26 replies to this topic

[Andros246]

Little back story I have very little experience with eye pieces I just bought a used F/10 12in lx200.

 

I have no eye pieces for this and plan on buying a wide angle one and a 2x barlow.

 

So my questions are i've never looked into a wider 1.25" eyepeice and my only experience with a 1.25" was a 9mm and it was awful not a pleasant viewing experience, my other experience was looking through a 30mm 2" and it was much better experience.

 

When choosing a barlow if you have a  2" eye peice do you have to get a 2" barlow to go with it?

 

What are the actual differences between these two one is much more expensive. Even going with a wide 1.25" will that be an unpleasant experience?

https://www.highpoin...h-barrel-a-pl40

https://www.highpoin...-eyepiece-swa26

One is much more expensive and the FOV from each is the same.

 

I'm open to any and all recommendations on what I should buy for this, i'm a simple man I dont need a whole bunch of different eye pieces, I think given the FL nature of my telescope all i need is a wide one and a barlow for planetary.

 

Thanks ya'll 

 

 

 

Edited by Andros246, 29 August 2024 - 01:13 PM.

[tea_bird]

I have this Barlow from Apertura and it's got a little sleeve to adapt it from 2" to 1.2". I'm not sure if that's now most are made, but it fits both nicely and I'm all for only buying it once (until I decide I need to upgrade, that is)

[Chris MN]

You mentioned this is a "new to you" used SCT.  Have you checked to make sure it is properly collimated?    

[SeattleScott]

A 9mm in your scope is very high magnification. It requires excellent atmospheric seeing, precise collimation and the scope to be acclimated to outside temperatures. The field of view will be fairly tiny. You might use these magnifications on the Moon and planets, and not much else.

The 26mm does go a little wider but not a particularly meaningful amount. I have the eyepiece under a different brand label and feel it is a good performer at F10. The AFOV is about 65 I estimate, which is typically not what it is advertised as.

The Plossl will be lower magnification, so you are getting about the same view, but at lower power. This could be helpful if seeing is poor or your scope hasn’t acclimated to outside temperatures. But normally having the same view but more zoomed in at higher magnification is preferred.

A SCT this size can take hours to acclimate if going from a warm home out into the cold. Wrapping it in Reflectix might be the only realistic option if you don’t have an observatory or unheated garage to store it in.

2” eyepieces require a 2” diagonal and 2” barlow. Presumably you already have the 2” diagonal.

[Andros246]

You mentioned this is a "new to you" used SCT.  Have you checked to make sure it is properly collimated?    

It was collimated when I went to inspect it and use it and purchase it from the guy from my astronomy group.

 

Has it lost collimation since i transported it home unsure cant tell don't have any adapters for any of my cameras and or eye pieces 

Edited by Andros246, 29 August 2024 - 02:42 PM.

[SeattleScott]

BTW the AFOV on the 40mm Plossl is more like 40 instead of 45, just like the 26mm is about 65 not 70. Welcome to the world of inaccurate advertised specs on budget eyepieces. Ultimately the size of the view will still be roughly the same.

The 40mm Plossl has 31mm ER (well that’s the advertised spec so give or take 5mm). Most people would call this excessive and likely to cause difficulties with keeping your eye in the right spot to keep the view from blacking out.

[photoracer18]

Don't buy budget eyepieces. If you do and eventually get the chance to put a premium one in it you are going to smack yourself on the forehead and wonder why you wasted so much time looking thru crappy ones. If you need long ER because you wear glasses you can always buy Pentax, Tele Vue, and Vixen ones with long ER.

[Magnum45hp]

Andros,

The optimum  for you scope,  305, 3048, F10,  is 40mm to 20mm with a magnification of 76x and 152x. this is optimum and can go above or below these EP's. The 9mm you mentioned gives you 339x with a exit pupil of 0.9  A 5m which is maximum for this scope gives you 610x with a exit pupil of 0.5.

The 40 has a exit pupil of 4.0 and the 20 has an exit pupil of 2.0.

The scope has a narrow view and your reason for wide EP's.  You could get by using 1.25's which are less costly, also if you chose a 25mm  instead of a 26mm there are more choices.

Using the math program below will give you these figures, so you can figure things out before you buy.

Frank

[Andros246]

A 9mm in your scope is very high magnification. It requires excellent atmospheric seeing, precise collimation and the scope to be acclimated to outside temperatures. The field of view will be fairly tiny. You might use these magnifications on the Moon and planets, and not much else.

The 26mm does go a little wider but not a particularly meaningful amount. I have the eyepiece under a different brand label and feel it is a good performer at F10. The AFOV is about 65 I estimate, which is typically not what it is advertised as.

The Plossl will be lower magnification, so you are getting about the same view, but at lower power. This could be helpful if seeing is poor or your scope hasn’t acclimated to outside temperatures. But normally having the same view but more zoomed in at higher magnification is preferred.

A SCT this size can take hours to acclimate if going from a warm home out into the cold. Wrapping it in Reflectix might be the only realistic option if you don’t have an observatory or unheated garage to store it in.

2” eyepieces require a 2” diagonal and 2” barlow. Presumably you already have the 2” diagonal.

I do have the 2" diagonal 

 

BTW the AFOV on the 40mm Plossl is more like 40 instead of 45, just like the 26mm is about 65 not 70. Welcome to the world of inaccurate advertised specs on budget eyepieces. Ultimately the size of the view will still be roughly the same.

The 40mm Plossl has 31mm ER (well that’s the advertised spec so give or take 5mm). Most people would call this excessive and likely to cause difficulties with keeping your eye in the right spot to keep the view from blacking out.

For someone without glasses whats your opinion on the "optimum" ER?

 

Don't buy budget eyepieces. If you do and eventually get the chance to put a premium one in it you are going to smack yourself on the forehead and wonder why you wasted so much time looking thru crappy ones. If you need long ER because you wear glasses you can always buy Pentax, Tele Vue, and Vixen ones with long ER.

Are plossl's considered budget? The eye piece mentioned in the OP I liked was an apertura 2" 30mm superview i believe, how much of a difference are we talking about comparing that to one of the premium brands you listed?

[photoracer18]

I consider budget anything that is $25 and under. I don't buy eyepieces that cost over about $200, new or used .Pretty much the last set of new eyepieces I bought was back around 1970. My old Pentax XLs and my current XWs were all bought used even though I worked for a Pentax dealer Only scope I bought new currently is my Stellarvue SVX127D. Plus I have some others for special purposes, also all bought used.

[Mike Q]

For my 10 inch SCT i use from 14, 20, 26, 32, 38 and a 56mm. The great thing about F10 is eyepieces that would be consider mediocre at F5, work very well at F10. 

[Jim in PA]

I do have the 2" diagonal 

 

For someone without glasses whats your opinion on the "optimum" ER?

 

Are plossl's considered budget? The eye piece mentioned in the OP I liked was an apertura 2" 30mm superview i believe, how much of a difference are we talking about comparing that to one of the premium brands you listed?

The GSO Superviews (which I have, as well as the 12" SCT) will show some aberrations out towards the edge.  Elongated stars.

 

Sounds like you don't wear glasses while observing, if not, the best performance bang for the buck are going to be the Astrotech UWA's.  As others have pointed out, you don't need anything below 9mm, unless you have excellent seeing in your location.  The 7mm AT UWA is actually closer to an 8mm, which is a good place to start...I have all of the AT UWA's, but you can probably safely skip the 4mm with the 12" SCT.

 

If you decide to one day upgrade the GSO Superview, I've found the 30mm UFF is a good replacement.

[eblanken]

Hello,

 

Congratulations on your acquisition of a 12 inch SCT. Wow, that is a BIG accomplishment.

 

I assume the following: 

 

(1) The tripod is massive and this is a "two-person-to-set-up-scope" or you have a full observatory and a permanent pier ?

 

(2) You have said that you have two inch eyepiece capability (ie a 2 inch visual back AND Diagonal), right ?

 

(3) You don't wear eyeglasses, (but will you want to accommodate "friends" that need to use theirs ?) so . . . 

 

I would first guide you toward the Pentax XW (Ricoh) 40mm, 2 inch, 68 Deg. AFoV eyepiece like I own, since it is "friendly" with 20mm of Eye Relief,

BUT also has an adjustable eye cup that can protect you (and others) when you don't need 20mm and can be adjusted easily to your liking and/or that of others who might share the eyepiece with you. I have the full set: 40mm, 30mm (Both 2 inch), and 20mm, 14mm, 10mm . . . (at 1.25 inch "fitment", but you can get adapters for these to "standardize" on the 2 inch format. This set gives you (approx) 1.4x "steps"  between siblings. Some may say skip the 40mm and the 20mm and get the 30mm and the 14mm, but these are "judgement calls" and you might arrange to "borrow" and/or try-before-you-buy . . . This may come down to some estimates of what anticipated targets YOU WANT TO SEE . . .

 

(4) If you follow a rule: smallest "normal" eyepiece is 10mm for an f/10 scope . . . you will see why the 9mm was not pleasing to you . . . Your "seeing" is also a factor here, and others might suggest a 9mm, 8mm or 7mm, BUT I DON'T FOR YOU . . .

 

I hope this helps a bit,

 

Ed

Edited by eblanken, 29 August 2024 - 09:16 PM.

[eblanken]

Hi again,

 

Andros,

The optimum  for you scope,  305, 3048, F10,  is 40mm to 20mm with a magnification of 76x and 152x. this is optimum and can go above or below these EP's. The 9mm you mentioned gives you 339x with a exit pupil of 0.9  A 5m which is maximum for this scope gives you 610x with a exit pupil of 0.5.

The 40 has a exit pupil of 4.0 and the 20 has an exit pupil of 2.0.

The scope has a narrow view and your reason for wide EP's.  You could get by using 1.25's which are less costly, also if you chose a 25mm  instead of a 26mm there are more choices.

Using the math program below will give you these figures, so you can figure things out before you buy.

Frank

 

I agree . . . I would "rephrase" your scope's description (OTA): as 12 inch (305mm) x 3,048mm FL (f/10) SCT OTA . . . 

 

For my 10 inch SCT i use from 14, 20, 26, 32, 38 and a 56mm. The great thing about F10 is eyepieces that would be consider mediocre at F5, work very well at F10. 

 

This is also good advice: a Televue (or other brand) 55mm Plossl in 2 inch format (50mm - 56mm range) has about the lowest power, widest True Field of View (TFOV) in a 2 inch format, but many would call the eye relief (ER) very excessive and hard to find and keep eye placement. The Pentax XW 40mm would be easier to use and at 68 Deg AFoV might work better for you as a low-power-finder-eyepiece. Your plan to have a 2x Barlow might work well to get 20mm eyepiece equivalent, but would be "physically a long stackup" and might be unwieldly, but you might instead (at 20mm, WIDER AFoV) look into a WIDER AFoV, if that suits you instead . . . you may be happy with a 100+ Deg 21mm Ethos . . . but I'm not . . . 

 

There are less expensive eyepieces to consider in the 30mm to 56mm focal lengths, but I'm a real fan of the 40mm Pentax XW as your next step . . . just saying . . . 

 

Best,

 

Ed

Edited by eblanken, 29 August 2024 - 10:12 PM.

[Andros246]

Hello,

 

Congratulations on your acquisition of a 12 inch SCT. Wow, that is a BIG accomplishment.

 

I assume the following: 

 

(1) The tripod is massive and this is a "two-person-to-set-up-scope" or you have a full observatory and a permanent pier ?

 

(2) You have said that you have two inch eyepiece capability (ie a 2 inch visual back AND Diagonal), right ?

 

(3) You don't wear eyeglasses, (but will you want to accommodate "friends" that need to use theirs ?) so . . . 

 

I would first guide you toward the Pentax XW (Ricoh) 40mm, 2 inch, 68 Deg. AFoV eyepiece like I own, since it is "friendly" with 20mm of Eye Relief,

BUT also has an adjustable eye cup that can protect you (and others) when you don't need 20mm and can be adjusted easily to your liking and/or that of others who might share the eyepiece with you. I have the full set: 40mm, 30mm (Both 2 inch), and 20mm, 14mm, 10mm . . . (at 1.25 inch "fitment", but you can get adapters for these to "standardize" on the 2 inch format. This set gives you (approx) 1.4x "steps"  between siblings. Some may say skip the 40mm and the 20mm and get the 30mm and the 14mm, but these are "judgement calls" and you might arrange to "borrow" and/or try-before-you-buy . . . This may come down to some estimates of what anticipated targets YOU WANT TO SEE . . .

 

(4) If you follow a rule: smallest "normal" eyepiece is 10mm for an f/10 scope . . . you will see why the 9mm was not pleasing to you . . . Your "seeing" is also a factor here, and others might suggest a 9mm, 8mm or 7mm, BUT I DON'T FOR YOU . . .

 

I hope this helps a bit,

 

Ed

Thanks!

 

1.  Yes large tripod and fork mount (which surprisingly still works great considering the age!)

 

2. Great question, here's the measurement its not exactly 2"

 

3. 90 percent of the time be used by just my wife and I so an eye piece with eyeglasses in mind is not required

 

Thanks for your recommendations!

[Dave Mitsky]

For my 10 inch SCT i use from 14, 20, 26, 32, 38 and a 56mm. The great thing about F10 is eyepieces that would be consider mediocre at F5, work very well at F10. 

I certainly agree.  One of the clubs to which I belong owns a 10" Meade LX200 and two 14" Mead LX200s.  We have a collection of rather inexpensive five-lens-element 70-degree eyepieces from Bresser, Explore Scientific, and Agena Astro that work perfectly well with these f/10 telescopes.  We also have 50-degree 55 and 56mm Plössls but I rarely use those.

 

Unfortunately, the 70-degree eyepieces from Bresser and Explore Scientific are no longer available.

 

I suggest a purchasing a combination of Agena Astro 1.25" 10, 15, and 20mm eyepieces and an Agena Astro 2" 38mm eyepiece.  The magnifications produced with those focal lengths will be approximately 80, 152, 203, and 305x.  I would skip getting a 2" Barlow lens.

 

https://agenaastro.c...epiece-set.html

 

https://agenaastro.c...a-eyepiece.html

 

There are other fairly low-cost options available such as the 60-degree Astro-Tech Paradigm Dual ED, 60-degree Celestron X-Cel LX, and 82-degree Astro-Tech UWA lines from Astronomics.

 

https://astronomics....ndor=Astro-Tech

 

https://astronomics....endor=Celestron

https://astronomics....ndor=Astro-Tech

Cloudy Nights members get a small discount on non-sale items from Astronomics.

 

https://www.cloudyni...y_discount.html
 

[Mike Q]

I should have said that the eyepieces i am using in it are the Orion Q70 series.  I have all three of them and they do a good job at F10.  The lowest power I use is a Meade 4000 56mm and i have no complaints with it either.  I don't think i would bother with a barlow because you really only need a handful of eyepieces.  6 would cover you easily and it seems that most 70ish degree eyepieces give you plenty of eye relief.  So if the scope has 3000mm of focal length your highest power eyepiece will be around a 10mm.  

 

Someone mentioned that this is a 2 person set up and they were not lying.  Once this thing is assembled you are well north of 100 pounds.  There is absolutely nothing easy about setting it up, so i can highly recommend getting a cart for it and leaving it on it.  My 10 inch LX200 lives in my garage on its cart.  When i want to use it i just roll it out.  I didnt read every post so I am really hoping you have an observatory to put this in and just leave it set up.

 

 

Edited by Mike Q, 30 August 2024 - 05:11 AM.

[Apogee]

2. Great question, here's the measurement its not exactly 2"

You can change that back out to a 2" visual back with 3.25" Meade threads. Grab onto that part you're measuring and unscrew it. Then you can use a standard 2" diagonal. I put this on on my Meade SCT from AstroPhysics.

[Andros246]

You can change that back out to a 2" visual back with 3.25" Meade threads. Grab onto that part you're measuring and unscrew it. Then you can use a standard 2" diagonal. I put this on on my Meade SCT from AstroPhysics.

Gotcha yeah I was able to unscrew it

 

I guess im confused because when we tested the scope we did use a 30mm 2" superview and I did not notice any vignetting or anything that would suggest there was an issue using that eye piece with the smaller diagonal.

 

So my question now is 1.25" vs 2" not many people here recommended 2" pieces from my research the only difference is 2" will have wider FOV but I guess that can be compensated depending on which 1.25" you get? Are the 2" that much better than the 1.25 the price is whole lot more and can a 1.25" be as comfortable as a 2" when viewing.

Edited by Andros246, 30 August 2024 - 07:22 AM.

[SeattleScott]

First answering your earlier question. Personally without glasses, 12mm ER is about optimal (and about 18 with glasses but you don’t care about that).

But here is what you need to understand. The advertised spec for ER is based on the eyecup being fully lowered. ER is related to how big the eye lens is. Not many care to look through a tiny peephole 4mm Plossl. People like big glass. Even people who don’t wear glasses. However big glass with long ER without glasses generally means blackouts. So people who like the immersive view of big glass but don’t wear glasses get eyepieces with 18mm or so of eye relief, but then they raise the eyecup to reduce the effective eye relief to 12mm or so. So you can get more than 12mm ER and not struggle without glasses. That being said, 31mm, yeah, that’s kind of excessive. I wouldn’t do well with that. The rubber eyecup isn’t tall enough to reduce that to a manageable amount of ER.

Ok now 2” versus 1.25” format. Unless my scope can only accept 1.25” eyepieces, this really isn’t something I worry about. When I buy a car, some engineer has determined that a wheel this size is optimal for my vehicle. Personally I’m not going to jack it up and put monster truck tires on it. Someone thinks this size wheel is best. That works for me. Same with 2” versus 1.25”. I am looking for a certain focal length eyepiece with a certain AFOV and ER. If that requires a 2” barrel, so be it. If it doesn’t, even better since I can use it with my little solar scope. Since you have a 2” diagonal you can use 2” or 1.25” format. Just focus on buying the focal length and AFOV that you want and don’t worry about 2” format. If the eyepiece specs you want are only available in 2” format, get a 2” eyepiece. If they are only available in 1.25” get 1.25”. In some cases they might be available in either format but even in that case, since your only scope takes 2” eyepieces, I wouldn’t make the format the determining factor. I would choose on price or quality or something and the format just is what it is.

Ok vignetting. Yes a SCT diagonal will technically vignette the widest 2” eyepieces. But will you notice? Probably not. Vignetting at lowest power is normal. Reflectors are typically designed to illuminate about 70-75% at lowest power, widest field. Refractors: that F7 refractor with a 2” focuser, the light cone is shrinking as the light travels down the focuser. It isn’t fully illuminating a 2” wide light cone by the time it reaches the eyepiece. For visual use one likely wouldn’t notice. For imaging people often buy premium refractor with larger than 2” focuser. That’s why you see some refractors with 3” focusers. But do you hear a chorus of people whining about the edges of the view being dim in their Dobs or refractors with just 2” focuser? No. Neither is there a chorus of people complaining about vignetting with SCT diagonal. Now if money is no object and you want maximum performance, sure, upgrade the visual back and get a true 2” diagonal.

Edited by SeattleScott, 30 August 2024 - 08:33 AM.

[Dave Mitsky]

So my question now is 1.25" vs 2" not many people here recommended 2" pieces from my research the only difference is 2" will have wider FOV but I guess that can be compensated depending on which 1.25" you get? Are the 2" that much better than the 1.25 the price is whole lot more and can a 1.25" be as comfortable as a 2" when viewing.

The maximum field stop, which determines field of view, of a 1.25" eyepiece is about 27mm versus about 46mm for a 2" eyepiece.  So, no 1.25" eyepiece can match the maximum true field of view produced by a 2" eyepiece.  Eyepieces with 1.25" barrels like the Baader Planetarium Morpheus, Pentax XW, Tele Vue Delos, and other lines have large eye lenses and extended eye relief.  Of course, that means more complicated and thus more expensive designs.

An alternative to a 2" eyepiece is a f/6.3 focal reducer matched with a 68-degree 24mm widefield or a 50-degree 32mm Plössl, which produces the same true field of view as an excessive eye relief 43-degree 40mm Plössl.  

[eblanken]

Hi Andros & Scott & All,

 

Gotcha yeah I was able to unscrew it

 

I guess im confused because when we tested the scope we did use a 30mm 2" superview and I did not notice any vignetting or anything that would suggest there was an issue using that eye piece with the smaller diagonal.

 

So my question now is 1.25" vs 2" not many people here recommended 2" pieces from my research the only difference is 2" will have wider FOV but I guess that can be compensated depending on which 1.25" you get? Are the 2" that much better than the 1.25 the price is whole lot more and can a 1.25" be as comfortable as a 2" when viewing.

 

Any vignetting would be subtle and probably not noticeable. The 30mm 2 inch SuperView was fine for test purposes, and if you were happy, get yourself one. I was only suggesting the better Pentax XW 40mm or 30mm based upon my own experience and the trend of most people who make a big purchase  like you have tend to continue to buy better quality eyepieces over time as their interest in the hobby grows. At f/10 you have options that others (with f/5 or f/3, etc.) don't have.

 

First answering your earlier question. Personally without glasses, 12mm ER is about optimal (and about 18 with glasses but you don’t care about that).

But here is what you need to understand. The advertised spec for ER is based on the eyecup being fully lowered. ER is related to how big the eye lens is. Not many care to look through a tiny peephole 4mm Plossl. People like big glass. Even people who don’t wear glasses. However big glass with long ER without glasses generally means blackouts. So people who like the immersive view of big glass but don’t wear glasses get eyepieces with 18mm or so of eye relief, but then they raise the eyecup to reduce the effective eye relief to 12mm or so. So you can get more than 12mm ER and not struggle without glasses. That being said, 31mm, yeah, that’s kind of excessive. I wouldn’t do well with that. The rubber eyecup isn’t tall enough to reduce that to a manageable amount of ER.

Ok now 2” versus 1.25” format. Unless my scope can only accept 1.25” eyepieces, this really isn’t something I worry about. When I buy a car, some engineer has determined that a wheel this size is optimal for my vehicle. Personally I’m not going to jack it up and put monster truck tires on it. Someone thinks this size wheel is best. That works for me. Same with 2” versus 1.25”. I am looking for a certain focal length eyepiece with a certain AFOV and ER. If that requires a 2” barrel, so be it. If it doesn’t, even better since I can use it with my little solar scope. Since you have a 2” diagonal you can use 2” or 1.25” format. Just focus on buying the focal length and AFOV that you want and don’t worry about 2” format. If the eyepiece specs you want are only available in 2” format, get a 2” eyepiece. If they are only available in 1.25” get 1.25”. In some cases they might be available in either format but even in that case, since your only scope takes 2” eyepieces, I wouldn’t make the format the determining factor. I would choose on price or quality or something and the format just is what it is.

Ok vignetting. Yes a SCT diagonal will technically vignette the widest 2” eyepieces. But will you notice? Probably not. Vignetting at lowest power is normal. Reflectors are typically designed to illuminate about 70-75% at lowest power, widest field. Refractors: that F7 refractor with a 2” focuser, the light cone is shrinking as the light travels down the focuser. It isn’t fully illuminating a 2” wide light cone by the time it reaches the eyepiece. For visual use one likely wouldn’t notice. For imaging people often buy premium refractor with larger than 2” focuser. That’s why you see some refractors with 3” focusers. But do you hear a chorus of people whining about the edges of the view being dim in their Dobs or refractors with just 2” focuser? No. Neither is there a chorus of people complaining about vignetting with SCT diagonal. Now if money is no object and you want maximum performance, sure, upgrade the visual back and get a true 2” diagonal.

 

Scott and I agree here on what he has shared with you. The reality is that 2 inch eyepieces aren't strictly necessary in the shorter focal lengths, but give a wider true field of view (TFoV) in the lengths longer than a certain value (especially in a slow scope, that tends to be narrow anyways). You might consider a smaller refractor to "piggy-back" onto your large SCT, so that the small scope can compliment the big one.

 

Ed

Edited by eblanken, 30 August 2024 - 01:04 PM.

[Andros246]

Thanks i've got a good idea now. I appreciate all the help

 

Last question is a odd one but zoom eyepieces and "binoviewers" whats the general opinion on those.

[DSOGabe]

Touching on the collimation. The way to test if the scope is still collimated is by pointing to a star and then take it out of focus.

If the result is a symmetrical donut shaped image, then its collimated. 

As to eyepieces, I would recommend getting ones with wider FOVs. At least 65 degrees to get nice views out of it. 

Depending on the budget for them, I would say look at the Apertura Super Wide 1.25" eyepieces. Decent quality for a reasonable price. 

Binoviewers put you in the position of having to buy 2 of each eyepiece (can get pricey) and they can be difficult to focus since each element needs to be adjusted individually. That can become difficult if you wind up showing people things. I had a pair but sold them off for those reasons.

Edited by DSOGabe, 30 August 2024 - 04:51 PM.

[SeattleScott]

Thanks i've got a good idea now. I appreciate all the help

Last question is a odd one but zoom eyepieces and "binoviewers" whats the general opinion on those.

A lot of people like that approach because it is cheaper than pairs of eyepieces, reduces eyepiece swapping times two, and typically one uses binoviewer at high F ratio which can improve performance of zooms.