| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Harry Siebert Premium 9mm 2" By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.39.250) Date: 10/09/2002 12:11:08 pm PST Compared this eyepiece to a Meade 8.8 UWA in my 80mm Orion UltraScan ED during the daytime. Extremely sharp to the edge with virtually none of the "purple fringe" I noticed on objects in the Meade 8.8 UWA. Slightly more contrast than the 8.8. In my 8" f8 dob at night split the double-double cleanly with both eyepieces with equal clarity but still slightly more contrast in the Siebert 9mm 2" Premium. Harry has put out some very nice eyepieces in this series that I think will rival any of the higher priced widefields including the Nagler's and Pentax's. Definitely a keeper! Subject: Re: Harry Siebert Premium 9mm 2" By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.2.26) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.39.250) (Original Message) Date: 02/10/2005 10:51:23 am PST >Harry has put out some very nice eyepieces in this series that I think will rival any of the higher priced widefields including the Nagler's and Pentax's. You obviously have never looked through a Pentax or Nagler. Otherwise you would see that there is no comparison. Siebert eyepieces don't even come close. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.2.26 By: DonDurbin Date: 03/01/2005 05:15:51 pm PST >Really poor eyepiece. Laughable to be compared as "rivaling a Pentax". Suffers from internal reflections, and has poor contrast. Mine also suffered from coma to almost 40% in an f/6 dob. My Pentax eyepieces walk circles around this junker. > >As with the other poster, Harry refused to refund my money. He is a swindler. I suspect the glowing reviews here are planted by Harry, since they certainly can't be true accounts of the performance of this eyepiece. **************************************** You coward, Why not put your name on this. Everyone knows that Siebert has the best money back guaranty around. That is why you cannot sign your review. Don Durbin Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.6.154 By: DonDurbin Date: 03/01/2005 05:17:41 pm PST >Poor quality. dirt in between the elements. Fell apart in my hand. He refused to give me back my money. **************************************** You coward, Why not put your name on this. Everyone knows that Siebert has the best money back guaranty around. That is why you cannot sign your review. Fell apart in your hand? I do not believe you ever had a Sieberts eyepiece in your hand. Don Durbin Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.2.26 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.208.202) Date: 03/02/2005 05:55:09 pm PST >Really poor eyepiece. Laughable to be compared as "rivaling a Pentax". Suffers from internal reflections, and has poor contrast. Mine also suffered from coma to almost 40% in an f/6 dob. My Pentax eyepieces walk circles around this junker. > >As with the other poster, Harry refused to refund my money. He is a swindler. I suspect the glowing reviews here are planted by Harry, since they certainly can't be true accounts of the performance of this eyepiece. Strange that only people who appear to intensely dislike Siebert's EPs are the only ones that can't get their money back. Hmmm. Strange indeed. Although the person who posted this appears to know what he/she is talking about, it's still clear that this is a hired basher. I have a CGE 14" and two sets of binoviewers, a 1.25" set and a 2" set, both by Siebert. For the 1.25" binos I have two pairs of Plossls, 40s and 36s, both high quality, a pair of Naglers, a pair of 18 mm Ultimas, and a pair of Siebert's 24s. The only EPs that are better than the Sieberts across all criteria are the Naglers (slightly better contrast and little or no ghosting). The ghosting issue on the Siebert 24s is handled nicely by the Skylight Filter that came with my scope, and is only present on the very brightest objects (i.e., Saturn, Sirius). It's a $30 part. Of my fairly considerable kit of EPs, the Sieberts get the most use by far in the 1.25", and the Naglers (my 2" set) get the most use in my 2" binos, although the Siebert 34s in my 2" binos are easier to use, and get used almost as often as the Naglers. When I think about it, though, last night, using the 1.25" binos and the Siebert 24s without the Skylight Filter, there was no ghosting at all on anything, including Saturn, Sirius, Aldabaran, Rigel or (which was most spectacular!) The Hyades. Hm. I'll have to think about that one. It's also worth mentioning that some of my friends who view with me prefer the Sieberts over the Naglers on more than a few objects, so of course it's, as usual, a matter of personal preference. One guy's point is that the Naglers, in making a darker backfield, also reduce light, and he may have a point there. Jason -- Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.6.154 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.208.202) Date: 03/02/2005 05:59:57 pm PST >Poor quality. dirt in between the elements. Fell apart in my hand. He refused to give me back my money. Whoever this person is, he or she is bouncing from one product to the next, posting the same thing. Let's just examine the facts: If you buy a Siebert EP or any other product and it arrives in substandard or faulty condition, or becomes faulty within the 60 day money-back period, he'll replace it or refund your money. It's just that simple. Let's DO get real here (you can kinda tell that the "reviewer" is, well, a neuron or two short of a completed synapse). Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.2.26 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.147.3) Date: 04/15/2006 05:17:03 pm PST >Really poor eyepiece. Laughable to be compared as "rivaling a Pentax". Suffers from internal reflections, and has poor contrast. Mine also suffered from coma to almost 40% in an f/6 dob. My Pentax eyepieces walk circles around this junker. > >As with the other poster, Harry refused to refund my money. He is a swindler. I suspect the glowing reviews here are planted by Harry, since they certainly can't be true accounts of the performance of this eyepiece. Are you a bot or a real human? This looks just like any troll I have ever come across. Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
