tea but it is certainly mine.

"Hi, my name is Ed and I am addicted to the BHZ. I have no intention of kicking the addiction and intend to addict others."


Edit: I should have noted that I would normally use the BHZ in a 2X barlow to be in the same range as the ES 82s and the Meade eyepieces I mentioned. Also, I tend to use the BHZ mostly in the 18 to 8 mm range/9 to 4 mm barlowed. The 20 to 24 mm tends to be a transition range, moving from target to target but I don't typically spend much time in that range observing.

[Mamba]

I have a pair of the Baader Mk IV zooms in binos on a TSA120 and my experience is that as eyepieces they are very good indeed. Just a couple of comments though.
The eyepiece is not parfocal through its range from 8 to 24 and indeed requires refocusing between each 4mm stop.
The stops at each 4mm are so subtle that for the most part I cannot detect them and so have to revert to checking that each eyepiece has identical settings on the barrel, this criticism only applies if using two eyepieces. I actually bought my zooms on a trip to the UK but live in Australia so not much chance of returning them for ones with more 'click'
The winged eye guards rotate when changing focal length so are largely unusable.
Having said al that I will not be getting rid of them any time soon.
Hope this helps
Dave Cooke

[bytor666]

Being a wide field nut, I found the only good setting was at 8mm. The rest feels too restricted, and correction in a fast dob is less than stellar.

Changing eyepieces is something one does if you own a telescope.

[AEAJR]

Good to get your input.

What scope and what eyepieces are you comparing it to?

[Joves]

I recently purchased two of these (MkIV) with two matching Barlow systems from Telscope Express, predominantly for use in my Baader MkV binoviewer. Am yet to use them as a pair, but have had a couple of short sessions with one of them in a Mak127. I know this scope isn’t overly demanding on eyepieces, but I was actually quite surprised at the quality of image it provided and was very surprised to note on both occasions that it seemed to provide marginally higher contrast than my Televue Panoptic 24, an eyepiece I also really like.

I pretty well purchased the Mak as a quick grab and go/travel scope on a Skywatcher AZGti Mount and tripod/pier (as a side note, everything bar the tripod/pier fits in a small airline portable Pelican case, which makes for a great travel companion), so wanted the zoom to minimise eyepieces required on a trip. I effectively only need the zoom with this scope, but intend to travel with a Pan 24, the Baader Zoom and possibly the 3-6 Nagler zoom (overkill on this scope, but takes up literally no space, so can’t hurt to have just in case the rare occasion arises that I feel I need excessive amounts of power).

I can see myself rarely removing the Baader zoom from this scope, it appears to be that good so far!

[AEAJR]

That has been my experience too.

[ab1963]

That's a huge call against the 24 pan ,I've had a mark 3 Hyperion zoom and a Vixen LV 8-24 zoom obviously with both the fov is tight but contrast wise and sharpness the Vixen wins hands down IMO

[FlashDrive]

I agree ... I had a Hyperion Zoom and sold it not long after and kept my Vixen LV Zoom ... can't go past the Vixen IMHO

Col....

[Merlin66]

I tried a couple of Baader zoom and returned them...sloppy and internal debris.
The Moonfish was similar - as was the TV and Celestron.
Gave up on finding a good quality zoom until - I found the Pentax SMC XW 8-24mm.
Absolutely majic!!!!!
Still with me after ten years.

[bigjoe]

Heard about the debris in a lot of zooms Ken..Using the Orion one ATM for testing the seeing , and it is a surprise ... sharp wiith great contrast.... but would say the Pentax.. has pleased everyone I've read that uses it, and by all accounts the best in its price range...even brunonno here on IIS loved his .

bigjoe

[AEAJR]

Seems we all have different experience. I have the Celestron zoom and the Baader Hyperion zoom and love 'em both but the BHZ is clearly the better of the two.

Haven't tried the Pentax or the Vixen.

[Joves]

I was very surprised also. I’m not suggesting the Baader zoom is a better eyepiece than the Pan 24. I would remove the Pan from the equation altogether if that was the case. It just seems, during the very limited time I’ve used them both with the little Mak 127 (which is only twice, for very short periods under far from ideal conditions) that the zoom was showing higher contrast views, particularly on M42 which was the predominant target i was looking at during one of these sessions. I was also surprised that the combination of the little Mak with the zoom immediately put up a good display of the E and F components of the Trapezium.

I have a lot of quality eyepieces, including all Ethos’, all Radian’s, several Naglers (including the zoom), all but one or two Vixen LV’s plus others I can’t think of at the moment, so i’m in no way a zoom fanatic. I was just quite pleasantly surprised by the image quality shown in the Mk4 zoom. I bought it more so out of curiosity and for convenience, so it was a nice surprise to see that it didn’t appear to be showing compromised views when I first looked through it. I must stress though, I’ve only used it in the one scope (which was really the scope I purchased it for anyhow), so the jury is still well and truly out as to whether it stands its own against all other EP’s in differently scopes under differing conditions on differing targets. Either way, I’m certainly not going to be getting rid of my fixed FL EP’s.

Oh, and I’ve never looked through a Pentax zoom. I’m confident, based on every report I’ve read on them, that they would absolutely be superior to the Baader zoom. Must try one some time.

[AG Hybrid]

I adore my Mark III. Its showed me some of my best planetary views of particularly Saturn, Jupiter and the Moon despite owning shorter focal length Pentax XW and Delos eyepieces.

I've used it in my dob, Mak and refractor. It performs well in all 3. Of course I don't use the 24mm setting. That's actually no better then 20-22mm settings.

Naturally I'm curious regarding the Pentax all the same. My question is, does it manage to maintain the 60 degree field through all the magnification settings?

[bigjoe]

I think whats happened here Adrian.... the odd bad one has slipped through QC.

Edggie on Cloudy Nights and many others love theirs despite owning Pentaxes Deloi etc; So good ones must compare favourably in image quality ...they cant all be lying...so most must be very good..only needs a few ordinary samples to destroy an excellent reputation.
Ive got Deloi, Orthos etc,
and my contrasty Orion Zoom is not beneath me to use on planetary..the SEEING is the big thing..trumps all!
bigjoe.

[bigjoe]

I think whats happened here Adrian.... the odd bad one has slipped through QC.

Edggie on Cloudy Nights and many others love theirs despite owning Pentaxes Deloi etc; So good ones must compare favourably in image quality ...they cant all be lying...so most must be very good..only needs a few ordinary samples to destroy an excellent reputation.
Ive got Deloi, Pans, Orthos etc,
and my contrasty Orion Zoom is not beneath me to use on planetary..the SEEING is the big thing..trumps all!
bigjoe.

[Wavytone]

I've seen suggestions on other websites that the Pentax zoom was actually the Vixen one, rebadged... Nice product but it always was a niche product and sales were minuscule. So they have pretty much fallen out of favour (lack of sales) and overtaken by the ultra-wide brigade where image quality comes last.

[Merlin66]

They don't look the same to me!!!
https://agenaastro.com/vixen-3777-1-25-lv-8-24mm-zoom-eyepiece.html

[bigjoe]

I thought the Televue one was a rebadged Vixen...with caveats from Uncle Al.
Contains Lanthanum Glass.
bigjoe

[Wavytone]

After discovering certain eyepieces were mostly large lumps of metal with rather smaller-than-expected optics within, I have to say many would be easily deceived by external appearances.

Joe you may be right

FWIW Televue, Docter and ES have most of you fooled. 80+ degree eyepieces with decent eyerelief do not have to be as huge as coke bottles, as they have portrayed.

[Camelopardalis]

Looks a bit like the old Speers Waler zoom...and/or the Celestron zoom ;)

[LewisM]

I have had several vixen 8-24's and all have been not just good, but SUPERB, showing a tighter star image than even Tak LE's. Absolutely super zoom (not very parfocal, but that's not critical).

I currently have a Pentax Zoom, and it's putting up a good fight too. It is not even remotely similar to the Vixen zoom, as Ken shows.

Baader Zoom...no thanks. Tried one, didn't like it (also like every Nagler I have tried - just NOT for me or my setup)

[bigjoe]

Thanks for this..may now just get the Vixen ..

Naglers.. only one I kept was 13mm T6( sold all the others) ..outstanding, and a step up from the others in the series; all the Deloi I have seem better optically ..IMHO...though still prefer less glass in KK Orthoscopics.

bigjoe.

[LewisM]

Incidentally, the TV Zoom IS a rebadged Vixen Zoom - common knowledge for a long time. The TV Plossls are too, for the most part (unless of course that particular TV is Taiwanese). The price tag is commensurate with the name too, for the same EP - marketing at it's stupidest.

[Joves]

That’s interesting. I thought I had read a few reports way back that the Televue 8-24 zoom wasn’t much chop. I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s what I read. If they’re rebadged Vixens, then according to the comments in this thread, they mustn’t be half bad at all.

Hope I don’t start “seeing” imaginative flaws in the Baader zoom based on the negative feedback provided by you guys in this thread... I’ve bought TWO of the things!!! :S

[casstony]

The Vixen zoom I had wasn't sharp at 8mm.
My current Baader zoom and a Lunt zoom are both very good.

[Joves]

Thanks Tony, that’s good to hear.

That your Baader and Lunt zooms are good, that is... not that your Vixen wasn’t great at 8mm.