523 replies to this topic

[RLK1]

Here's a review, apparently of a pre-production model:   https://star--hunter...en&_x_tr_pto=sc

[ihf]

I hope it could be made without undercuts. Then again the undercut is so high up to be unusable?

Edited by ihf, 27 August 2022 - 02:26 PM.

[RLK1]

It'll be interesting to know how it does in larger scopes especially on the moon and brighter planets. I see the reviewer notes it's not for observers with glasses and that probably takes out a large chunk of users. I don't need glasses so I might consider it as the reported eye relief of 11mm is more than adequate for me. I like the click-stop feature, too. 

It's also of interest that the reviewer notes he was in contact with Svbony engineers on this one so it appears Svbony does some of its own design and production, as they have previously claimed, and is not solely a reseller.

[ihf]

From my investigations SVBONY is just a reseller. But maybe they have placed an exclusive order, like other resellers of Superzooms sometimes do. Nothing bad about it.

 

I do need glasses. But I at these focal lengths I may not really need them...

[MortonH]

I hope it could be made without undercuts. Then again the undercut is so high up to be unusable?

The undercut position is the same as the Nagler zoom.

[Star-Hunter]

Hi to all. Hello. I am the author of that test - by the way, it is available in English without translator - use the language switcher.

If you have any questions about the eyepiece - ask, I will be happy to answer.

Edited by Star-Hunter, 28 August 2022 - 09:42 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

Hi to all. Hello. I am the author of that test - by the way, it is available in English without translator https://star-hunter....-3-8-mm-review/

If you have any questions about the eyepiece - ask, I will be happy to answer.

Any idea on what it will cost?

 

Jon

[Star-Hunter]

Any idea on what it will cost?

 

Jon

Nearly 150 dollars

[george tatsis]

Any idea on the number of elements and groups?

 

George

[firemachine69]

Nearly 150 dollars

 

 

   

 

 

Dear SVbony. You're bumping into Televue price territory. The performance better be consistently better than TV if you expect me to pay that much for a glorified click-stop Plossl coming out of mainland China. 

Edited by firemachine69, 28 August 2022 - 10:10 AM.

[Star-Hunter]

Any idea on the number of elements and groups?

 

George

I will try to get this info from Svbony directly. But i think it has 5 or 6 lenses, not more.

[Star-Hunter]

   

 

 

Dear SVbony. You're bumping into Televue price territory. The performance better be consistently better than TV if you expect me to pay that much for a glorified click-stop Plossl coming out of mainland China. 

I will be able to compare this eyepiece with a nagler 3-6 mm after September 4th. I myself am very interested.

[ihf]

Could you figure out why the eyecup is so large? I could imagine that some might want to try it in binoviewers. But maybe only users of the linear viewer would ever consider that idea and this focal range really is for mono viewing.

[Star-Hunter]

Could you figure out why the eyecup is so large? I could imagine that some might want to try it in binoviewers. But maybe only users of the linear viewer would ever consider that idea and this focal range really is for mono viewing.

Perhaps a large eyecup is needed for better light protection. You can fold the eyecup or remove it altogether.

[RLK1]

I sent a message to Svbony asking them when the eyepiece will become available. Their message form appears to have a glitch or two in it so we'll see what, if any, response, I'll get...

[ihf]

Perhaps a large eyecup is needed for better light protection. You can fold the eyecup or remove it altogether.

There seems to be a large diameter metal plate/ring under the rubber, which is what make it larger than the Nagler. Is that metal ring also removable to get a more narrow diameter eyepiece top?

[SeattleScott]

Dear SVbony. You're bumping into Televue price territory. The performance better be consistently better than TV if you expect me to pay that much for a glorified click-stop Plossl coming out of mainland China.

Looks like TV Nagler zoom is $429. Under $150 is approximately 1/3 the cost. Not exactly TV territory. Not even BHZ territory.

A short focal length zoom is for high power viewing such as planetary, double stars. I would rather pay a bit more for something good quality. The lower magnification range, say 8-24mm, isn’t as critical to have high quality optics. It makes sense that this would be more expensive. Whether it will appeal to SVBONY zoom buyers used to $50 zooms is another question.

Scott

[Star-Hunter]

Looks like TV Nagler zoom is $429. Under $150 is approximately 1/3 the cost. Not exactly TV territory. Not even BHZ territory.

A short focal length zoom is for high power viewing such as planetary, double stars. I would rather pay a bit more for something good quality. The lower magnification range, say 8-24mm, isn’t as critical to have high quality optics. It makes sense that this would be more expensive. Whether it will appeal to SVBONY zoom buyers used to $50 zooms is another question.

Scott

In general, a short-focus zoom eyepiece is a rather specific device, but the ability to quickly adjust the magnification is very convenient. For example, I observed the Sun yesterday with a Herschel wedge and a 66 mm f/6 ED telescope. With this zoom eyepiece, I went from seeing the full disk of the Sun to 133x without having to change the eyepiece. I did not notice any glare when observing the Sun, the sharpness and contrast are good. In no case do I defend this eyepiece - I am a user demanding aberrations. In any case, I recommend waiting for my Luna testing and comparison with the Nagler 3-6.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Star-Hunter, 28 August 2022 - 01:35 PM.

[Star-Hunter]

There seems to be a large diameter metal plate/ring under the rubber, which is what make it larger than the Nagler. Is that metal ring also removable to get a more narrow diameter eyepiece top?

No, the metal plate is one of the main parts of the eyepiece. However, I did not have any problems with ergonomics despite the fact that my nose is quite large.

[Polyphemos]

Hi to all. Hello. I am the author of that test - by the way, it is available in English without translator - use the language switcher.

If you have any questions about the eyepiece - ask, I will be happy to answer.

Has SvBony given you any information on when they plan on releasing the eyepiece to the general public?

[Star-Hunter]

Has SvBony given you any information on when they plan on releasing the eyepiece to the general public?

Unfortunately no. Perhaps this is an engineering sample. It is possible that improvements will be made based on the experience of my operation and other testers. The only serious complaint about this eyepiece is the visible reflections on the planets. Eye relief suits me personally, although it is not suitable for use with glasses. If it turns out that the NZ 3-6 also blinking, and the image quality is comparable, then why pay more?

[ihf]

then why pay more?

Avoiding sample variation could be one reason for paying a higher price. Also how the zoom fits into an existing system. For instance the parfocality of the Nagler Zoom is at F=0.25 as most other TV eyepieces.

 

There are a few nice eyepieces (or other goods) sold by SVBONY. Most items are not nice, but acceptable for the price. Furthermore, most items they sell are a random grab bag of things made by different manufacturer, which SVBONY could contract on the cheap and slap their logo on. Contrast this with a well planned and fitting system, that manufacturers charging higher prices offer (say Baader, Pentax, Nikon etc). Maybe that is not a problem with something as simple as eyepieces. But with in my experience often some unexpected surprises reveal themselves after the return period is over.

[Star-Hunter]

Avoiding sample variation could be one reason for paying a higher price. Also how the zoom fits into an existing system. For instance the parfocality of the Nagler Zoom is at F=0.25 as most other TV eyepieces.

 

There are a few nice eyepieces (or other goods) sold by SVBONY. Most items are not nice, but acceptable for the price. Furthermore, most items they sell are a random grab bag of things made by different manufacturer, which SVBONY could contract on the cheap and slap their logo on. Contrast this with a well planned and fitting system, that manufacturers charging higher prices offer (say Baader, Pentax, Nikon etc). Maybe that is not a problem with something as simple as eyepieces. But with in my experience often some unexpected surprises reveal themselves after the return period is over.

Absolutely agree with you. This is what testing is for, preferably by several independent users with extensive observational experience. Unfortunately, I have already become convinced that absolutely everything needs to be checked, and well-known brands too. Very thorough and meticulous. In any case, I received the eyepiece and wrote down my impressions, as well as taking some measurements that may be useful for both the manufacturer and other users.

[Polyphemos]

Avoiding sample variation could be one reason for paying a higher price.

I would also agree if the reality matched perception; unfortunately it does not in my very limited experience. My experience agrees with Russian’s in that absolutely everything needs to be checked, including and especially the best regarded brands with the smallest outputs.  

 

Sample variance as a percentage of output from smaller companies producing small numbers of units seems to me to be significantly greater than the sample variance of companies producing products in the tens of thousands of units.  I attribute this to uniformity in production being much more important when mass producing large numbers of units where the cost of an error is significantly greater, than it is when producing small numbers of units, more or less to order.  If you whip out 40,000 bad eyepieces before you catch an error you’ve got a huge problem; if you make a bad eyepiece every now and then it’s a much smaller problem that can usually be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

Over the past several months I’ve returned TeleVue, Astrophysics, and Gitzo products for correction/replacement, but I’ve never returned an SvBony product despite having purchased many times more of them.  Granted my sample set is very small, but my experience suggests that spending more to reduce sample variation often results in the opposite effect.  The reason I spend more is to get a superior product, not a less variable one.

Edited by Polyphemos, 28 August 2022 - 05:31 PM.

[RichA]

I hope it could be made without undercuts. Then again the undercut is so high up to be unusable?

As long as a set screw or brass collar edge doesn't happen to impact exactly at the tilted edge of the undercut.