56 replies to this topic

[Lentini]

That anodizing looks so sharp! Did Harry do that, or you did it after purchase?

[SeattleScott]

Harry did it. The user hasn’t received the eyepieces yet.

[msinc]

That anodizing looks so sharp! Did Harry do that, or you did it after purchase?

I cannot speak for others, but I did not do the anodizing. In fact, I don't even have them yet as indicated in my last post. They are due in tomorrow. Harry is either doing it himself, {which due to the cost of the gear needed to do it, I doubt} or sending them out to someone else. But mine anyways were done there prior to shipping. To anodize them once received you would have to completely disassemble them first and then get them back together properly. That I believe would leave a lot of folks out.

[Scott99]

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!…..       

I'm the same way....I find myself curious about the current version of the 2" Observatory series.  I think it's now a 35mm.   I know I liked the older ones.   I liked the plain silver aluminum fine, but the black color is good too - they're still the same light weight.
 

[eastwd]

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.

I don’t see Sieberts as “mid-market.”  In my experience, they’re excellent, and they’re worthy competitors to Pentax XWs and Tele Vues, at least in the relatively long focal lengths where I’ve compared them head to head. My main visual scope is an observatory-mounted f/8 TEC APO200FL, though I also have some 4 and 5 inch A-P refractors and a Borg 125SD that get occasional visual use.

 

I’m not trying to be confrontational here, but one of the pitfalls of responding to posts like yours is that upon receiving a response, the poster will often follow up with a challenge demanding that the responder defend their position, including a bunch of very specific questions about aberrations that amount to a homework assignment expecting the responder (me, in this instance) to postpone their other observing and imaging plans and run out on the next clear night to answer them. I’m not interested in that. I’m also not going to speculate about whether the results I’ve seen would be the same in fast scopes, since the scopes I choose to use for visual observing are all f/6 and above.

Bottom line is that I own a number of premium Pentax and Tele Vue eyepieces in this range of longer focal lengths, and I’ve chosen to keep them all, but my pair of Siebert 24mm Ultras (65° AFOV, 67x with my setup) are right there neck and neck with the others. And I prefer my pair of 2” Siebert 36mm Observatory eyepieces (70° AFOV, 44x with my setup) to my Pentax XW 30mm and 40mm (70° AFOV, 53x and 40x with my setup) and to my Tele Vue 31mm Nagler Type 5 (82° AFOV, 52x with my setup) hand grenade.  I don’t have notes comparing them on modest possible differences in CA, RD, SA, FC, transmission, etc. All I can tell you is that based on my own personal experience, I enjoy the 36mm Siebert Observatories a bit more than the Pentax and Tele Vue eyepieces I listed, particularly on targets like M34 and the Double Cluster. The only eyepieces I own in this range of focal lengths that are clearly better are my glorious 34mm ZAO-Is, which are my favorite eyepieces of all time, despite their narrow 40° AFOV.  My Siebert eyepiece pairs are particularly wonderful with my 2” 45mm Black Knight Elite binoviewers that Harry also made. And I would describe those Siebert 2” binos as premium and not middle tier in any way.

 

Perhaps this response will inspire you to take the plunge and enter the so-called “mid-market” by buying some Sieberts yourself for a couple hundred bucks apiece so you can compare them to your own premium brand eyepieces like I did and then share your experiences here.  Harry makes some really, really nice glass. The fact that his prices are so nice is a wonder, not some indicator of second-tier status.

Cheers,

Larry

[SeattleScott]

Good feedback. I don't view the 24mm as a peer to complex premium eyepieces so much as a minimum glass alternative if you have a slow F ratio. But good feedback on the Observatory series. 

[Scott Rose]

Larry, great feedback. Thank you. As the OP, I did not take mid market to be any type of slight quality wise. I took it more on a price basis. But regardless, open discussion brings to light many things that overall help in decision making. So I appreciate everyone's input.

[Mike B]

Good feedback. I don't view the 24mm as a peer to complex premium eyepieces so much as a minimum glass alternative if you have a slow F ratio. But good feedback on the Observatory series. 

Many, many moons ago I tried a set of his 3-el 24mm Ultra’s, and they were bright & clear fersure, and did okay in my SCT+Denk BVer, tho on lo-switch at ~f/7 effective were showing their lack of correction in their outfields.

 

OTOH, I also enjoyed a pair of his 17mm Ultra’s, 6-element jobs- they were fantastic!… at any Power-Switch setting! They had an enticing transparency to their views- stars were truly stellar! As were DSO’s.

[jeffmac]

The opinions given by people who own(ed) some of Harry's eyepieces are good. As stated earlier, there isn't much in the way of formal reviews, although one done years ago by Bill P comes to mind. He bought one, IIRC, and liked it a lot. Harry's prices are affordable, especially for custom made offerings. I wonder what people's opinion of them would be if he marketed them at a premium price (the Nordstrom effect). I like Takahashi products a lot. I own an FC100. But if Takahashi had started off offering their products at much lower prices, I don't think their quality perception would be as high as it is today. I also wonder if and when Harry stops making eyepieces, what price they will bring on the used market.

[izar187]

Part of the reason for not much in the way of formal reviews are what Larry mentioned in Post #30.

Another part of this is that there are honestly less Siebert's in circulation.

They are handcrafted when ordered, rather than manufactured for retail sale, so their numbers in existence are far fewer.

Because there are just plain less of them, but this is a social media type forum, plenty of speculation occurs, which then sticks.

As is very common of all used gear, in any hobby, perception drives used prices rather than actual performance.

[ausastronomer]

I don’t see Sieberts as “mid-market.”  In my experience, they’re excellent, and they’re worthy competitors to Pentax XWs and Tele Vues, at least in the relatively long focal lengths where I’ve compared them head to head. My main visual scope is an observatory-mounted f/8 TEC APO200FL, though I also have some 4 and 5 inch A-P refractors and a Borg 125SD that get occasional visual use.

 

I’m not trying to be confrontational here, but one of the pitfalls of responding to posts like yours is that upon receiving a response, the poster will often follow up with a challenge demanding that the responder defend their position, including a bunch of very specific questions about aberrations that amount to a homework assignment expecting the responder (me, in this instance) to postpone their other observing and imaging plans and run out on the next clear night to answer them. I’m not interested in that. I’m also not going to speculate about whether the results I’ve seen would be the same in fast scopes, since the scopes I choose to use for visual observing are all f/6 and above.

Bottom line is that I own a number of premium Pentax and Tele Vue eyepieces in this range of longer focal lengths, and I’ve chosen to keep them all, but my pair of Siebert 24mm Ultras (65° AFOV, 67x with my setup) are right there neck and neck with the others. And I prefer my pair of 2” Siebert 36mm Observatory eyepieces (70° AFOV, 44x with my setup) to my Pentax XW 30mm and 40mm (70° AFOV, 53x and 40x with my setup) and to my Tele Vue 31mm Nagler Type 5 (82° AFOV, 52x with my setup) hand grenade.  I don’t have notes comparing them on modest possible differences in CA, RD, SA, FC, transmission, etc. All I can tell you is that based on my own personal experience, I enjoy the 36mm Siebert Observatories a bit more than the Pentax and Tele Vue eyepieces I listed, particularly on targets like M34 and the Double Cluster. The only eyepieces I own in this range of focal lengths that are clearly better are my glorious 34mm ZAO-Is, which are my favorite eyepieces of all time, despite their narrow 40° AFOV.  My Siebert eyepiece pairs are particularly wonderful with my 2” 45mm Black Knight Elite binoviewers that Harry also made. And I would describe those Siebert 2” binos as premium and not middle tier in any way.

 

Perhaps this response will inspire you to take the plunge and enter the so-called “mid-market” by buying some Sieberts yourself for a couple hundred bucks apiece so you can compare them to your own premium brand eyepieces like I did and then share your experiences here.  Harry makes some really, really nice glass. The fact that his prices are so nice is a wonder, not some indicator of second-tier status.

Cheers,

Larry

 

I think some of the perception that Siebert eyepieces are "mid - range or 2nd tier" comes from 2 perceptions out there in the astronomy community.

 

The first, which has already been mentioned, is that people perceive them as "mid - range", based solely on the fact that they are less expensive than the premium commercial offerings. Generally, this holds true in that "you get what you pay for", but not always and sometimes there are some great bargains to be had in all areas, not just astronomy, where you can sometimes get an excellent price on a high quality item for a multitude of reasons.

 

The 2nd is that in the earlier days of Siebert eyepieces, the fit, finish and machining was a level below the premium commercial eyepieces and people immediately pigeon holed them to being a level below the premiums, based solely on this, without ever looking through one.  Of course unless you're an exhibitionist and like to show off your eyepieces on the mantlepiece for visitors, this is a moot point, as most people buy them to use at night, in the dark and usually look through them, not at them !

 

Cheers

Edited by ausastronomer, 01 December 2024 - 11:53 PM.

[msinc]

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!…..       

Oh, come on!!!!! Give the man some of that hard earned cabbage and get a couple eyepieces.......you know you cannot resist. It's futile. Mine are due in today and it's already clouding up........

[SeattleScott]

Part of the reason for not much in the way of formal reviews are what Larry mentioned in Post #30.
Another part of this is that there are honestly less Siebert's in circulation.
They are handcrafted when ordered, rather than manufactured for retail sale, so their numbers in existence are far fewer.
Because there are just plain less of them, but this is a social media type forum, plenty of speculation occurs, which then sticks.
As is very common of all used gear, in any hobby, perception drives used prices rather than actual performance.

The thing is, it is easy to find detailed reviews of Morpheus, Delos, XW, etc. It is hard to find the same for Sieberts. You get a lot of people who say they are good, but how good? Even in this thread, we basically know they do well compared to vintage eyepieces, we know they do well in binoviewer, the minimum glass 24mm’s deliver great contrast when used at slow F ratio as expected, and struggle in faster F ratio as expected. One person prefers a Siebert Observatory to similar focal length premium brands, but can’t really say why, it just works for him. If one is looking for a top tier eyepiece, is one going to take a chance on a Siebert, or go with a proven top tier eyepiece? Yes, the 17 Ultra is sharp sharp. That’s great, but people often say the same of 17.3 Delos, 17.5 Morpheus, etc.

I can’t speak for everyone, but personally, my hesitation to try a Siebert has nothing to do with the lower price, or the previous “industrial” look. It has to do with the lack of information. If an eyepiece isn’t being compared to Delos, Morpheus, XW, SW, then there is a natural tendency to assume that it isn’t quite on par with them. Could be an incorrect assumption. But as long as no one is comparing Sieberts to Televues, there will be a sense that Sieberts aren’t quite as good.

[jrmacl]

The opinions given by people who own(ed) some of Harry's eyepieces are good. As stated earlier, there isn't much in the way of formal reviews, although one done years ago by Bill P comes to mind. He bought one, IIRC, and liked it a lot. Harry's prices are affordable, especially for custom made offerings. I wonder what people's opinion of them would be if he marketed them at a premium price (the Nordstrom effect). I like Takahashi products a lot. I own an FC100. But if Takahashi had started off offering their products at much lower prices, I don't think their quality perception would be as high as it is today. I also wonder if and when Harry stops making eyepieces, what price they will bring on the used market.

I remember you used to be able to buy Sierra Nevada beer for cheaper than Coors or Bud and nobody bought it so they jacked the price up 4x and everyone started calling it premium. Takahashi did just do exactly what you said, they just had a economical line of ortho like plossls out for $40 dollars and nobody bought them, not a problem, so they put out a $200 line of ortho like plossls (the TPL) and suddenly they are sold out. Brillant!

Edited by jrmacl, 02 December 2024 - 12:56 PM.

[betacygni]

The thing is, it is easy to find detailed reviews of Morpheus, Delos, XW, etc. It is hard to find the same for Sieberts. You get a lot of people who say they are good, but how good? Even in this thread, we basically know they do well compared to vintage eyepieces, we know they do well in binoviewer, the minimum glass 24mm’s deliver great contrast when used at slow F ratio as expected, and struggle in faster F ratio as expected. One person prefers a Siebert Observatory to similar focal length premium brands, but can’t really say why, it just works for him. If one is looking for a top tier eyepiece, is one going to take a chance on a Siebert, or go with a proven top tier eyepiece? Yes, the 17 Ultra is sharp sharp. That’s great, but people often say the same of 17.3 Delos, 17.5 Morpheus, etc.

I can’t speak for everyone, but personally, my hesitation to try a Siebert has nothing to do with the lower price, or the previous “industrial” look. It has to do with the lack of information. If an eyepiece isn’t being compared to Delos, Morpheus, XW, SW, then there is a natural tendency to assume that it isn’t quite on par with them. Could be an incorrect assumption. But as long as no one is comparing Sieberts to Televues, there will be a sense that Sieberts aren’t quite as good.

Well, at half to a third of the price of other options, it’s not as though one is risking a lot. Don’t like them, resell for a minimal “rental” fee. I think we put too much stock in other peoples’ opinions on eyepieces anyway. Through first hand experience I’ve come to some different conclusions than what is often recommended on this forum. In the grand scheme of costs in this hobby trying out eyepieces is cheap (and fun).

Edited by betacygni, 02 December 2024 - 01:23 PM.

[Scott99]

My recollection of the Observatory series was overall excellent, and that the coatings were not quite up to Pentax SMC standards, but that was about 15 years ago.  And with the smaller and lighter size you can't expect the same edge sharpness as oculars that are wider and 3-4x the weight.  

 

Lately I've become even more militant about the safety groove I hate, and big, bulky eyepieces that I've never liked    I've gotten rid of nearly all the ones with safety groove, there are only 2 that remain - the 30mm and 40mm XW - out of 25+ oculars.  Since I added the Masuyama 50mm with its wonderful smooth barrel I am eyeing the XW's for removal....but they are my favorite 2" widefields.  I wouldn't expect the 35mm Siebert to match up 100% on optics but I'd love the smaller weight and size and no safety groove - huge annoyance when you use these as a finder eyepiece on alt-az mounts.

 

The Sieberts have almost disappeared from the classifieds lately, his volume must have gone down on the smaller 1.25" and 2" eyepieces.  Still curious about what kind of glass he's using in that 35mm though......

Edited by Scott99, 02 December 2024 - 01:19 PM.

[Mike B]

Well, at half to a third of the price of other options, it’s not as though one is risking a lot. Don’t like them, resell for a minimal “rental” fee. I think we put too much stock in other peoples’ opinions on eyepieces anyway. Through first hand experience I’ve come to some different conclusions than what is often recommended on this forum. In the grand scheme of costs in this hobby trying out eyepieces is cheap (and fun).

BINGO!…. This is a huge aspect for many of us!
 
Bingo!… if I’d been a lemming & followed the conventional group-think that’s so commonly trotted out, I’d never have taken a chance to try what has since become a key & integral part of my observing adventures! Those I’ve tried out & don’t really spin my dial have been sold along the way… and quite a few are even now awaiting the axe! But hey- that’ll leave room in the case, and the budget, for a Siebert EP or three   
 

But as long as no one is comparing Sieberts to Televues, there will be a sense that Sieberts aren’t quite as good.

Well, that notion is decidedly short on memory… in years past folks WOULD venture such comparisons, and so, predictably, the flame wars would commence… threads would end up locked by the mods! As a result, many of us are reluctant to even try going there.
 
 

My recollection of the Observatory series was overall excellent, and that the coatings were not quite up to Pentax SMC standards, but that was about 15 years ago.  And with the smaller and lighter size you can't expect the same edge sharpness as oculars that are wider and 3-4x the weight.  
 
Lately I've become even more militant about the safety groove I hate, and big, bulky eyepieces that I've never liked    I've gotten rid of nearly all the ones with safety groove, there are only 2 that remain - the 30mm and 40mm XW - out of 25+ oculars.  Since I added the Masuyama 50mm with its wonderful smooth barrel I am eyeing the XW's for removal....but they are my favorite 2" widefields.  I wouldn't expect the 35mm Siebert to match up 100% on optics but I'd love the smaller weight and size and no safety groove - huge annoyance when you use these as a finder eyepiece on alt-az mounts.
 
The Sieberts have almost disappeared from the classifieds lately, his volume must have gone down on the smaller 1.25" and 2" eyepieces.  Still curious about what kind of glass he's using in that 35mm though......

Ayup, I’m tracking with ya there! Sieberts are definitely NOT those! I have no idea where he sources his glass from, but I’m assuming it comes coated, so I assume he’s not tuning his own proprietary coatings to each lens surface & glass-type… but what he IS doing is marvelous nonetheless! He & his wife, working out of their modest rural shop, are milling their own aluminum, brass, and ???? EP housings to receive these lenses he’s received, into what becomes finely crafted optical creations! Some of his larger 3” & 4” EPs are ensconced in professional observatories!- I think his website may indicate what & where on those?
 
But speaking of marketing juju- some of his detractors are quick to mention the awkwardness of navigating the Siebert website, and this aspect, along with some of his earlier “industrial” & unpolished EP cosmetics, may also lend to an inappropriate sense of his optical offerings & services. For me, I’ve not had issues in dealing with his website, and have yet to be disappointed with the gear he’s shipped me in the past: this includes the Ultra EPs I’ve mentioned, a couple of his earlier StarSplitter Orthos, a couple of his original basic EPs, and a modular Barlow.

Edited by Mike B, 02 December 2024 - 03:03 PM.

[msinc]

The Siebert's have almost disappeared from the classifieds lately, his volume must have gone down on the smaller 1.25" and 2" eyepieces.  Still curious about what kind of glass he's using in that 35mm though......

Well.....there are no Morpheus eyepieces in the classifieds either. Very rare to see one there. Nikon HW's are another that is scarcely found used. I always believed this was due to folks buying them and liking the quality enough to cause those eyepieces to be placed into the "hang on to it" category.

Could this maybe be the same reason for the Siebert eyepieces not being there too????? I don't know, and I definitely don't know what makes people buy {maybe "take a chance with" is a better way of saying it} a particular brand. 

 

I have received mine just a few minutes ago and I am very happy with the general appearance. The fit of the eyepieces into the Barlow is perfect with zero tilt and has a real nice precision "feel" going in. I will give them a shot tonight. It's very cold out and there are some puffy clouds, but there is a lot of separation in between the clouds, and I am hopeful I might get some scope time in between. Then there is always the issue of just plain "seeing"........setting the scope up outside now to give it a little acclimation time. M

[eastwd]

Harry also makes fantastic 2” telecentric barlows, by the way. He made a custom, low profile set of them for me a few years back.

[K-night]

...In the grand scheme of...this hobby trying out eyepieces is...fun.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[slavicek]

No, I don't have any Sieberts.

 

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

That's what I thought. 

 

So my point is: please do not do disservice to manufacturer (Seibert) or to us (CN members) by making good (or bad) comments about equipment you do not have experience with. Nothing personal, take it as a general comment.

 

I have 3,4 and 5 mm Seibert "Planisphere" (=ball) eyepieces. They are about as simple as they get. That's why I got them, for observing planets. I posted about my experiences elsewhere but, in a nut shell, they were the only eyepieces which held up with TAK TOEs. Naglers and Delites were second tier (To my surprise)! I now have expanded my planetary eyepiece "stable" to include Brandons, ZAOs and TPLs. So far my comparisons among all those planetary eyepieces are inconclusive. Mostly due to condition of the sky, which turns out to be the limiting factor for me.

Back then when I got my Sieberts I could choose between aluminium or brass bodies. I choose Al. Al looks "cheap" but it's very lightweight - which is good for use with binoviewer. Either way, that's just personal preference.

 

and I rest my case.....

[SeattleScott]

That's what I thought.

So my point is: please do not do disservice to manufacturer (Seibert) or to us (CN members) by making good (or bad) comments about equipment you do not have experience with. Nothing personal, take it as a general comment.

I have 3,4 and 5 mm Seibert "Planisphere" (=ball) eyepieces. They are about as simple as they get. That's why I got them, for observing planets. I posted about my experiences elsewhere but, in a nut shell, they were the only eyepieces which held up with TAK TOEs. Naglers and Delites were second tier (To my surprise)! I now have expanded my planetary eyepiece "stable" to include Brandons, ZAOs and TPLs. So far my comparisons among all those planetary eyepieces are inconclusive. Mostly due to condition of the sky, which turns out to be the limiting factor for me.
Back then when I got my Sieberts I could choose between aluminium or brass bodies. I choose Al. Al looks "cheap" but it's very lightweight - which is good for use with binoviewer. Either way, that's just personal preference.

and I rest my case.....

I don’t recall saying negative things about the Sieberts. I was just pointing out the lack of information.

I don’t consider ball eyepieces a competitor to eight element premium eyepieces. Ball eyepieces are single element so they have a natural advantage, but they also have serious compromises in terms of ER, usable AFOV, etc. Compromises I decided I wasn’t willing to accept. It is good to hear how well they perform, and that they outperform complex premium glass (as they should). I still won’t buy them. Nothing against Siebert. I just don’t want to use ball eyepieces. But you do bring up something unique Siebert offers that other manufacturers don’t have anything comparable to (perhaps TOE it sounds like).

I do have a Vixen HR. I’m not against minimal glass. I just have my limits.

[msinc]

Well, last night I took the opportunity to try out the eyepieces I just got. One is a 4.9mm Star Splitter 4 Ultra, the other is a 7.9mm. Both are 2". I also got a 2x Ultra Barlow. The "seeing" conditions were the best I have had in a long time, which might have something to do with how much I really like these eyepieces. 

The views of Saturn and then later Jupiter, once it got high enough, were the best I have ever seen. Been looking thru telescopes of all kinds since I was 11 years old. In fairness I have to admit I didn't spend all that time looking thru a Takahashi either.....Sorry folks, I just don't have other eyepieces with similar specs to do a "comparison review".

The "best" eyepieces I have prior to this purchase would be my Nikon NAV HW and a couple Zeiss .965" Plossl's. They are all fantastic in their own right, but none are the same focal length. 

I am not trying to convince anyone to make a purchase, I could care less what you buy or don't buy, and I am the first to admit I am no optical expert at all. I will say this though, I believe that anyone would not be disappointed in any way with one of these eyepieces!!!!!!

I would also add, and please don't think I am trying to brag, but there is no astronomical equipment out of my reach. If it's available and I decide to get it, whatever "it" is will be heading my way. The big question is: would I say the same thing about a Televue or maybe a Morpheus???? Probably so, I have looked thru them, and they are great, but at this point I have no need to buy one and see. M

 

Edit: Almost forgot....these eyepieces have excellent eye relief and are very comfortable to view with. The moons of both Saturn and Jupiter were sharp and easily seen. Early on, I gave Venus a try, but at about 20 degrees off the horizon it was a boiling mess. FWIW

Edited by msinc, 03 December 2024 - 12:35 PM.

[Scott99]

 

Ayup, I’m tracking with ya there! Sieberts are definitely NOT those! I have no idea where he sources his glass from, but I’m assuming it comes coated, so I assume he’s not tuning his own proprietary coatings to each lens surface & glass-type… but what he IS doing is marvelous nonetheless! He & his wife, working out of their modest rural shop, are milling their own aluminum, brass, and ???? EP housings to receive these lenses he’s received, into what becomes finely crafted optical creations! Some of his larger 3” & 4” EPs are ensconced in professional observatories!- I think his website may indicate what & where on those?

Yes, they're definitely coated. No idea how he gets the glass or where they're from.  Probably similar to what Vernonscope does, orders the coated lenses from somehwere.   There are some recent notes about oculars he made for pro observatories in Chile.  No doubt Tele Vue has a better website, for people that like that 

 

I had some of the short-focal length Star Splitters or whatever they're called as well-  they were nice.  He offered some focal lengths and sizes I liked that weren't available elsewhere.  

[Scott99]

So the 35mm Observatory is basically now the same price as the Pentax XW30mm.  I would take the XW30mm for sure The Sieberts I had, obervatory series and SS3, did not come close to Pentax XW optical quality.  Just my experience.  Unless there's been an upgrade the advantage of the Sieberts is light weight and greater range of focal lengths (and no undercut)