How do you rate the Baader Hyperions?

Well, I just got the 5 mm on the ATT

Con: Its sized like a 2 inch ep (I just use 1.25")

Pro: Really good eye relief and wellness.

I'm interested in the 8 and 10 mm, too.

Or, considering the size, does a 2 or 2.5x barlow better which combination with the 15 and 20 mm golden edge isn't any bigger than the Hyperion?

I like them a lot. Decades ago, I tested some of them out, but was less than impressed, so I ignored them for many years. Last September, I picked up a used 17mm, and it was super sharp and high contrast, so I bought the 13mm, 10mm and 8mm as well, and they're even better! All are very sharp and free from glare and scatter, but the 8mm is particularly superb. It has shown the most detail on Jupiter in my 63mm Zeiss of any eyepiece I've ever tried. Period. I was shocked by how sharp and bright it was the first time I saw Jupiter in it. Never have I seen the GRS so easily in the 63mm, and with such vivid colors (for the small aperture). The 13mm has a bit more off-axis aberrations, but is insanely sharp and bright on-axis. It's an amazing deep-sky eyepiece. 

I find them very comfortable, and they have all but replaced my ES8's and 82's. 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

Edited by Astrojensen, 18 May 2024 - 06:42 AM.

I have the 10mm and love it! I also got extension rings so I can change the magnification level. Works beautifully.

my point is this:

I first had to glue the aluminium 1.25" strut of the diagonal prism into the short plastic housing thread in order to make sure the hyper doesn't turn and fall off

But when they're generally recommended I'll look for the 8 and 10 mm, too, maybe 13

The 15 and 20 mm golden edge do so well that I don't need the 17 and 21

Or a good barlow instead?

Stephan

Edited by quilty, 18 May 2024 - 07:07 AM.

I like them a lot. Decades ago, I tested some of them out, but was less than impressed, so I ignored them for many years. Last September, I picked up a used 17mm, and it was super sharp and high contrast, so I bought the 13mm, 10mm and 8mm as well, and they're even better! All are very sharp and free from glare and scatter, but the 8mm is particularly superb. It has shown the most detail on Jupiter in my 63mm Zeiss of any eyepiece I've ever tried. Period. I was shocked by how sharp and bright it was the first time I saw Jupiter in it. Never have I seen the GRS so easily in the 63mm, and with such vivid colors (for the small aperture). The 13mm has a bit more off-axis aberrations, but is insanely sharp and bright on-axis. It's an amazing deep-sky eyepiece. 

 

I find them very comfortable, and they have all but replaced my ES8's and 82's. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

How do rate them at F/5, at F/6?

I had the Orion version, the 13mm Stratus and I was quite disappointed, lots of EoFB, (Edge of Field Brightness)  not sharp off-axis in moderate and fast focal ratio scopes.

Jon

I used to have them all apart from 21 and 5. My favourites were the 24, 17 and 13.

General opinions on them is that 21, 17 and 5 are the best of the line, and that apart from those, they don't like fast scopes (faster than f/6- f/7).

- The aspheric (36, 31) are cool lightweights, with option to use it in 1 1/4 if you are desperate. Not a good value at full price, if buying used or in a very slow scope why not (f/9 or slower). Better alternatives exist. I preferred the 31 over the 36.

- The 24 is very nice max fov in 1 1/4 for a slow scope, and has great contrast. If scope is fast if one wants to stick with Hyperions, it is better to use a 21 (never tried it but apparently it is one of the bests). In my f/6 achromat it was somehow special, and I loved the 24 in it. The views "felt" good. It is the smallest and lightest of Hyperions. It can be used as a 2 inch without the nose since there are no lenses in it. I was generally adding a fine tuning ring in this case to keep it kinda parfocal with the others and protect the lens.

- The 17 has some very special interaction with the fine tuning rings, when I add the 14mm ring to transform it to a ~13mm, the true field of view remained the same as when it was in 17mm mode. It is really quite cool, the fov becomes huge (pretty sure it is around 80°+). 

- The 13mm suffers more than the others in fast scope.

- I had my first view of the GRS with the 10mm.

- The 8mm I liked it when using with the wing eyecup, otherwise I could not see the field stop without having blackouts. The normal eyecup somehow is covering part of the top lens. Unlike the other focal lengths, I remember a very slight barrel distortion with those instead of slight pincushion with the other focals (only noticed during day time while looking for it, no problems at night). If used with tuning rings it goes away and actually becomes pincushion. 

Overall I had a very good time with them, learned a lot and love the modularity aspect. A lot of fun to try things out. The fine tuning rings also improve behaviour with fast scopes, I have generally observed the following when adding tuning rings:

- decrease in astigmatism

- increase in pincushion distortion

- decrease of eye relief

- increase of apparent field of view (the 17 having the most drastic increase, and apart from the 10mm which remains constant)

Edited by The Cloud Gazer, 18 May 2024 - 08:11 AM.

Well, I just got the 5 mm on the ATT

 

Con: Its sized like a 2 inch ep (I just use 1.25")

Pro: Really good eye relief and wellness.

 

I'm interested in the 8 and 10 mm, too.

 

Or, considering the size, does a 2 or 2.5x barlow better which combination with the 15 and 20 mm golden edge isn't any bigger than the Hyperion?

The 5mm is the largest of the bunch. But yes they are bulky. Can be used with glasses though and are easy to use

I kept the 31, 17 and 10 to share views with people who have no experience in astronomy. The 17 and 10 can also be easily adapted depending on the scope with the fine tuning rings to give the right focal lengths! Really handy! Sometimes I only use these 2 plus a wide 2 inch and Im covered for a night...

Edited by The Cloud Gazer, 18 May 2024 - 08:20 AM.

Not to answer for Thomas, as I know he has much more experience with these EPs than I do...but Jon's point is a good one for any thread extolling the virtues of Hyperions.  They're a hot mess in my 8" f/4.  Not recommended in fast scopes.  Baader should print this on the box somewhere.

I have the five Hyperions in the range of 8-21mm.

Where I find them to start being useful is in my 4" f/7.  Not perfect but usable.  The large eye lens and long eye relief is comfortable.  The outer 25% is distorted a little bit with what looks to me like astigmatism.  But it could be some combination of fc in the refractor and the shortcomings of the EP.  Needing glasses or a DioptRx to correct for my own moderate astigmatism at wider exit pupils, these EP's are definitely usable for me at f/7.

Where they begin to shine is at f/10.  Wonderful EP's at this focal length.   Beginning to compete with the Morpheus.  At f/15, in my Mak, the views are stunning.  Possibly the best planetary EPs I've ever used.  Views of Jupiter and Saturn are well worth the low price of the EP.  I also love them for looking at carbon stars, globulars, and small DSOs in these slow scopes.

I prefer using them as 1.25" EPs, as they can come into contact with a prism if not careful when used as a 2".  They also have undercuts which is highly irritating.  I use click-locks for the most part which seems to hold them well despite the sizable undercuts.  For those with astigmatism, the DioptRx fits the Hyperions like a glove.

Comparison of Hyperion (left) and Morpheus eye lenses:

Pic of the 8-21mm EPs on a 1" grid with a AA battery for size:

The ability to insert fine-tuning rings in the Hyperions is something that appeals to me.  They're just extension tubes.  Pretty much just moves the negative lens farther away from the main lens group.  But a very useful thing and fun to experiment with.  Thomas has brought up in another thread how not only do they change the focal length of the EP, but widens the AFoV quite nicely.  I think he measured somewhere around 82-84 degrees on one of them.

Edited by Jim in PA, 18 May 2024 - 08:51 AM.

Hi JIm and Cloud Gazer, that sounds like a real recommending, thanks. When they appear for sale I'll get the 8 and 10 

Yes, the 5 mm is the largest one in the series.

Does the 24 mm better than the ES 62° 26 mm or 68° 24 mm?

I have the 26 mm an am very pleased with it.

There was a 3.5 mm Hyperion, too but seems discontinued now

It's not just the eye comfort. The long eye relief also reduces dew and grease deposition from the eyelashes

Edited by quilty, 18 May 2024 - 09:04 AM.

Sorry for cross-posting alot of what Cloud Gazer said...didn't see his posts until after I posted

I've never used the 5mm or 24mm myself, just the 8-21mm.

Hi JIm and Cloud Gazer, that sounds like a real recommending, thanks. When they appear for sale I'll get the 8 and 10 

Yes, the 5 mm is the largest one in the series.

Does the 24 mm better than the ES 62° 26 mm or 68° 24 mm?

I have the 26 mm an am very pleased with it.

 

There was a 3.5 mm Hyperion, too but seems discontinued now

 

It's not just the eye comfort. The long eye relief also reduces dew and grease deposition from the eyelashes

True, grease is unavoidable in some of my short eye relief and is a bit annoying. Forces me to pull through my OCDs, good for me 

Never had the ES can't help you there. I guess it all depends on the f ratio of your scopes. Ive heard the 24/68 is great and almost panoptic level. If you have slow scopes Id say Hyperion for the comfort (it has more eye relief)?

Sorry for cross-posting alot of what Cloud Gazer said...didn't see his posts until after I posted

 

I've never used the 5mm or 24mm myself, just the 8-21mm.

That's great, no bias this way  And we seem to agree on them!

I also use them as 1.25". Baader have some parfocal rings to put on the 2inch skirt in case you want to use it that way and want to protect your diagonal (imperative with fine tuning rings, once I forgot about it and since then I have a small speck on my mirror...)

At f/15 you say you had some of your best views through the hyps, are you saying you liked it even more than with Morphei ? 

That's great, no bias this way  And we seem to agree on them!

 

I also use them as 1.25". Baader have some parfocal rings to put on the 2inch skirt in case you want to use it that way and want to protect your diagonal (imperative with fine tuning rings, once I forgot about it and since then I have a small speck on my mirror...)

 

At f/15 you say you had some of your best views through the hyps, are you saying you liked it even more than with Morphei ? 

That's kind of a tough call.  I would say "it depends".  And, I only have the 9, 12.5, 14, and 17.5 Morphi.

I have some limitations where I usually observe.  Here in PA, 300x is usually high mag for me due to average seeing conditions.  In excellent seeing for PA, I usually start with the 9mm (300x) Morpheus in the Mak for Jupiter and the Moon.  I can usually step up a tad in those conditions to the 8mm Hyperion for a little more @ 338x.  Between those two, the Hyperion is virtually indistinguishable from the Morpheus on Jupiter, but the Hyp seems to offer more color contrast.  On the moon, even in the Mak things are painfully bright so I usually use polarized, prescription sunglasses.  Or a variable polarizing filter.  I would say the Morpheus has the edge here, but have wondered about using the 13mm Hyperion with fine tuning ring for the moon.  Due to the wider AFoV.  Haven't tried it yet.

I guess what I would say is that one could achieve Morpheus-like performance with the Hyperions in a slow scope like a Mak.  Especially if one is using fine tuning rings to get a wider AFoV.  But I also find that the slimmer barrel of the Morpheus (in relation to the diameter of its eye lens, see pic above) gives it an edge when looking at star fields (edit: more of a floating in space feel).  Also the slightly larger eye lens.  So if one finds the Morpheus a little too expensive, the Hyperions could be a good option for the money.  Especially if someone wears glasses.

The DioptRx also fits the Hyperions better.  I have to crank it on the Morpheus to get it to stay put.  It works, but easier to use on the Hyperions.

Edited by Jim in PA, 18 May 2024 - 11:20 AM.

Hi JIm and Cloud Gazer, that sounds like a real recommending, thanks. When they appear for sale I'll get the 8 and 10
Yes, the 5 mm is the largest one in the series.
Does the 24 mm better than the ES 62° 26 mm or 68° 24 mm?
I have the 26 mm an am very pleased with it.

There was a 3.5 mm Hyperion, too but seems discontinued now

It's not just the eye comfort. The long eye relief also reduces dew and grease deposition from the eyelashes

The ES 26 mm is my favourite, no matter if f/4.5 frac or f/12 CC. My dream was any focal length would be that way, the Hyperion 5 mm is pretty close.

All concerning eye wellness but can't complain neither about sharpness.

The 5.5 mm for instance is good, too buf just provides 13 mm eye relief, which is minimum possible due to its small eyelens. A larger eyelens wouldn't do any more. I think the ES 26 mm is a classical Erfle design.

Just 4 elements for the Hyper 24 mm! that's really sportsmanship, and the ES 24 mm 68° is supposed to do better. But in general I prefer the least number of elements possible, so would be interesting to look through the 24 mm Hyperion. So they just lack the barlow element below? Then there's the next question:

Do the 24, 21 and 17 mm differ only by their barlow elements and its distance to the upper (Plössl) part? 

Edited by quilty, 18 May 2024 - 12:18 PM.

The 24mm has 6 elements, not 4.
The 21mm and below have 8 elements, in those the 1.25" barrel contains a negative smyth group that is like an internal barlow, explaining why more distance from the main body with the tuning rings increases magnification.

Number of elements does not necessarily equates good off axis performance. Panoptic 24 has 6 elements as well but handles fast scope a lot better than hyperion 24. optical design, lens arrangement etc matters!
UWA 28 has 84° fov, 6 elements with perfect stars; UFF 30 has 70° 9 elements with perfect stars.

Edited by The Cloud Gazer, 18 May 2024 - 01:31 PM.

Do the 24, 21 and 17 mm differ only by their barlow elements and its distance to the upper (Plössl) part? 

I think most of the difference for the magnification is in the Smyth group. I have tried swapping them between the Hyperions and essentially got the same magnification. I even put the 10mm smyth into the 31mm aspheric and got the same focal as the 10mm Hyperion.

However I have not tested on stars how it affects the correction. Im guessing there is a reason for the different heights of the Hyperion housing etc (the smyth part size is the same for all). The curves of lenses / spacing etc must be optimised for the particular focal length to achieve a reasonable correction.

Concerning the design in the upper part of the barrel, they are erfles if im not mistaken.

Edited by The Cloud Gazer, 18 May 2024 - 01:37 PM.

That's kind of a tough call.  I would say "it depends".  And, I only have the 9, 12.5, 14, and 17.5 Morphi.

 

I have some limitations where I usually observe.  Here in PA, 300x is usually high mag for me due to average seeing conditions.  In excellent seeing for PA, I usually start with the 9mm (300x) Morpheus in the Mak for Jupiter and the Moon.  I can usually step up a tad in those conditions to the 8mm Hyperion for a little more @ 338x.  Between those two, the Hyperion is virtually indistinguishable from the Morpheus on Jupiter, but the Hyp seems to offer more color contrast.  On the moon, even in the Mak things are painfully bright so I usually use polarized, prescription sunglasses.  Or a variable polarizing filter.  I would say the Morpheus has the edge here, but have wondered about using the 13mm Hyperion with fine tuning ring for the moon.  Due to the wider AFoV.  Haven't tried it yet.

 

I guess what I would say is that one could achieve Morpheus-like performance with the Hyperions in a slow scope like a Mak.  Especially if one is using fine tuning rings to get a wider AFoV.  But I also find that the slimmer barrel of the Morpheus (in relation to the diameter of its eye lens, see pic above) gives it an edge when looking at star fields (edit: more of a floating in space feel).  Also the slightly larger eye lens.  So if one finds the Morpheus a little too expensive, the Hyperions could be a good option for the money.  Especially if someone wears glasses.

 

The DioptRx also fits the Hyperions better.  I have to crank it on the Morpheus to get it to stay put.  It works, but easier to use on the Hyperions.

Really interesting! I agree about the floating in space feeling, I recently acquired the 9 mm morpheus and with the eyecup down there is just a super thin black line from the eyepiece barrel around the view, super unique love it. Having the eyecup raised it is not the same feeling at all. This eyepiece needs to be "hovered" over I feel! 

Hyperion 8 and 10 feel a bit like that as well with the eyecup removed (it eats a bit of the top lens if left on) but it is much more pronounced in the morpheus due to the slimmer body.

Edited by The Cloud Gazer, 18 May 2024 - 01:44 PM.

The 24mm has 6 elements, not 4.
The 21mm and below have 8 elements, in those the 1.25" barrel contains a negative smyth group that is like an internal barlow, explaining why more distance from the main body with the tuning rings increases magnification.

Number of elements does not necessarily equates good off axis performance. Panoptic 24 has 6 elements as well but handles fast scope a lot better than hyperion 24. optical design, lens arrangement etc matters!
UWA 28 has 84° fov, 6 elements with perfect stars; UFF 30 has 70° 9 elements with perfect stars.

I think your information is a little off. It doesn’t help that ad copy is often wrong. Including Baader’s. The 22LVW is six element, 17LVW seven, and lower is 8 element. With Hyperions, my understanding is the 24 is really just four elements. The 21 might be six, 17 is likely 7, and 8 below that. Not that it necessarily matters. The performance is what matters. And while you are right in that the number of elements alone doesn’t dictate performance, it does dictate the upper limit of performance, at least until you get to 6-7 elements. Bottom line, no five element wide AFOV eyepiece will have good enough edge correction for my tastes below F5. It doesn’t matter how high quality it is. It can be a Masuyama 85. It doesn’t matter. I’m not putting it in a sub-F5 scope. I will put a 50 AFOV Masuyama in a sub-F5, but not an 85 AFOV. I just know I’m not going to like it. I would absolutely put it in my Mak.

True, something happens once 6 elements is reached that have not been possible yet with 5 or less!  Maybe one day  

100% agree that 85° 5 elements and fastish scopes are a match made in hell. Except if being happy with only on-axis...

Im super confused about the number of elements on the Hyperions. Baader's website says 8 for all of them which I thought was true except for the 24 that would be 8-smyth group=6. Every website in the world says 8 but I guess they just copy baader spec sheet. 

Someone needs to shed some X-rays on the matter !! 

From this picture, the 17 has 8 elements:

True, something happens once 6 elements is reached that have not been possible yet with 5 or less! Maybe one day
100% agree that 85° 5 elements and fastish scopes are a match made in hell. Except if being happy with only on-axis...

Im super confused about the number of elements on the Hyperions. Baader's website says 8 for all of them which I thought was true except for the 24 that would be 8-smyth group=6. Every website in the world says 8 but I guess they just copy baader spec sheet.

Someone needs to shed some X-rays on the matter !!

I have the 21mm and its my "finder" eyepiece.  Its solid.  Not all-world but gets the job done.  Decent eye relief and just enough to view with my glasses, if I desire.

So they're 8 elements except the 24 mm which seems to have 6 or 5 at least elements? After the above I can't imagine it to have just 4

Not that it matters too much.

Recapitulating their design. Though the fl can be altered by distance rings the major fl set seems provided by the smyth group.

I now think (sometimes I'm optimistic) the optimum distance to the smyth group is prvided by Baader for each fl. 

When the  21-5 mm upper parts are all the same? this modular concept would work properly when Baader provided one common upper lens and separately the 21-5 mm adaptors.

And there still remains the general question what does better, equip each lens with a small smyth lens or rather provede a single high end barlow to which all upper parts fit.

It comes down to the question how well the single smyth groups and their distances are really matched to the ep's upper part and how much that matters

thx for your comments

Edited by quilty, 19 May 2024 - 03:17 AM.

Many years ago, I used three Hyperion eyepieces with my f/5 dobsonian. The 13mm was very week with prominent field curvature and astigmatism off center and edge of field brightening. The 8mm was much better with reduced aberations snd the 5mm was even more acceptable.

In addition I bought and still have a 31mm Aspheric. Despite the off-center astigmatism, I really like the 31mm Aspheric even with my f/5 dobsonian. I harmonized even better with the dobsonians than with some shorter refractors. The Dioptrx compatibility is relevant for me. Dioptrx works well with the Aspheric and Morpheus.

Today I have a set of two 31mm Aspheric, 5 Morpheus and a 3.5mm Hyperion. I added a second 31mm Aspheric for more comfortable and quicker filter use and change because I don't have  filter slide or wheel. I can just switch eyepieces with different filters instead of screwing filters.