Any customer review of new tsn-99? (1 Viewer)

[paperweight]

Looks great. How is the TE80 visual observations comparing to TE-11z? Resolution and CA? Thank you

I will do a comparison very soon and will inform you about it. A quick comparison weeks ago showed that the new TE80 is really great, and I loved it better than the TE-11. On the other hand, the later comes in handy for digiscoping. Both eyepieces serve me well.

 

[paperweight]

@jcwu88: I was in a hurry to do another comparison between the TE-11 and the TE-80 on my 99a because daylight was fading. When you are in a hurry you make mistakes, and so the shot of the TE-11 is a bit out of focus. At least you can compare contrast and colour of the two eyepieces.
Before I took the pictures, I did a lengthy comparison just looking through them both. The TE-80 "jumps at you" with its quality. It offers an instant "3D" impression, with a lot of brilliance and contrast. It's really impressive. The TE-11 is certainly not a "bad" eyepiece. Its fortes are its variability and the high magnification. That's why it will stay on my 99a most of the time. If I just want to watch and don't need up to 70x magnification, I will certainly prefer the TE-80 because it's simply stunning.

TE-11 (out of focus), no crop; 1.3 zoom on my Sony RX-100 II



TE-80, no crop; 1.3 zoom as above



Finally it was time for "Macbeth" with three crows instead of witches: "When will we three meet again". This was done with the 99a and the TE-80; the three crows were about 400m away; no crop; zoom 1.0

 

[jcwu88]

@jcwu88: I was in a hurry to do another comparison between the TE-11 and the TE-80 on my 99a because daylight was fading. When you are in a hurry you make mistakes, and so the shot of the TE-11 is a bit out of focus. At least you can compare contrast and colour of the two eyepieces.
Before I took the pictures, I did a lengthy comparison just looking through them both. The TE-80 "jumps at you" with its quality. It offers an instant "3D" impression, with a lot of brilliance and contrast. It's really impressive. The TE-11 is certainly not a "bad" eyepiece. Its fortes are its variability and the high magnification. That's why it will stay on my 99a most of the time. If I just want to watch and don't need up to 70x magnification, I will certainly prefer the TE-80 because it's simply stunning.

TE-11 (out of focus), no crop; 1.3 zoom on my Sony RX-100 II

View attachment 1436527

TE-80, no crop; 1.3 zoom as above

View attachment 1436528

Finally it was time for "Macbeth" with three crows instead of witches: "When will we three meet again". This was done with the 99a and the TE-80; the three crows were about 400m away; no crop; zoom 1.0

View attachment 1436529

Thank you for sharing your experience and photos! I will definitely try TE80 once I have a chance!

 

[paperweight]

@jcwu88: Last series of comparison between the TE-80 and the TE-11. IMHO, the TE-80 offers a superior image quality. That's why from now on I will use it if I don't need the extra-magnification upt to 70x and want to take pictures.
This afternoon, I used the Kowa iPhone adapter with my iPhone 6s, not the latest model with the better camera, but a good solution if you want to be fast.

Starling (crop) TE-80



Starling (crop) TE-11



"Tree-face" (crop) TE-80



"Tree-face" (crop) TE-11

 

[mpruitt]

Has anyone had any additional experience with the 99? I love my 883 and WANT to love the 99 for the increased light gathering but am hesitant with these observations shared by so many. As many have stated before, I'm not sure if it is worth the hassle of ordering multiple and returning in order to get a good one.

 

[samwise2010]

Has anyone had any additional experience with the 99? I love my 883 and WANT to love the 99 for the increased light gathering but am hesitant with these observations shared by so many. As many have stated before, I'm not sure if it is worth the hassle of ordering multiple and returning in order to get a good one.

I have had mine for around 10 months and love it. I haven’t seen any issues with image quality; infact id say it’s superb! No CA, nice focusing, and build. Quite light also for the size and glass in there.
I’ve done some nightsky viewing with it and all the stars are perfectly clear, I can see the rings of Saturn, bands of Jupiter etc…. The light gathering is very nice for this purpose! Terrestrial viewing is super sharp, my eyes can’t see anything that could be sharper…. But I’m sure your 883 is very sharp as well!
I wish they had a codera stay on cover for it so I could throw it around a bit more but I’m sure they are working on that.

I am not sure how much more you will gain from the 99a if you already have the 883 TBH maybe a smidge more light gathering in the twilight hours and star viewing…. This is my first scope so I went from nothing to this, so I went for the best I could get. If I had the 883 I might have a hard time deciding as well. If you can sell it at a decent price and upgrade then it’s not so bad since scopes keep their value well.

Good luck with your decision!

 

[Coloradodipper]

Hello,

I just joined to sort this out, this being ATX 95 VS TSN 99A.

My wife and I just returned from a trip to Scotland, we had our Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL's with us and saw over 60 new birds. On one particular day, we encountered a local who had an ATX 85 with her to observe dolphins. Coming from a mid priced Vortex Razor HD 85, I was truly impressed with how the image held up at full magnification, something the Vortex does not do.

As a long time professional commercial and landscape photographer who uses Leica, Hasseblad, Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon Z glass, I am well acquainted with top shelf optics and the price they often command. I also dabble in amateur astronomy and have a good 16" dob.

Before reading this thread and others, I found reviews on the Kowa and Swarovski spotters and found the TSN 99A had lots of accolades. So I bought it this week from B&H and it arrived yesterday. Star tests using both stars in meh seeing and pin hole LED lights at over 100' feet show what seems to be typical for this scope SA with good clean if not perfectly round rings on inside focus but hard to see rings at all on outside focus. My observations seem similar to Bolden Eagle's on post #131, decent but not perfect, maybe not seeing as many discernible rings on outside focus as post 131.

In practical terms, I love the dual rate focus, found I can actually follow focus the actions of birds in flight pretty easy, did that with a bald eagle this AM for about 10 minutes. I also really like the 2x mount screw approach on the foot, it was super easy to find a compatible Arca type plate in my tool bin so I can put this scope on about 8 different tripods. Now then, off to observing. Of course it looks great at 30-50X but by the time it is in the 60-70X range, contrast and micro-contrast drop off. There is zero CA but I am just not sure if I am seeing the same level of "pop" that I did when I looked through the ATX 85 last week, impossible to gauge if not side by side. In looking at Starlings and Lewis Woodpeckers this AM at 200' feet away in nice cold temps, I did see far more detail at full magnification with the 99A than I could with the Vortex but is this as good as I can get or will the ATX 95 be far more consistent? The reason this is an important question is that we spend a lot of time observing at our local reservoir which is an IBA so the distance across can be .5 to 1 mile, the long reach of a good scope is valuable.

So I am contemplating returning this 99A and paying a good chunk more for an ATX95. The way I figure it is this scope was $3359 and the ATX 95 would be $4898 so will I be happy enough paying thousands for the 99A which is not quite top shelf at 60-70X or will another $1500 get me exactly where I need to be?

By the remarks (and tests) on here, it seems like I ought to just suck it up and get the Swarovski.

 

[rpg51]

Seem like you have already made up your mind to get the Swaro. Let it rip. Or, get them both in your hands at the same time and return the one you don't like.

 

[Coloradodipper]

I just did another star test, indoors with a tiny pinhole in black tape over an LED at about 35' feet, I had to use my Nikon Z8 and 60 macro to get it. As with most of these tests, the actual viewing shows more than the photos. The rings look more round in the inner focus view than in the photos but the bright spot being to the left of center in the outside focus shot is accurate.

 

[henry link]

The photos show some amount of astigmatism and coma (better viewed at best focus or no more than 2-3 rings of defocus rather than 6), a roof prism edge that doesn't look very well made (the blurry vertical line) and probably substantial spherical aberration (better viewed at 3-4 rings and using a green filter).

I wouldn't buy this one, but switching to Swarovski might not solve anything unless you get a better sample, which could happen even with another Kowa. Although my second 99 was worse than the first one a good scope could have been made if all the best corrected aberrations from the two samples had been present in one scope, so I don't think it's completely impossible.

BTW, you might have somewhat better correction for spherical aberration at a longer distance. Try 100 feet if you can.

 

[Coloradodipper]

The photos show some amount of astigmatism and coma (better viewed at best focus or no more than 2-3 rings of defocus rather than 6), a roof prism edge that doesn't look very well made (the blurry vertical line) and probably substantial spherical aberration (better viewed at 3-4 rings and using a green filter).

I wouldn't buy this one, but switching to Swarovski might not solve anything unless you get a better sample, which could happen even with another Kowa. Although my second 99 was worse than the first one a good scope could have been made if all the best corrected aberrations from the two samples had been present in one scope, so I don't think it's completely impossible.

BTW, you might have somewhat better correction for spherical aberration at a longer distance. Try 100 feet if you can.

I tried like crazy last night to get stable enough air either aloft or on the ground to make it work to 100’+ feet but no dice, our seeing is mediocre even near the zenith and on the ground high temps right now are around 45 with lows at 15. I could try it pre-dawn after leaving the scope out for a good 30 minutes to an hour but I am not sure I am up for that just to confirm what I probably already know. That and I am still kinda wiped from being in Europe for nearly a month.

As far as trying another 99A, I am taking cues from how many were tested here and did not yield decent correction. At least the sample variation in the ATX is not as high it seems. As has been mentioned here before, it’s crazy given the price of these things that QC is not tighter, even if they are stretching the laws of optical physics.

I figure I might try an ATX 95 and if that is not much better, I’ll bail on the whole idea of a scope upgrade. The ATX 85 I looked through in Scotland was just outstanding the full range, so that is what I hoping for and what got me started down this rabbit hole.

 

[4th_point]

Now then, off to observing. Of course it looks great at 30-50X but by the time it is in the 60-70X range, contrast and micro-contrast drop off.

I can't help with 95 vs 99, but appreciate you joining here, and posting your observations and star test pictures. Thanks!

Jason

 

[Coloradodipper]

I can't help with 95 vs 99, but appreciate you joining here, and posting your observations and star test pictures. Thanks!

Jason

Thanks and your welcome. Who knew that finding a good sample of a $3,000 to $5,000 spotting scope would be like trying to find a Resplendent Quetzal in Flint Michigan.

 

[kabsetz]

Wellcome to the real world of top birding scopes. Henry summed up the situation pretty well.
I am lucky to have been able to view through a higher number of top scopes than most, and to own a very very good sample of the ATX 95. I think you should return the Kowa, but as for what to get to replace it, the ATX 85 is not any more likely to be close to perfect than the 95. There really is no way around only buying a sample you have checked for quality or know you can return no questions asked.

I still haven't seen enough Kowa 99A's to be able to make any guesses as to what proportion of them are good, bad or mediocre, but I have seen a couple of very good ones. I have seen many more ATX 95's, and among them there have been at least three I would consider essentially free of aberrations other than CA, which all of them have more of than the Kowa. However, they exhibit remarkably little CA on axis in best focus - it is out-of focus images that show it, as well as edges of diffraction rings.

The other advantage the ATX range has is the option of BTX binoscope viewing. It is surprisingly addictive once you give it the little finger.

Is there a retailer in Colorado you could go to and actually test the scope you might buy? That would be by far the best option.

-Kimmo

 

[Coloradodipper]

Wellcome to the real world of top birding scopes. Henry summed up the situation pretty well.
I am lucky to have been able to view through a higher number of top scopes than most, and to own a very very good sample of the ATX 95. I think you should return the Kowa, but as for what to get to replace it, the ATX 85 is not any more likely to be close to perfect than the 95. There really is no way around only buying a sample you have checked for quality or know you can return no questions asked.

I still haven't seen enough Kowa 99A's to be able to make any guesses as to what proportion of them are good, bad or mediocre, but I have seen a couple of very good ones. I have seen many more ATX 95's, and among them there have been at least three I would consider essentially free of aberrations other than CA, which all of them have more of than the Kowa. However, they exhibit remarkably little CA on axis in best focus - it is out-of focus images that show it, as well as edges of diffraction rings.

The other advantage the ATX range has is the option of BTX binoscope viewing. It is surprisingly addictive once you give it the little finger.

Is there a retailer in Colorado you could go to and actually test the scope you might buy? That would be by far the best option.

-Kimmo

Thanks for this. I just ordered the ATX95 so I will do a test and a direct comparison on Tuesday. I do know how good bino viewing can be, I do it with my 16” dob for lunar, planets and brighter star clusters.

As for checking one out in person, the closest place to try one would be about 4 hours away over two high elevation snow packed mountain passes so it’s not likely to happen anytime soon, hence me ordering it.

The high powered view through the 99A is not bad by any means, it’s much better than the Vortex. But for the price I need it to be better...or I would hope it would be.

 

[Coloradodipper]

I took the 99A out last night and let it cool down a good 45 minutes before using it. I looked at Saturn with a bit above average seeing and it looked really quite clean at 70X easily revealing the dimmer moons, the "handles" on the rings and the ring shadow across the disk. A peek at Altair in zenith territory revealed pretty much the same SA that I have been seeing.

I look forward to getting the ATX95 on Tuesday and seeing how it performs....fingers crossed for a good one.

 

[Coloradodipper]

Got my ATX95 today, It's looking good so far.

I did my indoor star test and it is almost perfect in terms of SA, just a bit less rings on the outside focus. There might be an almost undetectable trace of coma and the same for astigmatism but other than that, it's a much better corrected scope than the 99A I returned.

The views through it are outstanding through the entire range, no haze and pops into sharp focus with microscopic resolution. At first the focus was ridiculously stiff but it seems to be loosening up. The shade is stiff as heck to pull out as well, at least I know it will stay in place.

I sure hope Kowa can tighten up the QA on the 99A, it was a great scope for its strengths.

 

[Binastro]

Hi Coloradodipper,

What were the dimmer moons on Saturn?

Rhea, Tethys, Dione or Iapetus?

Regards,
B.

 

[kabsetz]

Glad you got a good scope now. What you describe sounds excellent. On my scope, the sunshade has loosened out quite a lot in use, to the point that it is a bit too loose now. My focus action is pretty good, but the zoom in most of the ATX modules is stiffer than most people would prefer, and it tends to stay the same.

As you seem to have lucked out with a good sample, you might enjoy adding the Extender X 1,7x teleconverter to your kit. It works really well with the ATX and is especially nice if you use the scope for planetary or lunar viewing. For terrestrial viewing in steady airs it also extends your useable magnification range at least up to some 100x.

Do add some star-test photos if you get the chance.

 

[Birdister]

The sunshade on my Swarovski 115mm unit is so stiff that I cannot use it when the case is on. Really poor design.