Last night I spent a few hours comparing 3 classic eyepieces.
Scope: 6" f12 D&G achromat
15mm TV widefield. 122x
Meade 15.5 RG 118x
Celestron 16mm erfle 114x
target was very faint stars in M42, e star in trap, nebulosity and Rigels companion.
First off let me say all 3 are fine eyepieces in this scope. At f12, it is quite forgiving. Results may be very different in faster scopes. All 3 eyepieces are based on erfle design.
First up was the 15.5 RG. Found the faintest star I could see see some of the time. Nice wide fov, pretty sharp over the entire fov.
Next tried the TV 15mm WF, was suprise at the much smaller fov, about 20% less. Also could only see the faint star maybe 20% of the time. Stars at the edge of the fov seemed bigger, less sharp, And the wings showed a hair less less color and a hair less brightness.
Next I tried the Celestron erfle. It was razor sharp in the center of the field of view, the faint star was not as faint and was seen 100% of the time. Had same fov as the TV WF. It equaled the Meade in edge of field sharpness, brightness of wings, though about 20% less fov.
I swapped eyepiece around for an hour and came up with same results. Also the Celestron was easier to find best focus, and tied with Meade for comfort. It also was the only one to consistently show the "e" star in the trap, Orion was low and seeing was not great. The TV never showed a hint of it, though the Meade did 50% of the time.
Went to Rigel, the Celestron again impressed, gave the best view of the companion with the Meade a very very close second. The TV was a bit further back, not as clean and easy to see.
Overall, the Celestron and Meade were very close, the Celestron just edging it out on sharpness and transmission by maybe 1 or 2%, the Meade winning the fov size. The Televue finished 3rd in all respects, but not by much. The Meade is the lightest.
If I had to rate them, the Celsetron beinging the baseline 100, the Meade would be 99, and the TV 95. I am going to try them in my F7 apo next, I suspect the TV might do better in it.
The old Celestron erfles have always been a favorite of mine for good reason I guess. Star testing them show they have a smooth polish, they don't detract from the scope on axis. Of the three they snap to focus the best, and are comfortable to use to boot. The Meade will remain in my lineup for its wider fov, sharpness and light weight. The TV is on the fence, depends how it does in my faster refractor.
As said, all three eyeices are very good, a casual view would not show any differences except the larger fov of the Meade. Really had to push to see differences. All three are a good value on the used market, most so the Celestron which rarely come up for sale. If you value smaller size over modern super wide eyepices one of them may be for you.