worth getting the 99a when I already have the 883? (1 Viewer)

[Decumulate]

Been getting enticed with the idea of grabbing a 99a, but holding back as I know it’ll be similar to the 88. That said, given i already have a bit of an ecosystem going with the different lenses, I’m wondering if anyone sees value in both. Or is the difference so marginal that it really only makes sense as a backup for a friend (which would be super rare for me)?

 

[BKoh]

You will carry the extra weight 100% of the time. You may see a difference 5% of the time. Your money, your decision. Maybe the 77 and 99 would make a better pair.

 

[DRodrigues]

If you do digiscopy and/or high magnification birding, it will be useful and you will see the difference but be sure to not get a lemon 99...
Are the reasons why I swapped my X95 for a X115, although on my case I didn't gained a magnification increase that occurs from the 88 to the 99!

 

[henry link]

I tried two 99s. Neither was diffraction limited due to a slightly different set of defects in each. One had the resolving power of a diffraction limited 88mm scope, the other of a 92mm scope. If your scope is good enough to be diffraction limited what you would have seen at high magnification in those scopes compared to your's would have been a brighter, but fuzzier and lower contrast image. As David said your task is to find a really good 99 and that might not happen on the first or the second try.

 

[BoldenEagle]

I tried 6 samples of 99A. I first did star tests (none 99A showed good results) and then directly compared each one to my 883, for which I have measured 1.41" resolution (so it's not perfect but not bad one at all I think). None of the 99A samples had as sharp and contrasty image as my 883, the best one was close but using 20€ bill as a target and zooming both to 96x with the 1.6x extender under the 25-60x zoom eyepiece, the 99A not really showed any smaller details to be resolved while the image still had weaker contrast and sligthly fuzzier overall appearance. I never measured resolution for those 99A samples as I would never have swapped any of those to my 883, as their image quality was clearly worse by just direct comparison. I was pretty sure that I would found a good sample among those 6 but was disappointed not to.

So, I echo that you may have to try several samples of 99A to find a really good one.

Regards, Juhani

 

[JohnnyGG]

I'm selling my 99A if anybody is interested

 

[JohnnyGG]

Been getting enticed with the idea of grabbing a 99a, but holding back as I know it’ll be similar to the 88. That said, given i already have a bit of an ecosystem going with the different lenses, I’m wondering if anyone sees value in both. Or is the difference so marginal that it really only makes sense as a backup for a friend (which would be super rare for me)?

Selling my 99A

 

[andylast]

I tried 6 samples of 99A. I first did star tests (none 99A showed good results) and then directly compared each one to my 883, for which I have measured 1.41" resolution (so it's not perfect but not bad one at all I think). None of the 99A samples had as sharp and contrasty image as my 883, the best one was close but using 20€ bill as a target and zooming both to 96x with the 1.6x extender under the 25-60x zoom eyepiece, the 99A not really showed any smaller details to be resolved while the image still had weaker contrast and sligthly fuzzier overall appearance. I never measured resolution for those 99A samples as I would never have swapped any of those to my 883, as their image quality was clearly worse by just direct comparison. I was pretty sure that I would found a good sample among those 6 but was disappointed not to.

So, I echo that you may have to try several samples of 99A to find a really good one.

Regards, Juhani

Its a problem with all spotting scopes. Variation among samples is one issue. The other is trying to make very short focal ratio refractors + internal focusing lenses + prisms produce astronomical quality images. As you have seen, a 4" fluorite is very hard to get right at very short f/ ratios. Takahashi had a hell of a job with the 90mm Sky 90 for decades. I saw a lot of variation in those. Think that was f/5.6.

 

[henry link]

Yes, it took three tries for me to get an acceptable Sky 90. Even then I found that tweaking out the last bit of spherical undercorrection in the scope required adding a little overcorrection by substituting a prism diagonal for a mirror.

I've tested some spotting scopes, even with all their complications, that turned out to be very well corrected, but often individual units just aren't made well enough to reach their potential. That could be the case with the Kowa 99A. Until recently I had tested myself or heard about only bad to mediocre specimens. Then I was told about a good one from a source I trust, so maybe there's some hope this scope can live up to its potential, at least if you find a cherry sample.

 

[andylast]

Have you seen any variation in the Zeiss Harpia 95mm?

 

[henry link]

I've only briefly examined one 95mm Harpia here.

A Brief Review of the Zeiss Harpia 95

Last week I had an opportunity to briefly examine a just purchased 95mm Zeiss Harpia. The last time I reviewed a scope (the Zeiss Gavia) I found two days was insufficient for a complete review. This time I had about one hour. The design of the Harpia is so unusual that testing it really demands...

www.birdforum.net

 

[rpg51]

Do folks find the same variances with the 883?

 

[andylast]

Yes, it took three tries for me to get an acceptable Sky 90. Even then I found that tweaking out the last bit of spherical undercorrection in the scope required adding a little overcorrection by substituting a prism diagonal for a mirror.

I've tested some spotting scopes, even with all their complications, that turned out to be very well corrected, but often individual units just aren't made well enough to reach their potential. That could be the case with the Kowa 99A. Until recently I had tested myself or heard about only bad to mediocre specimens. Then I was told about a good one from a source I trust, so maybe there's some hope this scope can live up to its potential, at least if you find a cherry sample.

Like with the FS60, the Extender-Q helped a huge amount. It was almost like (or probably was the case that), the FS60 and Sky 90 were designed to be incomplete without the Extender-Q.
That's also the problem with top quality spotting scopes. If you are prepared to spend a lot of money on one, you sometimes have to cherry pick one to get what is promised. Its also, funnily enough, what you have to do with the cheaper Chinese stuff. I cherry picked a Hawke 68 ED and a Celestron Regal 65ED. The average ones are not good enough (in my view). The best ones are well worth it. You are either paranoid (as I have been), or are content to try the lucky dip. No two identical scopes are the same. They are like snowflakes.

 

[Will K]

I’m still curious to try more Kowa scopes. I was very impressed with the one 99 I’ve had a chance to try so far. I even preferred it to a 95 ATX and Harpia, strangely. But I’m still figuring out where my tastes lie.

 

[andylast]

I’m still curious to try more Kowa scopes. I was very impressed with the one 99 I’ve had a chance to try so far. I even preferred it to a 95 ATX and Harpia, strangely. But I’m still figuring out where my tastes lie.

If the 99 you tried was better (in your eyes) to a Swarovski and Zeiss of a similar aperture, then buy that one (if that one was for sale). If a demo unit performs better than the competition, then buy that one. The performance of a scope is far more important than whether its a demo or an unboxed new one.

 

[pppppvvvv]

No, it wouldn't be worth having 2 scopes. I'm assuming that you are a birder/wildlife watcher.