Sometimes a $30 ep is better than a $350 ep

Those super widefield eyepieces provide visually stunning views of deep sky, but often I find that I'm removing the expensive Nagler or Panoptic and dropping in a Plossl of the same or similar focal length because I can see more detail with it. A few nights ago I was observing the Veil with a 6" Mak and UHC filter. The monster 35mm Panoptic gave a breathtaking view of the nebula,but I thought I'd try my $34.95 40mm Plossl from Adorama just to see what the difference in the image would be. The field of view was claustrophobic and the l-o-n-g eye relief was a pain in the butt, but I could see lighter striations running through the Veil that were not visible in the Panoptic.My point is, as wonderful as the Nagler and similar eps are, the simpler and less expensive eyepieces such as Plossls,orthos,RKEs and whatnot should be in the deep sky observor's ep case too.
Doug Schmidt

Doug
Since reading the cloudy nights article that extensively evaluated planetary eyepieces and gave highest recommendations to Zeiss Abbes, TV Plossls, and Edmund RKE's, I have been thinking that if these orthos and plossls outshine the wide angle eyepieces on planets and lunar images, why wouldn't they on deep sky as well? As more large Dobs are equipped with drive systems and sky commanders the incentive to have wider field of view to find and track objects diminishes. I have also had the experience of seeing subtle detail in diffuse and planetary nebulae with orthoscopic eyepieces that wide field eyepieces did not reveal. Gotta remember to take that case of "planetary" eyepieces with me when I go to the big Dob...