Kowa TSN-99a vs. Leica APO 82 Televid (1 Viewer)

[mistermuel]

I recently tried my uncle's 20+ year old Leica APO Televid 77 and not having experienced a quality scope before, I was amazed at the quality. I immediately set out to buy a Leica, but upon researching discovered that Kowa seems to be the way to go. Then I found out about the new TSN-99a which seems to be the biggest and best scope available.

I live in an area where I can't test either scope. I've seen others have the same problem with testing various scopes.

Does anybody have a general opinion of the Kowa TSN-99a vs the Leica APO Televid 82?

The Kowa 99 is about twice as heavy and larger. Does anybody who owns one find the size to be a drawback or do you even notice?

Open to general comments about the pros and cons of either scope. This is one of those things you buy and have for 25 years, so I am thinking carefully about it.

 

[PYRTLE]

Kowa all the way for me from those two models. Leica unfortunately have fallen behind in terms of quality and popularity by those birders who purchase their optics.

 

[mistermuel]

That's the main idea I got from reading the forums. Lots of folks are excited about their Kowa scopes, but I did not see much love for Leica.

Still the 20+ year old APO televid 77 was pretty amazing to me. I don't have any experience with scopes. Has anybody looked through both scopes? Would it WOW the average Joe or just be enough of a difference to impress a connoisseur?

 

[PYRTLE]

The Leica APO 77 was the frontrunner for many years (30 years plus) despite it's weight, some had a few problems with objective lens coatings but this was dealt with by a then very strong warranty and service department. It was an alpha scope for sure. Your last request cannot be easily answered for many reasons.

 

[DRodrigues]

...Then I found out about the new TSN-99a which seems to be the biggest and best scope available.
...

The Kowa 99 should be compared to the Swarovski X95. The biggest is the Swarovski X115...
Unfortunately Leica didn't released a new scope line that would include a +- 100 version.
Both Kowa 88 and Swarovski X85 are better than the Leica 82. The Zeiss Harpia 95/85 might also be interesting to you...
There are also interesting scopes with about 80mm aperture, being that Nikon Monarch 82 and Meopta 82 come to my memory!
All depends on for what you want a spotting scope and how much are you willing to spend, but we can not complain of low diversity and quality!

 

[RandyBo]

About 1.5 years ago I found myself in a Bass Pro Shop looking at binoculars. I compared the Leica Trinovid 10x42’s to the Zeiss Conquest and Swarovski EL’s. I will state up-front that I could not afford the Swarovski’s but, I still wanted to compare because, like you, I was under the impression that Leica really trailed behind the likes of Kowa, SwarovskI and Zeiss when it came to binoculars and spotting scopes. I will also state that I am certainly not very experienced when it comes to high-end optics but, as an underground surveyor, I do have close to 30 years experience with surveying equipment (theodolites and total stations). What I observed in Bass Pro that day was actually somewhat surprising; I was really expecting to be blown away by the optics of the Swarovski and Zeiss compared to the Leica, but I wasn’t. This was my first time looking through high-end binoculars and I was really impressed by all three brands. What really struck me that day was the mechanics and build quality of the Leica compared to the Swarovski’s which cost roughly $1700 more. And, how the mechanics and build quality of the Leica binoculars seemed to compare to the mechanics and build quality of the Leica surveying instruments I had used for almost 30 years (without one single failure of any kind). In my opinion the Leica Trinovid’s build quality and mechanics equaled that of the Swarovski EL’s. I would give the edge in optics to the Swarovski’s but, honestly (to my eyes) the optics were not $1700 better. I do realize this comparison was done inside a store and, if outside, the advantage could have been much greater. I did purchase the Leica Trinovid’s that day. My wife and I have used them almost every day since and have greatly enjoyed them.
Which leads to the topic of this post. My wife and I have enjoyed the Leica Trinovids so much we decided to purchase a spotting scope but, with a limited budget the choices were limited. After several months, and much searching, I found a used Leica Televid 82 with the eyepiece, 1.8 extender and Leica field case for $2995 online at the Leica Store in Miami (with their 7 day trial period on used equipment). I will state this is the only spotting scope I have looked through. To say that I am pleased would be an understatement. The views through this scope are amazing (to my eyes). The details of birds, craters on the moon and rings of Saturn are things I can view now with amazing clarity and definition. Now would a Kowa or a Swarovski give you even more amazing views (based on what most people here, with way more experience than me, would say) the answer seems to be yes. And, I certainly could not argue this point because as I stated earlier this is the only spotting scope I have looked through. And a Kowa 88+99, Zeiss 95, Swarovski 95+115 will definitely provide more light. So the only thing I can add is that in my opinion the mechanics and build quality of my Leica Televid 82 are outstanding.
So, to wrap this long-winded post up, a lot of my admiration for Leica comes from using their surveyping equipment almost every day for nearly 30 years without one single failure. Can their binoculars and spotting scopes match that; I do not know. But, in my opinion, the mechanics and build quality of the Leica binoculars and spotting scope I purchased match that of their surveying equipment and, for this reason alone, I would suggest that you not eliminate Leica from your list.

 

[Binastro]

Hi RB,

I don't know what an underground surveyor is.

But how do you fix true North?
Or starting position?

What accuracy is achieved over 1 mile both in distance and angle, horizontal and vertical?

Are theodolites, laser rangefinders used, or maybe GPS?

If GPS is it measured over twenty minutes at both ends?

I have been happy with all the Leica optics I have used.

Regards,
B.

P.S.
I looked up Total Stations and know a bit more now.

 

[jring]

Hi mistermuel,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

One of the worst scopes that I have looked through was a Leica 82mm on display in some optics store. The owner said that it's a lemon that should never have left the factory and he's arguing with Leica to get it replaced.

That does not mean that all Leica scopes are bad, but there might be not so great examples out there (although not so great was a euphemism for that specific example).
This goes for all manufacturers including the alpha brands. Interestingly the best rep so far has Nikon (not so great at support at times depending on your local branch, but we have read about a few perfect examples of their new Monarch fieldscope line out there (which is indeed very rare) and also no outright lemons yet.

So my advice to you is to look through some scopes before you buy. Either with fellow birders or in a store through whatever they have (make that ED scopes only - no need to look through $100 fast achromats - physics dictates that they won't be sharp beyond 40x).

Ideally read up on star testing... or at least test whether the new scope is sharp at its maximum magnification on a cool overcast morning (to avoid air turbulence) and that there is an easy to find point of best focus at that magnification - as opposed to a wide range of least mushiness...

Joachim

 

[RandyBo]

Hi RB,

I don't know what an underground surveyor is.

But how do you fix true North?
Or starting position?

What accuracy is achieved over 1 mile both in distance and angle, horizontal and vertical?

Are theodolites, laser rangefinders used, or maybe GPS?

If GPS is it measured over twenty minutes at both ends?

I have been happy with all the Leica optics I have used.

Regards,
B.

P.S.
I looked up Total Stations and know a bit more now.

The job of an underground surveyor (in my case for a coal mining operation) is to help the miners extract the coal based on pre-approved mining plans (projections). Before the first block of coal is mined engineers and geologist study the coal reserves and come up with a map (projections) that shows how the mines is going to be laid out. This map (projections) along with other plans are then submitted to MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration). Once approved it is very important to follow this map (projections) or you could face heavy fines and possibly temporary mine closure by MSHA. There are also safety concerns like old abandoned mines and gas wells that you do not want to cut into; both of these could, and have, result in fatal consequences for all underground miners.

After the projections are approved we would hire a surveying company to come out and GPS (my coal company did not own GPS surveying equipment) at least 2 surveying points (normally iron rods driven almost flush with the ground) in. Once the GPS survey is complete you will have (X,Y and Z) coordinates for the two iron rods. I do not have any experience with GPS survey equipment so, I am not sure how long they would keep the receivers running to obtain the coordinates but, I do remember them coming out in the morning, and then again, in the evening, so that they could access a different set of satellites.

Once we had the coordinates of the two iron rods, and the first cut of coal was taken out of the high wall, we could then set the first spad underground. A spad is a key-like object driven into the mine roof. A spad, once set, has a pre-drilled hole, to allow a plumb bob to be hung from it. Our theodolites and total stations had a point (dimple) on top of the instrument that we used to center directly underneath the plumb bob which was hanging from a spad. Spads are always set in pairs (usally 3‘-4’ apart). The boss will hang a laser (or sight-rods) from the spads which enables him to spray paint a line on the roof. The continuous miner operator will use this line to get each new cut of coal. After approximately 200’ of coal is extracted (mined) from each entry we would set a new pair of spads in each entry. Each new set of spads come from the previous set of spads, which come from the previous set, which eventually came from the 2 control points (iron rods) mentioned above. When my partner (front chain-man) set a new spad, he would hang a plumb-bob from it and place his mining light behind the string at the top of the plumb bob. I would then look through the instrument to see how close the string is to the cross-hairs in the instrument. Ideally I would have him knock the spad right or left until the cross-hair is splitting the string. If the instrument man and front chain-man do a good job pre-aligning a new spad before it is drilled and set, the front chain-man should never need to knock the spad more than 1 or 2 strings right or left to get it as close to perfect as possible. After alignment is complete you obtain your distance by measuring from instrument to plumb bob with a 300’ steel tape measure (if using a theodolite) or you thread a prism onto the plumb bob string and shoot the distance using the instruments EDM (if using a total station). The instrument’s EDM works like a laser rangefinder but is accurate to within .001’.

After you repeat the above process about 10 times your mines is now approximately 2000’ deep underground and it is now time to run a check survey, because each time you set new spads you always have some error (human/instrumentation). But, what you will find with a good spad crew, and with good instrumentation, is that these errors are usually very small, and usually off-setting. To determine the amount of error our check surveys (based on proposed mining distances) had to tie 1:40,000 or 1’ in 40,000’ or approximately 1.5” in 1 mile. We were also responsible for carrying elevations to each part of the mines. Your first check survey and elevations start with the 2 control points (iron rods) set near the mine site.

 

[RandyBo]

The 1:40,000 standard we had was put in place before mining began. The initial projections showed our mine eventually reaching 40,000’ underground. If a mining accident occurs and you have a group of miner’s trapped at this 40,000’ mark, you should be able to bring a surface drill in, place it at an exact spot, drill a ventilation hole, and have that hole come out to within 1’ (X,Y and Z).

 

[RandyBo]

The two instruments that carried me through the majority of my surveying career: Leica/Wild T2 theodolite and a Leica TC1800 total station. Both were 1 second instruments. The T2 was manufactured around 1975 and the TC1800 around 1995. Both instruments still performed as new in 2017 and, as far as I know, still see daily use. I would estimate that these instruments have turned tens of thousands of angles and the TC1800 tens of thousands distances shot; with zero failures and zero malfunctions. Optically and mechanically both instruments were still perfect in 2017.

My hope is to get the same service from my Leica binoculars and spotting scope. I feel truly blessed to own such instruments and to be in good enough health to observe God’s wonderful Creation.

 

[wllmspd]

Impressive stuff, always wondered how it was done and how accurate you could get.. Reminds me of a new rail line in London where they needed to drive the tunnel 80cm above one line and 30cm from another obstacle… done perfectly… Your questions answered: Crossrail | The Engineer

Peter

 

[Binastro]

Thank you very much RB for your detailed answer.

Problems I see are that there is subsidence in Britain from mines and set points move both vertically and horizontally.

Plumb lines are also influenced by mountains.

Steel tapes are influenced by temperature, but there are low expansion tapes.

My interest is in astronomical positioning.
I used filar micrometers for star measures and also for estimating the height of aircraft.

I think the Channel Tunnel was drilled from both ends and met in the middle to very good accuracy.

The laser rangefinders sold to the general public are not very accurate. I think they could be improved by ten times in accuracy.

I have a Leica Disto and a Leica rangefinder.
Also some Leica binoculars, a Leica scope and some Leica lenses.
I have a high regard for Leica.
But also for Swarovski, Zeiss, Taylor Hobson and Cooke.
Also Den Oude Delft and others.

Best regards,
B.

 

[kwikstaart]

I recently tried my uncle's 20+ year old Leica APO Televid 77 and not having experienced a quality scope before, I was amazed at the quality. I immediately set out to buy a Leica, but upon researching discovered that Kowa seems to be the way to go. Then I found out about the new TSN-99a which seems to be the biggest and best scope available.

I live in an area where I can't test either scope. I've seen others have the same problem with testing various scopes.

Does anybody have a general opinion of the Kowa TSN-99a vs the Leica APO Televid 82?

The Kowa 99 is about twice as heavy and larger. Does anybody who owns one find the size to be a drawback or do you even notice?

Open to general comments about the pros and cons of either scope. This is one of those things you buy and have for 25 years, so I am thinking carefully about it.

I have a Kowa TSN 883 since 2009 and use it most of the time with the 30x wide eye piece, my brother a Leica Apo Televid 77 with 32x wide ep. Comparing them side by side? Yes, the Kowa is brighter, a bit sharper, wider fieldof view etc. But looking through the Leica still is a pleasure! And I understand that he doesn't need a new scope.
So, if you can use the Leica and you are happy with it then use it untill you can compare (or never compare and you will stay happy). If money isn't an issue or you just want the best: buy the Kowa.
Please let is know what you decide

 

[mistermuel]

I have a Kowa TSN 883 since 2009 and use it most of the time with the 30x wide eye piece, my brother a Leica Apo Televid 77 with 32x wide ep. Comparing them side by side? Yes, the Kowa is brighter, a bit sharper, wider fieldof view etc. But looking through the Leica still is a pleasure! And I understand that he doesn't need a new scope.
So, if you can use the Leica and you are happy with it then use it untill you can compare (or never compare and you will stay happy). If money isn't an issue or you just want the best: buy the Kowa.
Please let is know what you decide

Thanks to everybody for the help. This is a really nice, helpful, and polite forum. Rare on the internet. Reflects positively on the birding community.

I actually ended up buying both lenses. I found a great condition used Leica APO Televid 77 on ebay with a fixed 32x eyepiece, and bought the brand new Kowa TSN-99a with the 30-70x eyepiece. I'm going to give them a side-by-side comparison-- albeit from a novice perspective.

From there, I might be able to track down a Leica 82 next time I visit a city that has a dealer. Then I will have a pretty good baseline from which to judge it.

If all these scope companies just made demos more accessible it would really help to sell their products.

 

[mistermuel]

Hi mistermuel,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

One of the worst scopes that I have looked through was a Leica 82mm on display in some optics store. The owner said that it's a lemon that should never have left the factory and he's arguing with Leica to get it replaced.

That does not mean that all Leica scopes are bad, but there might be not so great examples out there (although not so great was a euphemism for that specific example).
This goes for all manufacturers including the alpha brands. Interestingly the best rep so far has Nikon (not so great at support at times depending on your local branch, but we have read about a few perfect examples of their new Monarch fieldscope line out there (which is indeed very rare) and also no outright lemons yet.

So my advice to you is to look through some scopes before you buy. Either with fellow birders or in a store through whatever they have (make that ED scopes only - no need to look through $100 fast achromats - physics dictates that they won't be sharp beyond 40x).

Ideally read up on star testing... or at least test whether the new scope is sharp at its maximum magnification on a cool overcast morning (to avoid air turbulence) and that there is an easy to find point of best focus at that magnification - as opposed to a wide range of least mushiness...

Joachim

Thanks! I did want to do some sort of objective testing on both lenses like a star test. Does anybody have a link to would explain how to do that?

 

[jring]

Thanks! I did want to do some sort of objective testing on both lenses like a star test. Does anybody have a link to would explain how to do that?

Hi,

put some aluminum foil on a smooth and hard surface like glass and a very tiny hole with the tip of a needle or pin. Fasten the foil with the hole in front of a led flashlight and check if there is a tine round speck of light visible.
Put artificial star at a distance of 20 or 30m and observe with the scope at maximum magnification. At best focus you should see a bright dot, maybe a faint ring around it. Then you defocus just a tiny bit to either side and you will ideally see identical diffraction patterns of 2 or 3 concentric rings on each side. This means, the scope is perfect and is a VERY rare occurrence!

In reality you will see the following things, each standing for a certain kind of aberration:

• not circles but ellipses with the major axis flipping by 90 degrees from inside to outside focus - astigmatism aka stig
• well defined rings on one side but hazy rings or a blurry disc on the other - spherical aberration aka SA
• patterns are not concentric - coma

It might also be a mix of the two or other stuff like zones or edge problems... see the following link for a lot of dry theory and good images of what the perfect case and the different aberrations look like (further down). You are always interested in the unobstructed case as we're not testing a mirror telescope with a central obstruction.

Star testing telescope optical quality

The basics of star testing telescope: diameter of artificial star, distance induced spherical aberration.

www.telescope-optics.net

Or of course get the definitive book on star testing: Star testing Astronomical Telescopes; Suiter, Harold Richard; 1994; Wilmann-Bell. Not quite sure if it is currently in print...

Joachim

See

 

[jcwu88]

Hi,

put some aluminum foil on a smooth and hard surface like glass and a very tiny hole with the tip of a needle or pin. Fasten the foil with the hole in front of a led flashlight and check if there is a tine round speck of light visible.
Put artificial star at a distance of 20 or 30m and observe with the scope at maximum magnification. At best focus you should see a bright dot, maybe a faint ring around it. Then you defocus just a tiny bit to either side and you will ideally see identical diffraction patterns of 2 or 3 concentric rings on each side. This means, the scope is perfect and is a VERY rare occurrence!

In reality you will see the following things, each standing for a certain kind of aberration:

• not circles but ellipses with the major axis flipping by 90 degrees from inside to outside focus - astigmatism aka stig
• well defined rings on one side but hazy rings or a blurry disc on the other - spherical aberration aka SA
• patterns are not concentric - coma

It might also be a mix of the two or other stuff like zones or edge problems... see the following link for a lot of dry theory and good images of what the perfect case and the different aberrations look like (further down). You are always interested in the unobstructed case as we're not testing a mirror telescope with a central obstruction.

Star testing telescope optical quality

The basics of star testing telescope: diameter of artificial star, distance induced spherical aberration.

www.telescope-optics.net

Or of course get the definitive book on star testing: Star testing Astronomical Telescopes; Suiter, Harold Richard, 1994, Wilmann-Bell. Not quite sure if it is currently in print...

Joachim

See

Hello Joachim,

Thank you for sharing the star test information.
I have some additional info. Since the light source is white, the dispersion lights of different wavelengths will interfere close the focus( usually it’s on out focus side). So that makes one side (inner focus) diffraction patterns (rings) clear; while the out defocus side patterns is barely visible.

I tested my five spotting scopes from Nikon ED50 to 99a, they all have same trends as clear inner diffraction patterns and barely visible on outside focus.

An excellent explanation links (its reference are valuable as comments from telescope designers):
Star testing a modern ED Doublet refractor with Altair Camera | Altair Astro Customer Support

Jay

 

[wllmspd]

If Suiter is out of print it will likely be back in print as willman bell titles are soon to be available again. You can also make an artificial star by shining a light off a small curved ball bearing as well (of the sun), again with a good separation of you from the “star”. Suiter details various rules of thumbs for distances; the resources highlighted should help you get going!

Peter

 

[jring]

Hello Joachim,

Thank you for sharing the star test information.
I have some additional info. Since the light source is white, the dispersion lights of different wavelengths will interfere close the focus( usually it’s on out focus side). So that makes one side (inner focus) diffraction patterns (rings) clear; while the out defocus side patterns is barely visible.

I tested my five spotting scopes from Nikon ED50 to 99a, they all have same trends as clear inner diffraction patterns and barely visible on outside focus.

An excellent explanation links (its reference are valuable as comments from telescope designers):
Star testing a modern ED Doublet refractor with Altair Camera | Altair Astro Customer Support

Jay

Hi Jay,

I would love to believe that (as then my so far slightly undercorrected - that's what clear rings before and mushy later means) TSN-3 might be actually better than it looks in star test - and yes, the daytime view is very sharp even at high magnification.

Although regarding that link I have to say that it is a far stretch to say that the 2nd star test with green filter results into sth. as bad as the 3rd one in white light... the effect is much less pronounced.
Also stating that "the best test of any optics is in focus" leaves me kinda puzzled... for the in focus image to be visibly degraded you need quite strong aberrations - often worse than diffraction limited. The normal star test with out of focus diffraction patterns is much more sensitive than that.
Lastly it does not really look like a carefully researched article when the "noted optical designer of the Astro Physics refractors" is called Roland Christensen... the man's surname is Christen.

See the link below for what the effect looks like in a good scope (white light in post 1, green light in post 20):

Doubts about Taka FC100D star test - Refractors - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 4 - Doubts about Taka FC100D star test - posted in Refractors : Good morning everyone, attached you will find star test of my new Takahashi FC100DF (100 mm f/7,4 fluorite doublet), in white light. I know that apochromats often dont show identical extrafocal and intrafocal patterns...

www.cloudynights.com

The Tak in that link has an admittedly easier task being quite a bit smaller at 100 vs 140mm aperture plus slightly slower at f7.4 vs f7 and also being a fluorite doublet vs a doublet with an unnamed ED glass - might be fpl-51 or so which will be a stretch to get to work acceptable in a doublet that large, fpl-53 et al. performance should be close to fluorite though at same aperture and focal ratio.

Joachim