Light opinion sf-2000

Fordprefect42

Well-Known Member
The driver/powersupply i reced is 240w. That is only enough power for about a 4x2, no matter if you use 3 or 6 qb96. The way these connections work is that they share rhe power. 2 means 120 each, 3 means 80, 6 means 40w each.

Each qb will be fine up to 160 with no extra heat management. But best not over 120w.
Cool thanks for the clarification.
 

Fordprefect42

Well-Known Member
yes higher umol/j is better, I never purchased any of the older Mars products for the same reason as you, the old epistar lights weren't very good, but these QB's are nice. which two models are you comparing to? i never saw a variance that high between the two, because i would have purchased the SF for sure. Im not saying your wrong, i'm just curious if we were looking at different numbers. every number i looked at was very equal (when comparing similar or equivalent models/wattage), and not nearly 3x higher.
This is the one I was looking at. I have a tendency to make dumb mistakes.

 

Skewbong

Well-Known Member
HAHAHA, I DO THEM TOO, NO WORRIES!!!

just don't want to see a fellow grower duped into buying something based on marketing.

to be honest, when i compared Mars, SF, and HLG; they were all very close when comparing apples to apples, just slight differences in cost, wattage's and efficiencies.

most reviews i watched on you tube; people were very happy with ANY of the 3 brands. go to you tube and type in "Mars Hydro TS"....hundreds of grows, comparisons to SF's and HLGs against the Mars TS series lights with full reviews. check out Bill Ward...hes got some pretty epic grows with 100 watt Mars lights. peace bro, hope you find one you love.
 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
This is a dumb misstake, im sorry...

Bad spread, bad thermal management, not a great company. For another 70$ you can do something better.


Its true you will see similar results to hlg when you start. But the mars wont last. Never have, never will.

The amount of heatsinking on the mars and the unknown "smd" diodes are dead giveaways. Also just one point of light, instead off 4-6.

There are really expensive hlg gear which isnt worth it. Qb96 is worth it, especially on this discount. And also you get a company that backs up their product. Please check out mars hydro threads and compare it to the hlg quantum board thread and see what engagement is like. Compare the hundreds of pages of happy and discerning customers to maybe just a few posts of newbs being happy theey coulld get a cheap led.

If you go for it use RIU10 discount code for 10% off.
 

Barristan Whitebeard

Well-Known Member
More economy I think. Enjoying this, but I have never been into hard core expenditures on hobbies. Thanks for the thoughts on the two. My only perception of Mars was lower quality, but the warranty is nice.

Edit: actually looking at the specs the Mars runs 1095 umol/joule and the sf is more like 2700. Isn’t that a significantly more powerful light in terms of photons?
That 1095 figure may be the fixtures Total PPF output. LED Grow lights Depot lists the total PPF at 1035 μmol/second with a system efficacy of 2.1-2.35 μmol/joule.

Which spider Farmer light are you referring to, the SF-4000? Spider Farmer lists a "par value" of 1217 μmol/second which I think is the lights PPF output (PPF of 1217/457watts on 120 VAC=2.66 μmol/joule system efficacy). Spider Farmer lists system efficacy as 2.7 μmol/joule for their board lights.


 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
That 1095 figure may be the fixtures Total PPF output. LED Grow lights Depot lists the total PPF at 1035 μmol/second with a system efficacy of 2.1-2.35 μmol/joule.

Which spider Farmer light are you referring to, the SF-4000? Spider Farmer lists a "par value" of 1217 μmol/second which I think is the lights PPF output (PPF of 1217/457watts on 120 VAC=2.66 μmol/joule system efficacy). Spider Farmer lists system efficacy as 2.7 μmol/joule for their board lights.


The mars efficacy might be ffair, up to 2.3, but i call bullshit on sf, and so does most people i know who have made real tests of this sort.
The hlg diablo has twice the diodes, a more efficient driver, and handpicking the best samsung diodes; they score 2.81 in verifiable tests. If sf really had highestt flux, lowest voltage bin and half the diodes they would clock in soomewhere around 2.5 -2.6 in system efficiency just by extrapolating from hlg. And i doubt they actually have those best bin diodes.
And in any case: both fixtures lack the spread that 6 points of light would give.
4x sf1000 would be a better buy.
 

Barristan Whitebeard

Well-Known Member
The mars efficacy might be ffair, up to 2.3, but i call bullshit on sf, and so does most people i know who have made real tests of this sort.
The hlg diablo has twice the diodes, a more efficient driver, and handpicking the best samsung diodes; they score 2.81 in verifiable tests. If sf really had highestt flux, lowest voltage bin and half the diodes they would clock in soomewhere around 2.5 -2.6 in system efficiency just by extrapolating from hlg. And i doubt they actually have those best bin diodes.
And in any case: both fixtures lack the spread that 6 points of light would give.
4x sf1000 would be a better buy.
Agreed for sure about the efficacy figures.

One downside of the SF-1000, AFAIK the boards only have 218 diodes each. The higher wattage models use boards with 303 diodes.
 

Barristan Whitebeard

Well-Known Member

Bosgrower

Well-Known Member
This popped up on another thread here and I thought it looked like something to consider for a 5x5
 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
Great company, but a lot of $$. This light concentrate light to the centre right underneath so needs loads of hanging height. Better more points of light spread out, qb96 as per previouss advice aabove. Diy something similar with better spread for half the price.

 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
Also, another point to make on claimed efficacies: these are a strong selling point and if done by a reputable testing company the results are also published on that companys web: if youve done reliable tests then why dont you advertise the link to the results? This would be a super advertising point so why no links to verifiable tests?

I think most of these ppf/w with no real documentation are simply board level extrapolation from datasheet at best, most of the time done sloppy using 6500K details as thats the most efficient spectrum but never the one in a grow light.

I trust our sponsored advertisers (well maybe not mars but they arent claiming out of this world numbers) since we work to keep them honest.
 

coreywebster

Well-Known Member
Wondering if I can get some opinions on the sf-2000. I’m finishing up my first grow under a cheap blurple and looking to upgrade a bit. Thinking of running 2-4 plants in a 5x5 tent. Extra tent size is to allow room for a humidifier/dehumidifier.

Is this a reasonable setup? Decent value? Any alternatives you like better?
The days of DIY requiring much effort are behind us. Its almost like lego these days.

I would listen to Rocket, its a very good option, it may seem daunting but trust me its simple and will give you a high performance light for a reasonable budget.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
Great company, but a lot of $$. This light concentrate light to the centre right underneath so needs loads of hanging height. Better more points of light spread out, qb96 as per previouss advice aabove. Diy something similar with better spread for half the price.

I know I've been tempted to buy a couple of those just for the hell of it, but I really don't need to buy anymore lights right now. I went a little crazy when the V1's were on sale, and still in stock. Those QB96's would be like $62 a piece after the promo code. I gotta stop thinking about it, or I'll wind up buying even more lights I don't really need, lol.
 
Top