56 replies to this topic

[Scott Rose]

I am looking for an eyepiece in the 14-18mm range and came across these in a few posts. Specifically their 70° eyepieces. There is not a lot of information about them. If anyone has used them and can give some feedback or comparisons, that would be great.

[Mike B]

Hi Scott-

Many moons back I used a 17mm pair of Harry’s ‘Ultra’ EPs in my Denk BVer…. They were quite nice! Great ER & ergonomics, lightweight, and optically very transparent, great on Deepsky! I’d recommend them in a heartbeat, and have considered adding a couple more.

Hope that helps-

Mike B

[msinc]

I have three on order and Harry emailed me to tell me that they were shipped. As soon as they arrive, and I get a decent night......I will give a report. Which might not be too helpful if you understand my luck. Any new astronomical gear of any kind that I receive is inevitably followed by six months of clouds.........but I will try.

Took quite a while to get these, he indicated that he was having some personal issues. The price is right, so if you think you want one you might want to go ahead and get it on order asap, you can always cancel.....

[izar187]

They were quite nice! Great ER & ergonomics, lightweight, and optically very transparent

___________________________

 

This

I have been using Siebert's for years, in fast my newts, to this day,

F/4(tiny) to f/5 focal ratios, without coma correction, in my circumstances.

For fast focal ratios and 70º fov, the 6 element Ultra's work best.

Any 4 element in this size fov will work better in slower focal ratios.

I have not compared them to other long eye relief, +/- 70º ep's.

Once I acquired some, used and new, I simply stopped looking.

The Ultra's work perfect with my glasses.

In my case(pun intended) I use: 22.5, 15, 11, 7, and 5mm(SS4)

[Mike Allen]

I use a Siebert 14mm Performance +, a 10mm SS4, and a 8mm SS 4 in my 7-inch Questar for double stars and planets.  I like their comfortable eye relief, moderately wide field, sturdy construction with soft rubber eye guard to block out nearby light from my eye, and sharp image with great contrast.  Both the Sieberts, and a set of Brandons, are my primary oculars with the Q.  The 10mm SS4 was a custom focal length ocular made for me by Mr. Siebert, and it is superb.

[SeattleScott]

So far this is more of the usual. It’s easy to find praise for the Seiberts, but hard to find comparisons with other eyepieces. This is kind of the middle market where people have cost constraints and are looking to buy one eyepiece and roll with it. At the top of the market, there will always be those who will buy Delos, Pentax and Morpheus at the same focal length in order to compare and see which they like best. But that usually doesn’t happen at middle market. People buy the Seiberts, the eyepiece meets or exceeds expectations for the price, and they move on to the next focal length.

In general, with Seiberts being homemade eyepieces, there is a general assumption that if nothing else, the coatings won’t be as good as premium brands. So the light transmission might be a bit lower on faint fuzzies. But people do seem to like the edge correction, contrast and eye relief. And sometimes it there isn’t an eyepiece on the market that quite has the right focal length and specs, at least at the price you want, Seibert is an option. If $300 eyepieces are out of reach, they offer a lot of similar features for less money. What is in the same price range? Hyperion Stratus? They have a sketchy reputation in fast scopes. I might be more inclined to try a Seibert.

Edited by SeattleScott, 28 November 2024 - 04:24 PM.

[Alex.C]

People buy the Seiberts, the eyepiece meets or exceeds expectations for the price, and they move on to the next focaccia length.

I can see why some people seem to have a taste for them if you put it like that...

[Bener]

I was seriously considering getting a couple Seibert lenses a few years ago when I wanted my first few lens upgrades. I ended up going a different direction, however, because I found a great deal on some used Meade HD-60s.  I was considering the Seiberts because they had generally positive reviews, and the prices are very affordable.

[SeattleScott]

Focaccia? OMG, autocorrect.

[izar187]

So the light transmission might be a bit lower on faint fuzzies.

______________________

 

They aren't.

I found the 7mm Siebert Ultra to equal in transmission to my 8mm RKE.

But with a way larger and better corrected field in view in my f/4.5 newt.

With 20mm eyeglasses on eye relief.

 

15mm Siebert Ultra I found to be equal in transmission to my 16.5mm UO Konig II.

But with way better astigmatism corrected field in my f/4.5 newt.

With 20mm eyeglasses on eye relief.

 

Same with 11mm Siebert Ultra compared to my 12.5mm VT or 12mm RKE.

More field in view, eyeglasses on eye relief, equal transmission, better corrected for f/4.5.

 

But... none of my old ep's are present day 70º field ep's, so no meaningful comparisons to give.

A glance thru someone else's this or that, is not really an actual comparison.

Edited by izar187, 28 November 2024 - 06:07 PM.

[msinc]

So far this is more of the usual. It’s easy to find praise for the Seiberts, but hard to find comparisons with other eyepieces. This is kind of the middle market where people have cost constraints and are looking to buy one eyepiece and roll with it. At the top of the market, there will always be those who will buy Delos, Pentax and Morpheus at the same focal length in order to compare and see which they like best. But that usually doesn’t happen at middle market. People buy the Seiberts, the eyepiece meets or exceeds expectations for the price, and they move on to the next focal length.

In general, with Seiberts being homemade eyepieces, there is a general assumption that if nothing else, the coatings won’t be as good as premium brands. So the light transmission might be a bit lower on faint fuzzies. But people do seem to like the edge correction, contrast and eye relief. And sometimes it there isn’t an eyepiece on the market that quite has the right focal length and specs, at least at the price you want, Seibert is an option. If $300 eyepieces are out of reach, they offer a lot of similar features for less money. What is in the same price range? Hyperion Stratus? They have a sketchy reputation in fast scopes. I might be more inclined to try a Seibert.

The correct spelling is "SIEBERT".....we share the same last name. I before E {except after S}.........

[betacygni]

I’ve only used the 24mm Siebert Ultras, but they are very good and among my favorite eyepieces. They are only 3 elements, so I don’t recommend in fast scopes (unless barlowed), but they do amazingly well on planetary and started my minimalist glass addiction. They beat my Morpheus and more surprisingly Delites.

Edited by betacygni, 28 November 2024 - 10:22 PM.

[Bill Barlow]

I have a 2.9 mm Starsplitter that is excellent.  It is over 10 years old and puts up very sharp and bright views of planets and double stars.  I use it in my Stowaway and Takahashi refractors.   I have used an 8mm Ultra wide and it was also very sharp and bright.

 

Bill

[slavicek]

So far this is more of the usual. It’s easy to find praise for the Seiberts, but hard to find comparisons with other eyepieces. This is kind of the middle market where people have cost constraints and are looking to buy one eyepiece and roll with it. At the top of the market, there will always be those who will buy Delos, Pentax and Morpheus at the same focal length in order to compare and see which they like best. But that usually doesn’t happen at middle market. People buy the Seiberts, the eyepiece meets or exceeds expectations for the price, and they move on to the next focal length.

In general, with Seiberts being homemade eyepieces, there is a general assumption that if nothing else, the coatings won’t be as good as premium brands. So the light transmission might be a bit lower on faint fuzzies. But people do seem to like the edge correction, contrast and eye relief. And sometimes it there isn’t an eyepiece on the market that quite has the right focal length and specs, at least at the price you want, Seibert is an option. If $300 eyepieces are out of reach, they offer a lot of similar features for less money. What is in the same price range? Hyperion Stratus? They have a sketchy reputation in fast scopes. I might be more inclined to try a Seibert.

Do you have any Siebert eyepieces or have you looked thru one?

I do have few Siebert eyepieces and I did compare them to other eyepieces. And I compared optical performance, not the cost to others. Cost is not important to me, optical performance is.

[Scott Rose]

Slavicek, not sure what the purpose of your post was. Instead of your response to Seattle Scott about price, how about sharing your comparison visually. That response would have been more helpful and honestly, more appropriate. Personally, I have conversed with Seattle Scott a few times. Always found his responses to be helpful and thoughtful.

[SeattleScott]

Do you have any Siebert eyepieces or have you looked thru one?

I do have few Siebert eyepieces and I did compare them to other eyepieces. And I compared optical performance, not the cost to others. Cost is not important to me, optical performance is.

No, I don't have any Sieberts. I was making the general observation that when the question comes up, a lot of people chime in that they are good eyepieces, but few comparisons with other brands. So far on this thread we have learned that they can hold their own against vintage eyepieces, and the 24mm 3-element has better contrast than complex premium eyepieces (when used at very slow F-ratios in a binoviewer). 

 

If you would like to share your insight from comparisons, I would be happy to hear it.

[izar187]

FWIW, I have remembered another comparison that I can make,

but also still an older ep, and outside of the original 14-18mm focal length question.

 

My present original type 7mm Siebert Ultra  vs  my once upon a time 6.7mm Meade UWA.

For me, the 7mm Ultra easily bested the 6.7mm UWA in contrast, transmission

and obviously ergonomic ease of observing thru, due to the Ultra's eye relief.

The 6.7mm 82º Meade was actually dim compared to the 7mm 70º Ultra.

On axis as well as off axis, on all types of targets, with both in hand across months

of comparing in my f/4.5 and f/5 newts, again no coma corrector in my circumstance.

 

Had the Meade first, off A-mart, for a couple years, and really liked the fov.

But often found I'd start the night using it, but end up barlowing something else later on.

The 7mm Ultra, replaced it, any barlow combinations, and already mentioned 8mm rke

for the +/- 200x magnification slot in my 13" newt dob, to this day.

Edited by izar187, 30 November 2024 - 07:40 AM.

[msinc]

I would like to add one more thing....though I don't have them "in hand" quite yet, Harry sent me a text with photos of the new eyepieces I ordered to show me that he now black anodizes the eye pieces. No more bare aluminum. Will give a little review when I get them. Tracking is saying Monday. M

[izar187]

Very cool.

I like the bright brushed aluminum finish on mine: 

High vis, cnc/nc built, originally de-cloaked from day one. 

When others are de-cloaking their this and that,

I smile and think, "Hey, mine already came that way!"  : )

[SeattleScott]

FWIW, I have remembered another comparison that I can make,

but also still an older ep, and outside of the original 14-18mm focal length question.

 

My present original type 7mm Siebert Ultra  vs  my once upon a time 6.7mm Meade UWA.

For me, the 7mm Ultra easily bested the 6.7mm UWA in contrast, transmission

and obviously ergonomic ease of observing thru, due to the Ultra's eye relief.

The 6.7mm 82º Meade was actually dim compared to the 7mm 70º Ultra.

On axis as well as off axis, on all types of targets, with both in hand across months

of comparing in my f/4.5 and f/5 newts, again no coma corrector in my circumstance.

 

Had the Meade first, off A-mart, for a couple years, and really liked the fov.

But often found I'd start the night using it, but end up barlowing something else later on.

The 7mm Ultra, replaced it, any barlow combinations, and already mentioned 8mm rke

for the +/- 200x magnification slot in my 13" newt dob, to this day.

Was the 6.7 Meade a Series 4000 or blue Series 5000? The Series 4000 weren't FMC, which might explain the dimness.

 

The wider AFOV of the Meade could explain the outer field not being as sharp given the fast F ratios and lack of coma corrector, but coma wouldn't explain the Siebert being sharper on axis.

[K-night]

Harry Siebert made a 6mm custom pair for my specific terrestrial use case. At least I can share images of the new black anodizing.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[Mike B]

Harry Siebert made a 6mm custom pair for my specific terrestrial use case. At least I can share images of the new black anodizing.

Oooo! Nice! So finally Harry has addressed the cosmetics grousing  That looks really sharp! Guud to see the insertion-barrel is still the milled Aluminum.  Reading this thread is gonna cost me… I can already feel the tug on my CC….. must… avoid… the Siebert… website!…..       

[izar187]

Was the 6.7 Meade a Series 4000 or blue Series 5000? The Series 4000 weren't FMC, which might explain the dimness.

 

The wider AFOV of the Meade could explain the outer field not being as sharp given the fast F ratios and lack of coma corrector, but coma wouldn't explain the Siebert being sharper on axis.

I believe you are correct, that my 6.7 UWA was most likely a 4000, due to when I owned it.

[Scott Rose]

I emailed harry about 7 days ago.  Never received a reply.  I’ll try to call on Monday.

[msinc]

Well, I guess I can also "at least" post a photo of mine with the new anodizing........haven't received them yet, this is a photo Harry sent. The eyepieces are the 2" Ultra series, and the Barlow is an Ultra 2" also. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by msinc, 01 December 2024 - 11:05 AM.