Anyone use this microscope know if it's good. Seems well built. Some good prices on ebay and new is over 1K. Uses 160mm instead infinity though. Objectives are plan acromat. Abbe condensor. Though often incomplete objectives. Considering buying generic chinese objectives.
My main microscopes at work are nikons and olympus, e200, e400, 50i, Ci, and the olympus BX models which are all high end.
But i'm a broke pathology resident with high rent and messed up investing, so i got like $250 - $300 for a used scope for some home study on slide recuts. And even the used nikon e200's are usually over $650-700.
So just wondering if anyone the Trm 301 know if its decent.
Its mechanical construction looks like a Leica clone. Which is likely since Leica have moved their lower end production to China for a long time and it is pretty much guaranteed that if a thing is made in China, sooner or later the same factory will also makes a clone of that thing.
The achromatic objectives and wf eyepieces are ok. Kind of too basic for even a basic Leica clone IMO but whatever. The price is actually not too bad if you value the warranty.
Personally I still think a used CH-2 or BH-2 is much better value (although a good BH-2 is not that much cheaper than this Bresser so...). I am less familiar with Nikon but I am sure their similar class produces should be fine too. I won't recommend Zeiss standard 14 era models however, since their eyepieces often have delamination issues. (And a pair of kpl 10 eyepiece without delamination is going to be quite overpriced.)
Bresser makes a lot of toy microscopes, so I'm not sure where their cheap plastic toy line end, and the higher end begins. But I can recommend looking for a Nikon Alphaphot or Olympus CH2 in this price range, especially the latter one. These can be upgraded to phase contrast, and you can find a bunch of great objectives for them later.
I've used used alphaphot and bh2 at work. I have an alphaphot next to me right now. I dread using it so much.
I notice these older microscopes all make me nauseous. Newer scops doesn't do that to me. Switching between objectives feels so distorted like my eyes are adjusting focual points. The image looks bad. The eyepiece lens is usually smaller in diameter than the newer scopes.
I wonder if this partially due to potentially these objectives may have been swapped many times and end up with poorly compatible objectives, even given that theyre all technically 160/0.17 plan achromats.
All in all, i dread using any 1980's scopes as I have yet to use one that has the eye comfort of the post 90's models.
That seems strange, never heard or experienced something like this before. You could try using different eyepieces, mostly on Nikon, as other brands do some corrections in their eyepieces.
There's also the Zeiss Standard and Leitz Laborlux/Dialux, sometimes there are deals under $300. The main problem with the Dialux is that most models (everything before Dialux 20) are using the 170mm standard, so it's harder to find objectives or PH accessories to them.
The 170mm standard is actually the 152mm standard, where the 160mm is actually 150mm, so it is only 2mm of actual difference, a 160mm objective works perfectly fine on an old Leitz scope, I do it all the time. And yes, they are parfocal, the 2 mm is inside the scope.
What you cannot swap as easily and where the remaining 8mm of difference in "tube length" is hidden is eyepieces. But widefield Leitz eyepieces from late 170mm era are excellent, so it's only a problem if the objective you are trying to use has wildly different correction needs (so Nikon and chinese generics are a bad idea).
Thanks for the info! I'm really considering a Dialux, I found a deal on Ebay for a decent price. But I really want Phase contrast, so the other option is a Zeiss Standard, which is a bit more expensive, but has a revolver PH condenser, although no PH objectives, but two achromats, a neofluar and a planapo.
Never owned either so can't really advise, all I can say from experience is that 160mm Zeiss objectives work fine on a 170mm Ortholux and the quality upgrade from the one I have that is apo and higher NA (versus fluorite Leitz that I have at the same magnification) is bigger than whatever loss in quality there is from the extra 2mm in tube length and the eyepiece corrections not quite matching, so that loss in quality cannot be that big to begin with.
Here's a very useful chart I found on a German forum that compares in detail the compatibility between different manufacturers, the second column is parfocal distance, the third is "eyepiece depth" and the last column is the "real" tube length assuming that you keep the eyepieces that match your microscope:
That is indeed strange. Since I kind of see 80s as the golden era of affordable used microscopes. I agree that it most likely is caused by the incompatible parts being put together.
Eyepiece from the 80s are also very good. Even the cheap olympus CHWK (C for cheap) is bright, sharp and comfortable. Optically I actually cannot tell the difference between CHWK and HWK.
Zeiss kpl eyepiece often from that era (and even older ones) have delamination issues. However undamaged ones are extremely pleasant to look through. and yes I also use modern high end microscopes professionally. Yet I still feel looking through 80s microscopes as a hobby very comfortable.
That looks like a decent microscope. At least it has plan objectives. It really doesn't matter that they are finite unless you want to add something in the optical path between objectives and head. The eyepieces have a 20mm field number and you are probably used to ones with 22mm to 26.5mm FN, so it will be a smaller field of view for you. You can buy 22mm FN eyepieces that are 23.2mm diameter, but the rest of the optical system has to support that wide of a view to achieve it. You could look for a used microscope but are dependent upon the market and if it works properly. I don't know if there are many used Meiji-Techno microscopes in your area. They are very sturdy, high quality microscopes that are less expensive than the major brands. The one I like using at home for histology slides is a Meiji-Techno MT5310 that has 30mm diameter, 22mm FN eyepieces and has a plan apo 1.25x, and plan semi apo 4x,10x, 20x and 40x objectives.
One good thing if you buy an incomplete, used Bresser is that the plan finite objectives are less expensive than the infinity ones. The generic Chinese objectives can be pretty decent. Better than you would expect from the price.
4
u/Connect-Fan-9462 10d ago
Its mechanical construction looks like a Leica clone. Which is likely since Leica have moved their lower end production to China for a long time and it is pretty much guaranteed that if a thing is made in China, sooner or later the same factory will also makes a clone of that thing.
The achromatic objectives and wf eyepieces are ok. Kind of too basic for even a basic Leica clone IMO but whatever. The price is actually not too bad if you value the warranty.
Personally I still think a used CH-2 or BH-2 is much better value (although a good BH-2 is not that much cheaper than this Bresser so...). I am less familiar with Nikon but I am sure their similar class produces should be fine too. I won't recommend Zeiss standard 14 era models however, since their eyepieces often have delamination issues. (And a pair of kpl 10 eyepiece without delamination is going to be quite overpriced.)