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...

 

[Treerunner]

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

I have an ATX 95 & 115 and have recently bought a Kowa 99A + TE11 zoom. Side by side comparisons in fading light at 70x showed the Kowa to out resolve the ATX95, not by much but consistently over numerous targets (signs with letters and numbers and things with bar codes on) at different ranges. The Kowa was also brighter, which no doubt helped. Field of view is larger in the Kowa but the smaller field of the ATX makes the image seem larger. Comparing the ATX 115 to the 99A showed the ATX to resolve slightly more detail as the light deteriorated owing to its greater brightness. Again field of view is larger in the Kowa. In good light there's little to split all three on sharpness. A mate also has a 99A and it seems the same as mine. In the real world the Kowa is a nicer scope to use and has two bolt holes in the foot (worth a lot). I've used the 115 all the time for the last 2 years but it's really impractically heavy and the single bolt foot, situated way off the unit's c.g. is a very bad joke. Kowas are also better made, I've had both my 115 and eyepiece back for free repairs. Had a Kowa 883 for 10 years with no issues, mate had one for 15 with no problems. Need to decide which to keep but looking like Kowa. I could do star tests but I'm interested in reading distant colour rings, so testing by reading distant signs seems a more realistic comparison?

 

[BoldenEagle]

I believe you 100% if you have found your Kowa99A sample consistently outresolve your Atx95 sample. But then again, you can't know how good sample your Atx95 really is if you haven't star tested it and/or measured its resolution in an accurate way. Take another (better) sample of Atx95 and maybe it would be a different story, or it may be that you have a really good sample of Kowa99A in your hands, could happen. Star testing could provide you some information what's the case.

In my experience the Atx95 has very good optical quality on average; I have star tested and compared in other ways about 7 or 8 samples of them, none of them was bad and most were very good, especially spherical aberration was very well corrected in almost every sample, some had issues with slight coma and astigmatism. Likely all had better resolution than my own reference scope Kowa 883 (I didn't measure the exact resolution, just compared directly using small bar code plate for a target). I cannot say the same for the 6 Kowa 99A samples I have tested, none of them were particulary good; most had problems with spherical aberration and worst cases showed also quite noticeable coma and astigmatism/pinching, also some prism issues. I star tested them and directly compared them to my Kowa 883 scope. Some of them may in fact have had a better absolute resolution than my 883 sample but I didn't want to spend nearly 4k€ for a scope that still isn't as good as it could (and should...) be.

Based on what I have read here in Bf, the Atx115 is more prone to optical aberrations than the 95 line, I have never bothered to test one and I believe you it being heavy and less practical in the field.

I have had my 883 for maybe a three or four years now, no build quality problems (eyepiece interior paint is scraping off a little though) and even if my sample is not a perfect one, it is good enough for me. I measured it having 1.41" resolution using Usaf 1951 test chart at 96x magnification. It was selected from amongst many other samples; not every 883 is this good but there are even better ones also. I agree with you that generally Kowa's are nicer scopes to use than Atx.

Regards, Juhani

 

[henry link]

My effort to buy a 99A was like Juhani's and I've heard nothing but similar reports so far (see post #3 above.) I'd love to see evidence of a really good specimen just to know that one can exist.

 

[DRodrigues]

... Field of view is larger in the Kowa but the smaller field of the ATX makes the image seem larger. ...

How much larger is the true field of view in %?
The ATX has larger AFOV?
According to producer specs are: 35-20m vs. 35-19m and 59-70º vs. 57-71º. However, I noticed that recent X eyepiece modules have larger FOV and zoom range - see improved X eyepiece modules i.e. you can gain TFOVs by updating the eyepiece module of the X - using the Swaro specs with my measures, it would result on 36.5m-19.4m!...
In terms of resolution, the X series benefit from higher mag extenders them Kowa - as I say at cr-telescopes, for similar image quality you will gain resolution increasing maximum magnification! I still have to update the site with the X115 and the mentioned info...