Kowa 99 Update? (1 Viewer)

[bhvireo]

Hello! I'm a birder who is looking to upgrade my scope to a Kowa. I am deciding between the TSN 88 and TSN 99, both angled. I know that both are exceptional scopes.

I have a significantly better price on the 99 than the 88, so am being swayed towards that, in addition to the bigger objective lens.

However, there was a thread here a few years ago (3 years I think) that was rather concerning in that it mentioned that folks are seeing a lot of sub-par samples of the 99. One commenter had good hope that Kowa will work out those kinks over time, and the 99 samples should get better.

Has anyone purchased or viewed Kowa 99s in the last year or two and had better results?

Unfortunately I will not be able to try the sample I would purchase before getting it, but I would be able to return it in case it's bad.

I am only interested in a Kowa, not Swaro or any other brand.

Any info would be much appreciated!

Thanks!!

 

[Gzoladz74]

I had the same dilemma and ended up buying the 88 due to its lower weight. It is still very bright and I think it will only make a difference in very poor light conditions, although the 88 at 25 is marginally brighter than the 99 at 30 what may be an advantage. Starting at x25 let me cover more for scanning and I also got the extender.

I think it is an entirely personal decision...

 

[henry link]

Someone with access to a stream of new production TSN 99s has been kind enough to try to find a cherry specimen for me over the last two years. I think at least a dozen scopes have been evaluated so far, but no specimen with aberrations low enough to qualify as a cherry has turned up. It still appears to be a roll of the dice and a real cherry might just not exist.

 

[BoldenEagle]

Someone with access to a stream of new production TSN 99s has been kind enough to try to find a cherry specimen for me over the last two years. I think at least a dozen scopes have been evaluated so far, but no specimen with aberrations low enough to qualify as a cherry has turned up. It still appears to be a roll of the dice and a real cherry might just not exist.

Interesting but rather not surprising.

After a couple of years since I gave up finding a good sample of 99A (six samples) I recently happened to bumb into a 99A sample which I was able to directly compare to Swarovski Atx95. I focused on a streetname plate about 1km away with maximum magnification: With Atx95 I was able to read the name with relatively little effort but it was just not possible with the 99A. There was some heat haze present but it was the same for both scopes and Atx95 just resolved markedly better.

I didn't find a good (small enough) bright light spot to diagnose the aberrations properly but at least with the sun reflecting on a distant street lamp cover the Atx95 showed better SA correction as both out of focus sides seemed quite similar, 99A had the other side diffuse and blurry.

Regards, Juhani

 

[bhvireo]

Thanks, all! Much appreciated.

Two follow-up questions:

1) The non-cherry or “average” 99s are still excellent scopes, right? I’m coming from a Vortex Razor (a sub-par sample, in my opinion), and and would expect an “average” 99 to be a significant upgrade. I was shocked by the great image of my friend’s 99 I looked through earlier this year.

I don’t want to fret too too much about a “perfect” specimen, as that seems to be a concern across the board.

2) Is the TNS 88 better in terms of quality control?

Like would I be “safer” in the probability of getting a good sample?

Thanks!

 

[Gzoladz74]

Good question...I also wonder if people would be able to puck up a cherry vs non cherry in normal use conditions, or the difference is only noticeable in lab-conditions.

Thanks, all! Much appreciated.

Two follow-up questions:

1) The non-cherry or “average” 99s are still excellent scopes, right? I’m coming from a Vortex Razor (a sub-par sample, in my opinion), and and would expect an “average” 99 to be a significant upgrade. I was shocked by the great image of my friend’s 99 I looked through earlier this year.

I don’t want to fret too too much about a “perfect” specimen, as that seems to be a concern across the board.

2) Is the TNS 88 better in terms of quality control?

Like would I be “safer” in the probability of getting a good sample?

Thanks!

 

[Bill Atwood]

1) The non-cherry or “average” 99s are still excellent scopes, right? I’m coming from a Vortex Razor (a sub-par sample, in my opinion), and and would expect an “average” 99 to be a significant upgrade. I was shocked by the great image of my friend’s 99 I looked through earlier this year.

Depends on what you consider excellent. I've tried one copy and my experience matches just about every report I've read, which is that at 60x-70x sharpness falls off. So, better than your Razor? Probably. However its very likely not as good at 60x-70x as a typical Swaro ATX/STX 95 or Meopta S2, and therefore not what I consider excellent.

"I have a significantly better price on the 99 than the 88," perhaps you've discovered why.

If you're sticking to Kowa I'd be looking at the current version of an 88.

I purchased a 66A back in December and its a great little scope, good resolution up to 60x, all be it a little dark.

 

[Tringa45]

Just wondering if this is an inherent problem rather than a QC issue. The design of an internal focussing sub f/6 100 mm scope poses enormous problems.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence but Bolden Eagle and I both measured 1,41" resolution on our respective 883s, good but short of the ideal 1,32".
Has anyone ever found a diffraction-limited 883?

John

 

[henry link]

It's possible that both Kowa and Swarovski have pushed their 99mm and 115mm scope designs beyond what can reliably produce a diffraction-limited scope. Diffraction-limited is what I consider to be the minimum standard for high end telescopes, not the gold standard. So far I haven't seen or heard of a specimen that good for either scope.

Both the 99s I bought had disqualifying defects, but the defects were not quite the same in both scopes. That led me to believe that a cherry 99, which combined only the lowest individual aberrations I found across those two units should be possible.

Henry

 

[bhvireo]

Just wondering if this is an inherent problem rather than a QC issue. The design of an internal focussing sub f/6 100 mm scope poses enormous problems.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence but Bolden Eagle and I both measured 1,41" resolution on our respective 883s, good but short of the ideal 1,32".
Has anyone ever found a diffraction-limited 883?

John

That posing an enormous problem - are you referring to the 99 specifically, rather than the 88? I feel like something internal could be a very possible explanation.

 

[bhvireo]

It's possible that both Kowa and Swarovski have pushed their 99mm and 115mm scope designs beyond what can reliably produce a diffraction-limited scope. Diffraction-limited is what I consider to be the minimum standard for high end telescopes, not the gold standard. So far I haven't seen or heard of a specimen that good for either scope.

The two 99s I bought both had disqualifying defects, but the defects were not quite the same in both scopes. That led me to believe that a cherry 99, which combined only the lowest individual aberrations I found in those two units should be possible.

Henry

Great to know, thanks! I might go with the new 88 as folks have hinted towards being the better buy.

 

[henry link]

Just remember, every individual scope should be treated with equal suspicion! No brand or model is a safe harbor.

 

[LUCCHINI1968]

Una nozione basilare. Un diametro maggiore dà ovviamente una maggior luminosità ma anche amplifica l'effetto di " foschia da calore". Il tsn 88 è un buon compromesso tra' peso peso e luminosità. Per quanto riguarda le comparative tra i top, Zeiss Harpia, Swarovski ATX, Leica Televid e Kowa TSN per esperienza devo dirvi che la preferenza varia da persona a persona. Da anni faccio provare agli interessati, molti dei quali sono utilizzatori esperti, i cannocchiali li lascio provare e confrontarli con calma e ognuno ha le proprie preferenze, d'altronde l'occhio umano è uno strumento estremamente complesso e differente per ogni persona. Scusatemi se scrivo in Italiano ma spero nel traduttore Google. Un saluto e buona serata.

 

[Binastro]

There may have been only one master optical worker at Kowa.
He may have retired.

There may be one at Swarovski, one at Leica, one at Canon, one at Nikon and two at Zeiss.

There are some in France, U.K., U.S.A., Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, probably Russia and elsewhere.
But when they retire there may be few to replace them.

Worldwide, I doubt that there are one hundred top master opticians.

The short focus large aperture spotting scopes may actually need hand figuring to be what is called here a cherry scope.

To produce such scopes may actually cost a lot more than £3,000.

So the makers do what they can to produce spotting scopes that please the average customer, but do not stand up to detailed testing.

However, in my observing career I have seen very few cherry astro scopes, although a few have been so good as to be cherry plus.

But even for planetary observing one does not need the very best.

It is surprising to me when folks here say their scopes top out at 60x or 70x.

I often used 130x or so terrestrially and 250x at 3 a.m. from an elevated position with stable temperatures inside and out and fully dressed to prevent body heat effects.

Also 400x to 700x at night on planets.

It may be nice for optical perfectionists to only seek out cherry scopes, but for most observations I really doubt that such perfection shows much more than a very good scope.

Regards,
B.

 

[Hermann]

Good question...I also wonder if people would be able to puck up a cherry vs non cherry in normal use conditions, or the difference is only noticeable in lab-conditions.

Two examples I've come across lately: One scope, brand new, "alpha", 80-90mm class. I met the owner on my local patch, and we did what birders always do when there's nothing much about: we compared optics. And it became clear very quickly that he had got a lemon. At 50-60x my 60mm scope was sharper and showed more detail than his scope. A similar sort of thing happened when I birded with a birder from a local group. In that case the scope was a few years old but in seemingly perfect condition. And a clear lemon. In that case differences in resolution where obvious from about 40x upwards.

If you've got some experience you can actually pick up many lemons even without a star test or a comparison to a cherry scope. Still, I'd recommend everyone to learn how to do star tests.

Hermann

 

[DRodrigues]

It's possible that both Kowa and Swarovski have pushed their 99mm and 115mm scope designs beyond what can reliably produce a diffraction-limited scope. ...

Hi Henry,
In the case of the X115, I'm still not sure if this version was tuned to the BTX or already to future eyepiece module versions...