94 replies to this topic

[kkrepps]

Here's mine. 

I got the gold ones. But the red ones look nice. Maybe I should've got that set to match my wife's AT66.

[Miranda2525]

I got the gold ones. But the red ones look nice. Maybe I should've got that set to match my wife's AT66.

I was going to get the gold ones, but got these instead because the gold ones I saw had tapered undercuts. Tapered undercuts do not work good in binoviewers.

[Miranda2525]

I just tested the 20mm Svbony eyepieces on Jupiter using my William Optics binoviewer. Very impressed!

No ghosting whatsoever, no vignetting from what I can see either. Very sharp image of the planet itself. By the time I got to the moon, some clouds came in and completely covered it. Moon will have to wait for now.

 

Eye placement is perfect and if I wanted, I could raise the rubber eye shields to snuggle in and it blackened the view all around my eyes. No kidney beaning and they felt very immersive.

 

Pretty sweet deal considering I paid $46 USD shipped for two of them brand new !!!  

 

Edited by Miranda2525, 22 April 2019 - 05:17 AM.

[Joe1950]

The style you have is a little different than any I’ve run across, Miranda. Looks nice and solid.

 

I may try the 20mm in my binoviewer. I got one a few months ago and have only used it on the moon. I’m looking forward to some good planetary views. Love the binoviewer.

 

I always use a 2x or 3x nosepiece Barlow to get the focal position close to normal. So 20mm is a size I need.

[Miranda2525]

The style you have is a little different than any I’ve run across, Miranda. Looks nice and solid.

 

I may try the 20mm in my binoviewer. I got one a few months ago and have only used it on the moon. I’m looking forward to some good planetary views. Love the binoviewer.

 

I always use a 2x or 3x nosepiece Barlow to get the focal position close to normal. So 20mm is a size I need.

Thanks Joe! 

[kksmith]

I have 2 of these, gold bands, in 6mm. The first I got off of Amazon during one of their sale days. It has the weirdest defect in that there is a series of concentric visual optical rings all the way to the middle - in both my achros and my C8. Not apparent when looking through the eyepiece itself - only when used with a telescope.

 

The second came with a used scope.  It is optically fine, but the black anodizing has faded to a gold color over most of the barrel. Looks like it spent a good amount of time outside exposed to the elements.   Nice views though, might even say brighter than the new ES 52° 6.5mm I received a few weeks ago.

 

I swapped optics with barrels.

 

Ken

[Miranda2525]

I have 2 of these, gold bands, in 6mm. The first I got off of Amazon during one of their sale days. It has the weirdest defect in that there is a series of concentric visual optical rings all the way to the middle - in both my achros and my C8. Not apparent when looking through the eyepiece itself - only when used with a telescope.

 

The second came with a used scope.  It is optically fine, but the black anodizing has faded to a gold color over most of the barrel. Looks like it spent a good amount of time outside exposed to the elements.   Nice views though, might even say brighter than the new ES 52° 6.5mm I received a few weeks ago.

 

I swapped optics with barrels.

 

Ken

The 6mm is the weakest of the entire line. 9mm is the best, followed by the 20mm and then the 15mm.

[kksmith]

The 6mm is the weakest of the entire line. 9mm is the best, followed by the 20mm and then the 15mm.

Referring to the Svbony or the ES 52°?  Any idea as to what would cause the visual concentric rings? 

 

Ken

[Miranda2525]

Referring to the Svbony or the ES 52°?  Any idea as to what would cause the visual concentric rings? 

 

Ken

I was referring to the 6mm / 66 degree eyepiece. Yours is more then likely defective as you should not see that.

[Frisky]

I have both the gold line 66 degree and the red line 68 degree Svbony 9mm eyepieces. The red line is a little nicer, but they both have pretty good fit and finish. The red line has a softer eyecup. In my scope and two other scopes I tried them in, they both had severe kidney beaning. I bought an observing chair and practiced sitting as perfectly still as possible, but I couldn't observe without kidney beaning about 99% of the time. I allowed others to try them, and they had the same problem. In that second or two without kidney beaning, you'd get a nice, sharp and wide view. However, they are no sharper than the generic 9mm plossl that came with my scope, and the generic doesn't kidney bean. In my experience, the best thing you can do with these eyepieces is to take them and toss them as far as possible into the Great Expanse!

 

Joe

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Cpk133]

I picked up a 6mm zamboni at a swap meet for $10.  Don't try taking in the full fov or it's kidney bean city.  Easy to use if you treat it like a 60 deg field and it worked great for splitting doubles.  Overall a great deal for me.  Enough eye relief to use with glasses.  I like floating over an eyepiece.  

[CeleNoptic]

Smyth lens =BiB Built-in Barlow. I suspect this is why the 9mm and 6mm seem to produce better images than the 15mm and the 20mm, but why the 15mm and 20mm seem considerably improved when they are barlowed. The 15mm and 20mm lack the telenegative lens in the nosepiece, and the 6mm and 9mm have it as part of their native design. I had a set of the Orions when they first came out. I found them so-so. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good, overall finicky. I seem to remember occasionally ghosting and blackouts and an annoying reflection of my eye sometimes visible off the top lens. I really hate inconsistent behavior in an eyepiece and they seemed pretty inconsistent. They did do nicely with a 4.5” F8 Newt I used to have. I thought they were awful in my old ST80. Long story short, I sold them and moved on.

 
First. The Smyth lens is NOT a Barlow, it's field flattener. For reference what is the difference between the Smyth lens and a Barlow you may want e.g. to check out explanation by David Knisely and Ernest_SPB here and here.
 
Second. When you're saying that the 6mm and 9mm 'produce better images' you should keep in mind in fast telescopes. Yes, adding a Barlow improves performance of the 15mm and 20mm in fast scopes(!), just because it slows down optical system. Your ST80 is probably f/5, that why these EPs performed awfully vs slower F8 Newt where they all did nicely, no surprise, IMO.

[Uranotopia]

 
First. The Smyth lens is NOT a Barlow, it's field flattener. For reference what is the difference between the Smyth lens and a Barlow you may want e.g. to check out explanation by David Knisely and Ernest_SPB here and here.
 
Second. When you're saying that the 6mm and 9mm 'produce better images' you should keep in mind in fast telescopes. Yes, adding a Barlow improves performance of the 15mm and 20mm in fast scopes(!), just because it slows down optical system. Your ST80 is probably f/5, that why these EPs performed awfully vs slower F8 Newt where they all did nicely, no surprise, IMO.

Sorry,

But I cannot agree that a barlow (even an 'optical perfect corrected' ,Barlow) should be able to improve the optical performance of telescopes with short focal ratios.

Second, we have to differ between refractors and the different types of reflectors...

And in my experience I can't remember any Barlow that could improve the optical performance of any of my scopes...

[HydrogenAlpha]

I have the 9mm, and it's fantastic. I use it with my 5" LZOS, and the kidney beaning seemed pretty mild to me. 

[pregulla]

Sorry,

But I cannot agree that a barlow (even an 'optical perfect corrected' ,Barlow) should be able to improve the optical performance of telescopes with short focal ratios.

Second, we have to differ between refractors and the different types of reflectors...

And in my experience I can't remember any Barlow that could improve the optical performance of any of my scopes...

Barlow doesn't improve performance of a telescope. It makes the light cones that enter the eyepiece "slower" and easier on the eyepiece. So an eyepiece that performs poorly in fast telescope may perform fine barlowed in the same telescope.

[qaiden]

I have the 6, 9 and  20mm "redline" and I have to say that for the price, they are nice.

 

I used the 9 and 6mm on my cpc 800 on globular clusters yesterday and if you keep the cluster in the middle then you will get a really nice view.

Everything that is on the outer edge of the fov should be ignored

[Miranda2525]

I finally had some time in the binoviewers with the 20mm Svbony pair. With my full 2" gso barlow lens, I get close to 200x. I can also get 155x using the 20mm Svbony in a different configuration. Globular clusters were really nice in these two 20mm eyepieces. I also used to own a 9mm Orion Expanse. I had no problems using it at all. Alright for the price.

Edited by Miranda2525, 01 May 2019 - 02:39 PM.

[bananas]

I have the 9mm and 20mm reds.  The 20mm is better on my F4 scope.  It works good with 2x barlow.  The 9mm degrades considerably with barlow.

[Frisky]

Since my post on kidney beaning, I'm doing better with these eyepieces. I found I had to place my eyebrow right on the raised rubber eyecup, and I could get a steady view. Usually, I don't get a perfect field stop showing, as there is some blackening toward the bottom of the field of view, but I've gotten good looks at the moon and planets with them. Even barlowed, I've gotten pretty good looks. 

 

Joe

[Miranda2525]

Since my post on kidney beaning, I'm doing better with these eyepieces. I found I had to place my eyebrow right on the raised rubber eyecup, and I could get a steady view. Usually, I don't get a perfect field stop showing, as there is some blackening toward the bottom of the field of view, but I've gotten good looks at the moon and planets with them. Even barlowed, I've gotten pretty good looks. 

 

Joe

That's precisely how I got good views using the same eyepieces in my binoviewers !!! 

[fcathell]

I find that the 9mm has the worst kidney beaning with the 6mm much less. Not real issues with the 15 and 20mm versions.  I compared the newer "red band" version with the older gold band and indeed, the red band does have a tiny bit more AFOV, so the 68*/66* specs appear to be true. I'm sure it probably due to the field stop difference in the two models.  Optics are identical.

 

Frank

[The Luckster]

I find that the 9mm has the worst kidney beaning with the 6mm much less. Not real issues with the 15 and 20mm versions.  I compared the newer "red band" version with the older gold band and indeed, the red band does have a tiny bit more AFOV, so the 68*/66* specs appear to be true. I'm sure it probably due to the field stop difference in the two models.  Optics are identical.

 

Frank

This is my experience as well; I keep a Redline 6mm in my A-Team Ocular lineup, and Goldlines' 6mm, 9mm and 15mm with my Grab N' Go 80 Short tube.  Still a splendid value for what one pays.

 

CS

 

jason

[teashea]

Most of the reviews are quite favorable.  I just ordered a set of four from Svbony on ebay.  I purchased the gold ones.   It will be interesting to see how they perform.  

[ed_turco]

I love these eyepiece. The 9mm and 6mm are permanent additions to my eyepiece box and that says a lot!.

[JHub]

I picked up some of the Gold Line (generic) ones when the first showed up about 18 years ago and still have them. I've found the 6mm and 9mm to work well in all my scopes, even down to F/4. I keep the 6 & 9mm, along with a 25mm HD60 and a 2x barlow in a small box as a grab and go minimalist set. For me, they've barlowed just fine. I've only find the kidney beaning to be an issue For Lunar observing. For planetary and lunar viewing it hasn't been an issue.

 

At the $15 each  I payed for them at the time, they've proven to be a very good investment. I've gotten a lot of good use from them.

 

John