What type are they (design), other than Highpoint and Celestron? Like plossl, Erfle... Also, a 6se is pretty forgiving on EPs, due to its longer focal length. Where in a fast scope such as an f/4.5 or similar, premium EPs are needed, but not so critical at say f/10.

 

Also, do you a dew shield and a good finder on it? You have a pretty good range of EPs IF they provide YOU with nice views. I was just asking because there could be another accessory that may be needed more at the present time.

 

Plossls are optically very good eyepieces and plenty comfortable at focal lengths of 15mm and longer. I don't think you need to consider "upgrading" them simply for the purpose of having something "better." Getting something better suited to your tastes is another matter. You may not know yet what those tastes are.

Presumably that ES eyepiece is an 82 degree eyepiece, considered generally a "widefield" EP, whereas the plossls would be 50° or thereabouts. You may notice that the edges of the view through your ES 8.8 seem further out into your peripheral vision as compared with the plossls. This difference is sometimes described as looking out a porthole window (widefield EP) versus looking down a tube (Plossl, Ortho).

Many stargazers vastly prefer the porthole window style of view and pay a lot of money for those extra degrees in their eyepieces. Common "widefield" eyepieces range from 60° to 100°, and wider is not always better for everyone. Comfort, size, weight, and cost are other primary EP considerations. I personally prefer 82° for most viewing, but 50° on the Moon because I find the narrower field makes it easier to concentrate on small Lunar details.

My personal take... I think your 32mm is a keeper for low power viewing, and the 8.8mm is probably perfect for medium-high power. There's a largish gap between 15mm and the 8.8, and your 25mm is too close to your 32mm to make them both useful. If you replaced the 15mm & 25mm with a 17mm widefield, and added a 1.5x Barlow to your kit, you would then have the following focal lengths & magnifications available:

32mm = 47x
17mm = 88x
11.3mm (17mm x1.5 Barlow) = 133x
8.8mm = 170x
5.9mm (8.8mm x1.5 Barlow) = 254x

That would be an excellent spread of magnifications, I think, for the C6. There are several attractive options for ~17mm widefield EP in 1.25" format. I recommend that focal length partly this reason and for the magnification spread, and also because I have found my 18mm 82° eyepiece to be my most used EP in my C6. Alas, the Meade 18mm UWA is no longer made. I was lucky to find one in the classifieds.

That's my 2 cents, free of charge. Happy hunting!

 

I have a hodge podge of various EPs right now. The best being an ES 82° I just got. I do prefer wide field views when scanning the sky with my dob, but as Auriga said, I too have several plossl that are used regularly. Mainly due to what was stated about it being a smaller view to concentrate on really observing lunar and planetary detail without having the distraction of a wider view. Although in the big dob its nice to not nudge as much without tracking sometimes, but in my 4" and 6" refractors I normally use my plossls. If I did get something for myself, not that this is about me, I would think that a couple 60° may be a sweet spot for FOV on higher magnification. Like the new Meade hd 60° or the Agena Starguider 60° series. Both about half the price of ES and very good reviews.

 

OK. I'll be the one to finally answer your original question without pontificating. Yes, you should buy a good 2x Barlow with a removable lens housing. Just using the lens housing on your EPs will give you 1.5x. Using the Barlow as is will give you 2x. That's 3 mag and FOV options for each eyepiece. What fun.

 

Lol.... Still a good answer. Everyone DOES need a barlow, but I didn't really see any pontification or pompousness in the answers.

 

Nope! Save your money for more fun stuff. Actually, I have the GSO 2x barlow and am quite impressed with it. It does a fine job. Actually, the only advantage of the "designer" barlows is that they actually help mitigate chromatic aberrations in short focal length achro refractors. But a little CA never bothered me enough spend that amount of money!

 

Both my 2" GSO (Zhumell branded) and 1.25" Orion have the removable rear cell. It really is useful. Some do, some Dont. Some do, and doesn't say it in description. I've that several times. Its usual for them to have a black bottom on a chrome upper part. Then check reviews. It will usually be brought up in them.

 

I used to love going to star parties so I could avail of observing thru expensive optics. I would bring along my inexpensive EPs to compare with the exotic Televues. Clearly the expensive EPs showed better contrast and minimal field distortion. But 4 times better? Nope. Maybe 1.2 times better. But that's just me. I actually enjoy a good tasty burger even if it isn't prime rib. And I do enjoy a good single malt, but I can still get a buzz on some of the much cheaper blended whisky.
Recognize that for the cost of those 2 ES EPs, you could buy a fine grab-and-go scope. Well, unless people tell you that you can't live without an APO. I don't mind being a purist, as long as I can afford it

 

My point is: do not assume that your EPs are not effective. Please try to avail of Astronomy clubs in your area where you actually have an opportunity to evaluate different scopes, EPs. If you really think that the difference warrants the price, then go for it! You say you "like" the ES EPs. Why? Because of the marketing hype? Well, they are Argon purged. So no worries if you are observing during a rainstorm. Sorry. I am a sarcastic being, but my intent is truly to motivate people to appreciate the pleasures of visual Astronomy without discouraging them with technical jargon.