Have been reading through this thread with interest, and I thought I would post a little bit about my own .965 eyepieces.
My first .965 eyepieces came with a 40-year old Vixen 60/f15 scope I picked up (about a year ago). The scope came with a nice little set: a 25mm and a 20mm Kellner, a 20mm and a 12.5 HMs, and a 9mm and a 7mm Ortho. I tried them out a bit after I got them but I didn’t really use them much, because I preferred the more comfortable views on 1.25 EPs like the Paradigm EDs.
I recently came across a partial set of .965 Takahashi MC Orthos, 18mm, 12.5mm, 7mm, and these have re-sparked my interest in .965 EPs.
All the Vixens, except for the 10mm Kellner came with the 60mm scope.
I have spent the last few weeks using all the .965 EPs on doubles in Cassiopeia, Andromeda, Aries, and Pisces. It has been a good learning experience, and the views have been surprisingly (to me!) nice. The Tak MC Orthos have been the best of the bunch. The differences between these and the Vixen Orthos are small and subtle, but the views through the Tak MCs just seem sharper and brighter with higher contrast. They have even given me better views than my 1.25 EPs (mostly Vixen NLVs, and Paradigms).
The surprise among the EPs has been the 10mm Kellner. Again, it is subtle, but this EP is surprisingly bright and sharp, and show good colors in doubles. Almost as good as the Taks, and, to my eyes, better than the Vixen Orthos. Last night, I stopped down my 80mm/f11, to 46.5mm and tried to split Rigel. Through the 10mm Rigel was a wondrous, bright, perfect disc with the tiny secondary just below. Here, the 10mm outperformed even the Tak 7mm, where the disc just didn’t seem as sharp – a little rough around the edges)
As one of the previous posters mentioned, the HMs do help bring out some dimmer stars, but for me, the eye relief on the HMs is rather tight and they are not so comfortable - the 20mm feels tighter than the Tak 7mm even.