99a or 883 (1 Viewer)

[Decumulate]

Went on a jungle trip lately and was blown away by my guide’s Kowa scope (I think it was the 883). I was going to get one but paused at the 99a. I am still leaning on the 883, but wanted to first gather some opinions - since the 99a is much newer, is it worth getting instead? Or is the 883 still close enough?

Considerations:
-Price isn’t a big issue either way, but the smaller size of the 883 is nice
-that said said, if image quality is much better under normal conditions I would go with 99.
-if image quality differences are only noticeable under very low light conditions, then I would probably still go with the 883 given it’s smaller size.

 

[Binastro]

Reports here of the 99a are not encouraging regarding optical quality.

The 883 generally seems to be better.

Regards,
B.

 

[Gdfenwick]

I also am looking at and have looked thru both the 99a and the 883. I find it to be a tough decision so far. I did perform a daytime shiny glass Christmas ornament star test. I found the inside focus to be very similar for both with the 99a slightly better. The outside focus of the 99a was worse than the 883 but both scopes were not very good on the outside focus. A couple questions being is this normal on the outside focus? Is there a best time of the day to perform this and is there a preferred temperature for best results? Any advice on distance or other experience would be appreciated. I did this with a TE-11WZ eyepiece.
Also has anyone compared the TE-80XW with the TE-17W and what do you think?

 

[Binastro]

Early morning, late afternoon.

Spring or autumn.

16C, 61F. Land, air and lake/sea temperature.

Grass, not concrete or asphalt.

Regards,
B.

 

[Gdfenwick]

Early morning, late afternoon.

Spring or autumn.

16C, 61F. Land, air and lake/sea temperature.

Grass, not concrete or asphalt.

Regards,
B.

Thank you

 

[Ratal]

883 by a country mile.

I haven't looked through a 99a (in the field) that I'd have bought for myself. The 88mm Kowa however seems to have a vastly superior number of 'cherry' (excellent) units out there.

 

[Tringa45]

Under ideal circumstances the advantages of the 99a vs. the 883 could be compared to that of a 9x binocular over an 8x, i.e. very little.
The need for high magnifications on birding scopes is frequently overestimated and I think you would more often appreciate the 25x with better FoV and DoF on the 883 than the 70x capability of the 99a.
Some years ago I bought an 883 to replace my Swarovski ATM65 HD with 30x wide angle eyepiece. The Kowa is a very good example and star tests well, but in the field it only does at 40x what the Swarovski does at 30x. I still have the ATM65 and in good lighting and locations where viewing distances are under 250 m, it's the more portable alternative. Another member here on Birdforum went through the same process and also kept both scopes.

John

 

[Decumulate]

These comments kept me in check. I went with the 883. I was leaning that way anyways but didn’t want any regrets. For my needs, the 883 alone should be a dream.

 

[Ratal]

Under ideal circumstances the advantages of the 99a vs. the 883 could be compared to that of a 9x binocular over an 8x, i.e. very little.
The need for high magnifications on birding scopes is frequently overestimated and I think you would more often appreciate the 25x with better FoV and DoF on the 883 than the 70x capability of the 99a.
Some years ago I bought an 883 to replace my Swarovski ATM65 HD with 30x wide angle eyepiece. The Kowa is a very good example and star tests well, but in the field it only does at 40x what the Swarovski does at 30x. I still have the ATM65 and in good lighting and locations where viewing distances are under 250 m, it's the more portable alternative. Another member here on Birdforum went through the same process and also kept both scopes.

John

It is why I adore the Opticron MM4 50ED.

Low mag (15x or so) viewing in crisp high definition, then ramp up the magnification if needed. Shocking actually just how much scope time is at low mag.

 

[Tringa45]

It is why I adore the Opticron MM4 50ED.

Low mag (15x or so) viewing in crisp high definition, then ramp up the magnification if needed. Shocking actually just how much scope time is at low mag.

Yes, I think it's the brightness, contrast and ease of view experienced at large exit pupils. My 883 is used 80-90% of the time at 25x.
The 30x W on my ATM65 HD was the only available fixed focal length eyepiece when I bought the scope. It's a superb design with 20 mm eye relief, 65° AFoV, flat field and no detectable astigmatism, but in low light the 2,2 mm exit pupil soon imposes limitations.
Last week I was out birding with a friend and we saw two Kingfishers about 10 m apart. One of them in shadow retained a fish in its beak for some time and the friend assumed it was a bridal gift, but I was able to identify the other bird as a male. When the fish was evetually swallowed the friend could see the orange lower beak of the female, but this was beyond the ability of my old eyes .
Btw, Swarovski used to offer a fixed 20x eyepiece. I saw an NOS one at a dealer, but he was asking near list price and the eyepiece was not in the same class as the 30x W. It had less eyerelief and AFoV and, IIRC, also pincussion and field curvature.

John

 

[samwise2010]

I bought an 883 last year and found out that the 99A was being released so I took it back (I hadn’t used it yet) and put the order in for the 99. My comments aren’t helpful because it doesn’t compare the 2 since I didn’t use the 883 but I’ll say with birdwatching and stargazing the 99A is amazing. I’m sure a little less weight would be nice in the field but no problems carrying mine around so far.

 

[paperweight]

I had the 883 for ten years when I bought a 99a in January together with the new wide angle TE-80 that has since pushed the TE-11 away to the 2nd position. At 71 with a beginning cataract I benefit from the extra-light of the 99a: in September 2021, I did a very thorough comparison between the 99a, my 883 and a new 883 in the shop where I later bought my 99a. It was a grey, cloudy day, and the performance of the 99a was clearly better and outstanding, especially with the TE-80.
I don't care about star tests any longer because about 99% of my work with the 99a, the TE-80, the TE-11 and two Kowa 1.6 extenders will be birding.
So, all in all, no regrets about getting the 99a and selling my 883.

 

[BoldenEagle]

I don't care about star tests any longer because about 99% of my work with the 99a, the TE-80, the TE-11 and two Kowa 1.6 extenders will be birding.
So, all in all, no regrets about getting the 99a and selling my 883.

The star test doesn't have anything to do whether you are using your scope for birding or watching celestial targets. Star test performance indicates the optical aberrations (or in the best case scenario, the absence of them...) particular sample has, and thus quite straight forward how good resolution or sharpness it will have. If you have bad or mediocre sample of 99A and you compare it to a good or excellent sample, you will certainly find differences in sharpness when watching for example birds, especially when using the 1.6x extender.

If you are personally totally happy with the performance of your 99A sample, then it's fine. Every 99A certainly has more bright image than 883 and that is a major advantage.

It is of course possible that your 99A sample has well corrected optical aberrations and also because of that, you have found it to be better than the other samples of 883 you compared it to. So by that comparison you will likely find which is the best sample but you can't know how good the best sample is in absolute terms. Star test would give you indication of that.

Regards, Juhani

 

[samwise2010]

I had the 883 for ten years when I bought a 99a in January together with the new wide angle TE-80 that has since pushed the TE-11 away to the 2nd position. At 71 with a beginning cataract I benefit from the extra-light of the 99a: in September 2021, I did a very thorough comparison between the 99a, my 883 and a new 883 in the shop where I later bought my 99a. It was a grey, cloudy day, and the performance of the 99a was clearly better and outstanding, especially with the TE-80.
I don't care about star tests any longer because about 99% of my work with the 99a, the TE-80, the TE-11 and two Kowa 1.6 extenders will be birding.
So, all in all, no regrets about getting the 99a and selling my 883.

Great to hear real world experience from someone who has had both. How is the TE-80 at 40mm vs TE-11 at 30mm for closer range birds, I was wondering if it was the same field of view since it was wider. Thanks for you’re reply!

 

[Gdfenwick]

Great to hear real world experience from someone who has had both. How is the TE-80 at 40mm vs TE-11 at 30mm for closer range birds, I was wondering if it was the same field of view since it was wider. Thanks for you’re reply!

I followed Binastro's advice and setup a star test in the morning with cool still air at 50*-55*, blue sky and the sun at my back and the instruments were outside for an hour for temperature acclimation. The artificial ornament was setup 100' away over green grass. The 99 and the 88 had 1.6 extender mounted on them with the 20-60 zoom in one and the 25-60 in the other.
The 88 Inside focus and outside focus each showed 4 rings with a hint of more rings. Both sides of focus had the bold outside ring with smaller rings inside and little fuzzy. When I looked at it many times during the comparison I wasn't sure if it was in or out, that is how close they were to each other. Sometimes it seemed Outside Focus was better than Inside Focus.
The 99 Inside focus rings was striking, the crisp definition between the light and dark rings were beautiful to look at, perfect. The Inside focus had the light outside ring then a dark ring followed by a small light ring and a large focus dot. When you went very far on Outside Focus the light became fractured. Both Inside and Outside had a bold outer ring.
What can you tell me from this star test sample? I'm frustrated that the 99 isn't the same way on each side of focus but really like the one great looking side. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

 

[henry link]

When it comes to spherical aberration what is wanted is for the rings on both sides of focus to be identical or at least similar. There isn't a good side and a bad side, only more or less symmetry between the two sides. The overly strong rings inside focus (what you're calling the good side) combined with weak or missing rings outside focus indicates under-correction of spherical aberration. If the "good" and "bad" sides were reversed that would be over-correction.

 

[Gdfenwick]

If I'm reading this correctly the spherical aberration of unbalanced sides of the 99, even though one side seems perfect, out weighs the benefit of more light and tight quality of this very nice scope. I should keep the scope with balanced focus sides.

 

[Gdfenwick]

When it comes to spherical aberration what is wanted is for the rings on both sides of focus to be identical or at least similar. There isn't a good side and a bad side, only more or less symmetry between the two sides. The overly strong rings inside focus (what you're calling the good side) combined with weak or missing rings outside focus indicates under-correction of spherical aberration. If the "good" and "bad" sides were reversed that would be over-correction.

Henry,
Thank you for the response.
Greg

 

[paperweight]

Great to hear real world experience from someone who has had both. How is the TE-80 at 40mm vs TE-11 at 30mm for closer range birds, I was wondering if it was the same field of view since it was wider. Thanks for you’re reply!

Thanks for asking. I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly. Do you want to have a comparison between the TE-80 at 40x and the TE-11 at 30x and want to to know if the field of view of both optics is about the same in that case?
I will try to find out and do a comparison with pictures. What I can only repeat is that the optical performance of the TE-80 is clearly visible, but that the zoom abilitiy of the TE-11 makes it very handy for the birder who needs to get closer to the object he's watching.
If I can do with static 40x (or 64x with the 1.6 Extender) I will always prefer the TE-80.

 

[samwise2010]

Thanks for asking. I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly. Do you want to have a comparison between the TE-80 at 40x and the TE-11 at 30x and want to to know if the field of view of both optics is about the same in that case?
I will try to find out and do a comparison with pictures. What I can only repeat is that the optical performance of the TE-80 is clearly visible, but that the zoom abilitiy of the TE-11 makes it very handy for the birder who needs to get closer to the object he's watching.
If I can do with static 40x (or 64x with the 1.6 Extender) I will always prefer the TE-80.

Yes that’s exactly what I was wondering! Thanks for your thoughtful reply.