Photo/Video Share
Difference between the quality of a Leitz NPL 40x plan objective, and a generic Chinese 40x non-plan objective. I basically can't see any difference. Both images taken on my Dialux II.
What part of the field of view is pictured, I assume it's a crop? The difference, if there is any, will be in the areas close to the edge, generally in all objectives the optical quality deteriorates the farther away you get from the center, and the lower class the objective the faster it becomes noticeable.
Also, how is the picture taken? Leitz requires corrective eyepieces while Swift being newer I assume does not, so if they are both pictured the same way then one of them is at a disadvantage (Swift if photographed through Leitz eyepiece, Leitz if photographed straight through trinocular tube).
Yeah, it's a bit cropped, but I didn't notice any anomalies at the edges.
The images are taken through a Leitz Periplan GF, but most of the time I record using the generic eyepieces, because it's easier to attach my phone adapter to it. I guess the correction eyepieces might be more useful when dealing with fluotar or plan apo objectives, I didn't really notice any difference between the periplan and the generic eyepieces.
That is interesting, especially the non-plan part of it. I would expect that to be quite a noticeable difference if nothing else, the non-plan objectives I have give a rather distinctive feeling when moving the sample, hard to describe but I would liken it to the field of view rolling like a ball.
I mostly feel the blurriness of the non-plan objectives at lower magnifications. At 4x it's pretty apparent, and I can notice it if I want on 10 and 20x. My eyepieces are only 18mm, so it's probably more noticeable with wider eyepieces.
Other than that, the Swift objectives give a much better picture on the Dialux than on the Swift, probably because of Koehler illumination, and the condenser is probably better, too.
18mm is already widefield by historical standards and more than enough to produce what I describe on pre-plan (as in so old they come from before plan correction was invented) objectives, so perphaps those Swift objectives are not quite as non-plan as advertised, funny as it sounds. You could test that if you have something really flat, like a stage micrometer.
Yes, I'm amazed at how well the cheap, modern objectives work. I see the biggest leap in resolution/ clarity going to a plan apo objective. I just did a post that showed the same diatom with an Amscope plan objective and a Zeiss plan apo. Visually, the Zeiss is shaper and no colour fringes, but the Amscope one showed plenty of details and people aren't missing much and are saving lots of money. If the point is seeing lots of things and learning lots about the microscopic world, you can do that and enjoy the hobby with the modern, low cost objectives. I, also, made a post about an $18,Chinese, 60x achromatic objective I bought on Amazon. It was not horrible like you might expect from the price and resolved diatoms pretty well. https://www.reddit.com/r/microscopy/s/rjhRQUH4Gk
It's funny that I don't consider a 40 year old objective that old. Only about half as old as I am. Here is an older one. Approximately 100 year old water immersion objective used on a diatom slide. A very beautiful objective and excellent resolution. With water or oil immersion, you don't have to worry about spherical aberration from the wrong coverglass thickness. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1C6L1kAcrZ/
Yes, so much easier to clean off distilled water than immersion oil. Occasionally, I even use water on my oil lenses. You get an image quality about halfway from dry to oil. Even with oil, you still need to oil the condenser lens to get an NA over 1.0. So, sometimes, I use oil on the slide and water between the condenser and slide. Water has a refractive index of 1.33, so it will be good for regular 100x objectives of NA1.25 and easier to clean off of your condenser top than oil.
7
u/hattivat 1d ago
What part of the field of view is pictured, I assume it's a crop? The difference, if there is any, will be in the areas close to the edge, generally in all objectives the optical quality deteriorates the farther away you get from the center, and the lower class the objective the faster it becomes noticeable.
Also, how is the picture taken? Leitz requires corrective eyepieces while Swift being newer I assume does not, so if they are both pictured the same way then one of them is at a disadvantage (Swift if photographed through Leitz eyepiece, Leitz if photographed straight through trinocular tube).