I currently have the following eyepieces with my Celestron Nexstar 5SE (f/10, 1250mm focal length, 5 inch aperture):
25mm Celestron Plossl (came with the telescope)
9.7mm Meade Super Plossl (about 24 years old, used to use with my previous ETX scope)
2x Barlow Lens
I have no complaint about the quality of these, but as they're the only ones I have used with my current scope, I don't have any basis for comparison either!
When I use the 9.7mm for planetary observing I get a nice clear view at around 130x. However, adding the Barlow pushes this up to 260x which is right at the limit of the telescope's resolving power and to be honest the images sometimes seem TOO magnified and I end up taking the Barlow out again. However, I'd still like to have a slightly closer view sometimes.
So, would I be better to get a slightly shorter length eyepiece, such as 6mm? Or would I be better off using a lower power Barlow, like 1.5x? I am prepared to spend some £ to get good quality, I'm not on a very tight budget. I will admit I don't fully understand the impact of things like eye relief and field of view in a practical sense.
My second question goes the other way - is there any benefit to getting a a longer length eyepiece than the 25mm for deep sky observing? I do have trouble getting things like the Pleiades and Double Cluster completely into the field of view, and if there's any benefit to brightness or clarity from a lower power eyepiece then I would consider anything you might recommend.