Scope Critics....Sebens Worst Nightmare

[Scott]

Whilst I have no way of giving an educated opinion of Seben 'scopes there seems to be many members of the forum who are prepared to utterly destroy the reputation of these 'scopes. This got me thinking....Either A LOT of members have fallen into the trap of purchasing one of these scopes or there are a lot of members prepare to slate these on the word of others. Now I'm not saying a word of caution is uncalled for, indeed it's what stopped me from buying one, but I do wonder, of the dozens (if not hundreds) of members declaring that these scopes are nothing more than a fancy umbrella/potplant holder, how many have actually looked through one or indeed, knows someone first hand who has?.

Now as I've said, there's nothing wrong with a warning that these 'scopes have not got the best of names in astronomy circles, but the last thread I looked at, of the dozen or so replies, I think I only saw one post that mentioned "although I've not looked through on of these scopes, they do not have the best of reputations", so either the rest have fallen prey to the hype of the seben website or they're quite prepared to slate these scopes giving the impression that they actually have experience with these scopes rather than letting us know that it's "just what they've heard"

One last word....I may have been guilty of this and if so, I apoligise. I have heeded the warnings here on sgl and won't be buying seben (rightly or wrongly).

This post is in no way meant to reflect on the quality (or lack of) of these scopes.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have seen some absolute horror stories from reputable reviewers (cannot seem to find a CN review at the moment). The Seben zoom 8-24 mm EP gets good reports, however.

[Scott]

I have seen some absolute horror stories from reputable reviewers (cannot seem to find a CN review at the moment). The Seben zoom 8-24 mm EP gets good reports, however.

Oh Michael, Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there aren't reputable reviewers with genuine horror stories. I'm just curious as to how many people who slate them here have had or personally know someone who has had experience with them and how many are just jumping on the "trash Seben" band wagon.

[DeepThought]

I haven't owned any Seben scopes, nor do I intend to, but if someone turned up in the beginners' section saying that they were about to buy one, I would feel duty bound to point out their reputation.

If people could only give opinions on equipment they have actually used then advice would be pretty thin on the ground where the lower quality kit is concerned because nobody here uses it.

[Scott]

I haven't owned any Seben scopes, nor do I intend to, but if someone turned up in the beginners' section saying that they were about to buy one, I would feel duty bound to point out their reputation.

If people could only give opinions on equipment they have actually used then advice would be pretty thin on the ground where the lower quality kit is concerned because nobody here uses it.

If you reread my opening post I am saying that this is the right and reasonable thing to do. The point I am TRYING to make is that you should state that you have had no experience however they do not get favorable reviews and unless you HAVE used one and can therefore state from experience that this scope is only suitable for use as an umbrella stand then you shouldn't make such claims. I thought I made this obvious in my opening post......maybe not.

[Macavity]

Reviews are about concensus? I think it testament to e.g. Baader Hyperions that they made ANY inroads into the "Sea of Green" (Teleview) panegyrics on CN. lol. Nevertheless claims (reviews) of "tack sharp to the edge" seem a tad extravagant? Particularly in today's harsh (but fair SGL) light.

I found CN a rather harsh environment - "Fools" ARE not suffered gladly? You had to suffer the "ritual humiliation" (Nothing new here!) to find out about stuff from experts. But many genuinely knew their stuff.

A lot of adages get repeated: "Maksutovs are planetary only scopes".

So it is with Astronomy Forums? Many things are somewhat true etc.

Sometimes I buy stuff to "prove experts wrong". Doesn't always work!

[Stargazer_00]

I agree with the point above actually. I personally haven't looked through a Seben but I have heard a number of people whose opinions I respect state that they aren't good. And to that effect I have no problem passing that opinion along to others as a warning, such is the benefit of an open intellegent community sharing its knowledge freely.

As I understand it some/all of their reflectors use spherical mirrors instead of parabolic which means they are not good.

[Peter Drew]

Well I've had direct hands on experience of two 6" Seben Newtonians, one a short tube Bird Jones design and the other a native focal length conventional design. Both were nicely finished cosmetically and the mounts were no better or worse than similar offerings from the more popular makes. The crunch was with the optical performance. The short tube version gave poor initial performance and was a real pig to collimate due to the built in Barlow and the very imprecise secondary adjustments. After modifying the secondary holder with the usual extra washer mod it was possible to get reasonable collimation. The stock eyepieces were of average quality, the other optical accessories were bin fodder. Side by side comparison with a good Tal 6" Newtonian showed the Tal to be better on Jupiter, however the Seben still showed the main belts and the moons, things a beginner would be pleased to see, the Moon was not available but I think it would have impressed a newcomer. On deep sky objects there was little to choose between them. The conventional Seben 6" was pretty much the same for build quality, the collimation was slightly out and was no problem to rectify, the accessories appeared to be the same. No chance yet to test it on the night sky but a terrestrial test on a known object showed promise. Overall I would not recommend either as a first choice but at a low secondhand price or an uninformed new purchase it's not the end of the world, it would help to know someone experienced in these matters, a complete newbie might well struggle.

[Scott]

My point Still seems to have missed its target so I'll try again. Yes, It is right to warn people that these scopes have had bad reviews..No, It is NOT right to say that they are fit for umbrella stands without actually seeing one.

Is it not the right thing to do to point out that you are pointing out a general concern or is it better to mislead the person that you have some sort of experience with the scope

[John]

Here is the CN review that Michael referred to above. It's the same instrument as the Seben 150/1400 Big Boss as far as I can see:

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1105

I've owned a couple of Seben eyepieces, a 2" 32mm SWA which was OK, nothing special, just OK and the 8-24mm zoom which seemed to be a clone of the ones available under many brands, including Skywatcher. For what it cost, the zoom worked quite well in the 8mm-15mm range but got mushy as the field narrowed and the focal length extended to 18mm and beyond. For a cheap zoom it was quite usable though.

It's difficult to recommend the scopes though, when there are a number of ones of proven quality available for more or less the same money.

[Macavity]

Personally, I haven't seen THAT many opinions expressed re. Seben eyepieces here.

From reviews, I keep the name in mind re. the possibility of a budget ZOOM eyepiece.

[Moonshane]

Peter's comments confirm what I suspected. This is a budget scope which in the right hands can perform satisfactorily at least. This is the critical thing though I suppose, it needs to be owned by someone who is or has access to someone who is, experienced. The vast majority of experienced people would not buy one and the vast majority of inexperienced peple probably don't have access to someone who is experienced and therefore find the views disappointing.

Then again, a badly collimated Skywatcher dob would in the hands on an inexperienced observer produced poor views too. the point is I suppose that there are better options for the same sort of money and hopefully we can advise new users accordingly.

[Scott]

Well I've had direct hands on experience of two 6" Seben Newtonians, one a short tube Bird Jones design and the other a native focal length conventional design. Both were nicely finished cosmetically and the mounts were no better or worse than similar offerings from the more popular makes. The crunch was with the optical performance. The short tube version gave poor initial performance and was a real pig to collimate due to the built in Barlow and the very imprecise secondary adjustments. After modifying the secondary holder with the usual extra washer mod it was possible to get reasonable collimation. The stock eyepieces were of average quality, the other optical accessories were bin fodder. Side by side comparison with a good Tal 6" Newtonian showed the Tal to be better on Jupiter, however the Seben still showed the main belts and the moons, things a beginner would be pleased to see, the Moon was not available but I think it would have impressed a newcomer. On deep sky objects there was little to choose between them. The conventional Seben 6" was pretty much the same for build quality, the collimation was slightly out and was no problem to rectify, the accessories appeared to be the same. No chance yet to test it on the night sky but a terrestrial test on a known object showed promise. Overall I would not recommend either as a first choice but at a low secondhand price or an uninformed new purchase it's not the end of the world, it would help to know someone experienced in these matters, a complete newbie might well struggle.

Here is the CN review that Michael referred to above. It's the same instrument as the Seben 150/1400 Big Boss as far as I can see:

http://www.cloudynig...hp?item_id=1105

I've owned a couple of Seben eyepieces, a 2" 32mm SWA which was OK, nothing special, just OK and the 8-24mm zoom which seemed to be a clone of the ones available under many brands, including Skywatcher. For what it cost, the zoom worked quite well in the 8mm-15mm range but got mushy as the field narrowed and the focal length extended to 18mm and beyond. For a cheap zoom it was quite usable though.

It's difficult to recommend the scopes though, when there are a number of ones of proven quality available for more or less the same money.

Peter's comments confirm what I suspected. This is a budget scope which in the right hands can perform satisfactorily at least. This is the critical thing though I suppose, it needs to be owned by someone who is or has access to someone who is, experienced. The vast majority of experienced people would not buy one and the vast majority of inexperienced peple probably don't have access to someone who is experienced and therefore find the views disappointing.

Then again, a badly collimated Skywatcher dob would in the hands on an inexperienced observer produced poor views too. the point is I suppose that there are better options for the same sort of money and hopefully we can advise new users accordingly.

These are the type of replies some one enquiring about a product deserves. If you want to say some thing is sub standard, fine, but back it up with some kind of explanation, not some throw away comment. otherwise it could sound like a "fords better than vauxhall coz it's a ford " type comment

[Macavity]

I found the CN REVIEW had an over lengthy "preamble" - So many appeals to author experience, his fairness, the references to "China", to "Ebay". So "reasonable" (and honorable) I was reminded of Mark Antony's speech on Brutus. <G> And in a sense I was prepared for a rather swingeing review.

More amused than convinced / worried though? Aside: I slightly wince at the "trusted friend" stuff. The "in house style" of CN? But then they have (aspiring) "Den Mothers" too! lol. Unadorned Objectivity is to be preferred here. I rather recall the author as giving good advice generally...

[John]

These are the type of replies some one enquiring about a product deserves. If you want to say some thing is sub standard, fine, but back it up with some kind of explanation, not some throw away comment. otherwise it could sound like a "fords better than vauxhall coz it's a ford " type comment

I agree that throwaway, dismissive comments on any product are not helpful and especially if the person making the comments has no personal experience of the item.

I'm also wary of phrases such as "X blows away Y". My experience is that the performance differences even between low and high cost items are often much more subtle than that.

[pete_l]

The problem seems to me that compared with other, more expensive scopes, the Seben ones aren't as good. However, when you take them at face value I suspect that they would compare extremely favourably to a lot of the "high end" telescopes that people bought in the 1960s and 1970s, when a £50 telescope was 2 or 3 weeks pay.

I have one in the cupboard and for what it cost, it's good enough. It's something you could give to a child and not have to worry if it ended up face down in the sandpit, or a puddle. Would I recommend that someone buys one as an introduction to astronomy? Probably not, but if they did then it would give them views that they wouldn't be able to see without it, so in that respect it would still have been worth the money.

[DeepThought]

I'm not sure how to take this thread.

On the rare occasions that I do feel qualified to give any sort of advice, it is always given on my own time and with the best of intentions; I presume that is true of practically everyone else here too.

I'd hate to think that the advice we give is subject to any sort of peer scrutiny aside from the usual moderation. If it were then I suspect it wouldn't be given so freely.

[Pig]

A person without data is merely expressing an opinion I agree with auspom.

[DeepThought]

And there was me thinking I was being helpful.

Point taken, there's now one less person giving their opinion on here.

[rowan46]

I agree that throwaway, dismissive comments on any product are not helpful and especially if the person making the comments has no personal experience of the item.

I'm also wary of phrases such as "X blows away Y". My experience is that the performance differences even between low and high cost items are often much more subtle than that.

I have used that term on several occasions when comparing the 200p to the 130p and I stand by it as my opinion, Having said that. Is not much of what we give out subjective opinion or must every thing have a technical value I am not qualified in optical analysis couldn't tell you what the strehl value was on any of the scopes I have looked through does this mean I can't or shouldn't expess an opinion. I do hope that's not what's being said. I use the language I am comfortable with if its a problem that its not technical enough perhaps I am in the wrong place. I do hope this is not some sort of elitist thing. John I am not particularly picking on your post its just that yours seems to have drawn several strands together that are running through the thread and clarified them for me.

[Stargazer_00]

As I've said again, i've no personal experience of these scopes but look at these:

Here we have the "Star Sheriff"

http://www.amazon.co...pd_sim_sbs_ph_4

and here the infamous "Big Boss"

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/B00692THU2

Now, even with no personal experience of these telescopes my own experience with better quality ones tells me immediately that both of these scopes are utter [removed word].

I could just leave it there but given the theme of the thread I'll refrain from leaving a throw away comment lying around and back it up with my rationalle:

1. The focuser on both look rubbish. They are at least 1.25" but I wouldn't put anything other than a plossl in them in case it fell out. They look like R&P, and not the expensive kind. The focuser nobs are the give away that its toilet.

2. The "Big Boss" is has a 1400mm focal length and is a catadioptric system. As no other respectable brands have this formula it leads me to believe its rubbish. Is this the Bird jones one? That'd made sense given the usual 150mm aperture in this form factor has 750mm focal length and this does look pyhiscally shorter so 1400mm focal length would make sense if it had a barlow jammed in the focuser. This one does appear to have a long part sticking out the draw tube.

3. The mount on both looks flimsy, if it looks flimsy then it will be.

4.The Star Sheriff says it has a limiting magnitude of 12.8 as it has a "huge" 114mm aperture.

5. The Star Sheriff says it has modern construction, a 1.25" eyepiece accessory which means you can use a motor on it !!

6. No brand I'd take seriously names it's scope after a Bruce Lee film.

I could probably take this list on to 20 or more point with absolutely no experience of either scope. However to a beginner none of this would be off putting and may in fact lure them in, which is a further reason to despise the shameless garbage they are spouting to get people to buy what is clearly (to a more experienced eye) an absolute lemon.

So no, I don't believe you do need to have experience to steer someone away from either of these offerings.

For pretty much the same money as the Bruce Lee you can buy a 130p Flextube which is a cult offering and is clearly pleasing to many of users on this forum. And second hand you could probably get a 150p Dob for that money which would clean the floor with it.

EDIT: Maybe that's my biggest issue with them. They are poor value for money. if they were not (in my opinion) mis-sold in their descriptions and sold for around £50- £75 I wouldn't really be quite as peeved that they exist. They would offer at least something to the ignorant beginner.

I would like, one day, to get one of these and use it as an Umbrella stand.

[Pig]

Don't you just love passion

[Scott]

As I've said again, i've no personal experience of these scopes but look at these:

Here we have the "Star Sheriff"

http://www.amazon.co...pd_sim_sbs_ph_4

and here the infamous "Big Boss"

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/B00692THU2

Now, even with no personal experience of these telescopes my own experience with better quality ones tells me immediately that both of these scopes are utter [removed word].

I could just leave it there but given the theme of the thread I'll refrain from leaving a throw away comment lying around and back it up with my rationalle:

1. The focuser on both look rubbish. They are at least 1.25" but I wouldn't put anything other than a plossl in them in case it fell out. They look like R&P, and not the expensive kind. The focuser nobs are the give away that its toilet.

2. The "Big Boss" is has a 1400mm focal length and is a catadioptric system. As no other respectable brands have this formula it leads me to believe its rubbish. Is this the Bird jones one? That'd made sense given the usual 150mm aperture in this form factor has 750mm focal length and this does look pyhiscally shorter so 1400mm focal length would make sense if it had a barlow jammed in the focuser. This one does appear to have a long part sticking out the draw tube.

3. The mount on both looks flimsy, if it looks flimsy then it will be.

4.The Star Sheriff says it has a limiting magnitude of 12.8 as it has a "huge" 114mm aperture.

5. The Star Sheriff says it has modern construction, a 1.25" eyepiece accessory which means you can use a motor on it !!

6. No brand I'd take seriously names it's scope after a Bruce Lee film.

I could probably take this list on to 20 or more point with absolutely no experience of either scope. However to a beginner none of this would be off putting and may in fact lure them in, which is a further reason to despise the shameless garbage they are spouting to get people to buy what is clearly (to a more experienced eye) an absolute lemon.

So no, I don't believe you do need to have experience to steer someone away from either of these offerings.

For pretty much the same money as the Bruce Lee you can buy a 130p Flextube which is a cult offering and is clearly pleasing to many of users on this forum. And second hand you could probably get a 150p Dob for that money which would clean the floor with it.

EDIT: Maybe that's my biggest issue with them. They are poor value for money. if they were not (in my opinion) mis-sold in their descriptions and sold for around £50- £75 I wouldn't really be quite as peeved that they exist. They would offer at least something to the ignorant beginner.

I would like, one day, to get one of these and use it as an Umbrella stand.

Now, you see, If I read this post I'd think "this person has done his homework" As I've said repeatedly, there's no harm in informing someone that you feel a product is inferior (in fact it's preferable), but there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that you are only quoting general concensus (in fact it's preferable).

Seems to me that although I stated in my opening post (twice in fact) that advicing people of the general concensus is a good thing, many people have chosen to ignore this. Oh well, such is life.

[John]

The trouble is that pictures can be a deceptive way to reach conclusions on a scope. Look at the little fella below for example. Doesn't look much does it ?. Rather like a cheap bird jones type newtonian design in fact. It's actually a £5K Takahashi.

[Pig]

Now, you see, If I read this post I'd think "this person has done his homework" As I've said repeatedly, there's no harm in informing someone that you feel a product is inferior (in fact it's preferable), but there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that you are only quoting general concensus (in fact it's preferable).

Seems to me that although I stated in my opening post (twice in fact) that advicing people of the general concensus is a good thing, many people have chosen to ignore this. Oh well, such is life.

3rd time lucky :grin: maybe !!!