Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Brand and Model:Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Price ($USD):$49.00
Type:Misc Wide Angle
Focal Length:7 mm
Barrel Size:1.25 in
Apparent FOV:65.0 degrees
Field Stop Dia.:0.0 mm
Eye Relief:6 mm
Elements:4
Weight (lbs):
Description:

Vote Highlights Vote
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: Thompson
Link to this vote: http://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
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: anttler
Link to this vote: http://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: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.34.219)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=67271


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
What a difference when comparing it to a 7.5mm plossl with my 102 f/10 and 150mm f/8 refractors. More sharper and more contrast on the Moon, not to mention the wider field of view. Going back to the plossl looks yuck.

I was really surprised when I had a look at Mars. Less false colour around the limb than the plossl. I had thought that the false colour was something I was going to have to live with - with my cheaper refractors, but better eyepieces dramatically improve things. Was I one happy camper.

Greater light throughput as well when comparing faint field stars and globulars. The globulars were also resolved better.

Also I like how user-friendly they are. No need to hold your eye in just the right spot to avoid annoying blackout. This will be a great help when showing non astronomers through the scope.

All this for similar money to the plossls.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 9 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.111.201)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44157


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I finally had a chance to use this eyepiece on my F4.5 10" newtonian at a good dark sky area near Bisbee AZ. Compared it to a Meade plossol and Orion Lanthium.
All three are nice eyepieces, the Orions Eyerelief is espescially nice. But on deep sky objects the Siebert really looks good. Images are brighter and show better color when there should be color. Another reviewer also remarked on comfort of use, while the eyerelief is a little short, though no worse than the Meade the Siebert just feels more comfortable.
Also the wide field at the magnification is a pleasure.
Another very nice eyepiece from Harry.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 9 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.30.199)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44156


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Very sharp ep, with excellent contrast.

On double stars, Jupiter, and Saturn, the ep consistently provides better sharpness and contrast than my 7mm Nagler, 8mm RKE (Very Sharp ep!), and kills the Meade Super Plossls, and Orion Sirius eps of similar focal length I used to have.

The 7mm Nagler has more consistant edge correction, but the Siebert is quite sharp through 90% of the field on my Pronto and DGM OA-4.

I no longer take my 7mm Nagler when I go out. While the AFOV of the Siebert is less and the edge correction not quite as good, the sharpness and contrast imporovement make the difference between a mushy double star split and a razor sharp split. Jovian bands display more detail, and the Jovian moons consistently resolve into disks (in OA-4), while the Nagler leaves them a little mushy.

I now have Siebert 21mm, 10mm, 7mm, and 3.9mm. They have replaced my much more expensive 7mm and 12mm Nagler, TV 20mm Plossl, Vixen 12.5mm Lanthanum, UO 12mm Ortho, and Meade 26mm Super Plossl. In fact, along with a TV 32mm Plossl, they are now the only ep's I take!

A real steal. Harry is doing us all a great service in providing these eps at such an affordable price.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Value:10
Weight: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.161.126)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=55494


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I bought 5 different wide angle eyepieces from Siebert Optics, they are all excellent but the 7mm is my favourite.
This is my new eyepiece for higher magnifications. It replaces my 9.5 mm
Super Ploessl (100$ !!!). Despite the higher magnification of the Siebert
7 mm it offers a bigger FOV which is clear contrasty and almost sharp up
to the edge (up to 90% of axis in my f/7 Newton).
Eyerelief is short but bearable (without glasses). I am very satisfied with
this eyepiece and I will definitly keep it. Even without considering the price
it is definitly a 10!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.82.19)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44162


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
This review is pretty much a duplicate of my review of the 4.9mm Siebert elsewhere on this site.

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 $45 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 1/5 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 7mm 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: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.210.148)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44161


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
Great eyepiece. Short eye relief not a problem for me. (no glasses) FOV is great compared to 7.5 plossl. Very slightly elongated stars in EXTREME edge of field, but is not objectional in my 8" f/6. Also darker backgound and brighter images than 7.5 too. Can't wait for Jupiter and Saturn! Barlowed very nice too.
Now I want more as this is my first Siebert.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.176.249)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44159


Harry Siebert Optics Standard 7mm
I dont have much experiance with eyepieces but all i can comment on is how well made they are. The rubber casing is superb. All i can say is that they are a million times better than the MA eyepieces that came with my scope. For me they are a superb step up from factory standard eyepieces. Some people even sya they are comparable to more expensive eyepiecs!!!!

Great buy!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 6 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.137.222)
Link to this vote: http://excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44158

Click here to see all votes (35 total)
[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!