Yup! I used to barlow x2 my UO/HD 12mm to give me an equivilent 6mm giving me 200x. But I always found the 7mm HD would perform better, just a more pleasent view. I used to barlow x2 the 7mm for an equivilent 3.5mm 350x in my scope. And it never looked the best. In steps the Pentax 3.5 XW
which has given me at times unbeliveable planetary observations in comparison. Not to mention dble stars, the cores of glob's or the fainter more distance one. Even great on edge on galaxy cores M101 especially. I cant wait for a decent night to peer into the trapz in Orion. Albereo you could drive a car through I have the 10mm & 14mm XW's also the 14mm is a lovely dso ep very nice and contrasty. I had the chance to compare it along beside a Nagler 13mm t6 and felt although the view in both of N253 was spectacular. But in the XW I could see more mottling or knots in the dust disc itself. Also the background sky appears slightly darker in the XW yet the odjects were as bright in both. The 10mm I rate even better ery flate FOV tack sharp even half in and out of the FOV. I'm looking forward to one day filling in with the 5mm & 7mm but for now I'm using a meade x2 #140 barlow.

So in the end I personally prefer having to do away with the barlow and let the ep do the work. However they are invaluble when it comes to planetary imaging.

If you buy XW's you probably wont find yourself selling them anytime soon. It's a pitty they dont make a 2" version of the 20mm. I'll be swapping that choice for a 20mm t5. Either way I find the XW's fastastic!! couldn't be happier... thanks to John B

my 2 cents worth

Regards,CS