A Comparison

[LDW47]

I have 3 Svbony zoom eps of varying sizes that perform brilliantly in my NP101 and 90mm, f5.5 scopes, none cost more than about $100 C. I have read about, been told about, impressed upon me multiple times the virtues, the quality of, the great uncomparable performance of the Baader Mark IV, in the zoom world of astronomy, for about 3-4x the cost. So finally, uncoerced (?), I chose to buy one for $350 C from a Canadian dealer. After trying it several times under average Bortle 4-5 skies and with my WL and Ha solar scopes I have yet to be convinced that it is worth the much extra price for the IV vs those Sv's, incl.build quality. I can hardly wait to get to one of my Bortle 1-2 skies for a real test. The comparison continues ! PS: To all those considering the Mark IV maybe you should research at little more, consider a bit longer, unless $'s don't mean alot for the prestige, a name. PPS: I am a Baader astronomer, I own a set of Morpheus but ........ !

[Lady Fraktor]

Good to hear you like the SVbony zooms.
Personally I find zoom eyepieces a bucket full of compromises at any price point.
I imagine they are like regular eyepieces where you pay for that small increment of performance over similar styles.
The only zoom I have now is a Vixen LV and that is mainly relegated to solar observing.
I prefer the variable focal length eyepieces TeleVue 2-4, 3-6 and Antares 5-8 for consistent FOV (more or less with the Antares) than the backwards FOV of a zoom.

[Bigzmey]

I don't believe folks buy Baader to show off. While this is a good quality brand it is not as hip as TeleVue or Takahashi.

Mark IV has great following for a good reason. It is a high quality zoom packed with features.

It has wide FL range (8mm-24mm), long eye relief (19 to 16mm), wide field of view (68 to 48 degree), clickstop (particularly important for binoviewing) and high transmission, high contrast, low scatter optics. Some of these features can be found in other zooms. But it would be hard to find another zoom which has them all.

When Baader says high transmission, they really mean it. Mark IV picks faint DSOs better than quite few other zooms and fixed FL EPs I have tried.

But lets consider your scopes. The highest power you can achieve with NP101 and Mark IV is 67.8x. Everything will look sharp on axes with pretty much any EP at 60-70x, in particular on bright high contrast targets like Sun or Moon.

However, put 6" Mak or 8" SCT on Jupiter or Mars during opposition at ~200x and the difference in sharpness and level of details between Mark IV and lesser zoom will become quite obvious.

[notFritzArgelander]

I don't believe folks buy Baader to show off. While this is a good quality brand it is not as hip as TeleVue or Takahashi.

Mark IV has great following for a good reason. It is a high quality zoom packed with features.

It has wide FL range (8mm-24mm), long eye relief (19 to 16mm), wide field of view (68 to 48 degree), clickstop (particularly important for binoviewing) and high transmission, high contrast, low scatter optics. Some of these features can be found in other zooms. But it would be hard to find another zoom which has them all.

When Baader says high transmission, they really mean it. Mark IV picks faint DSOs better than quite few other zooms and fixed FL EPs I have tried.

But lets consider your scopes. The highest power you can achieve with NP101 and Mark IV is 67.8x. Everything will look sharp on axes with pretty much any EP at 60-70x, in particular on bright high contrast targets like Sun or Moon.

However, put 6" Mak or 8" SCT on Jupiter or Mars during opposition at ~200x and the difference in sharpness and level of details between Mark IV and lesser zoom will become quite obvious.

Good points. I use zooms mostly for bino viewing and at high magnification they’re just a trifle less than fixed focal length eyepieces. I also use them to make a decision about which focal length is optimal. So I’ve a pair of the Baader zooms and a single Vixen.

[LDW47]

My model have no discernable click stops contrary to what many claim save for a minute flat spot. Its hard to believe that would let you track much under dark, viewing conditions, IMO ?

[notFritzArgelander]

My model have no discernable click stops contrary to what many claim save for a minute flat spot. Its hard to believe that would let you track much under dark, viewing conditions, IMO ?

I don’t understand. The click stops are at different effective focal lengths. This is very convenient for bino viewing.

[LDW47]

Please bear in mind that the issue I am pointing out is the wide range in price between the zooms in relation to any added performance on any given nite ie what your eyeballs actually discern. Obviously the higher grade of scope is a big factor but higher magnification not so much to the average astronomer because as it climbs degradation in the finest of details is a nature of the beast save for absolutely all round perfect sky conditions. In the vast majority of cases, in my extensive experiences ! So the bottom line is $100 C for a great performnce or $350 C for about the same performance 95% of nites, its simple ? Just IMO and observations many times under Bortle 1 skize.

[notFritzArgelander]

Please bear in mind that the issue I am pointing out is the wide range in price between the zooms in relation to any added performance on any given nite ie what your eyeballs actually discern. Obviously the higher grade of scope is a big factor but higher magnification not so much to the average astronomer because as it climbs degradation in the finest of details is a nature of the beast save for absolutely all round perfect sky conditions. In the vast majority of cases, in my extensive experiences ! So the bottom line is $100 C for a great performnce or $350 C for about the same performance 95% of nites, its simple ? Just IMO and observations many times under Bortle 1 skize.

Yes, understood and fair enough. The thing is that eyeballs and practice with them differ a lot. I've been observing for over 65 years and have played with zooms for 50 of those. I haven't tried the Svbony zooms and probably won't. I did try (among others) the Vixen LV Zoom at $170 and the Baader Mark IV Zoom at $300. After trying them monocularly I resold the others and doubled up on the Baader for binoviewing. To my eye the Baader was a little bit better than the Vixen which was MUCH better than the other candidates.

So I am a bit skeptical that the price difference is not justified by performance. To my eye, it almost is. The Baader is twice the price of the Vizen and the improvement in optical performance is slight. I went with it anyway because of the great convenience of the click stop for binoviewing.

I'm not knocking what you saw. I'm just saying that it doesn't fit with my experience.

[Bigzmey]

Please bear in mind that the issue I am pointing out is the wide range in price between the zooms in relation to any added performance on any given nite ie what your eyeballs actually discern. Obviously the higher grade of scope is a big factor but higher magnification not so much to the average astronomer because as it climbs degradation in the finest of details is a nature of the beast save for absolutely all round perfect sky conditions. In the vast majority of cases, in my extensive experiences ! So the bottom line is $100 C for a great performnce or $350 C for about the same performance 95% of nites, its simple ? Just IMO and observations many times under Bortle 1 skize.

I think we are sort of on the same wavelength here, just placing empathies on different parts. Let's go with computer analogy. My work computer is 5 years old, but it is just fine for the purpose. I don't have any desire to pay $3,000 for an upgrade which will not change my office productivity. My kids however keep upgrading their computers to keep up with gaming, streaming and what ever else kids do on computers. I know enough to realize that their computers are much better, and in fact some apps they use will not run on my PC. But, for my purpose my old PC is just fine.

The same applies to astro gear. It may appear that the prices are inflated, but on average you get what you pay for. I don't like 95% performance statement, because it is misleading. Let's say I am observing galaxies and there is a faint galaxy on the edge of my scope detection. I will be able to detected it with high transmission EP like Mark IV, but not with entry level zoom which does not have advanced coatings. So, in this case this is 100% difference in performance (success vs failure).

Another example, I observed Jupiter with smaller scopes many times but never saw Great Red Spot or moon transit. When I switched to 8" SCT I saw both events in the first session. My conclusion was that you need larger scope for those, and aperture indeed makes detection of fine planetary details easier. However, a few years later I was observing GRS and moon transits with 80mm scope. What changed? Quality of my diagonal and EPs. So, in this particular example getting better EP brought 80mm scope performance on GRS detection close to 8" scope. Is that 5% difference in EP performance?

I know that not many casual observers care about faint galaxies, but most of them get excited seeing GRS or moon transit on Jupiter.

[LDW47]

From my perspective, another possibility is that Svbony being a relative newcomer, a lesser known company to this great field of optics and associated everything else might just be making themselves or having their products manufactured by others to a higher level, a higher quality for a lesser cost vs profit margin ?? Unless you have actually tried these zooms at various times under varying conditions and then actually compared their overall fit / finish, as have I, they can't be discounted as a real overall performer, a real $ saver, maybe an up and coming leader of the pack, IMO. I have a lot of pieces of their astronomy / camera gear, their refractors for the price do not take a back seat when it comes to quality / performance not counting the upper tier brands of course. Savings in my pocket is as good as it gets, the statis quo never stays static, the times they may be a changin' and besides its fun, interesting and can be very enlightening. Thats why I like to put this sort of thing out there for those that are interested. I would never part with my Morpheus set though !

[Bigzmey]

Funny that you mentioned it. I had great expectations for Morpheus line and at one point got Morpheus 12.5mm to try. I could not stand it. Eye position was hard to maintain and moving the eye with FOV caused blackouts. I have sold it next day.

I am not saying Morpheus are bad (they seems to have good following), but they are not for everyone. If you don't see any need for Mark IV, it will be easy to sell on astro classifieds.

[LDW47]

Funny that you mentioned it. I had great expectations for Morpheus line and at one point got Morpheus 12.5mm to try. I could not stand it. Eye position was hard to maintain and moving the eye with FOV caused blackouts. I have sold it next day.

I am not saying Morpheus are bad (they seems to have good following), but they are not for everyone. If you don't see any need for Mark IV, it will be easy to sell on astro classifieds.

Eye positioning does take getting used to but when / if mastered they are a pretty competent ep collection, IMO. Very consistent. Thats nothing, the floaters in my right, dominent eye are so massive that I had to train myself to view with my left eye which is completely floater free. I was lucky it did not take very long to train.

[LDW47]

Funny that you mentioned it. I had great expectations for Morpheus line and at one point got Morpheus 12.5mm to try. I could not stand it. Eye position was hard to maintain and moving the eye with FOV caused blackouts. I have sold it next day.

I am not saying Morpheus are bad (they seems to have good following), but they are not for everyone. If you don't see any need for Mark IV, it will be easy to sell on astro classifieds.

I have not finished with the IV yet but that may happen because I am not a very consistent zoom user, mainly now for solar WL and Ha. But I like to try some of what I read.