Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Eyepiece Reviews:Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Prev Page 2 of 2

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
The first thing I noticed with this lens is there is no case at all. Didn't think much of it till I was compairing this eyepiece with my Meade MA 9mm. Then the idea of the EP rolling around in my pocket bothered me, but since I am retiering the old MA it now has a home. I'm sure everyone else can do the same. I read comments on the looks of the Seibert EP's not being good. I have to disagree, they look good, and the color (very flat back) is good for getting the EP to temp, and the flat inside stops all the stray light. This is a three element EP so I compaired it to my kellner EP from Meade (9mm MA), I used my 8" f/7 Dobson. The first thing I noticed was the field of view WOW when I went back to the Meade it was like looing through a straw. The 65 deg. is true, and I am starting to wonder if the 40 deg. marked on the Meade is a false number. Very big differance. It was much easier to track with the seibert EP even though it was almost 50x more power. When looking at Jupiter though I did notice that the edges are off. In the last 10% or so it started to distort. Still a very large field of view to look at though. At 205x, the contrast was higher then the Meade, but not as much as I thought it would be. Sharpness was a differnt story, the Seibert EP stopped on the Meade. The Jovain Moons were disks, and the shadow on the surface jumped out at me (I didn't say the contrast was poor) with increadably clean edges. The cloud bands showed good detail when the atmosphere would allow it to. Viewing the M13 was a new experiance. Many stars viewable on the edge, and they slowly faded into the mass in the center. A crisp clear view I had never seen before. Aside from the distortion on the edge of the EP the view was increadable. I wouldn't let this edge distortion stop me from purchasing this EP either. It's only the last 10% maybe even a little less. With how wide the field of view is, this will never be a problem. The only drawback I noticed with the Seibert EP compaired to the Meade was the Eye relief. Harry lists his 7mm as having 4mm Eye Relief, that is very liberal. I think this page lists it was 0mm buy accident, but that is closer to the truth then 4mm. You have to climb inside the EP. I little uncomfotrable at first, but before the end of the evening I got used to it. The only inconvienace I noticed with the very low eye relief was the smudges I got on the lens from my eye lashes (I think that is where they came from). Needless to say if you wear glasses, buy some contact lenses. Over all the view was great! You see a very large area, that is very sharp with good contrast. I would recommend this lens to anyone. This would be a gem for star parties with it's low cost If it rolled in the dirt or snow you wouldn't be out much, but viewers would get images they havn't ever seen before. 9 for optics because of the edge distortion. 10 for value because you need to pay $100+ for anything that even compaires to this lens. 9 overall because of the slight downfall in the edge, no cover (what can you expect of $45).

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 15 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=65012

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This eyepiece has redeemed our DST (Department Store Telescope).

Our daughter knew we'd looked at scopes from time to time, but couldn't afford what we wanted, so she went out and bought us a Meade DS-2114ATS for Christmas.

As it is with many brand new astro-viewers, we were disappointed when the views through the scope didn't look like the pictures on the box. Jupiter was a fuzzy disc with a vague shadow across it, and Saturn was an elongated disc. After learning about collimation and building a Cheshire tube, we could see two lines across Jupiter, and Saturn had a single ring. We began to doubt that that would be enough to hold our budding interest in astronomy.

As I combed the web lists and asked questions, someone suggested that the Meade MA9mm eyepieces were not much better than focuser dust caps, and that a "real" eyepiece would make a big difference. As I began to read about eyepieces, I couldn't help but run into the Siebert Cult. The almost unanimous ravings about the performance of these lenses finally convinced me that it was worth 40 bucks to know the absolute best we could get out of our little scope.

When I ordered the Siebert 7mm, I wrote that after all the ravings of other buyers, I fully expected my DS-2114ATS to reveal not only the red spot on Jupiter, but all the little green men encamped around it. I got back a reply suggesting that after a few stiff drinks even that view might be possible.

Well, two days later the eyepiece has arrived on a night with as good seeing as we're likely to get in the middle of Dallas. I must confess that we didn't see the little green men... nor did we see the giant red spot; but here's what we did see in our $300 4.5 inch made-in-Taiwan 1000mm short-tube reflector...

We saw three bands and a polar cap on Jupiter, along with six (count 'em, six) moons. We saw some cloud banding on Saturn, and for a couple of moments we were sure we could make out the Cassini division in the rings. And we saw a spectacular view of the Orion nebula, complete with four stars of the Trapezium that resolved to sparkling pinpoints!

The eye relief was fine, and the field of view is so wide that the Autostar was able to bring every target within sight of the 7mm... no need to change to the 21mm to find and center the object before switching to higher power.

Compared to the Meade MA's this eyepiece is like opening up the porthole and sticking your head right out into space. The stars in the Double Cluster almost appear like a three dimensional hologram.

This eyepiece has made our scope a useful instrument that can now serve us adequately through our first year or so of astronomical education, instead of being a frustration and a disappointment.

I can't wait to get the 1.5-2.5 variable Barlow!!!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 9 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=67271

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I took the time the other night to A-B the 7mm Siebert against my 14mm Pentax XL with the Orion Ultrascopic 2X Barlow. That's a pretty tough contest for the Siebert, given that the Pentax XL sells for five times the price. But I figured some people might like to know just how well or how badly the Siebert compares against premium glass. I used both eyepieces in our 10" f/5 Dob and our 90mm f/11 refractor. Here's what I found out:

f/5 Dob
-------

The Siebert 7mm is worlds ahead of the typical 9mm Ploessl or Kellner bundled with inexpensive scopes. It provides about the same true field but with significantly higher power, which results in a darker sky background and better contrast. At about 7mm, the Siebert's eye relief is somewhat better than the 9mm Ploessl. Despite the Siebert's lack of multicoating, contrast is excellent. Sharpness is at least as good as the Ploessl on-axis, although the Siebert becomes slightly soft in the outer 10 degrees or so of its apparent field. The eye lens is much larger than the tiny eye lens of the 9mm Ploessl, which makes the Siebert more comfortable to use.

As expected, when I compared the Siebert to the Pentax XL, it wasn't even a contest. The Pentax XL provides 20mm of eye relief, which makes it usable by someone who wears glasses. The Pentax image was sharp to the edge of its field. Although the Pentax XL and the Siebert are both rated at 65 degrees apparent field, the Pentax feels noticeably wider. It also has noticeably better contrast, as you'd expect from an ocular with world-class multicoatings. Stars that were visible with direct vision in the Pentax XL required averted vision with the Siebert. The long eye relief, huge eye lens, and eye cup of the Pentax XL made it much more comfortable to use than the Siebert.

f/11 refractor
-------------

Here the optical differences were much smaller, particularly in terms of edge performance. The Pentax XL still performed superbly, but the Siebert was only a step or two behind. At the edge, the Siebert still showed a bit of softness, but I really had to look for it. Once again, the Pentax had noticeably better contrast, and of course the advantage of better eye relief. It remained a lot more comfortable to use. But, given the price difference, the Siebert gave up surprisingly little to the Pentax.

Summary
--------

I own four Siebert eyepieces, the 4.9mm, 7mm, 12.5mm, and 21mm, and have had a chance to compare them against standard Ploessls and premium eyepieces of similar focal length. There's no question in my mind that the Siebert eyepieces offer higher bang-for-the-buck than any other eyepiece available. Recognize, though, that the Siebert eyepieces simply can't compete with premium eyepieces, not that any reasonable person would expect them to.

If you have a fast scope like an f/5 or f/6 Dob or a short-tube refractor, the Siebert 7mm will beat your bundled Ploessl hands-down as a high-power eyepiece. If budget limits you to eyepieces in the $50 range, I don't think you can do better than a Siebert 7mm. The main drawbacks are noticeable edge softness and eye relief that's too short for eyeglass wearers. If you're certain that you will remain in the hobby and you can possibly afford it, I'd recommend spending the extra money to buy a 7mm Pentax XL.

If you have an f/8 or slower scope, such as a small Dob, long-tube refractor, or Mak-Cass, you'll find that the Siebert 7mm gives you most of what a premium eyepiece does, other than multicoating and long eye relief. The Pentax XL is still a better eyepiece, noticeably so, but the difference is less significant than with faster scopes.

I've retired my four Siebert eyepieces for use with our slow refractor, at public observations, and so on. Although I don't regret buying them, in retrospect I would have been better off spending $225 on one Pentax XL than $175 on four Sieberts. But that's not a slam against the Sieberts, because they remain the best value per dollar spent of any eyepiece line I know. If you're on a tight budget, don't hesitate to buy the 7mm Siebert. You'll like it a lot.

Overall Rating: 7
Optics:7 Value:10
Weight: 20 (Notable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=69708 

My last post escaped before I began typing.  I am holding back on voting on this EP. I have owned the 7mm for several months and am less than happy with it.  While I find the 34mm Observatory to be great, the 7mm appears to have problems in both my Nighthawk and 14" dob (f/4.7).  The star images are less than pinpoint across the fov. My Orthos of the same fl have no problems.  Still, the weather in my region has been horrible, and I am holding back on passing judgement. My overall satisfaction with Seibert products has been good, and I still suspect the problems might be somewhere other than the EP.


>I took the time the other night to A-B the 7mm Siebert against my 14mm Pentax XL with the Orion Ultrascopic 2X Barlow. That's a pretty tough contest for the Siebert, given that the Pentax XL sells for five times the price. But I figured some people might like to know just how well or how badly the Siebert compares against premium glass. I used both eyepieces in our 10" f/5 Dob and our 90mm f/11 refractor. Here's what I found out:
>
>f/5 Dob
>-------
>
>The Siebert 7mm is worlds ahead of the typical 9mm Ploessl or Kellner bundled with inexpensive scopes. It provides about the same true field but with significantly higher power, which results in a darker sky background and better contrast. At about 7mm, the Siebert's eye relief is somewhat better than the 9mm Ploessl. Despite the Siebert's lack of multicoating, contrast is excellent. Sharpness is at least as good as the Ploessl on-axis, although the Siebert becomes slightly soft in the outer 10 degrees or so of its apparent field. The eye lens is much larger than the tiny eye lens of the 9mm Ploessl, which makes the Siebert more comfortable to use.
>
>As expected, when I compared the Siebert to the Pentax XL, it wasn't even a contest. The Pentax XL provides 20mm of eye relief, which makes it usable by someone who wears glasses. The Pentax image was sharp to the edge of its field. Although the Pentax XL and the Siebert are both rated at 65 degrees apparent field, the Pentax feels noticeably wider. It also has noticeably better contrast, as you'd expect from an ocular with world-class multicoatings. Stars that were visible with direct vision in the Pentax XL required averted vision with the Siebert. The long eye relief, huge eye lens, and eye cup of the Pentax XL made it much more comfortable to use than the Siebert.
>
>f/11 refractor
>-------------
>
>Here the optical differences were much smaller, particularly in terms of edge performance. The Pentax XL still performed superbly, but the Siebert was only a step or two behind. At the edge, the Siebert still showed a bit of softness, but I really had to look for it. Once again, the Pentax had noticeably better contrast, and of course the advantage of better eye relief. It remained a lot more comfortable to use. But, given the price difference, the Siebert gave up surprisingly little to the Pentax.
>
>Summary
>--------
>
>I own four Siebert eyepieces, the 4.9mm, 7mm, 12.5mm, and 21mm, and have had a chance to compare them against standard Ploessls and premium eyepieces of similar focal length. There's no question in my mind that the Siebert eyepieces offer higher bang-for-the-buck than any other eyepiece available. Recognize, though, that the Siebert eyepieces simply can't compete with premium eyepieces, not that any reasonable person would expect them to.
>
>If you have a fast scope like an f/5 or f/6 Dob or a short-tube refractor, the Siebert 7mm will beat your bundled Ploessl hands-down as a high-power eyepiece. If budget limits you to eyepieces in the $50 range, I don't think you can do better than a Siebert 7mm. The main drawbacks are noticeable edge softness and eye relief that's too short for eyeglass wearers. If you're certain that you will remain in the hobby and you can possibly afford it, I'd recommend spending the extra money to buy a 7mm Pentax XL.
>
>If you have an f/8 or slower scope, such as a small Dob, long-tube refractor, or Mak-Cass, you'll find that the Siebert 7mm gives you most of what a premium eyepiece does, other than multicoating and long eye relief. The Pentax XL is still a better eyepiece, noticeably so, but the difference is less significant than with faster scopes.
>
>I've retired my four Siebert eyepieces for use with our slow refractor, at public observations, and so on. Although I don't regret buying them, in retrospect I would have been better off spending $225 on one Pentax XL than $175 on four Sieberts. But that's not a slam against the Sieberts, because they remain the best value per dollar spent of any eyepiece line I know. If you're on a tight budget, don't hesitate to buy the 7mm Siebert. You'll like it a lot.
>I took the time the other night to A-B the 7mm Siebert against my 14mm Pentax XL with the Orion Ultrascopic 2X Barlow. That's a pretty tough contest for the Siebert, given that the Pentax XL sells for five times the price. But I figured some people might like to know just how well or how badly the Siebert compares against premium glass. I used both eyepieces in our 10" f/5 Dob and our 90mm f/11 refractor. Here's what I found out:
>
>f/5 Dob
>-------
>
>The Siebert 7mm is worlds ahead of the typical 9mm Ploessl or Kellner bundled with inexpensive scopes. It provides about the same true field but with significantly higher power, which results in a darker sky background and better contrast. At about 7mm, the Siebert's eye relief is somewhat better than the 9mm Ploessl. Despite the Siebert's lack of multicoating, contrast is excellent. Sharpness is at least as good as the Ploessl on-axis, although the Siebert becomes slightly soft in the outer 10 degrees or so of its apparent field. The eye lens is much larger than the tiny eye lens of the 9mm Ploessl, which makes the Siebert more comfortable to use.
>
>As expected, when I compared the Siebert to the Pentax XL, it wasn't even a contest. The Pentax XL provides 20mm of eye relief, which makes it usable by someone who wears glasses. The Pentax image was sharp to the edge of its field. Although the Pentax XL and the Siebert are both rated at 65 degrees apparent field, the Pentax feels noticeably wider. It also has noticeably better contrast, as you'd expect from an ocular with world-class multicoatings. Stars that were visible with direct vision in the Pentax XL required averted vision with the Siebert. The long eye relief, huge eye lens, and eye cup of the Pentax XL made it much more comfortable to use than the Siebert.
>
>f/11 refractor
>-------------
>
>Here the optical differences were much smaller, particularly in terms of edge performance. The Pentax XL still performed superbly, but the Siebert was only a step or two behind. At the edge, the Siebert still showed a bit of softness, but I really had to look for it. Once again, the Pentax had noticeably better contrast, and of course the advantage of better eye relief. It remained a lot more comfortable to use. But, given the price difference, the Siebert gave up surprisingly little to the Pentax.
>
>Summary
>--------
>
>I own four Siebert eyepieces, the 4.9mm, 7mm, 12.5mm, and 21mm, and have had a chance to compare them against standard Ploessls and premium eyepieces of similar focal length. There's no question in my mind that the Siebert eyepieces offer higher bang-for-the-buck than any other eyepiece available. Recognize, though, that the Siebert eyepieces simply can't compete with premium eyepieces, not that any reasonable person would expect them to.
>
>If you have a fast scope like an f/5 or f/6 Dob or a short-tube refractor, the Siebert 7mm will beat your bundled Ploessl hands-down as a high-power eyepiece. If budget limits you to eyepieces in the $50 range, I don't think you can do better than a Siebert 7mm. The main drawbacks are noticeable edge softness and eye relief that's too short for eyeglass wearers. If you're certain that you will remain in the hobby and you can possibly afford it, I'd recommend spending the extra money to buy a 7mm Pentax XL.
>
>If you have an f/8 or slower scope, such as a small Dob, long-tube refractor, or Mak-Cass, you'll find that the Siebert 7mm gives you most of what a premium eyepiece does, other than multicoating and long eye relief. The Pentax XL is still a better eyepiece, noticeably so, but the difference is less significant than with faster scopes.
>
>I've retired my four Siebert eyepieces for use with our slow refractor, at public observations, and so on. Although I don't regret buying them, in retrospect I would have been better off spending $225 on one Pentax XL than $175 on four Sieberts. But that's not a slam against the Sieberts, because they remain the best value per dollar spent of any eyepiece line I know. If you're on a tight budget, don't hesitate to buy the 7mm Siebert. You'll like it a lot.
I would have to disagree with the better off spending $225 on 1,  then $175 on four.  The compairson with a $225 eyepiece seems a little tough on Harry also.  Here is a person working out of his own shop building eyepieces for $49 that someone is compairing to a $225 eyepeice.  The reviewer says in his review " Siebert gave up surprisingly little to the Pentax." Then says but you should spend $175 more on the Pentax, would you spend $175 to get a "suprisingly little" more?   

Point being for a 3 element economy eyepiece the is increadable.  I use my Siebert eyepiece to this day for planetary viewing.  Great for star parties, public viewings, and personal viewing.  Show me another eyepiece with 65 degree AFOV for $49!  



>I took the time the other night to A-B the 7mm Siebert against my 14mm Pentax XL with the Orion Ultrascopic 2X Barlow. That's a pretty tough contest for the Siebert, given that the Pentax XL sells for five times the price. But I figured some people might like to know just how well or how badly the Siebert compares against premium glass. I used both eyepieces in our 10" f/5 Dob and our 90mm f/11 refractor. Here's what I found out:
>
>f/5 Dob
>-------
>
>The Siebert 7mm is worlds ahead of the typical 9mm Ploessl or Kellner bundled with inexpensive scopes. It provides about the same true field but with significantly higher power, which results in a darker sky background and better contrast. At about 7mm, the Siebert's eye relief is somewhat better than the 9mm Ploessl. Despite the Siebert's lack of multicoating, contrast is excellent. Sharpness is at least as good as the Ploessl on-axis, although the Siebert becomes slightly soft in the outer 10 degrees or so of its apparent field. The eye lens is much larger than the tiny eye lens of the 9mm Ploessl, which makes the Siebert more comfortable to use.
>
>As expected, when I compared the Siebert to the Pentax XL, it wasn't even a contest. The Pentax XL provides 20mm of eye relief, which makes it usable by someone who wears glasses. The Pentax image was sharp to the edge of its field. Although the Pentax XL and the Siebert are both rated at 65 degrees apparent field, the Pentax feels noticeably wider. It also has noticeably better contrast, as you'd expect from an ocular with world-class multicoatings. Stars that were visible with direct vision in the Pentax XL required averted vision with the Siebert. The long eye relief, huge eye lens, and eye cup of the Pentax XL made it much more comfortable to use than the Siebert.
>
>f/11 refractor
>-------------
>
>Here the optical differences were much smaller, particularly in terms of edge performance. The Pentax XL still performed superbly, but the Siebert was only a step or two behind. At the edge, the Siebert still showed a bit of softness, but I really had to look for it. Once again, the Pentax had noticeably better contrast, and of course the advantage of better eye relief. It remained a lot more comfortable to use. But, given the price difference, the Siebert gave up surprisingly little to the Pentax.
>
>Summary
>--------
>
>I own four Siebert eyepieces, the 4.9mm, 7mm, 12.5mm, and 21mm, and have had a chance to compare them against standard Ploessls and premium eyepieces of similar focal length. There's no question in my mind that the Siebert eyepieces offer higher bang-for-the-buck than any other eyepiece available. Recognize, though, that the Siebert eyepieces simply can't compete with premium eyepieces, not that any reasonable person would expect them to.
>
>If you have a fast scope like an f/5 or f/6 Dob or a short-tube refractor, the Siebert 7mm will beat your bundled Ploessl hands-down as a high-power eyepiece. If budget limits you to eyepieces in the $50 range, I don't think you can do better than a Siebert 7mm. The main drawbacks are noticeable edge softness and eye relief that's too short for eyeglass wearers. If you're certain that you will remain in the hobby and you can possibly afford it, I'd recommend spending the extra money to buy a 7mm Pentax XL.
>
>If you have an f/8 or slower scope, such as a small Dob, long-tube refractor, or Mak-Cass, you'll find that the Siebert 7mm gives you most of what a premium eyepiece does, other than multicoating and long eye relief. The Pentax XL is still a better eyepiece, noticeably so, but the difference is less significant than with faster scopes.
>
>I've retired my four Siebert eyepieces for use with our slow refractor, at public observations, and so on. Although I don't regret buying them, in retrospect I would have been better off spending $225 on one Pentax XL than $175 on four Sieberts. But that's not a slam against the Sieberts, because they remain the best value per dollar spent of any eyepiece line I know. If you're on a tight budget, don't hesitate to buy the 7mm Siebert. You'll like it a lot.
Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This is pretty hard to believe. I've never seen a better eyepiece under several hundred dollars. At the price, it's absolutely unbeatable. I've been using telescopes since I was in the 7th grade (1960). I bought this to fill a gap in my lineup. Here's the clincher: paired with my 2x Barlow and 8" Celestron G8N, it makes a 3.5mm equivalent that is brighter, sharper, and higher contrast than my $150 4mm Ortho! Thanks to Harry for making these available at a great price and even through eBay!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Value:10
Weight: 4 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=70500

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Tonight I put my Seibert 7mm in old-but-good refreactor I recently rehabed. I'd forgotten what a piece of junk this eyepiece is. I had used the ep sporadically with a 12"dob, with fair to poor results. I had hoped for improved performance in the refractor, but the ep was really no better than a 6mm huygens that came with the scope. I've got to suspect the many gushingly favorable Siebert posts on this site.

Overall Rating: 3
Optics:4 Value:5
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=101914 

>... but the ep was really no better than a 6mm huygens that came with the scope.  I've got to suspect the many gushingly  favorable Siebert posts on this site.


Very strange results! and very contrary to my own experiences. No reason for suspects - your eyepiece is definitly broken. I own some Siebert eyepieces and the 7 mm also (two of them!) they perform great (believe me I own some high quality EP's e.g. Pentax, University Optics, Celestron Axiom, ...).
Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This inexpensive eyepiece with its generous field of view makes high-power viewing a pleasure (color good; sharp to edges). Siebert and family are nice people to deal with. Delivery is prompt. I always include this eyepiece when I go stargazing.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=131936

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Wonderful eyepiece. Great views and great FOV. Contrast is excellent. Despite the short eye relief this EP is very comforable to use. I am able to take in the full FOV without pressing my eye up to the lense. The best views I've ever had of Jupiter and Saturn as well as M13 was with this EP. I had a 7.5mm plossl before I got this one. I ended up selling it. Views don't even compare. I use this in an 8" f/6 dob. I will definately be getting others from Harry. Highly recommended.

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=142646

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This eyepiece performs well, and I use it a lot, but I don't believe the focal length is 7 mm. An informal exit-pupil measurement and visual comparison on a nearby wall with a "6.7mm" Meade series 3000 Plossl and a "9mm" Japanese orthoscopic (UO-type sold in the US) indicated that these eyepieces were close to their stated focal lengths, but the focal length of the Siebert was closer to the ortho than the Meade. This was a shame, as I bought it to replace the Meade.

Roger Newman

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:8 Value:9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=236495

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I've owned three of Harry's standard ep's: 7mm, 10, 15. All are a great for the price. Better than plossl's, especially at the shorter focal lengths. The only reason I sold mine was because I needed more eye relief due to the need to wear glasses. If your looking to upgrade from the ep's sold with your telescope, these are the way to go. Highly recommended!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:8 Value:10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=241075

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I use the Siebert Standard 7 mm and Standard 15 mm, which are from a series produced beginning of 2003.

The 7 mm performs very well at an 8" f/6 Newton, apparent field of view is true 65°, the image is sharp at the center and only at the very edge, stars start blurring. The eye relief is short, yet not unconfortable, particularly not for this focal length. I use this eyepiece a lot, mainly for planets. At Jupiter with its high brightness, there is some ghosting, which is, however not annyoing. A very good value!

The 15 mm is different. Its apparent field of view is a bit larger compared to the 7 mm (maybe 70°). Sharpness is not as good as with the 7 mm, particularly off-axis. The outer 15° are quite soft at an f/6 telescope, which might be better at a slower scope. Eye relief is as the 7mm, which is, however, for a 15 mm focal length disturbing. I use this eyepiece only rarely. A 20 mm Synta MA with almost 60° vield of view and much more generous eye relief performs much better at my telescope.

I do not want to give these eyepieces a vote for the optics, as I did not have enough opportunity to compare these eyepieces with others.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Value:8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=241166

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I ordered a blemished 7mm Standard from Harry Siebert, I can see a small parallelogram-shaped chip on one edge at the field stop (in bright twilight or dawn skies). Better eye relief than my generic 10mm Plossl. Nice views, compared the other morning using my 8" f/6 Dob on Mars. Jumped back and forth between the 7mm Siebert with a 2x apochromatic Barlow and my 4mm Radian. In both eyepieces the south ice cap came in and out of focus (atmospheric turbulence), the Radian's color seemed "warmer", more orange overall of the planet. Both took a decent amount of time for Mars to cross the field of view, though I didn't time them to compare. On Jupiter I've noticed the Radian had higher contrast, I could see a moon transitting the planets disk which I couldn't see with the Siebert. I like this eyepiece very much and when used with my Barlow comes close to my Radian, which does outperform the Siebert; it should since I paid 5x as much for the Radian!

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=245740

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
more like a 10mm. eye relief than the 6mm stated.
the end caps were under sized and split upon arrival.
hoping to replace all eyepieces witm this brand

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:10 Value:9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=322068

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This review is much the same as the one I posted for the 10mm Standard, with only a few exceptions. I've been using this on a 90mm Synta Refractor, and I'm very pleased! Sharpness, detail, contrast and color-correctness are all terrific in all but the last 10-15% towards the edge. There, the view begins to fall off, but gradually. The "sweet spot" is still larger than my UO orthoscopics entire FOV! Eye relief is also much better than the orthos as well. Comparing this directly to my 6mm UO ortho was easy. After one look, I didn't bother with the ortho the rest of the night. The ortho was sharper to the edge, but everything else about the 7mm was better. There is some slight ghosting with very bright objects (like Saturn), but not so much that it is distracting (I tend to forget it's there after a while). In the ease of use category, it's simply no contest. So let's see, you might be able to fault sharpness to the edge, ghosting, and esthetics (it ain't a "sexy" eyepiece). On the other hand, it's light weight, allows terrifics viewing (when in the "sweet spot") and is possibly the best eyepiece for the money you'll ever find. You would need to be a very critical person to not like Harry's work. When you compare this eyepiece to any other in the price range, you realize two things: the Big Name companies are ripping people off, and you will never part with this jewel!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=331420

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Purchased approx. 18 months ago. Talk about minimalist- mine is roughly finished, is not threaded for filters, and was supplied without eyeguard, endcaps, or even a cardboard storage box. The current ones appear to have been upgraded in appearance and packaging. I assume that their optical performance remains similar.

Inexpensive, and provides wide fields as advertised, with notably excellent brightness. (As someone else noted, the large eye lens does tend to pick up glare from streetlights and other external sources.) Sharpness and contrast aren't particularly remarkable, though they are certainly acceptable. Field curvature is slight. I don't wear eyeglasses when observing and don't usually have problems with tight eye-relief. However, I find the effect of the Siebert's minimal eye-relief, in combination with the wide field-of-view, to be tedious and annoying. Difficult to put into words, this effect is somewhat like trying to watch a large television while sitting 3 inches from the screen. For this reason, I consider the Siebert 7mm to be tolerable rather than enjoyable. That said, it's not a bad choice in comparision to what else is out there at the price, especially if you absolutely must have a wide field-of-view.

Overall Rating: 7
Optics:7 Value:8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=357284 

Comment to vote dating 5\03\04

It used to be a roughly finished eyepiece with a less then workable filter attachment. If you return it I will put it in an updated aluminum body with standard filter threads at no charge. My apologies


Harry Siebert
Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I purchased this eyepiece to replace a Meade 3000 6.7mm. I liked the Meade but I love this eyepiece. Bright and easy to look through meaning it has lots of glass to look through. All in all a great eyepiece. My friend recommended Siebert optics to me and said I would not be disappointed and I wasn't.

Please email me if you have questions about this eyepiece.

Benkay55@Juno.com

Amy

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Value:10
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=427140

Prev Page 2 of 2

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Jay Freeman's Eyepiece Primer
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
Voting Guide