Williams optics zoom vs Baader hyperion zoom

[Prickly]

Wondering if anyone has had an opportunity to compare these two zooms. Have read a good review on the WO zoom in comparison to the Baader, but then I read people giving outstanding reviews to the Baader.

Appreciate any first hand feedback on these two zooms

Thanks
David

[erick]

I have the WO 8-24mm zoom. Seems fine to me. But not completely parfocal throughout the range - I can live with that, it's a little tweak on the focus. After looking through other eyepieces, the narrow AFOV through the whole range is noticeable. You need to be focussing your attention on the centre of the field to avoid feeling "constricted".

[Prickly]

Thanks Eric,

How does the WO zoom barlow for planets? The idea of a zoom range for planets to dial in the optimal magnification sounds attractive (and also the idea of a single grab and go eyepiece). I have two televue barlows - powermate x5 and televue 1.8x (old one).

I realise fixed fl eyepieces should be better.

Cheers
David

[erick]

David

I'll try, if I can, tomorrow morning on Jupiter. I have a 2" 2x GSO barlow and a 3x Televue. I'm not very hopeful, but we shall see. I don't think I have put it into a barlow before given it already goes to 8mm which is often beyond seeing limits.

[Prickly]

Thanks Eric,

You might get a nice surprise too ( I hope!). The one review I could find rated the williams optics right up there with Televue in terms of sharpness. The benefits of getting the magnification just right may reveal more detail than perhaps a better fixed fl eyepiece at a slightly lesser magnification perhaps.

I did find one image from a televue zoom of jupiter (afocal) that would suggest these are an excellent zoom - but the williams optics is cheaper and has a wider field at high power.

I suspect the Baader may be slightly less sharp than the WO but better field of view. Still keen to see if anyone has compared the Baader and WO side by side as the extra bit of field would be nice if they were on a par.

All said and done though if the WO does the job it may well be the way to go.

Cheers
David

[Chippy]

There are 2 WO zooms. I have the ZoomII (7.5-22.5mm) which is very nice, and a bit better than the 8-24mm. Haven't used the Baader, but it gets great reports. I'd like to try one out sometime as well.

[Prickly]

Thanks Chippy,

Yes, the zooms seem to be improving these days. I think it may have been the 7.5-22.5 that I saw in the review and the results were certainly very positive.

The Baader has the field of a plossl at low power 22mm (around 50 deg) to a widefield at higher power 8mm (around 68 deg).

I'd really like it as a no fuss planetary eyepiece though so sharpness is really the key.

Cheers
David

[erick]

Not sure I can help you on sharpness since it wasn't the best of mornings with some smoke haze around.

I was using my old C8 (f10). As I remembered, the WO 8-24mm is not quite parfocal throughout the zoom range, needing a slight tweak at the opposite end.

I compared it, set at 100mm, to my Vixen LV 10mm eyepiece and the views were pretty similar (I'm no great expert on contrast, brightness, yet :P ). I think the LV has a bigger AFOV.

As requested, I set about trying it in the two barlow lens that I have. Observing Jupiter, it worked in both. I have seen other eyepieces that are difficult to observe through when barlowed. The zoom was OK. The eyerelief increased significantly and, even with the WO's eyecap screwed fully up, I had my eye above that to capture the full FOV without blackout. Given I was in a well lit driveway, this was a bit annoying since I was getting light spill around my eye.

Both the GSO 2x, ED 2" barlow and the Televue 3x (1.25") barlow worked well. By that I mean that you could get a good view of the whole FOV without blackout or having to hold your head too rigidly in place.

In the 3x barlow, at 24mm, I think it was, the FOV was 6 Jupiter diameters.

Now anything beyond 10mm this morning was pushing the seeing so I cannot comment on sharpness at the higher magnifications.

However, for fun, I finished on the Moon and used the eyepiece through two barlows (3x and 2x) and I was able to hold a reasonable view of a couple of craters comfortably.

I must mention that the zoom mechanism is not "loose", which is good, but it does maen that the screw must be done up tightly on the barrel to prevent the whole eyepiece turning. I have put in a different screw with a bigger knob that I can get a bit of torque onto :scared:

Cheers
Eric

[Prickly]

Hi Eric,

Sounds like the zoom is indeed a good eyepiece if the view was comparable to an LV. Good to know the system worked ok from a blackout/eye relief point of view.

I guess on this occasion it offered little benefit over the 10mm lv but on a better day you could maybe push to a higher magnification.

Appreciate your having gone to the effort of testing it out.

Best regards,
David

[rider]

Ive got the Baader, I compared most available zooms prior to purchasing it.
The deciding difference for me was the FOV which is 50-68. All the others felt like looking down a water pipe in comparison.

The Baader is a nice eyepiece, especially from 20mm to 8mm. For some reason, it performs noticably better in our Newtonian (f6) than the Mak (f12.5), I dont know if this effect is common to all zooms.

That said, my single magnification lens are all William Optics, which I think are at the top end of the Minimum-Bucks-for-Good-Views equation.

rider

[Prickly]

Hi Rider,

How do you find the sharpness of the zoom in comparison to the fixed focal length williams optics eyepieces?

Also do you find you use the zoom a lot and have you tried it barlowed?

Cheers
David

[rider]

hi David,
the W.O. fixed outperform it, but in saying that, I think I'm being influenced by the 82FOV of the WO rather than sharpness.
The Baader provides sharp images, is not too far from parafocal, and we use it for 4 particular situations:
1/ its used exclusively if we have non-astronomer guests, it lets us get an appropriate view without them getting bored waiting.
2/ if we are only viewing out for an hour or so, we usually just take it rather than the box of EP's - you spend more quality time viewing less time changing EP's.
3/ we have a smallish "travel scope" we take away in case we get a look somewhere, - the baader is all we take in the way of Eyepieces.
4/ on a normal viewing night its usually the first EP on the scope if we are trawling, because you can get the right magnification to checkout new objects of various sizes.

in other words we use it at least part of most nights. Its about convenience, not ultimate quality of view. - though it does provide good viewing.

oh, and its great with the barlow on our Newtonian (4mm = x300), but with the Mak it's magnification becomes too large to use around suburbia (4mm = x625)

hope that helps

Rider

[Prickly]

Hi Rider,

Thats a great help. I can live without the 84 degrees provided I can get good sharp views which it sounds like does.

Interested in the barlow / zoom combo for planets where field of view is not so important. With my 800mm scope and the 5x powermate it would give a range of approx 160x to 500x I think I worked out which would be great for selecting the best mag with planets.

Is the zoom fairly smooth? Does it require a fair bit of torque as per Erick's WO zoomhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/../vbiis/images/smilies/eyepopping.gif


Cheers
David

[Merlin66]

I used the WO Zoom on the SolarMax60 for solar observing. Great eyepiece, good field of view, positive movement and feels good in the hand. A very reasonable compromise to the usual Plossl's for the 8mm to 24mm range. Recommended.

[Prickly]

Thanks Merlin,

Im pretty sure the quality of the WO is right up there quality wise but the hyperion is attractive for the added field of view if its comparable in terms of sharpness.

Having looked down a seben zoom, which is also pretty narrow in field of view around 20mm fl. it would certainly be an advantage having another 10 degrees or so. Both eyepieces have a nice field of view at around 8-10mm. However, if the WO was sharper I'd probably go down that route

Maybe someones had a change to compare them.

Cheers
David

[rider]

hi Again David,

The Baader Zoom is a Click-stop zoom, you get little solid click/resistances at 20, 16, 12mm, so if you are in the dark you can work out where you are in the magnification range.

Regarding torque, you do need to clamp it down properly, or it will spin, - similarly to every other zoom, there's not a lot of effort involved though.

The only thing I can think of that is a negative is that the bottom of the EP is large enough so that the clamp screws on some focussers don't extend up passed it, thus making the tightening / untightening a fiddly business, - I changed the clamp screws and the problem went away.

Rider

[erick]

Both zooms I have (WO and Seben), need a bit of effort to adjust zoom, so need to be nipped up quite tightly in the 2"->1.25" adapter. A bit annoying (as I said I've changed the screw so I can get the eyepiece held firmly), but I'd rather that than an easy zoom with loose/wobbly internals.

[Prickly]

Hi Rider,

I assume being a zoom you can set the hyperion zoom eyepiece between the clickstops also. This would be useful if viewing planets to get the magnification right.

Cheers
David

[rider]

assumption correct, any mag. between 24 - 8 mm is available. all the click does is tells you the mag. in the dark.

Either the WO or the Baader will do a good job, they both get good write-ups.

IMHO, for your purpose, they are much cheaper and more convenient than buying a gaggle of good single magnification lenses and they do provide good views.

that said, as a separate exercise, you should have a look through some quality single mag. eyepieces with 80-100 degree fov's,
It's like moving from a 12" portable TV to a 50 " LCD. -you feel like you are going to fall in.

Rider

[Prickly]

Hi Rider,

Yes the spacewalk experience is quite nice but I find you cant concentrate on everything at once and you are mainly focussed on a key object. For widefield viewing they are great.

However, Im pretty happy at around 65-68 degrees which both zooms do provide at medium power.

You are probably right both would be ok.

Cheers
David

[Chippy]

The WO ZoomII is a very sharp eyepiece and good on planets. Works pretty well with a barlow too. The only thing I don't like is the narrow fov at the longer focal lengths.

I think the Baader might be quite a lot heavier too. I'd love to try one out.

[Prickly]

Ive been very impressed with the WO gear Chippy. One of these days I'd like to get a williams optics diagonal. Ive little doubt the WO zoom is a class unit.

Like you though I think the extra 10 degrees or so at high powers really would make the world of difference as an "all rounder" eyepiece.

Perhaps someone out there can let us all know how the hyperion and WO zooms compare.

Cheers
David

[Chippy]

Yeah I've got a fair bit of WO kit now, and I'm pretty happy. It's not Televue or Zeiss, but pretty decent in nearly all cases. Baader stuff seems very good quality too. To be honest if they are around the same price I might be inclined to go for the Baader. But that's without seeing one!

[Zuben el Genubi]

Can't really compare... but I've got the Baader Hyperion Zoom.

Bit extra FOV than WO (I think from memory). Sharp all the way across. Best between 8-20 (not much extra viewing with 24 click). Not parfocal, but only needs a little adjusting.

Watch out for quality control... friend and I bought one each, and both had different problems!! Were able to exchange them though... the one I've got now is suprisingly good :thumbsup:

[Prickly]

Thanks Zuben,

What were the quality control problems that you and your friend encountered.

No doubt the majority of the eyepiece are ok but just be interested to know.

Thanks
David

[Merlin66]

I've just returned the WO (Moonfish) Zoom eyepiece to the seller... got the refund...
Reason: I found after using it for a while on the Ha scope that there was a "shadow" in the image... I though it may have been something on the diagonal or filter... final traced it down to a "growth" on one of the internal glass elements on the Zoom eyepiece!!
This "fungal" growth was creeping in from one edge, with many "tendrils"...
The eyepiece was only 2 years old; and they said was kept in "dry" conditions.... Hmmmm
Buyer beware!

[Zuben el Genubi]

David,

One of the Hyperion Zooms had a spacer ring missing so the skirt couldn't be tightened and there was quite a bit of 'wobble'. We subsequently found out that this has been reported by others. At the time we knew, because we had the other EP to compare with.

The second EP had what looked like a 'hair' inside... no way to get it out, so must have been built into it. Even this problem has been reported by others! I noticed it by using the full zoom function and looking at a very bright moon... lots of light and you could see the contaminate rotate around with the lens elements.

But, as I said, they were replaced... and the replacements really are suprisingly good (given the bad reputation of zooms!). Just look carefully (if you can, at the shop... the problem with mail orders).

[Prickly]

Hi Zuben,

Thanks very much for the feedback. As is often the case there can be some systematic problems but overall I hear good reports about the hyperions.

Cheers
David