Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Eyepiece Reviews:Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 1

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
Outstanding clarity and color correction. A beautiful eyepiece.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44274

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
Nice eyepiece with excellent contrast. Performance on DSO is average. 7mm eye relief is adequate and large aperture is a benefit. Very good high power eyepiece for the price.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44275

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
Excellent value for the money. Any edge loss is far out near the case and does not hinder good viewing. I compared the Siebert 4.9mm brightness to a Meade series 4000 7.9mm and #126 2X barlow combination. The Siebert gave at least 20% more light. Jupiters GRS was red and clearly visible. You cannot go wrong with this eyepiece. It will take $200 to get one better.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44276

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I was very impressed with this eyepiece. It has good eye relief if you don't
wear glasses, the field is very nice with a sharp field stop. I used it with A
f/10 refractor and it was sharp to the edge. Planetary image is like Harry's
7&10mm eyepieces, outstanding. No ghost image or reflections. This is A superior
eyepiece. It has A nice feel to it to. I highly recommend it, get it while you can.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44277

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I've had this eyepiece for several months now, and have had a chance to use it extensively in my 10" f/5 Dob and my 3.5" f/11 refractor, as well as in several scopes that belong to observing buddies, including 8" and 10" f/10 SCTs, 80mm and 90mm short tube refractors, etc.

I'm not quite clear on whether these ratings are intended to be relative, factoring in price, or absolute against other competing products. On a relative basis, this eyepiece at $70 deserves much more than a 10. On an absolute basis, compared against the best without consideration for price, it deserves an 8 or a 9.

In the slower scopes, f/8 and above, this eyepiece is sharp almost all the way to the edge, provides extremely high contrast, shows no discernable aberrations, and is very bright. In such scopes, I consider it equal to the Radian at less than 1/3 the price, other than its shorter eye relief (~7mm versus 20mm for the Radian). Given its wider field (65* versus 60* for the Radian) I'd have to call it a dead heat. Within the shared 60* field, the Siebert matches or exceeds the Radian in terms of image quality.

In the f/5 and f/6 scopes, the Siebert is just a half-step behind the Radian. In those scopes, the Siebert shows a bit more edge softness than does the Radian, although within the 60* field its performance is still very good.

If you need a high-power eyepiece on a budget, no question, get the 4.9mm Siebert. If you're less constrained on budget, I'd still recommend the Siebert if your scope's focal ratio is f/8 or above and if you don't need the longer eye relief of the Radian. Even with a fast scope, though, I think you'll be pleased with the Siebert, even not considering its price. Taking price into consideration, there's just nothing that can touch the Siebert.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44278

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
well made eye piece. good feel and I like the way it excepts filters (twist and snap). In dark skies this eye piece takes my 8 inch F6 dob to the limit and rewards me with incredible views of Jupiter, Saturn and the moon. Images are crisp and bright. Another great eye piece from Mr. Siebert.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44279

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I sure hate to post a review that is so contrary to the previous reviewers, but here goes!

Yes, the eyepiece is a good value for about $70. Yes, it compares very well against the stuff coming out of China. Yes, it is easier to use than many of the competing 4-6mm import eyepieces.

But a Televue it ain't. Not even close. It is a Russian eyepiece originally intended for a binocular. Not that that's a crime, but it can't be denied that it was not originally intended to be inserted in an astronomical telescope.

A while back I used a laser with a holographic grid pattern to test for optical flaws in my eyepiece collection. This eyepiece had five major abberations and seven minor ones. It was the worst of all my EP's. Upon closer inspection, they turned out to be microscopic air bubbles in the optical cement used between the elements. Even the four Chinese EP's in my collection didn't have this defect.

I have to give this eyepiece a "6" overall when compared to the Televue "10" standard. I'll give it a "9" for overall value for the financially-strapped astro-nut.

Bottom line, if you have the bucks for a Televue Radian, don't waste your money on this Russian reject. Bite the bullet and get the right eyepiece the first time. Otherwise you will just end up getting a Televue Radian later and having wasted your $70!

Overall Rating: 6
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44280 

>I sure hate to post a review that is so contrary to the previous reviewers, but here goes!
>



Typical of Harry, you have now been flamed three times for posting the truth.  Personally, I would like to thank you for being honest, and preventing me to waste money on this eyepiece.  I would not want an eyepiece with air bubbles!
>I sure hate to post a review that is so contrary to the previous reviewers, but here goes!
>
>Yes, the eyepiece is a good value for about $70.  Yes, it compares very well against the stuff coming out of China.  Yes, it is easier to use than many of the competing 4-6mm import eyepieces.
>
>But a Televue it ain't.  Not even close.  It is a Russian eyepiece originally intended for a binocular.  Not that that's a crime, but it can't be denied that it was not originally intended to be inserted in an astronomical telescope.
>
>A while back I used a laser with a holographic grid pattern to test for optical flaws in my eyepiece collection.  This eyepiece had five major abberations and seven minor ones.  It was the worst of all my EP's.  Upon closer inspection, they turned out to be microscopic air bubbles in the optical cement used between the elements.  Even the four Chinese EP's in my collection didn't have this defect.
>
>I have to give this eyepiece a "6" overall when compared to the Televue "10" standard.  I'll give it a "9" for overall value for the financially-strapped astro-nut.
>
>Bottom line, if you have the bucks for a Televue Radian, don't waste your money on this Russian reject.  Bite the bullet and get the right eyepiece the first time.  Otherwise you will just end up getting a Televue Radian later and having wasted your $70!

 I think your eyes are cheap Russian rejects. You should go to your eye Doctor and have those microscopic air bubbles taken out of your eyes.
Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I must respond to the above statement. His statements reflected a number of inaccuracies that he stated as fact. First of all the optics that are used with the 4.9mm are not taken from a Russian binoculars. The optics cost roughly $40 + alone and are from sources such as Edmond Scientific. One of the doublets that make up for the bulk of the cost is roughly $30. This element can be found in the Edmond Scientific catalogue on page 36. The specs are 18mm x -46mm's. Because I buy in bulk the price you see on the page of over $35 is for individual elements. These elements are guaranteed to be perfect and are ray traced to virtually eliminate spherical abbervations. The additional elements make up the rest of the $40 cost and are less complex lenses. This is why they are not quite as expensive. Now how many companies spend nearly 50% of the total cost taken in on just the optics alone. The answer is virtually none. This is the reason why they have been consistently stated to outperform in terms of sharpness and edge correction any eyepiece that they have been matched against including orthoscopic. If there are any eyepieces that have any visual defects they should immediately be sent back for at least an exchange. If an eyepiece is defective I will pay shipping charges as well. These eyepieces are guaranteed to be sharper than a Radian of the same mm size and should outperform it in virtually all other respects, except for the Radian's high eye relief. These optics are extensively tested for flaws and air bubbles in the glass. No aftermarket eyepiece will arrive at your door cleaner and with as much personal attention given to the optics. Every element is painstakenly cleaned under very controlled conditions to make sure that fingerprints and debris contaminents are not left inside. The tests mentioned in the previous comment may sound scientific, but one may have considered more closely what was seen thru the eyepieces at high power. You cannot hide bad optics. They show up like a sore thumb at 300x plus because of the low light condition and the optical strain which require superior optical elements and construction and cleaning methods to perform well at this type of magnification and higher. The 4.9mm configuration comes in 2.9mm, 3.4mm, 3.9mm, 4.4mm, 4.9mm, 5.4mm and 5.9mm's. What Russian binoculars can I use to get all of these focal distances, while at the same time making every eyepiece look identical? So hopefully this has clarified any misconceptions that the above review has stated. I encourage you to compare these to every eyepiece you can get your hands on and see for yourself. All my eyepieces come with a 30 day money back guarantee. Many on these rating pages have done the visual side by side comparisons on demanding astronomical targets with your best benchmark eyepieces, not using equipment that no one else has and can doublecheck the results. These are the reviews that say the most. - Harry Siebert

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44281

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
With my 120 mm refractor (1000 mm focal length) this is my high-power eyepiece. I've only had it about a month and the weather/seeing has been abominable (Pacific NW winter) but on one memorable night with excellent seeing, it gave me views of Jupiter that were the best yet -- cloud festoons, multiple bands, and good colour.

Overall Rating: 7
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44282

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
This is my first eyepiece from Harry and I will be buying another one soon. Views of Jupiter, Saturn and the moon are great when conditions allow 311x. I was most impressed by the very comfortable eyerelief. Image is bright and clear and if there was any distortion I didn't notice because I was to busy looking at the view. I have Panoptics and Radians and wish I would have tried Seibert Optics first and saved a lot of money. Harry personally makes and guarantees his products and is a pleasure to talk to. How can you go wrong!

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 4 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=78175

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I bought three of Harry's eyepieces about a year ago along with his 1.5~2.5x barlow. I still have the 4.9 and the barlow. The best views I have ever had of Saturn and Jupiter
were with the 4.9 and either my 8" f/6 or my 10" f/7 Newt. Oh, and I just sold my 6mm Radian because it wasn't as sharp and had severe ghosting on Jupiter. I have several other TV Panoptics, and
they are great. But I really like this 4.9mm when the seeing will allow using. I have split several sub arc sec doubles with the 4.9 in conjunction with the barlow. Wouldn't recommend using on planets as the magnification is really too much, but when you want to split two airy
discs it's the only way to go.

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=81492

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
Excelsis has reversed the listing order. Some comments refering previous comments may be out of the proper order.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=59501

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I have a Discovery EQ 8 inch reflector that is an F/5, which I like very much. After much research trying out different eyepieces I decided to purchase an entire line on Siebert Eyepieces as I felt that they would give me the most for my eyepiece dollar. I have the 3.4mm, 4.9mm, 7mm, and 10mm 1.25” standard series; the 15mm, 21mm 1.25” Premium deep sky series; and the 32 Ultra Plus 2” eyepiece. Harry has been a pleasure to deal with and in the many times that I have spoken with him he has given me excellent advice as to which eyepieces would benefit me the most given my telescope and what I like to observe. He truly took the time to tailor my eyepiece selections to me and I don’t think that you can get that service easily anywhere else.

4.9mm review --> This was the first Siebert eyepiece that I bought. The first day I used it in the spring I caught Ganymede cutting in front of Jupiter and was able to see it's shadow on Jupiter for the first time ever! (I had tried on other nights but was unable) I was so impressed by the clarity of the view and the construction of the eyepiece that I decided then that I would by a whole set of Sieberts. There is nothing like high power wide angle eyepieces so you dont have to constantly fiddle with the telescope to follow an object. Also, the eyepiece glass is HUGE (as big as ordinary 12-15mm plossls!), and so easy to use. Why would anyone put up with a peephole when you can have this?

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Value:10
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=111478

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I bought the 4.9mm eyepiece for my NexStar 80 so that I could have a quality high magnification eyepiece. This eyepiece delivers everything promise and more. You can tell its a quality eyepiece from the moment you take it out of the box. It just feels good, solid and heavy. I have read some review of Harry's eyepieces that say that the eyepiece looks a little home made but I think it looks as good as most other eyepieces. The end of the barrel has a slight beveled to make it easy to insert into the the telescope. Its a nice touch and just shows Harry's attention to detail.

The eyepiece is very comfortable to use with its large lens and 7mm of eye relief. The eyepiece has a 65 degree field of view but it feels much larger when looking through it. The optical performance is impressive. The views are sharper and have better color than with my other eyepieces. I haven't had my scope for long so I don't have a lot of expericence but even for me the optical quality was obvious immediately. I would highly recommend Harry's eyepiece. I don't think you can get a better eyepiece for the price.

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:9
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=129117

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
This eyepiece is Junk and Harry is famous for posting bogus rave reviews of his own products. If anyone dares to give him a negative review he flames them in public and in private.

Overall Rating: 3
Optics:3 Value:4
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=142893 

I thought I'd have to read a book for a dsicovrey like this!
&gt;This eyepiece is Junk and Harry is famous for posting bogus rave reviews of his own products.  If anyone dares to give him a negative review he flames them in public and in private.


If this eyepiece is indeed junk as you say, why don't you return it? I have not used this one, but I do have his 7mm which I think is great. Also, what scope do you use this with? Some scope and EP combinations just dont work. I don't think Harry flames people. I think he is defending his product when others have flamed him. As far as posting bogus reviews, I can't speak on that, BUT I do believe there would be many more negative reviews than the few that are posted.
His eyepieces are not for everyone. I am sure those who can afford to pay $300.00 to $500.00 on a single eyepiece would be able to find some fault in the Sieberts. For the rest of us he is doing us a favor. 
Jason (not affraid to sign my name)
Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
First some background info. I have a 7" f/6 Mak-Newt that is certified 1/8 wave .96 strehl and it is a screamer. Holds 550+X when seeing allows, not exagerating. Moon detail at this power is extraordinary. And now to the review of my first Seibert EP.

In my collection of EP's I have Panoptics, Naglers, Pentax's, Orion's (their Ultrascopic is very good IMHO), University Optics and now a Harry Seibert that I got on ASTROMART. I dont have deep pockets to buy EP's with, just a desire to have the best EP regardless of name and cost (within reasonable limits set by my wife). So I just had to try one of Mr. Seiberts EP's. For a comparison EP is chose my UO 6mm. I realize the difference in exit pupil and mag and all the rest, but this was the closest EP I had in this f.l. without using another EP/barlow combo.

So here goes.....I look at a near full moon and the detail in the HS was excellent. As far as I could tell just as good as the UO. The only thing i did notice was that when I had the moon in only 1/2 of the FOV, there was some serious stray reflection that produced ghosting in the dark sky part of the FOV. THis wasnt a problem to me however because the detail it showed otherwise was wonderful. This EP is exactly 220X in my scope a perfomed very well. Now onto the stars.....

The double double in Lyra was a clean split. Very nice indeed. Two sets of clean double airy disks with their first defraction
rings. Wonderful. Put the UO in and same thing. Wonderful split, nice clean black space between the stars. Both EP's had about the same black background yet for some reason, the UO seemed to come to that crisp sharp focus a tad easier....I have a JMI DX 1 dual speed focuser so I have very good control when finding that sweet spot for an EP. But it was very slight indeed if at all. Looked at star clusters and other doubles and the Seibert did very well. Moving on to comfort and ease of use.

The eye relief on the Seibert is about the same as the UO. Both of which you have to get up close and personal with, especially the Seibert if you want to see the entire FOV. At first eye positioning was "different". Not good or bad, but just took some getting used to. After several long sessions with this EP I have grown to really like it. It a keeper but so is my UO.

Bottom line: Very good EP and I enjoy viewing through it. Does it have an edge over the UO ortho's? Not really. Although the EP upper lense is about 2.5 times larger then the UO, you still have to get your eye as close and as centered. I really took time to analize this issue and the comfort gained through the larger upper lense in minimal if any. Its more of a psycological advantage as you hold them in your hand and look at them not as you put them in your scope and look through them. Bare in mind this is comparing a 6mm UO to a 4.9mm Seibert. I hear the eye relief is pretty tight on a 5mm UO. But all in all the Seibert views compared most favorably with the UO's. But now the kicker. You can get a UO for less then $60 and the Seibert is about 50% more at $90. Both these EP's are not for those wearing glasses so its a comfort issue and individual preference. Will I buy another one? Probably not. UO's are too good and too cheap while the Seiberts are very good yet not so cheap. But like I said, Im glad I bought it and I will certainly keep it. If you get one of these you will be very pleased.

Hope this is of some help.

Clear skies,
Erich Mayne

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Value:8
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=143266

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
Terrific value for the price.

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:7 Value:10
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=185195

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
This eyepiece sits nicely in a mid-price collection for people who don't like spending more on an eyepiece than their telescope. It's quite sharp across 3/4 of the field at f/6 (Stellarvue AT1010), and superb at f/11 (a Tal 100R refractor, stopped down to 92 mm for reasons of objective abuse). I did notice that increasing the focal ratio had less benefit than with some designs like orthoscopics; the outermost part of the field seems to resist flattening. But there's more field to play with, so this isn't really a problem.

I'm not sure this is a bargain compared with Plossls that have 52 or 55 degree apparent fields (Ultima and the like) and sell for a similar price. The extra field isn't worth writing home about. But it's got something about it, and I like it.

Roger Newman

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:8 Value:7
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=240994

Harry Siebert Optics Standard 4.9mm
I'm a bit of a fan of Siebert's eyepieces,I own the 2.9,4.9,7,10,15,21,and 32mm
EPs. I admit that I haven't compared them with the more expensive EPs from Televue,
etc. but from all the research I've done,I'm missing very little, if any, performance,
and have saved considerable money. I have used these EPs in a 6" f/5 Russian newtonian and a 10" f/6
Cave astrola with very good results for all observing applications.
The best views of Saturn I've ever had was with the 2.9mm in the Cave under excellent seeing. Would
recomend the entire line to anyone that appreciates good optics and doesn't miss the bragging rights of
owning a $250 EP.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:9 Value:10
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=80672

Page 1 of 1

[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