Hey Ed, as a side note, how good are those cheap Nikon zooms? Same as the Celestron ect, but not in the class of the more expensive Baader zooms?
I am not the best one to ask about the differences in eyepieces because except for edge of field performance, I find that eyepieces rarely make enough performance difference at the center of the field to bother me about which ones I use, so I tend to pick my eyepieces based on other factors rather than the magic dust quotient. Of axis performance in wide field eyepieces is a much different issue, and here, I think ES and Telvue are the best out there.
As for the bargain Nikons, they are very simple design and find them to have center of the field performance that is as good most other eyepieces I have used. The main reason I use them in the binoviewers though is that they are very light weight, and have a decent zoom range. I use these for planetary work in the dob and the 106 triplet (though I rarely do planetary in the triplet, more just an occasional look. Just not enough scope to do serious planetary observations).
So, the very very very best that I can say about them is that I like them and for planetary, they seem to work pretty well. I have warned though that I am not an "eyepiecenista". If find that using binoviewers made far far more difference to planetary viewing than this or that eyepiece. As long as I am using a binoviewer for solar system work, the actual eyepieces I use don't seem to make much difference to me so I usually base my preference on other factors like mag range, weight, or whether the tops rotate when the eyepiece is zoomed (for solar, I use eye guards and if the top moves when zooming, that is bad for me, so that is why I don't use the Nikons for my solar scope).
Edited by Eddgie, 10 January 2020 - 03:33 PM.