John

The 8 and 6 Ethos look identical as well. In low light its easy to muddle them up !

The usual problem is making sure that the finder scope is very accurately aligned with the view that the main scope shows. The patch of sky that the main scope shows, even at low magnifications (ie: longest focal length eyepiece) is very small so it's easy to "miss" a target unless the finder scope is accurately aligned. If you saw a blur then it's quite possible that the scope was pointing at a star but the focus of the scope was way out.

The Owl Nebula is nowhere near grand as the Veil but it does respond well to an O-III filter.

Hi Greg - welcome from me a bit to the SW of you at Portishead. Excellent images so far - look forward to seeing more

I have the Lumicon and the Astronomik O-III filters (one is 2 inch and the other 1.25 inch) and can heartily recommend them. I have not used lower cost ones so I can't really comment on those. I have used lower cost UHC filters though and generally found them to be less effective than more expensive ones so I suspect that filters are one area where spending a bit more does deliver noticeably better results. The new Tele Vue Bandmate II O-III filters seem to be developing a really good reputation as top performers as well. Again not a budget option though: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

Until decent narrowband and line filters were available it's possible that the Veil Nebula was not considered a good target for amateurs ? Even with my 12 inch dob I can't see much of it without a filter. Put the O-III in an, wow, what a difference. Until I discovered that I could actually see this object with a scope (about 10 years back with a 100mm refractor and a Baader UHC-S filter) I thought it was a photographic only target. Now it's one of my favourite deep sky objects.

Eye cups up for me. I like to nestle my eye socket into a soft eye cup. No problem seeing the whole field of view I've found, unlike some other 100's that I've used. I observe standing 95% of the time. I used the eye guard extender on the TV 32mm plossl when I used to have one because the rubber eye cup on that is not quite long enough. Don't need one with the Ethos's This is a personal preference thing I think.

I don't like "hovering" either. I like to nestle my eye socket into a soft eyecup. The TV Delos and Ethos eyecups are great for this. I think quite a lot of whether we "like" eyepieces or not is down to ergonomics, preferences, face contours etc. Perhaps there is a niche for a bespoke eyepiece "fitting" service in a post virus world. "Suits you sir"

I don't seem to need to fold the eyecups down to see the full AFoV with my Ethos. I did with the ES 100's though. I love the 8mm Ethos in my 12 inch dob. 199x and the views of globulars and planetary nebs are amazing

What is the 7-21mm Svbony zoom like ? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SV135-1-25-7-21mm-Zoom-eyepieces-astronomical-telescope-eyepieces-multi-Coated/283809071527?hash=item421456c1a7:g:2uMAAOSwwBZdgY~j I've only used their filters, which are very average.

I have an AP and a couple of TV's. Both brands have that stop. I used to use a 2 inch barrel on my Zeiss T2 prism diagonal but with that arrangement the body of the diagonal makes sure that the 2 inch barrel does not get to the prism. If you are using the 2 inch skirt you have to watch for that 1.25 inch barrel. More than one person here has dinged their prism ! I mostly use the Ethos in my 12 inch dob so no problem with that of course. My fracs tend to get my 1.25 inch eyepieces.

There is usually a ring down inside the barrel to prevent anything coming into contact with the optics of diagonals. Well there is on mine anyway.

Yes they do. It does affect their focal position though because the full length of the barrel plus the extension is a bit longer than a normal length 2 inch barrel and it won't fully insert into most 2 inch diagonals. The Ethos focal positions are all over the place though so a small adjustment does not make a lot of difference in practice.

Spot on - my best views of Jupiter have come when there is still quite a bit of light in the sky

Excellent report - a good O-III filter is such a wonderful tool for the Veil and other nebulous targets. I use mine a lot more than a UHC filter. Not that I've had clear skies for quite a while - which made reading your report all the more enjoyable

A Celestron X-Cel LX 9mm might be worth considering. It is in budget and they have a decent reputation: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html If you are happy with the 26mm ES 62 then the 10mm might well be the one for you though - I've not used that range.

There were at least 3 different variants as well over the years - each "run" could have it's own serial numbering system. I used to have a very early TAL 100 RT which I purchased new in 1999. It came overland from Sibera in it's wooden coffin but I can't recall the serial number of that one though.

GOTO or not, I guess the OP will want to stick more or less to their budget

The Baader 2.25x barlow is for use with 1.25 inch eyepieces. The 1.25 inch eyepiece adapter for the scope is the last 2 items in your photo screwed together to look like this:

The Hyperions are nicely made eyepieces but they are not too well corrected towards the edges of the field of view in faster scopes. The Skywatcher 250P is F/4.7 which is considered quite a fast scope. I have not used the ES 62 so I don't know how that will do at that focal ratio.

Good points above - when I used to compare eyepieces I always tried to have several sessions with them on different targets, in different scopes and under differing conditions before reaching any conclusions and reporting anything on the forum. That's why there was often a fair time gap between me receiving the items and a report appearing on the forum. The UK weather is not always kind to astronomers trying to carefully compare equipment performance !

Anything viewed through a scope moves across the field of view at pretty much the same speed, planets, stars, deep sky objects. View at higher powers (as you often do with planets) and that rate of movement is magnified so becomes much more apparent. That said, many members of this forum observe at high powers with un-driven mounts and often alt azimuth mounts as well and seem to enjoy their observing

It's worth recalling that the original posters budget was £300-£400 for the scope AND mount.

The problem is that there is always something slightly better out there somewhere. Before there were forums we didn't know a lot about what was available apart from the occasional magazine review or what colleagues at the astro society were using. With the rise of the forum you can almost instantly get feedback on a wide range of alternatives from folks who use and enjoy them and occasionally from folks who used them and didn't think so much of them. Then there are folks like me who were lucky enough to have eyepieces loaned for nothing by a kindly supplier so that I could add to the confusion by reporting on them to this forum There is a risk that you can endlessly chase small performance gains rather than settling down to become familiar with and fully exploit what you already have. I've been down that road more than once, often with little or no overall gain which showed that I should have trusted my initial instincts that what I originally had was pretty good The grass will often look greener but it's not always so by the time you get there. Enjoy your Tak 5mm LE. I'm sure it's a fine 5mm eyepiece

I tried the night before last with my ED120 refractor but the seeing was so poor that I was barely able to make out more than the two principle belts let alone any finer details That scope has shown Galilean moon disks against the Jovian atmosphere so I might be in with a chance if we ever get another clear night and the seeing is steadier than observing through a waterfall !