John

Despite it's fame, the Crab Nebula is rather underwhelming unless viewed with a really large aperture scope from a really dark site. A UHC filter helps a little with this one. I can just start to see a little of the filamentary structure across the nebula's surface with my 12 inch scope and a good UHC filter on a dark night here. Through my smaller aperture scopes M1 is generally rather featureless, vaguely oval shaped, patch of light. It's a difficult one to show folks at outreach events whereas the Ring Nebula is quite a strongly contrasted object which actually does look like it's name suggests.

Rather odd story from the BBC regarding Martian Terraforming by an amateur using a laser https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-54930207

There are many instances of actually measured specs not quite matching claimed specs as well. One brand whose specs do seem to be matched by reality consistently are Tele Vue. They also carry comprehensive and up to date data on their website: https://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=214&plain=TRUE

There are a couple of features that do look a bit linear and I've seen those a few times this opposition when the seeing has been at it's best. They are among the more challenging features to spot visually I've found. This great image from Pete Presland shows them: 76 .43 6.43

Not sure what Mars's scar is but the image that I have posted is what Mars looks like with a smallish scope at the max magnification that you will be able to use with the eyepieces and barlow lens you have.

I suspect you are well away from sharp focus as suggested above. Mars will look like a very small pink disk perhaps with vague dark markings on it even at the maximum power you can get, eg: 10mm eyepiece plus 2x barlow lens. Something like this:

It was quite a while ago that I had the VIP Barlow and I used it pretty much exclusively with the Leica ASPH zoom. I did get it to focus OK with my 12 inch dob but the Orion Optics scopes have a focus point well outside the tube wall so most things do come to focus. Not sure about the Bresser dobs ? I used a different extension setup than the standard one that comes with the VIP barlow (a pair of 15mm extension tubes) and that will have affected the focus position as well. That's the thing about the VIP barlow, it's (as Baader say) a modular system with many options. @Stu did a report on it a few years back:

I've owned a few Powermate's and a Baader VIP at some time or other. Both excellent. Slightly different concept from barlows, the Powermates / Telextender / Focal Extenders - they have little or no effect on the focal position and eye relief. Also they tend not to vignette longer focal length eyepieces whereas some of the barlows can.

Yes - the Q-Turret and the Zoom barlow are different. Sorry about my mix up

I agree with FLO. My bet would be very similar to a William Optics SWAN 33mm. Apart from the slight FL difference, the AFoV, appearance and the element count / grouping match the SWAN. Not a GSO Superview, the topic of this thread.

The Horsehead Nebula is a good comparison Stu. With the Baader zoom it was totally impossible to see but with the 10mm XW it was just plain invisible 🤣

I will have to try using my 2.25x Baader barlow with my XW 10mm and find out how it compares with my 5mm XW I suspect the result will be pretty close as has been said. I've been screwing the removable lens section of the barlow directly into the barrel of a 4mm HD ortho that I have which gives a 1.3x amplification (3.1mm effective FL approx) and the results have been rather impressive with the bonus of making the short ortho eye relief a bit longer. Good glass in the Baader 2.25x barlow.

The way that I spotted this was observing galaxies and at that time notably Messier 82 because there was a bright supernova in it and therefore that galaxy got a lot of attention. The Baader zoom showed the galaxy nicely and using the zoom the dark rifts across it and knots within the galaxy became more obvious. All very nice I thought, until I compared the views with the Ethos 8mm and the Pentax XW 10mm. It was then that I noticed that the galaxy appeared both generally brighter and the contrast features more apparent when using the fixed focal length eyepieces. Granted, the Ethos and XW's are much more expensive than the Baader zoom so the zoom was doing quite well. But there was a difference and I found that repeated with other galaxies. This may well be a feature in other zooms as well. I guess there are bound to be one or two compromises in return for the variable focal length ? The Baader zoom is a good eyepiece generally and I would probably own one again for outreach and travel and be aware of it's strengths and weaknesses.

I have an excellent quality 5 inch apo refractor but I've not compared it with an 8 inch SCT directly having not owned one of those recently. Given how the 5 inch compares with my 12 inch dobsonian I would say that the 8 inch SCT should show more resolution of the stars in globular clusters, fainter stars in open clusters, pick up fainter galaxies and show a little more extension in the brighter galaxies, similarly on nebulae. On double stars the overall performance is likely to be similar but the refractor will show tighter star images which may aid splitting close / uneven brightness pairs. On the moon and planets, assuming that the 8 inch SCT is well cooled and collimated, the performance could be quite similar. The refractor might show low contrast features a little more clearly and fine features possibly a little sharper but the conditions will also play a large part in that. With planets in unfavourable positions (ie: low in the sky) the refractor might have the edge. Obviously these are not detailed descriptions but might give you some idea.

I have yet to use a Delite but the reports I'm reading here and elsewhere seem to be very encouraging indeed. I've not used a Morpheus either - I wonder what the 4.5mm is like ? I've only owned and used one Tak LE and that was the 30mm. It was decent but not really outstanding. The shorter focal length ones might be better ?

Transmission was exactly where the Baader 8-24 that I last owned was a little lacking for me too.

I had the Leica ASPH zoom and the Baader VIP barlow combination for a while. I was thinking that my Pentax and Tele Vue eyepieces would be soon made redundant but it didn't quite happen for me I've had 3 of the Baader zooms - a Mk II and a couple of Mk III's. Didn't really take to those either. The 7.2-21.5 zoom, especially used with the 2.25x Baader barlow has been the first zoom that I've really taken to. I guess the answer to the OP's questions is, well it depends who you ask !

I've split Sirius fairly regularly now for the past few years with my 12 inch dob and occasionally with my 130mm refractor as well. I've only managed Antares a couple of times and that was with the 130mm refractor. I think you are further south than many of us @Armand Popa so Sirius should be that much easier perhaps ? I'm at 52 degrees latitude here.

After I read your view that my comment was a "sort of throw away comment" I lost interest in your post, hence no direct answer to your question. Dave / F15Rules has now addressed that - thanks Dave If stocks were available I would also suggest looking at a Panaview, 2 focal lengths of which are just £1 more than the Superviews. Again stocks allowing, the Aero ED's, particularly the 35mm and 40mm are much better eyepieces than the Superviews, in my humble opinion, and only slightly more expensive than the FLO pricing of the Stellalyra branded ones. By better I am referring to the sharpness of the star image in the outer part of the field of view. Even at F/12 you may see some distortion with the Superviews, but again that is only in my humble opinion. Yours and others "mileage may vary". Hope that is a more comprehensive answer to your question

I probably don't spend enough time trying Doug. As I've posted elsewhere a few times, I don't really specialise in any particular type of target - I'm just a "sky tourist" really I can split 52 Orionis with my 130mm triplet refractor which is about the toughest that I regularly observe. Maybe I ought to spend more time on them with my 12 inch dob ? I do enjoy trying for very uneven brightness doubles such as Sirius and Antares.

So do I but I just can't seem to split many of them !

What an impressive list of doubles to have resolved ! Personally I find sub-arc second splits very hard to achieve. I might have managed a couple of them but that's all. Well done for having the skill and patience to tackle such challenging targets.

Meanwhile, back with one eyepiece and using one eye, having my 1st view of Mars for quite a few days just now. The clear gap won't last long but the details showing at 225x and 257x with my Tak FC100 are quite nicely defined. All the dark stuff is in the southern hemisphere with this side of Mars. Two clear bands of darker surface with a paler strand in between them. South polar cap tiny but visible. Paler areas close to the northern polar limb - probably clouds ? The more northerly of the dark bands is the Mare Cimmerium I think and the more southerly one the Mare Chronium perhaps with the paler Eridania area separating them. The angular diameter of the Martian disk is 17.5 arc seconds currently, which is about as large as it will get at the next opposition, 2 years from now.

Personally I find the Nagler zoom an outstanding eyepiece for double stars. Currently I use the 2mm-4mm with my refractors and the ability to instantly rack up or down the power is very, very useful when pushing the scope / conditions / observer on tight double stars. The 3-6mm is still in production. Expensive when new but can be bought for somewhat less used. If it's a 5mm fixed then the XW or SLV would be my suggestion.

I have used wide angle eyepieces which were nice to observe with in an F/10 scope but, in my opinion, were not nice at all at F/6.5 and awful at F/5. By "not nice at all" and "awful" I mean that I might as well be using a narrower field of view eyepiece and have saved some £'s and weight. I don't expect lower cost wide angles to present pinpoint stars in the outer half of the field of view when the scope focal ratio is F/7 (ish) or faster but I would like them to be at least roughly looking like stars rather than the elongated "seagulls". Some manage this, some don't I'll be blunt (sorry FLO !) and say that for £70 a throw, the GSO Superwides are over-priced IMHO. Just my views though and others will undoubtedly vary