John

I find using more magnification rather than less more effective from where I observe. 31 mm is now my longest focal length eyepiece. Until recently I had a nice 40mm 68 degree but almost always got more satisfying views with short focal lengths. I've owned a few 50mm eyepieces but never for very long These GSO made super wide eyepieces are fine as long as the buyer is aware of their limitations. Their pricing needs to reflect this as well IMHO. vlaiv has made some excellent points regarding them so I don't need to add any more

M33 visually resembles an indistinct patch of light sitting between 4 stars in a rough rhomboid formation. This is the nearest image of what it looks like though a scope that I could find at short notice: This would be under a pretty dark sky. As you can see the object is large and low power is used. I have seen M33 with 7x35 binoculars and my 11x70's show it on a decent night here. A little away from the faint galactic haze is a slightly more condensed small spot of light close to a foreground star. That small patch is NGC 604 which is a vast star forming region within the galaxy M33. NGC 604 needs about a 130mm or larger aperture to detect.

Unless you are observing from very dark skies, M33 is very indistinct even with a 10 inch scope.

I've seen Mars occasionally for a few minutes between the clouds over the past few nights but other than that, no observing possibilities. Going through a "lean patch" here, observing-wise

I've owned the 50mm and 42mm GSO branded versions of these eyepieces and can confirm what vlaiv has said above regarding performance and specs. The Stellalyra ones do look extremely like the GSO Superviews. I enjoyed them in an F/10 refractor and SCT. I strongly suspect that the Revelation Superview's are the same eyepieces ?

The Nagler zoom is a 5 element design with a 50 degree apparent field of view across it's zoom range. It is not related to the 82 degree Naglers apart from that it was designed by Al Nagler. Not sure about Dioptrix compatibility

Sounds like a great project Michael As well as the resources you have already mentioned, I find the Stelle Doppie database useful: https://www.stelledoppie.it/index2.php?section=1 Plus Stellarium's info on binary stars seems quite accurate.

Quite a lot of the sights that visual astronomy provides could be thought of as unimpressive on the face of it. A faint smudge of light, a subtle darkening or brighter spot on a small planetary disk, a barely visible point of light. But when a little understanding of what is being observed is added to the mix then the visible evidence takes on a lot more fascination. The smudge of light is a galaxy whose light has taken millions or tens of millions of years to reach us or maybe a newly discovered comet that is soon to whisk off into the depths of the solar system never to return in our lifetimes. The contrast variation on a planetary disk is a massive storm system that has raged for over 300 years or maybe a canyon 4000 km long and 200 km across. The pinpoint of light is a rocky, icy ball orbiting a distant gas giant millions of KM away or maybe a massive star reaching the end of it's life in a supernova explosion that outshines every other star it it's home galaxy. This stuff can be seen with amateur telescopes and our own eyes if we put our minds to it. It's what keeps me in this crazy hobby

The Universe with end with a Gnab Gib according to the Hitchhikers Guide

Lots I expect, but not the Nagler zoom The Nagler zoom is one that I do think rivals good quality fixed focal length alternatives.

I keep swapping mine out with my Pentax XWs expecting the XWs to be noticeably better with regard to the issues that you mention but the differences are really quite small if I'm honest. Having spent the best part of £1K on the Pentaxes I'd love them to be markedly better but I'm really not seeing that big jump other than the AFoV and a bit more eye relief There probably are slight improvements at times and on particular targets but, at least for me, they don't jump right out. hence the zoom gets more use than I thought it would. I did use the zoom with my Lunt LS50 when I had it and it worked nicely. It's also good with the Lunt Herschel Wedge in white light.

Not going to be a lot of fun with my undriven / alt- az mounted scopes The TMB Supermono 5mm was darned hard work ........ I'm all for a bit of observing comfort these days

That was originally why I bought the Hyperflex but I've found that I use quite a lot for regular observing as well.

It is a continuous zoom (no click stops). I would say that it is optically about the same as the Baader 8-24 but the field of view is narrower - around 38 degrees at 21.5mm to around 55 degrees at 7.2mm. It barlows well with the Baader 2.25x Q-Turret barlow to give a 9.55mm - 3.2mm zoom.

More little 'uns

Not looking terribly hopeful here

I still have my old Tasco 60mm refractor with it's mount, original eyepieces etc. They date from the 1960's. Some of my regularly used kit is probably 20 years old now eg: the Vixen ED102SS.

I've owned 3 of the Baader 8-24 zooms over the years. They are pretty good. I tried the Leica ASPH zoom (about £700 new I think !) for a while and that was excellent but I still preferred my fixed focal length eyepieces. My current zooms are the Hyperflex 7.2mm - 21.5mm and a Tele Vue Nagler 2mm-4mm. I use both of those a lot (the Hyperflex often with a 2.25x barlow to make a high power zoom). I would not have a zoom as my only eyepiece (that was what the Leica ASPH experiment demonstrated) but they are useful to have in the tool box.

I've tried all four of my XW's (10, 7, 5 and 3.5) holding them upside down and shaking them quite vigorously. The caps all stayed on. They are easy to pop off and on at night so I can live with the stock ones.

That's an interesting idea. I have four Pentax XW's, 2 are quite a few years old and purchased used and two were purchased new a couple of years ago. I'll have to try some experiments to see if the caps are looser with some of the eyepieces than others.

Not a bad idea When I get a dark night and Orion is well placed, I'm going to try observing M42 through UHC, O-III and H-Beta filters and sketch the difference these filters make vs no filter, to the principle features within the nebula. I've noted them in the past but I've not been very systematic in comparing the impact of these filters.

Just to add to the confusion, there were two John's in this thread with AZ100's. One of them still has one. Mine were on loan for beta testing.

Very nice ! Will you be imaging with it ?

That was why I had to use the 28mm Baader FT rings. The 14mm gave insufficient clearance for a 2 inch filter. The ideal length would be 17mm-20mm I reckon, just clearing the end of the 1.25 inch barrel.

You will need to measure and lathe each eyepiece and extender separately. The 2 inch skirts and the 1.25" barrel sections of the Ethos 13, 8 and 6 are all slightly different lengths, just to make life interesting