Harry Siebert BinoViewer 2"


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Switch to Subject View
Post Message



Page 1 of 2 Next


Subject: Re: vote by deepsky10us
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.36)
Date: 09/18/2002 05:36:31 pm PST
>Being the first to person get this two inch Bino-Viewer, all I can say is ammazing views. The views on the double cluster were out standing, but I'm still lost for words. M13 last night in the 9" APO was like I've never seen before. The flat field of view and seeing M13 with both eyes was WOW!!. Using this bino-viewer I've noticed that M2 and M13 resolved at lower powers than when using a single eyepice. The outer region's of M2 were resolved using the Siebert 32mm Ultra Pluse two inchers at a power of 88x in the 9" APO. At 201x the view was just mind shattering. M13 at high power ( 320x ) was resolved like I've never see in my 30+ years of observing globular clusters. The dark lanes that I've seen before in the resolved core was seen more easily and in more contrast. The chain star that run up through the core to the outer regions, stood out in 3D form. The view of M8 was jaw dropping. Nebulosity regions were seen easily and had more contrast than with a single eyepiece. I only hope that Bino-Viewer #2 that Todd Gross will get to review is as good as mine.
> note: Two inch Bino-Viewers are a big step up from 1 1/4" ones, that mainly work great on the planets. These two inch bino-viewers so far have worked flawlessly on everything from Neb's, Open Clusters and Globular Clusters. As soon as the gas gaints are up all night, I'll be getting no sleep at all.


I would like to make some remarks to my post above. I do not want anyone to feel that I'm trying to say that 1 1/4" bino-viewers are only good for planetary observing. I have tried my Tele Vue units on deep sky objects, and find that they do good on brighter deep sky objects. But they have only 26mm optics, where as, the Siebert two inch Bino-Viewer unit has 40mm optics. Because of the 40mm optics I see much brighter objects and more sharper images with more contrast, on objects of 8th mag. and fainter. A more indepth review well be posted soon. I've used the two inch unit in a 9"APO, 6"APO, 6" Archromat, 10" SCT, 8" SCT, and a 16" SCT. I only put up this short review to let everyone know how the unit is working so far.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by deepsky10us
By: deepsky10us
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.36) (Original Message)
Date: 09/28/2002 06:14:03 pm PST
This is a short review on the 2" Bino-Viewer

Siebert Optical Two Inch Bino-Viewer

This is a short review of a new innovative Bino-Viewer designed be Siebert Optical.

Prior to this review, I have had more than three years experience with bino-viewers, which at that time Tele Vue was the unit that I had bought. I had bought it to use for planetary observing after being told that fine planetary detail could be seen much easier when using two eyepieces than the usual single eyepiece setup. This turned out to be true. As time went on I started to use the Tele Vue unit on deep sky objects, but found that fainter objects of 9th magnitude and fainter were better observing with a single eyepiece setup than with the 11/4" bino-viewers. This being my opinion only, as to some it seemed to work ok. Even though they would agree that when using the 11/4" bino-viewer, fainter objects did look better when using a single eyepiece setup.
Thanks to the innovative minds at Siebert Optical, my out look on bino-viewers for deep sky observing has changed. Harry Siebert has manufactured the first ever two inch bino-viewer that uses 40mm optics throughout. It is constructed out of aluminum and stainless steel, with a self centering eyepiece system that works very good. What's really nice about this centering system, is that it holds each eyepiece perfectly on axis and holds each eyepiece nice and snug. If you forget to tighten the eyepiece barrel screws, do not worry, they well definitely not fallout.
The differences between this two inch unit and a 11/4" unit are noticed right away. My old 11/4" unit has only 26mm optics where as the two inch has 40mm optics. What dose this mean? Well, 40mm means more light throughput than 26mm, which should mean that fainter objects should be brighter. There is a two inch 1.5x Barlow included that is also made out of stainless steel. This Barlow incorporates 40mm optics . Of course, the Barlow is used only for Newtonians and Refractors. The unit is totally sealed and has a vinyl cover to give it a nice warm feel on cold nights. I find this a very nice feature, as cold frozen steel has a funny affect on warm flesh.
Of utmost importance is the inter ocular distance in bino-viewers, of which this two inch unit has a minimal distance of 57mm and a max distance of 84mm. Most people should have no problem using this two inch unit at these inter ocular distances.

I will let those that are interested in this review know up front, that this is only a short review as more time will be needed with this two inch bino-viewer, as three weeks is all I've had so far. In the coming months there will be a full review, as it will take a lot of time at the eyepiece to test this unit. So far, observational astronomy has taken on a whole new experience for myself and my colleagues at the observatory. Many individuals not associated with the observatory, will be using my bino-viewer in their scopes of varying sizes to give their opinion.

This two inch bino-viewer will be tested on Nebulas, Globular Clusters, Open Clusters, and Galaxies.

Scopes to be used for testing are as follows:
16" SCT, 10" SCT, 8" SCT, 8" LXD55 SN, 9" APO, 6" APO, 6" Archromat, 4" Archromat, 6" MC, 8" MN, and a 6" f/5 - f/8 Newt., 16" f/5 Newt.


Eyepieces to be used are as follows:
2" eyepieces: 32mm Siebert Optical Ultra Plus, 30mm Vixen LV, 19mm Celestron Axiom, 25mm UO MK-70.
11/4" eyepieces: 32mm Meade, 30mm Celestron Ultima, 18mm Celestron Ultima, 26mm Meade.

Testing done so far:
First object: M13
Two inch unit: Scope used 10" SCT / Eyepieces used: 19mm Axiom at 133x
The best views I've seen in my 30+ years as an astronomer. Views were very bright with good black background. Great flat field of view with that 3D look at 133x power with deep core resolution in the 10" SCT scope that this unit was tested in for this object.
11/4" unit: Scope used 10" SCT / eyepieces used: 18mm Ultima at 141x
Accounting for the size difference was added in. Nice view but not as bright. High power in this scope with the 11/4" unit was dimmer than through the 2" unit, but yes resolution could be had with the 11/4" unit. The resolution was not as deep though.

Overall: M13 had more contrast and was noticeably much sharper and could be resolved at lower power using the two inch unit. The dark lanes that were seen in the core at 133x with the 2" unit, were not seen in the 11/4" unit at 141x.

Second object: M27
Two inch unit: Scope Used was 9" APO / Eyepieces used: 25mm UO MK-70 at 112x
This nebula took on a very interesting look.. The brightness differences between the s.p. portion and the n.f. region was very noticeable. So much more than with a single eyepiece setup. At a power of 112x, using a 25mm UO MK-70 in combo with the 1.5x Barlow, the nebula was showing the fine thinner filamentary structure in the outer regions. It was just an outstanding view.
11/4" unit: Scope used: 9" APO / Eyepieces used: 26mm Meade SP at 108x
I used a pair of 26mm Meade SP eyepieces at a power of 108x in combo with the 1.5x Barlow. The view was about the same, but not as bright. The more luminous s.p. portion was not as bright, but, I could see the difference in brightness between the s.p. and n.f. region.

Overall: The contrast gain and the brightness in the 2" unit was outstanding. The field flatness, and greater depth of view was definitely in the 2" bino-viewers favor.

Third object: Double Cluster
Two inch unit: Scope used: 9" APO / Eyepieces used: 32mm Siebert 70deg.
Sorry, I'm just lost for words. I've been trying to find a way to express in words what I had seen. The three of us that observed this could only say WOW!!. With the 32mm 70deg. eyepieces and the two inch bino-viewer, the depth of view was unbelievable. Field flatness was outstanding.
11/4" unit: Scope used: 9" APO / Eyepieces use: 32mm Meade SP
Great view, but did not see that same depth of view that the 2" unit gives. Field flatness very good, but after looking at this object through the 2" unit, this 11/4" unit just can not match the wide field of view that the 2" unit gives.

Overall: The 2" unit gave the greatest view that I've ever had of this object.


Fourth object: Veil Nebula
Two inch unit: Scope used: 16"SCT / Eyepieces used: 32mm Siebert 70deg.
I've observed this object many times in this scopes, and never have I seen so much fine filamentary structure. Again, the sharpness, as with every object was outstanding.
11/4" unit: Scope used: 16" SCT / Eyepieces used: 32mm Meade SP
Not has bright or as sharp as the 2" unit. Fine filamentary detail definitely goes to the 2" unit.

Overall: The 2" unit has such a big advantage over the 11/4" unit on this object, it is definitely noticeable.

In the following months, I will have many more follow up reviews. There are over twenty observation that have to be made ready for the next review. In the up coming review, there will be posted observations of objects as faint as 14th magnitude.

Review by: Don Regan of the Deep Sky Observatory


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Siebert 2" binos
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.23.10)
Date: 01/31/2003 11:12:45 am PST
Interesting posting by some folks as of late.

Re: "Darkening of image"

I, too, noticed a dramatic darkening of the sky through the binoviewers. It's called contrast, last I looked, and is generally a good thing. Lower mag stars came into view that were not visible through a single eyepiece, even though the background was blacker. I tested this explicitly by swapping the bino with single viewing with a 17mm Nagler, and 17.5mm Siebert Ultra Pluses.

Re: "hard to get focus"

Agreed. These require your brain to adapt, and takes a bit more than some other binos. But worth it. If you are into quick glances to evaluate, rather than patient and long term viewing, these aren't for you. These are binos that are for Owners who want great views and are willing to spend 20-30 minutes learning to use the equipment, rather than star party quick peek users or those who want instant gratification with no work on their part involved.

Interestingly, the larger the SCT, the easier "bino snap" occurs. On a 12" GPS things are easy, on a 20" SCT there appeared to be zero merge problems... just put your eyes to the eyepieces and there it is. I have zero problem after regular use in this area on any scope.

Many of the easier "quick view" binos generally were with 19mm or shorter FL eyepieces... I'm not sure just yet, but it appears that 26+mm 2" eyepieces may be fundamentally harder to get to bino, for some reason. Since there are no other 2" binos to compare against, it's hard to tell.

re: "Workmanship"

Personally I don't care much about the inside's cosmetic appearance... performance matters to me. Form vs Function, thing, I guess... I'd rather have a Hummveee to go to war in the desert with, than a Typhoon that looks cool and would fall apart the moment I went on the battlefield with it. *grin* Rough welds, no custom colors, no fancy sounding muffler, horrible door handles... but that ain't the point, is it? And oh, yeah.. the Hummvee is pretty expensive, too....

Cheers


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Siebert 2" binos
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.23.10)
Date: 01/31/2003 11:14:41 am PST
Interesting posting by some folks as of late.

Re: "Darkening of image"

I, too, noticed a dramatic darkening of the sky through the binoviewers. It's called contrast, last I looked, and is generally a good thing. Lower mag stars came into view that were not visible through a single eyepiece, even though the background was blacker. I tested this explicitly by swapping the bino with single viewing with a 17mm Nagler, and 17.5mm Siebert Ultra Pluses.

Re: "hard to get focus"

Agreed. These require your brain to adapt, and takes a bit more than some other binos. But worth it. If you are into quick glances to evaluate, rather than patient and long term viewing, these aren't for you. These are binos that are for Owners who want great views and are willing to spend 20-30 minutes learning to use the equipment, rather than star party quick peek users or those who want instant gratification with no work on their part involved.

Interestingly, the larger the SCT, the easier "bino snap" occurs. On a 12" GPS things are easy, on a 20" SCT there appeared to be zero merge problems... just put your eyes to the eyepieces and there it is. I have zero problem after regular use in this area on any scope.

Many of the easier "quick view" binos generally were with 19mm or shorter FL eyepieces... I'm not sure just yet, but it appears that 26+mm 2" eyepieces may be fundamentally harder to get to bino, for some reason. Since there are no other 2" binos to compare against, it's hard to tell.

re: "Workmanship"

Personally I don't care much about the inside's cosmetic appearance... performance matters to me. Form vs Function, thing, I guess... I'd rather have a Hummveee to go to war in the desert with, than a Typhoon that looks cool and would fall apart the moment I went on the battlefield with it. *grin* Rough welds, no custom colors, no fancy sounding muffler, horrible door handles... but that ain't the point, is it? And oh, yeah.. the Hummvee is pretty expensive, too....

Cheers


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.23.210
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.30)
Date: 02/09/2003 04:02:18 am PST
>The Siebert 2" Binoviewers present an interesting dilema for me. Although they work O.K. (some problems with eyerelief, merging images, collamation) my biggest problem with the Sieberts was the quality of the fit and finish. It seems strange to put a pair of $500.00 eyepieces that have superb fit and finish into a Binoviewer that looks like it was made in my basement by my 7 year old son with parts he salvaged out of my plumbing supply box. Other than that, I suppose they fill a niche for those how don't really care about pride of ownership, and are willing to put up with their quirks.
> Rob

Are you sure you can tell the truth. Sounds to me like you should be teaching your 7 year old how to tell the truth.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Siebert 2"BinoViewer
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.170.111)
Date: 03/25/2003 04:20:02 pm PST
I did read the test report in S+T, Sep2002, pp 46-51,
which compares the two 1 1/4" binoviewers from Televue and Baader.
QUESTION:
Has somebody made a comparison of the above wellknown products with the NEW Siebert BinoViewer with 2(two) inch diameter.
I am particularly interested in applications with a Newton (dobson) scope; e.g. with my 15inch/f4.5 Obsession scope.
Pierre Schmid


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.23.210
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.23.133)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.30) (Original Message)
Date: 04/04/2003 04:19:27 am PST
>>The Siebert 2" Binoviewers present an interesting dilema for me. Although they work O.K. (some problems with eyerelief, merging images, collamation) my biggest problem with the Sieberts was the quality of the fit and finish. It seems strange to put a pair of $500.00 eyepieces that have superb fit and finish into a Binoviewer that looks like it was made in my basement by my 7 year old son with parts he salvaged out of my plumbing supply box. Other than that, I suppose they fill a niche for those how don't really care about pride of ownership, and are willing to put up with their quirks.
>> Rob
>
>Are you sure you can tell the truth. Sounds to me like you should be teaching your 7 year old how to tell the truth.

I don't own a Siebert binoviewer (I do have several of Harry's eyepieces and like them) but I have to object to this posting by "anonymous." When I was in the newspaper business and in charge of editing letters to the editor, this was the kind of anonymous poison-pen letter which we sent straight to the waste paper basket. First, it is abusive and mean-spirited. Second, it is cowardly. I'm signing my name, whoever you are, "anonymous."
John Barr


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.23.210
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.35)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.169.30) (Original Message)
Date: 05/24/2003 03:44:04 pm PST
>>The Siebert 2" Binoviewers present an interesting dilema for me. Although they work O.K. (some problems with eyerelief, merging images, collamation) my biggest problem with the Sieberts was the quality of the fit and finish. It seems strange to put a pair of $500.00 eyepieces that have superb fit and finish into a Binoviewer that looks like it was made in my basement by my 7 year old son with parts he salvaged out of my plumbing supply box. Other than that, I suppose they fill a niche for those how don't really care about pride of ownership, and are willing to put up with their quirks.
>> Rob
>

This remark was brought to you by the SMALL MINDS at Denkmeier.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by kkirksea
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.71.115)
Date: 05/30/2003 01:50:46 am PST
>Outstanding evolutionary step for visual astronomy. The Siebert 2" binoviewer performs exactly as one would hope, providing clear, crisp, bright, pseudo 3D wide field views of the heavens. ----

Hmmm -

Methinks that the vote by kkirksea sounds more like an advertisement. Interesting if you click on his voting record and see that he has owned several of Siebert's products, as well as the same scopes Harry uses.

Somehow I don't think that Denkmeyer is the one playing dirty tricks here.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by kkirksea
By: kkirksea
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.71.115) (Original Message)
Date: 06/04/2003 06:45:57 pm PST
>>Outstanding evolutionary step for visual astronomy. The Siebert 2" binoviewer performs exactly as one would hope, providing clear, crisp, bright, pseudo 3D wide field views of the heavens. ----
>
>Hmmm -
>
>Methinks that the vote by kkirksea sounds more like an advertisement. Interesting if you click on his voting record and see that he has owned several of Siebert's products, as well as the same scopes Harry uses.
>
>Somehow I don't think that Denkmeyer is the one playing dirty tricks here.


Unfortunately for your theory there are folk who've met me... and who'm I've bought from... and who I correspond with on other boards/emails.

I call 'em like I see 'em. Since I own a pair of the binoviewers, and are VERY, VERY satisfied with 'em, and have taken the time to learn to use them best over many nights.. I guess I must be qualified to review them?

I can't find anything in the quote that I still don't find 100% true. Clear? Yep. Crisp. Very. I can see details in ANY bino better than a single eyepiece. Bright? Well...last I looked if you mask a 2" aperture down to 1.25" you get less light? Simple physics. Pseudo 3D? That's binoviewing. Wide Field? Hmmm.. that's what the math/eyes says... a pair of Nagler 26's 82 degree eyepiece will have a wider field than a Panoptic 24mm 68 degree eyepiece any day of the week.

re: scopes. I bought the binos specifically because Harry had the same scope, and validated I wouldn't have clutch/balance problems with the weight. ( My first preference was the Denkmeier Deep Sky until I found out the 2" binos would work on my Nexstar 8, then in my mind, it was obvious which way to go, for me ). Wouldn't you prefer buying products that you know were tested on the scope you actually use?

What other "scopes" do I own that he does? The one of a kind Carbon Fiber TMB-105F/650 prototype that isn't in production yet, that I posted a review on?

Interesting that you are taking time to research my postings.... and then falsifying findings as if it were fact... hoping perhaps that the casual reader would simply believe your false accusations?

Feel free to post objective and subjective opinions of products that you own or have spent substantial/multiple nights of work with....

Heh... maybe I can figure out what your vested interest is by reviewing your postings.. I bet I'll find that you are maliciously giving poor scores/reviews to certain vendors, eh?

Please keep posting! It'll simply make your targets look more and more intriguing and worthy of first hand testing! ( which will of course improve the sales of the folk you are attacking, since the products really ARE nice! )

K


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Page 1 of 2 Next

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