Orbinar eyepiece 30mm?

[RonVen]

Does anyone have or have ever used a Orbinar eyepiece? This brand of eyepieces (priced very reasonably) caught my attention on one of the auction sites. The description shows that it is out of Germany. Any opinions positive or negative regarding this brand? Thanks.

Ron

[bingevader]

DId you mean this one?

Have a scroll down and look at who they're supplied by!

Honestly, save your £15.

Failing that, send me the £15 and I'll fashion you something just as good out of an old pair of glasses and a bog roll!

Cheers

[Steve Ward]

They come from SEBEN ( http://www.mods4cars.com/sms/shop/index.php?p=b3JnYT1zZWJlbiZncm91cD0yJmxhbmc9MiZjdXJyPTE=&action=home&menu=)

Would guess they'll be lower end stuff judging by the scope reviews I've seen.

[RonVen]

Thanks. I'll save my money for another brand of eyepiece.

Ron

[rwilkey]

Hi Ron, that's right, save your money, Seben has a poor reputation although they boast the opposite, avoid them like the plague. Better to spend a bit more and be able to see through the eyepiece.

[RonVen]

I'm taking your advice and am instead going to purchase a 32mm GSO plossl (when available). In the states they are on backorder. Even though GSO makes eyepieces under various names, the specs of the other eyepieces don't seem to be exactly the same as the GSO brand. Therefore, I'll wait for the GSO to become available (currently $30 US). Thanks for your posts.

Ron

[nicks90]

Hi Ron, that's right, save your money, Seben has a poor reputation although they boast the opposite, avoid them like the plague. Better to spend a bit more and be able to see through the eyepiece.

however the Seben zoom gets great reviews on here - so wondering if their ep manufacturer is better than their scope manufacturer....

[rwilkey]

however the Seben zoom gets great reviews on here - so wondering if their ep manufacturer is better than their scope manufacturer....

The so-called 'seben' zoom is from the same factory as the Synta ones offered by Sky Watcher and Celestron amongst others, it also comes in the same plastic case with the same part code number stamped on the lid (MZT 8-24), so no doubt that it is the same item. So, no wonder it's decent, it is not their own.

[Schorhr]

I have the 4 and 30mm Orbinar/Seben Plössl and a noname 40mm that looks similar.

For 10-15Eur shipped their Eyepieces are okey.

The 30-40 do not have a eyecup though, require some tube or foam for comfortable views.

I did reccomend them as low-budget solution to someone else, he's happy with the 30mm.

But for 32eur you can get a 20mm uwa with almost the same real field of view due to the 66 degree wide angle afov!

So worth it.

I just use the 40mm Plössl now as it gives me the maximum field on a 1.25" focuser, so if the red dot finder on the h130p won't cut it due to lp...

[Naemeth]

I have the 4 and 30mm Orbinar/Seben Plössl and a noname 40mm that looks similar.

For 10-15Eur shipped their Eyepieces are okey.

The 30-40 do not have a eyecup though, require some tube or foam for comfortable views.

I did reccomend them as low-budget solution to someone else, he's happy with the 30mm.

But for 32eur you can get a 20mm uwa with almost the same real field of view due to the 66 degree wide angle afov!

So worth it.

I just use the 40mm Plössl now as it gives me the maximum field on a 1.25" focuser, so if the red dot finder on the h130p won't cut it due to lp...

Maximum FOV for a 1.25" eyepiece is a 32mm plössl (52 degrees), the 40mm has the same TFOV as it is limited by the barrel size (AFOV of ~43 degrees), and the 32mm is always preferable as it has a smaller exit pupil.

I think cheap eyepieces, such as these, are a false economy. You'll end up spending more money at the end of the day trying to improve the view - eventually either selling or scrapping the eyepieces.

HTH

[Schorhr]

Yes, I am aware of this.

But if I am not mistaken he has a 114/1000mm f/6.77 telescope, thus even a 40mm eyepiece will only have a exit pupil of 3.6mm. Even under urban conditions this will be okey.

I did say that I use the 40mm just as overview eyepiece AND that a wide angle eyepiece with shorter focal length is preferable. I never said I preferred the Orbinar, but other then most of the Seben telescopes, they are not bad for their price. And as he asked if someone knows those eyepieces, I wrote that I do.

The ~70 deg (erfle/uwa) eyepiece are about the same price as a brand name Plössl, so why get a 32mm Plössl instead of a uwa?

The wide angle eyepieces are much nicer to view through, and the real field is just a little smaller. All the theory and calculations are one thing, but when I am out on a field I want nice views, not have the impression of looking through a pipe just to see 0.1 or 0.2 degree more field. IF this is importaint, there's allways Hyperions or such with 24-25mm and 68 deg afov. At around 100€ they are still not too expensive.

The aesthetic view and the low price of ~32€ (at least of the 66deg uwa) make it a nice eyepiece.

I rarely don't use the 30mm Plössl at all now. Even the 32mm would be "false economy" in my oppinion.

IF someone is on a low budget, a 15€ eyepiece can be a gap filler and sells for about the same price again- or makes a kid/teen with a cheap telescope happy to upgrade their Huygens.

[richard266]

It's a real shame that many of the people offering their advice have never actually looked through the product in question. Seben have been a budget brand and have perhaps been a victim of offering a cheap products in the past but brand name do develop and can go on to produce some good products. Think - Skoda / Kia / Hyundai - 15 years ago these were a joke but now have a solid reputation for building good cars. Its a shame that some people can't get beyond this yet are in the front of the queue when handing out the advice. And yes, I have one of these and its pretty good - sure I could pay 10x the price but it probably wouldn't be 10x the performance... so which is better?

[Naemeth]

It's a real shame that many of the people offering their advice have never actually looked through the product in question. Seben have been a budget brand and have perhaps been a victim of offering a cheap products in the past but brand name do develop and can go on to produce some good products. Think - Skoda / Kia / Hyundai - 15 years ago these were a joke but now have a solid reputation for building good cars. Its a shame that some people can't get beyond this yet are in the front of the queue when handing out the advice. And yes, I have one of these and its pretty good - sure I could pay 10x the price but it probably wouldn't be 10x the performance... so which is better?

It's all down to personal opinion, some are willing to pay the premium for the small performance gains, some aren't. Cheaper eyepieces / optics are good for getting you started, but if you ever look through something of higher quality it is harder to go back. I used to think my cheap binoculars gave great views, now I'm a little disappointed by the views they offer because my telescopes offer much better views.

I still have some cheaper eyepieces, and using them now they're not awful, but personally I'd rather see a completely sharp field than have, say, 10% of the field unusable.

That's the way I see it, we only have limited time at the eyepiece, so why not make the most of it?

It doesn't really matter if anyone else does the same, just practice astronomy the way you are happy to

[rowan46]

It's a real shame that many of the people offering their advice have never actually looked through the product in question. Seben have been a budget brand and have perhaps been a victim of offering a cheap products in the past but brand name do develop and can go on to produce some good products. Think - Skoda / Kia / Hyundai - 15 years ago these were a joke but now have a solid reputation for building good cars. Its a shame that some people can't get beyond this yet are in the front of the queue when handing out the advice. And yes, I have one of these and its pretty good - sure I could pay 10x the price but it probably wouldn't be 10x the performance... so which is better?

Welcome to sgl richard

[Stratis]

Ran across this thread while searching for the same question, hope two weeks doesn't count as necroposting around here.

Having just started in astro this year I have wound up with a collection of mostly rubbish EPs that came along with other purchases; I have unbranded 32mm Plossls (Fully Multicoated!), SkyWatcher modified achromats (Super Wide Angle!) and my best is a pair of 15mm SkyWatcher UWAs which came along with a binoviewer, and these have a coma problem and serious 'flare' that I can't seem to fix. This doesn't do justice to my scopes which are generally excellent. 

I've just dropped £300 on the 8mm Ethos as a step towards some premium quality; I've had various "Just as good as an Ethos but half the price no, really!!" carrots dangled in front of me but figured if I'm spending hundreds I might as well get the best. 

Now I saw the 40mm Orbinar and despite the reputation Seben has, are there any who have actually used one of these? In addition, I'm curious about the comments that a 32mm EP is the limit of a 1.25" visual back, is this really the case? What difference, if any, would be realised between a 40mm and 32mm Plossl? This would seem odd as Meade produce the 40mm Super Plossl so presumably they do so for a reason.

Currently the 40mm Orbinar is all of £16.49 on Amazon; surely it's worth a punt at a price like that for long-FL owners like Maksutovs?

[John]

There is a limit to how wide the field stop can be in the 1.25" body format and this has the effect that a 32mm eyepiece will show about as much sky as a 40mm in that size. The magnification will be lower in the 40mm of course.

One of my first eyepiece buying mistakes was to get a 32mm and a 40mm plossl. I quickly realised that I did not like the narrower apparent field of the 40mm and that it was not even showing me any wider expanse of sky. So the 40mm went and I didn't miss it.

I did have a 32mm 2" wide angle Orbinar branded eyepiece and that was OK for it's low price. In an F/10 SCT it worked fine but, understandably, the outer parts of the field of view got pretty messy as the focal ration got faster.

[Schorhr]

I have a 30 and 40mm Plössl, the 40 just gives you a larger exit pupil but the same field as a 32mm Plössl. Not really worth it, but I got it cheap ;-)

[Stratis]

Hmmm it's interesting investigating the effect of the longer FL in the Plossl design.... I am genuinely surprised that there is apparent acceptance of an EP with a ~40deg aFoV... simulating such a thing with Stellarium looks like using a jeweller's eyepiece on a planisphere 

There seems to be a number of overwhelmingly positive reviews of these 40mm designs from Meade, Sterling and even TeleVue, enough to make me wonder if people want them for very specific circumstances or just don't know that most other eyepieces have much wider fields.... Similar tFoV does seem to be the case at 1.25" even with the top brands. Is there any point in the design then, I wonder....

I do have an interest in the 2" TeleVue 55mm Plossl though, if it weren't so near the price of a Delos 

[Roo]

I have the 30 mm Orbinar Plossl, and there is an improvement over the 25 mm MA that came with my Skywatcher Explorer 130P, in terms of contrast and clarity. BUT, and it's a big but, the lack of any sort of eyecup means that it's a pain to get your eye in the right position to avoid some quite vicious kidney beaning. I tried to fashion something from a piece of bicycle inner tube, which helped a little bit, but it's all too easy to get blacked right out. For the price, it's not that bad an eyepiece, but I think maybe I should have stuck at 25 mm.

[John]

I have the 30 mm Orbinar Plossl, and there is an improvement over the 25 mm MA that came with my Skywatcher Explorer 130P, in terms of contrast and clarity. BUT, and it's a big but, the lack of any sort of eyecup means that it's a pain to get your eye in the right position to avoid some quite vicious kidney beaning. I tried to fashion something from a piece of bicycle inner tube, which helped a little bit, but it's all too easy to get blacked right out. For the price, it's not that bad an eyepiece, but I think maybe I should have stuck at 25 mm.

Longer focal length eyepieces without eyecups can be problematical in just the way you describe - finding and holding the correct eye position is not easy.

If you can get hold of a 30mm or 32mm plossl with a decent rubber eyecup you will find that it's a great focal length to have in your eyepiece case. The Vixen NPL 30mm is a nice eyepiece for it's price and has an eye cup that can be twisted up and locked in place at a good position for viewing.

[PeterT]

I like my Orbinars.  I bought the 40mm and many in my astronomy club were quite surprised by the comfortable eye relief and clear view. 

A few went out and bought one right away.  Then I went out and bought the 30mm. 

I've looked through many Televues and Explore Scientifics and I can't see paying that price.  The view was not 20X better.

But I'm mostly into AP anyway, so.....

[bill_reed]

I have both the 25mm and the 30mm orbinars eyepiece. I find both to be good, I have a meade ma 25mm eyepiece and think the orbinar 25mm performs better than the meade!!! I think with the higher mm(18 to 40mm) the Orbinar are good, below the 18mm they are just Fair! the orbinar seemed to perform better when used with a barlow or a reducer than the Meade too.

for the price I think the 18mm and above are good value and below 18mm, I like the Antares FMC eyepieces and find there better as the lower mm (18mm down to 5mm) I use an Antares or 7mm that's just great for the planets. I use them on my 6" sky-watcher refractor.

[bomberbaz]

I bought one of these 2 years ago http://www.ukhobbystore.co.uk/eyepieces-/163-40mm-plossl-high-quality-ostara-eyepiece-.html and it looks similar to the orbinar but states 50 degree fov on the page.

Am I right in thinking its referin to all the other ep's and not the 40mm in this instance.

Incidentlly how come a 1.25 has a max 50 degree fov and yet at 2" we are now up to 110 degree's? It doesn't seem to quite add up somehow.

[bingevader]

It's swings and roundabouts Steve.

But actually you can get the 110° EP in 1.25" too.

There was a decent discussion on this recently.

The manufacturers aren't able to exceed the limitations of the field stop, so what you gain in one you lose on the other.

So if the aFOV increases and you are at the limit of the field stop, you then have to reduce the focal length of the EP and so increase the magnification.

Take a look at the TV EP spec page.

I'm not singling them out, it's just that they provide all the measurements!

For comparison (I'll use a field stop of around 21mm because they don't all go to 27mm), a 1.25" 52° plossl at a field stop of 21.2mm will have a FL of 25mm.

Panoptic at 68° at 21.3mm is then 24mm.

A Delos at 72° at 21.2mm is then 17.3mm.

Nagler, 82°, 22.1, 16mm.

Ethos, 100°, 22.3, 13mm.

You just can't exceed the physical limitations of the EP.

I hope that helps.