• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

I had the scope out for a few minutes tonight and was able to zoom in (70x) on just a couple stars (one mid horizon, one near the zenith) before the clouds came in really thick. Was pleased to see absolutely pinpoint stars with no readily apparent aberrations regardless of where I put the star in the field of view.
This isn’t really what is meant by a “star-test’. At 70x in a 99mm scope the Airy disc of a centered and focused star is too small to be very useful for evaluating spherical aberration. That aberration is revealed by defocusing the star in both directions by around 3-6 diffraction rings and comparing the appearance of the rings on both sides of focus to each other. Ideally you want to see an identical pattern on both sides. Strong rings on one side of focus and weak or absent rings on the other side indicate spherical aberration.
 
Last edited:
I tried star testing the scope, but I’m not really experienced in that regard. Please see my attached photos, maybe you guys understand more than me.
I had some trouble finding those rings when out of focus in the one direction, in the other direction they were a lot clearer to see.

Martin

Hi Martin,

thanks for these images - as Henry noted these are too far away from focus but well imaged. We want 2 or 3 rings on each side... or one and the same amount off best focus on the other.

From these images I see some SA (rings well defined on one side and fuzzy on the other) as well as astigmatism (ellipses instead of rings with the main axis flipping 90 deg).

Joachim
 
I made star test today using flashlight. I covered it with black foil and made small whole in it. One one side of defocus rings were slightly less visible than on the other. On one of them rings where perfectly visible and round shaped.
I cannot take picture now, but I ordered iphone adapter so i will when I get it.
 
Hi,

I made star test today using flashlight. I covered it with black foil and made small whole in it. One one side of defocus rings were slightly less visible than on the other. On one of them rings where perfectly visible and round shaped.
I cannot take picture now, but I ordered iphone adapter so i will when I get it.

I wonder if minor misaligments of the adapter might be able to introduce additional artifacts that show shortcomings of the phone lens rather than those of the scope.

Might be irrelevant in practice, but I thought I'd maybe bring up this question for the experts :)

Regards,

Henning
 
A phone camera is not the best thing for this purpose simply because it produces such a small image of the star's diffraction patterns. They may be not stand up well to the amount of enlargement required to see them clearly.

I use a DSLR with the lens focal length usually set between 55 and 80mm. I try to get the camera lens exactly centered, but I've found that the alignment of the camera lens with the exit pupil has surprisingly little effect on the appearance of a centered star's diffraction pattern. No photo I've ever made of a star test has been as clear or revealing as the view at the eyepiece, but the basic appearance of the major aberrations usually comes through in the photos unless there is just too much air turbulence between the scope and the star.
 
Last edited:
I made star test today using flashlight. I covered it with black foil and made small whole in it. One one side of defocus rings were slightly less visible than on the other. On one of them rings where perfectly visible and round shaped.
I cannot take picture now, but I ordered iphone adapter so i will when I get it.

Hi,

thanks for the result... if you use an artificial star like you made, you need sufficient distance or you will see SA which is not really there...

30m or more are a good rule of thumb for a small refractor.

Joachim
 
How do some Kowa and Swarovski spotting scopes pass quality control when they seem to be substandard?

A Skywatcher 90mm Evostar doublet refractor costing £200 with mount probably outperforms them.

A 100mm version at £400 and 120mm version at £500 would probably be considerably better.

These astro refractors are not waterproof and are cumbersome, but I would think that at £3,000 plus Kowa and Swarovski spotting scopes should be optically good.

Perhaps with Covid standards have dropped.

Regards,
B.
 
I've been star-testing expensive spotting scopes and complaining about the poor quality control for 30 years. Zeiss and Leica are just as bad as Kowa. Swarovski seems to do somewhat better, but still can't be counted on. Nikon might be better than the rest, but I would still treat their scopes with the same caution. About 15 years ago (when Leica scopes were made by Meopta) a member here reported being told by someone at Leica that their minimum standard for shipping a scope was 1/2 wave, in other words very poor. I don't know who makes Leica scopes now, but from what I hear from sources I trust they don't appear to be any better. Nothing seems to have changed from Covid.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Henry for realism.

In other words about the same standard as a professional camera lens.

I have always said:

Buy the demonstrator in a store if it tests well, and don't buy a similar boxed scope or binocular.

Test three, six or twelve identical optics and buy the best one.

Do a rough star test and resolution test from the store.

I always carried ball bearings for sunny days or used planets, stars and the Moon in the evening.

I suppose if scopes are used at 30x, it doesn't much matter if they are actually very poor.

An owner might be convinced a poor scope is great because it has a great name on it.

What surprises me is that owners of cherry optics sell them to buy the newest and latest disaster.

For me, I don't fancy any new optics at all. I have what I need and my old eyes are happy with what I use.

Basically, if one wants a good scope, learn to do star tests and resolution tests.

Regards,
B.
 
Just found the old post about the 1/2 wave Leica scope standard. I think the account of ordering three scopes and lucking into an 1/8 wave cherry among them is good enough to pass along. Hope springs eternal!

(From Henry)
........Once again I would urge birders to learn how to test and evaluate your own scope, get a resolution chart, learn how to star test. Don’t assume a high status brand name guarantees a defect free scope, and don’t expect a defective scope you return to the manufacturer to receive some sort of high tech, sophisticated optical evaluation. It may just get a quick look from somebody who knows less about it's problems than you do.[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is an old note, but I just signed up a few days ago and it caught my eye. Some years ago I became interested in the Leica Televid Apo 77mm. I ordered three from different vendors intending to see if there were significant differences and retain the best for myself. My testing methods are similar to Henry's ie: I magnify the image and evaluate the intra/extra focal patterns as well as use test charts both magnified and at standard power.
Without going into too much detail, I ended up contacting a Leica factory technician and was told that the minimum spec. for these apo scopes was 1/2wave. I was quite surprised at this thinking that such an expensive scope would certainly be better than that. This indeed echoed what I had observed and estimated among the three samples.
One scope did indeed have about 1/2 wave s.a. - in the real world that meant that at 20x it looked about as good as the others but at 60x there was a noticeable softening of the image. The next was a little better but had some astigmatism. The third was close to 1/8 wave ! (Guess which one I kept ;). I fabricated several higher power eyepieces including a very high power eyepiece from an 2.5mm LV. I know that is pushing it even for a high quality apo spotting scope, but it performed quite well giving an almost perfect diffraction pattern. I could see Cassini's division on Saturn, split epsilon lyrae and spent many hours viewing things on good old Terra Firma.
Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is, as mentioned above, learn to evaluate the optics you buy, and you may end up with something exceptional as I did with that Leica scope or at least you won't get stuck with a lemon or wonder why it 'just isn't right' (A year later I sold it to a professional photographer on the East coast :egghead: minus the high power eyepieces) - Herb

p.s. : I could also tell you a few things about a Questar I once owned!
 
Last edited:
Hi Binastro,

How do some Kowa and Swarovski spotting scopes pass quality control when they seem to be substandard?

I'd guess that the cost of fixing them would be uneconomic when it's perfectly possible to sell them as is.

Partially, that's due to the fact that few customers are able to determine the actual quality of their scopes in relation to the potential of the design.

(Personally, I have no idea whether my Kowa 883 is a lemon or a cherry, or something in between.)

Regards,

Henning
 
Just arrived today, but i received the wrong tripod and will need to wait for its arrival. Have been using the 773 for about 7 years, and have been very happy with it. Do a lot of phoneskoping of yard box screech owls and i expect the new scope will make viewing even better at dawn and dusk. Will report back once i put the 99 though its paces.
I’ve had the tsn 99 up and running this past week, and I really like the scope. I’m coming from the Kowa 773 (2 sizes jr.) that I’ve been using the past 7 years. When you look through the 99 the view is expansive ( I don’t have the fixed eyepiece) the image is very clear and to my eye - the color is true. I do a lot of phoneskoping of resident Screech Owls and need more comparisons for dusk/dawn pictrures, but happy with what I’ve taken in the limited time. Today i used the scope at the shore/marsh/bayside off the deck. Today the images were great comparing a Belted Kingfisher perched atop a sailboat mast with last week and the 773. Distance across the bay on highest power, held up good, with unfavorable lighting conditions.

I am not a tech person, so this early and limited opinion is just based off of my opinion and comparing with the Kowa 773.

Hope this helps, and after I’ve used the scope for awhile will update.
 
Thanks for your impressions, Baysidevista.

After a promising start I'm a bit disappointed to see no new posts with star-tests or resolution measurements in the last week and I'm wondering what has happened to the promised reviews from Binomania and Optics for Birding. My recent Google searches for reviews or tests have turned up nothing but a superficial "mini review" from the Porters. For myself, I don't plan to order one of these until I see some objective tests that are more positive than what I've seen so far. Anybody out there working on anything?

Henry
 
Thanks for your impressions, Baysidevista.

After a promising start I'm a bit disappointed to see no new posts with star-tests or resolution measurements in the last week and I'm wondering what has happened to the promised reviews from Binomania and Optics for Birding. My recent Google searches for reviews or tests have turned up nothing but a superficial "mini review" from the Porters. For myself, I don't plan to order one of these until I see some objective tests that are more positive than what I've seen so far. Anybody out there working on anything?

Henry
I made resolution test and it was perfect.
 
I’ve had the tsn 99 up and running this past week, and I really like the scope. I’m coming from the Kowa 773 (2 sizes jr.) that I’ve been using the past 7 years. When you look through the 99 the view is expansive ( I don’t have the fixed eyepiece) the image is very clear and to my eye - the color is true. I do a lot of phoneskoping of resident Screech Owls and need more comparisons for dusk/dawn pictrures, but happy with what I’ve taken in the limited time. Today i used the scope at the shore/marsh/bayside off the deck. Today the images were great comparing a Belted Kingfisher perched atop a sailboat mast with last week and the 773. Distance across the bay on highest power, held up good, with unfavorable lighting conditions.

I am not a tech person, so this early and limited opinion is just based off of my opinion and comparing with the Kowa 773.

Hope this helps, and after I’ve used the scope for awhile will update.
Hi Baysidevista

I'd be very interested to see your comparative photos - I killed my 883 which I was really enjoying for digiscoping, and the 99 offers a new alternative to a straight replacement.

Cheers
Mike
 
I think it’s really tough comparing pictures from the 2 scopes, but when looking through the 99a it is a very clear/sharp image. I am noticing it being an improvement over my 773. It should also help considerably with dawn/dusk with screech owls. I will include some good shots to see if you notice any differences. First time adding pictures, so I’m not sure if this size works. First 4 with the 773 and next 4 with the 99.
 

Attachments

  • 13DD4B4D-BD56-4853-85C7-BC8455E9EB7C.jpeg
    13DD4B4D-BD56-4853-85C7-BC8455E9EB7C.jpeg
    2.3 MB · Views: 159
  • 46D4AFDD-216C-467A-9873-9AF6CC867771.jpeg
    46D4AFDD-216C-467A-9873-9AF6CC867771.jpeg
    4.1 MB · Views: 152
  • EAF7C7E7-2C28-41A6-B42D-526EDA1C5494.jpeg
    EAF7C7E7-2C28-41A6-B42D-526EDA1C5494.jpeg
    4.3 MB · Views: 161
  • DAC64CD1-9071-4EFB-B458-ABF304CFDD7F.jpeg
    DAC64CD1-9071-4EFB-B458-ABF304CFDD7F.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 167
  • 00BDF6FB-9AEE-4B28-828C-8A325C6FF5CB.jpeg
    00BDF6FB-9AEE-4B28-828C-8A325C6FF5CB.jpeg
    5.2 MB · Views: 172
  • 3A0ABDBA-02AD-48F0-82FC-6FA53A92B0AF.jpeg
    3A0ABDBA-02AD-48F0-82FC-6FA53A92B0AF.jpeg
    5.4 MB · Views: 172
  • 4C86287C-B389-433F-95D2-F82B0DD7AAF8.jpeg
    4C86287C-B389-433F-95D2-F82B0DD7AAF8.jpeg
    4.5 MB · Views: 162
  • C1F6DA39-5401-44E5-BB11-E85A77990347.jpeg
    C1F6DA39-5401-44E5-BB11-E85A77990347.jpeg
    8.7 MB · Views: 164
For 11 years, I have enjoyed the superb quality of my Kowa TSN-883. I started with two eyepieces, the TE-10 (20-60x) and the 30x WW that was later discontinued. I sold the 30xx and got the new TE-11 when it was introduced.
For digiscoping (mostly birds), I used the DA 4 and DA 10 for my Sony RX 100 II with the electronic viewfinder. I kept my TE-10 for digiscoping because it performs better than the TE-11 concerning edge sharpness.
At that time, I thought about using astronomic eyepieces and thus bought the two astro adapters that are available for the 883.
When Kowa presented the 1.6 Extender I got two of them and sold the astro adapters because the Extenders offered a magnification up to 156x which in fact does not make much sense for the 88mm lens diameter of the 883.
Now, with the TSN-99, I will have a 4' glass that will provide a lot of additional light and will make astronomy a bit more rewarding.

In the past, it became evident that there are fine and "less convincing" TSN-883. Reading this thread, I fear this might be the same problem with the TSN-99. My idea of selling the 883 and getting an 99 has at least been slowed down with some doubts for the moment.
Hhmmm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top