Stock EPs - what a difference.

[Starslayer]

I have been playing around with different set ups today and noticed a VAST difference between the stock 10mm eps supplied with my Celestron 6" sct and the Startravel 102.   The KE on the left came with the Celestron. Field of view seems narrower but the weight!!!!  It is double the weight of the one on the right.  Would I be wrong to 'assume' weight = quality? Probably. Only compared in daylight with distant trees but if anything the lighter one is easier on the eye and there is no significant difference in what I see. 

 

[Carbon Brush]

Besides the technical aspects of eyepieces, and descriptions that can go on for pages, there are two factors, that to me, make a big difference.

You mentioned 'easier on the eye'. If the eyepiece suits your viewing distance, it is a good start.
A second factor, that I find useful is an eye cup/shield to help establish viewing distance, and cut out stray light.

[Starslayer]

3 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

A second factor, that I find useful is an eye cup/shield to help establish viewing distance, and cut out stray light.

Ys, agreed. Interesting though that the 'better quality' one does not have the little flip up cup that the other does. 

[John]

I have a couple of the Celestron "KE" eyepieces - the 10mm and the 20mm. They are basically the same optical design as the "Super" Long Eye Relief 10mm, a 3 element design, but the Celestron eyepieces use a metal assembly to hold the optical elements in place and a metal retaining / field stop ring. So they weigh more than the plastic and glass "Super" equivalents.

Their optical performance seems to be very similar.

 

[Louis D]

The heavier one probably has a chromed brass barrel that accounts for the extra weight.