190 replies to this topic

[Refractor6]

  Yikes...  I'd say the ES scopes are a better bet and the extra cash based off that video. The predecessors by the same maker before ES sold them sold by Antares many years ago, and the 127 from that time period I still have, produced very good diffraction images for achromatic optics and were well built. I suspect the ES ones to be of the same optical and mechanical quality these days.

 

 The replacement objective was certainly nothing to write home about in the video and the first sample of the optics was just plain bad.

[Polyphemos]

Thanks for the link. Hopefully, one of the CN members who have purchased the SVBony SV48P 102mm will be able to provide a similar review to determine whether it's an isolated issue.

Hopefully it’s an isolated case. It’s also possible the problem is with the camera or something else unrelated to the scope. I’m not a photographer so I have no idea, but if I were considering this scope I’d want more info from knowledgeable users before I purchased one. 

[RichA]

The first iteration of the SV48p 102mm was basically unusable.  The later version which I purchased is not like that. The copy I received is a good, solid achromat which performs well. I have no regrets given the $229 payed for it. 

 

The Maks they sell are not the best available, but they are less expensive also. They have a market niche. You understand what you are getting, and your standards are reasonably high, so their Maks are not for you. That’s fine. 

 

I am speaking only of my experience with the SV48p 100mm.  I am one happy customer of the scope. It’s all metal, no plastic. Build like a tank. The focuser is good, not great. Nothing to complain about. It comes very well collimated, which is good because it lacks collimation screws. 3rd mag and dimmer stars are nice round and small airy discs in far less than ideal seeing conditions at low to mid power. Brighter stars and the crappy seeing conditions at my suburban, New England home conspire against testing resolution at higher powers. 
 

Then again I didn’t purchase it for its high power capabilities. It’s a portable, grab & go, fast wide field refractor. That’s the best purpose for any such 102mm f/6.5 achromat. 

 

That’s basically what I have to report, if it helps others to decide on a purchase. 
 

I disagree on the Maks.  They aren't for another tier of market, they are unacceptable, in my opinion, too much SA for them to be considered even fair telescopes.  No one benefits from them floating around the used market either.  B&L SCTs died because of performance like the Svbony scopes, as they should have.  Someone who has the knowledge to tell the difference would be well advised to save their money until they can afford a better grade of Mak.  Those who don't know become victims.  That pretty much included anyone who bought one prior to the truth about them being revealed.

[RichA]

At $599.00, the ES AR 102 comes with a 90 degree diaelectric mirror diagonal and a straight-through finder scope. 

 

SVBony SV48P 102mm scope: $249 .00

SV182 RACI finder: $37.49

SV188P 90 Degree Dielectric Mirror Diagonal: $34.99

 

Total: $321.48

 

I'd consider the SV182 superior to the ES straight through finder scope. Were it me, I'd just get a laser.

The reviews on the page seem to say it's ok, but I'd like to see one actually tested by someone who knows what they are doing.  Also, I HIGHLY doubt that Svbony publishes negative reviews, not one bad one showed up under the MK105, just two lonely positive reviews. 

[sickfish]

At $599.00, the ES AR 102 comes with a 90 degree diaelectric mirror diagonal and a straight-through finder scope. 

 

SVBony SV48P 102mm scope: $249 .00

SV182 RACI finder: $37.49

SV188P 90 Degree Dielectric Mirror Diagonal: $34.99

 

Total: $321.48

 

I'd consider the SV182 superior to the ES straight through finder scope. Were it me, I'd just get a laser.

I was looking at the package they had on the website.

They included a eyepiece and a handle and a few other things..

The ES cell is adjustable. 

The focuser is smooth.

The diagonals are nice.

But it anybody's choice.

[RichA]

I was looking at the package they had on the website.

They included a eyepiece and a handle and a few other things..

The ES cell is adjustable. 

The focuser is smooth.

The diagonals are nice.

But it anybody's choice.

Oops!  ES went up $19.00.

[Russell Swan]

Thanks for the link. Hopefully, one of the CN members who have purchased the SVBony SV48P 102mm will be able to provide a similar review to determine whether it's an isolated issue.

Oh good grief, that review puts on display a horribly distorted example of the scope’s objective lens. Mine is not like that AT ALL. I have offered my impression of the sample I received early in December.  Not one of the early defective ones. The 3rd magnitude and dimmer stars in my sample focus to nice, tiny, round airy discs at low to medium powers visually. I did have to loosen the objective cell which displayed signs of pinched optics, but nothing remotely close to that horribly reviewed example in the video. 

[Russell Swan]

I disagree on the Maks.  They aren't for another tier of market, they are unacceptable, in my opinion, too much SA for them to be considered even fair telescopes.  No one benefits from them floating around the used market either.  B&L SCTs died because of performance like the Svbony scopes, as they should have.  Someone who has the knowledge to tell the difference would be well advised to save their money until they can afford a better grade of Mak.  Those who don't know become victims.  That pretty much included anyone who bought one prior to the truth about them being revealed.

I wouldn’t buy one of the SvBony Maks either, but only because it won’t perform its primary purpose well for me. I agree people should do their homework and understand what they are purchasing. Someone who can tell the difference and is serious will not buy that scope. The same person will not buy a Celestron refractor with plastic parts sold on a rinky dink mount/tripod either. 

 

B&L bought out Criterion and like Criterion marketed the Dynamax cat in direct competition to Celestron’s SCT’s. That’s not what SvBony is doing. 

 

People understand that we get the quality that we pay for generally in this world. People who pay for a cheaper alternative are not victims. They may be realists however. When I was 16 in 1967 I would have given my right pinky for the equivalent of the SvBony Mak, well maybe not, but I was never going to pay for a Questar and I would have had a telescope. That’s better than no scope at all. 

Edited by Russell Swan, 22 March 2025 - 09:06 PM.

[Polyphemos]

Oh good grief, that review puts on display a horribly distorted example of the scope’s objective lens. Mine is not like that AT ALL. I have offered my impression of the sample I received early in December.  Not one of the early defective ones. The 3rd magnitude and dimmer stars in my sample focus to nice, tiny, round airy discs at low to medium powers visually. I did have to loosen the objective cell which displayed signs of pinched optics, but nothing remotely close to that horribly reviewed example in the video. 

It’s fortunate you got a better example, albeit with pinched optics you were knowledgeable enough to correct. Not many beginners would be as comfortable manipulating the over tightened lens cell of a new scope, nor should they need to be. On the other hand it’s possible more beginners wouldn’t notice?

[Russell Swan]

It’s fortunate you got a better example, albeit with pinched optics you were knowledgeable enough to correct. Not many beginners would be as comfortable manipulating the over tightened lens cell of a new scope, nor should they need to be. On the other hand it’s possible more beginners wouldn’t notice?

All I can offer is a first hand assessment of the sample I received. It’s a nice achromat which serves its purpose for me as a low to mid power, wide field alternative to similar offerings. As a compromise for a low price you may want to tweak better performance out of it. Make sure you get a newer one direct from SvBony. 
 

It is what it is, and in my case that’s pretty good. Mine is not majorly flawed in any way, but if you want a Cadillac then pay the price for a Cadillac. As a wide field scope it works well for casual, visual deep sky observation. A Cadillac won’t do much better for that purpose and would be overkill and a waste of money. 

[Jon Isaacs]

Even considering the additional cost of a reasonable mount, the SVBony SV48P 102mm is a hard act to follow in terms of cost of entry; likely less than a fair quality Newtonian reflector on a clunky Dobsonian mount with an awful plastic focuser. I also would recommend the achromat over the Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian mount to a beginner, as I find the Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian mount too heavy and cumbersome, tedious to use and far less precise and versatile than a 102mm refractor on an alt-az.

 

As far as sentimentality goes, I personally don't indulge in it. A 102mm achromat is my preferred platform when it comes to lightweight, quick set up, fully automated grab and go wide field visual observing.

 

It all depends on the individual. Currently Woodland Hills Camera and Telescope is selling Explore Scientific 8 inch Dobs for around $450..

 

8 inch Dobs have metal Crayford focusers, are free of chromatic aberration.. go deeper, resolve more.

 

For some they are big and heavy, for others, they're easy . 

 

I agree the 102 mm F6.5 48P could be a good fit for amateurs of any experience level. Russell Swann is a long time amateur, a Stellafane award winner. He's one of the few posting here who has actual experience with the 102 mm 48P.  He's happy with it.

 

In different circumstances, I believe I could be happy with it. I could definitely enjoy several nights with it. If I were to buy one, I'd almost certainly use it a while but like I always do, like I did with my 90 mm 48P, see someone who could use it more than me and I'd send it along as a gift.

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 23 March 2025 - 10:20 AM.

[Polyphemos]

All I can offer is a first hand assessment of the sample I received. It’s a nice achromat which serves its purpose for me as a low to mid power, wide field alternative to similar offerings. As a compromise for a low price you may want to tweak better performance out of it. Make sure you get a newer one direct from SvBony. 
 

It is what it is, and in my case that’s pretty good. Mine is not majorly flawed in any way, but if you want a Cadillac then pay the price for a Cadillac. As a wide field scope it works well for casual, visual deep sky observation. A Cadillac won’t do much better for that purpose and would be overkill and a waste of money. 

This reminds me of the SvBony SV225 mount situation. I’ve purchased three of them. For me, for the price and capacity, for the robustness and quality of construction, they’re great.

 

They’ve also all been defective from the factory, just like your scope and the scope in the video review. Setting circles have been installed and hammered onto their seats upside down rendering them useless, and hardware that holds the mount axis together have unscrewed enough to make the mounts wobbly.

 

No problem; I disassembled the mounts and replaced or adhesive fixed the hardware, and I pried off and reinstalled the setting circles in their correct orientation after filing down their seats to the correct diameter. I made a thread about it. The mounts work fine now.

 

I like the SV225 mounts because I can fix them and end up with something worth having at a bargain price, just like you with your scope. Where we differ is that I don’t think or suggest that a buyer should expect or accept upside down components, self disassembling hardware, or pinched optics because they didn’t pay “Cadillac” prices for their purchase.
 

You like your scope, I like my mounts, good. But both are better suited to the owner with the tools and skills to fix them upon arrival and less so to the beginner starting out. If I weren’t able to fix my mounts I don’t think I would have liked them very much. If you didn’t know how to fix the pinched optics of your scope and had to accept them as they came would you still be happy with yours? 

[Russell Swan]

This reminds me of the SvBony SV225 mount situation. I’ve purchased three of them. For me, for the price and capacity, for the robustness and quality of construction, they’re great.

 

They’ve also all been defective from the factory, just like your scope and the scope in the video review. Setting circles have been installed and hammered onto their seats upside down rendering them useless, and hardware that holds the mount axis together have unscrewed enough to make the mounts wobbly.

 

No problem; I disassembled the mounts and replaced or adhesive fixed the hardware, and I pried off and reinstalled the setting circles in their correct orientation after filing down their seats to the correct diameter. I made a thread about it. The mounts work fine now.

 

I like the SV225 mounts because I can fix them and end up with something worth having at a bargain price, just like you with your scope. Where we differ is that I don’t think or suggest that a buyer should expect or accept upside down components, self disassembling hardware, or pinched optics because they didn’t pay “Cadillac” prices for their purchase.
 

You like your scope, I like my mounts, good. But both are better suited to the owner with the tools and skills to fix them upon arrival and less so to the beginner starting out. If I weren’t able to fix my mounts I don’t think I would have liked them very much. If you didn’t know how to fix the pinched optics of your scope and had to accept them as they came would you still be happy with yours? 

“If you didn’t know how to fix the pinched optics of your scope and had to accept them as they came would you still be happy with yours?”

 

No I wouldn’t be happy with it. I am not hiding the fact that I found the need to make the adjustments. I agree that ideally we should not have to do so. However, I think I understand how an otherwise very robustly built scope can be offered at its low price point. It’s less than the 90mm version for goodness sake or was anyway. 
 

The 48p’s are their low end models, built like the 503 ED version. Cost cutting demands compromise somewhere, and in this case it’s the details in attention payed to assembly at the factory. The 48p’s are obviously not bench tested before being boxed. 
 

Just understand what you are likely to receive. It’s a relative bargain for what it offers. I’d rather have it than a similar offering from another company for more money that comes with a crappy mount and tripod. 

Edited by Russell Swan, 24 March 2025 - 08:08 AM.

[Polyphemos]

“If you didn’t know how to fix the pinched optics of your scope and had to accept them as they came would you still be happy with yours?”

 

No I wouldn’t be happy with it. I am not hiding the fact that I found the need to make the adjustments. I agree that ideally we should not have to do so. However, I think I understand how an otherwise very robustly built scope can be offered at its low price point. It’s less than the 90mm version for goodness sake or was anyway. 
 

The 48p’s are their low end models, built like the 503 EV version. Cost cutting demands compromise somewhere, and in this case it’s the details in attention payed to assembly at the factory. The 48p’s are obviously not bench tested before being boxed. 
 

Just understand what you are likely to receive. It’s a relative bargain for what it offers. I’d rather have it than a similar offering from another company for more money that comes with a crappy mount and tripod.

Agreed

[John R.]

I am puzzled by two different offers on ebay, both for $229.00, one from Svbony_Au (Australia?) that ships from the US. And another from Svbony that also ships from the US. 
In the photos they show two different looking sets of tube rings. In the photo it is hard to see how the rings loosen to rotate the tube. 
 

[Mike W]

I am puzzled by two different offers on ebay, both for $229.00, one from Svbony_Au (Australia?) that ships from the US. And another from Svbony that also ships from the US. 
In the photos they show two different looking sets of tube rings. In the photo it is hard to see how the rings loosen to rotate the tube. 
 

Four bolts hold the two halves together. No hinges and no thumb screws. (keeps cost down) I am puzzled why more people don't look at the SV503 f7 ED that has rotatable focuser, sliding dew shield and hinged tube rings? More money but better value.

Edited by Mike W, 23 March 2025 - 02:26 PM.

[Polyphemos]

I am puzzled by two different offers on ebay, both for $229.00, one from Svbony_Au (Australia?) that ships from the US. And another from Svbony that also ships from the US. 
In the photos they show two different looking sets of tube rings. In the photo it is hard to see how the rings loosen to rotate the tube. 
 

SvBony has a North American distributor in Southern California. If you’re in the states, and the SvBony warehouse in SCal has it in stock, you’re likely to get it drop shipped from them whether you purchase the item on their Amazon, Hong Kong, AliExpress store, or from some other authorized dealer.

[MJB87]

Let’s please stay focused on the topic. Off-topic posts are being removed. We really don’t want to have to lock the thread since the underlying material is highly relevant.

[Russell Swan]

Four bolts hold the two halves together. No hinges and no thumb screws. (keeps cost down) I am puzzled why more people don't look at the SV503 f7 ED that has rotatable focuser, sliding dew shield and hinged tube rings? More money but better value.

I would venture to say more people do buy an SV503 ED than the 48p achromat. It’s a better, more versatile scope. 

 

The point here is that if one wants a fast achromat for whatever reason this 102mm offering is just fine and at a good price. Lots of people have purchased the Orion ST80 over the years and this SvBony is significantly more capable and a better build. 
 

Edited by Russell Swan, 24 March 2025 - 08:09 AM.

[Mike W]

I would venture to say more people do buy an SV503 EV than the 48p achromat. It’s a better, more versatile scope. 

 

The point here is that if one wants a fast achromat for whatever reason this 102mm offering is just fine and at a good price. Lots of people have purchased the Orion ST80 over the years and this SvBony is significantly more capable and a better build. 
 

I agree at this price point and is you must have an f6.5 not an f7. 

[Spinwiz]

I trust Ed's objectivity.  But manufacturers have been sending reviewers products that have been worked over, adjusted, optimized for a long, long time.  The assumption Ed made was that a consumer would be purchasing a scope like this one rather than the first one.  

 

When a scope is sent by a manufacturer to a reviewer at the manufacturer's request... You have to keep your eyes open. 

 

Hopefully it is a good scope.  And at $229, it is a bargain if it is not seriously flawed optically. Even if the focuser is as funky as the 90mm 48P, it is still usable and better than other focusers in the 102mm F/6.5 achromat market. 

 

Jon

Maybe it is me but I'd expect that the end user would be adjusting his scope some anyways.
 

[Spinwiz]

You will learn that all the expert critics will, by chance, leave out any little quick fixes that could very easily aleviate a small issue for a beginer or even some experienced astronomers ie a focuser adjustment. Its their trade secret, part of their critic, maybe a I know more than you secret. It happens not just in astronomy and Ed T knows this by his expression, his chuckles. For his stature in several fields Ed is a pretty down to earth astronomer giving us a good basic lesson on his chosen subject for the nite, good enough for most to form their thoughts around it. I think he expects our own intelligence to kick in on the whatever subject not just robitize on his half hour presentations, we are thinking for ourselves humans, right. LOL !  PS:  A couple of his long ago reports on a couple of older refractors, Chinese built in the mid 90's, got me searching for and buying them, they were very good scopes, I never regretted it and passed them on after trying them in my Bortle 5 backyard and my Bortle 1 remote camp. Ed is the man, for sure, eh !

I'm not sure where you are coming from here but I would expect any telescope user to have the ability to adjust a focuser.   For that matter adjust and setup the scope.   If somebody can't pull the scope from its case and mount it properly that is not the manufactures fault.   In Ed's case ( really like many of his videos) he seems to gloss over the mechanical in favor of the optical qualities of a particular scope and frankly that is what I want to see.   Yeah he may mention a poor mount or wobbly focusers but ultimately what I need to know is the status of the optics.

[LDW47]

I'm not sure where you are coming from here but I would expect any telescope user to have the ability to adjust a focuser.   For that matter adjust and setup the scope.   If somebody can't pull the scope from its case and mount it properly that is not the manufactures fault.   In Ed's case ( really like many of his videos) he seems to gloss over the mechanical in favor of the optical qualities of a particular scope and frankly that is what I want to see.   Yeah he may mention a poor mount or wobbly focusers but ultimately what I need to know is the status of the optics.

Ya whatever, maybe he's not in the review business of mechanical tinkering, how many other reviewers similar dig into the mechanics that are being razed on these forums, I don't recall many over many years. He leaves it up to whomever, lol, eh.  Ed does what he does very well ie present a general, genuine accessment of the optical performance of the subject scope incl. AP capabilities,  there are no tools in his back pocket. So mentioning having a friend do some adjustments is nothing to be ashamed of at all, its the cost of doing business. I don't think he would call it glossing over, he's not in that end of the business, let the manufacturer adjust those growing pains, they always do. As I have said, Ed is the man, eh !

Edited by LDW47, 23 March 2025 - 10:07 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

Four bolts hold the two halves together. No hinges and no thumb screws. (keeps cost down) I am puzzled why more people don't look at the SV503 f7 ED that has rotatable focuser, sliding dew shield and hinged tube rings? More money but better value.

 

$229 versus $599..  If the $229 scope does the job you want it to do... $229 for a decent 4 inch achromat with a 2 speed focuser, that seems like a lot of value.

 

I'd really like to spend a week with a Svbony 102 mm 48P.  Set it up next to the WO ZenithStar 103, a 4 inch F/7 FPL-53 doublet.. I wouldn't be expecting similar planetary and double star views but the low to mid power stuff would be interesting and the closer doubles would be of interest. 

 

Jon

[RichA]

I wouldn’t buy one of the SvBony Maks either, but only because it won’t perform its primary purpose well for me. I agree people should do their homework and understand what they are purchasing. Someone who can tell the difference and is serious will not buy that scope. The same person will not buy a Celestron refractor with plastic parts sold on a rinky dink mount/tripod either. 

 

B&L bought out Criterion and like Criterion marketed the Dynamax cat in direct competition to Celestron’s SCT’s. That’s not what SvBony is doing. 

 

People understand that we get the quality that we pay for generally in this world. People who pay for a cheaper alternative are not victims. They may be realists however. When I was 16 in 1967 I would have given my right pinky for the equivalent of the SvBony Mak, well maybe not, but I was never going to pay for a Questar and I would have had a telescope. That’s better than no scope at all. 

Disagree on two points.  People had no idea what to expect years ago when 6 inch apos showed up from China at $2500. Unheard of.   Someone had to try one.  Turned out, most were decent.  So "you get what you pay for" in that case was turned on its head.  A sea-change had happened.  But no one knew it until they tried them.  As far as using a bad scope as opposed to no scope?  I don't know.  If you were ignorant about expected telescope performance you might be satisfied.  But once you've been exposed to good optics, you tend not to want bad.