Inexpensive complete Balplan on ebay.

[apochronaut]

If anyone out there is contemplating paying 150.00 for an entry level Chinese microscope and doesn't think they would use magnifications above 400X , at least at this point, you might have a look at this Bausch & Lomb Balplan.
It is an unusually outfitted package,, because it is perfectly set up for upgrading with it's high intensity Koehler illuminator. The Balplan had 4 illuminators. The only one above this one was the 100 watt Koehler Research illuminator. Usually, a 400X microscope would have the cheapest illuminator.
It also has the fairly rare 2.5X planachro objective with a proper flip top condenser for it in order to fill the field. It is a professional grade 25X, 100X, 400X planachro , 20mm f.o.v. microscope built with old world craftsmanship. It even has the cord, which for some reason Balplans seem to lose. The cords are a bit odd; an old 1950's to late 70's calculator, adding machine cord apparently widely used by Hewlett-Packard known as a 163 cord. Belden made them.......I did a bit of research . Miller wants 30.00 for one.

Potential upgrades: Trinocular head can be had for about 75.00. Four or five place nosepiece, about 50.00. 4X, 20X, 100X planachros about 50.00 each: Flat Field achros even less. 15X W.F. eyepieces. I have seen them for 50.00/pr. and there are Chinese knockoffs that are good ,very cheap.

edit. I also just noticed that it has a left hand stage control, which was a more expensive option which also usually went with the more expensive right hand slide carrier, which this also has. It also has the rarer 45° head.
This microscope was custom built for a left hander that was using it for high quality low power wide field investigations.

I'm not conected with this sale in any way, except to advise on it's potential value.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bausch-Lomb-Ba ... Sw2GxfP9x6

[BramHuntingNematodes]

I can confirm that the view through that 40x is superb.

[BramHuntingNematodes]

Using the same lens, I took this picture about 15 minutes ago, single image and completely unedited, of relatively smooth comb scales of a mosquito larva (species ID pending). The scales are about 20-25 microns wide.

[Element 56]

I have personally never laid hands on a Balplan but I have heard a lot of good things about them. I seem to remember reading something somewhere by a microscope technician who compare them favorably to the BH2. I have a BH2 and IMO that's saying something. Seems at the very least to be an overlooked and underappreciated instrument by many.

Kirby

[apochronaut]

The Balplan probably predated the BH microscopes by about 10 years and although not formally called such, they were a modified infinity corrected microscope. It was very much an innovative scope that paved a few paths that other companies eventually travelled. Very comfortable microscope to use. Everything is precise and feels really sturdy.

[hans]

Any thoughts on this one that sold a couple months ago?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/224032301336

Not sure why it showed up in my searches but looked like unusually clean condition. Wasn't sure if it was complete, would those be the eyepieces pictured in the holes at the edge of the case? I did read through the "Balplan buffalo" thread after seeing it, very interesting. Trying to limit my "collecting" to old 410s for now, though.

[BramHuntingNematodes]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bausch-Lomb-Mi ... SwTDVfQqbP

[apochronaut]

Any thoughts on this one that sold a couple months ago?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/224032301336

Not sure why it showed up in my searches but looked like unusually clean condition. Wasn't sure if it was complete, would those be the eyepieces pictured in the holes at the edge of the case? I did read through the "Balplan buffalo" thread after seeing it, very interesting. Trying to limit my "collecting" to old 410s for now, though.

Those are not the eyepieces. That one looks o.k. but it has what the catalogue calls a bacteriological illuminator, which apparently has no adjustable diaphragm. I have never used or even seen one first hand. Hard to tell from the pics but the objectives look to be the newer form of the Flat Field , rather than Planachromats. The catalogue shows different cat. #'s for them but with some of the mag's , they seem identical......20X for sure.

[apochronaut]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bausch-Lomb-Mi ... SwTDVfQqbP

That's a Balplantowinalottery. Nice and complete, except maybe no 4 place nosepiece Wonderfull!

[grahamma]

I picked up the microscope mentioned in this thread and have been having a lot of fun looking at pond water and "moss water". This microscope actually has a four hole nosepiece which was a nice surprise! Given that I really enjoy looking at water samples, I was thinking that a 20x objective might be the first thing I should add. I scan with the 2.5x and then do most of my viewing with the 10x. Since I tend to look at naked water on a slide, I never use my 40x as I'm sure it would touch the water.

The few times I have used the 40x, I did so with a cover slip over a small amount of water and it seemed fine. When i watch videos (Journey to the Microcosmos), they don't usually use 400x and up anyhow.

Apochronaut, if you're reading this, thank you for posting about this microscope and for sharing your detailed insight.

To give anybody reading this a sense of my experience with microscopes, I didn't even know what a condenser is about a month ago.

I keep the the "flip top" on the condenser open at all times and I follow this guide to "get my light right": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmSmvUsRMfU. I've also looked at a Penn guide that I've seen one of you mention in another thread. Should I ever be closing the flip top? I think I tried it closed once with the 40x and I don't recall exactly how I felt about it.

Eventually, I'd like to pick up a trinocular head for a camera and maybe a darkfield condenser if I can find one. I love hunting things on Ebay; is this where you guys find your parts for these things?

Everything said, I really don't feel like I'm "dying" to add anything at all to this microscope. Maybe a 20x would hit the water and I wouldn't end up using it and I can always pop a camera into one of my eyepieces and just look at the output on a computer screen. The only reason I want darkfield is because "it looks cool" and appears to show some details not seen in brightfield. That said, I've seen a guide on DIY darkfield; maybe this would work with this microscope?

apochronaut - Is it worth it to pick up some of the knockoff 15x eyepieces you mentioned? I use to buy all sorts of stuff from Chinese sites when I was into quadcopters and electronic projects and I think I'll probably grab the 41 MP camera from Banggood mentioned in another thread.

I really love the 45° head and I'm left handed. Anyhow, having tons of fun over here and am trying to figure out how to keep a "mini indoor pond" so I don't have to leave my hermit hut so frequently for samples. I saw the thread where some have setup mini-tanks with steroscope heads looking in. Thank you all so much for sharing your info, I've learned a ton from reading your posts. I'm always terrified to post anything to forums so hopefully I haven't broken any rules or otherwise goofed in some way.

[apochronaut]

I am very, very glad that someone finally bought that. It sat for a while. Congratulations. That is a life time purchase.
answering a couple of your questions. Having the 2.5X objective and the flip top condenser is a real bonus. That was an expensive duo. The flip top can be left down for the 10X, you are correct but probably for the 20, if you get one, the imaging with the condenser fully assembled and adjusted will be slightly better. Definitely put the lens up with 40X.
If you do go looking for a 20X, it must be one that was originally made for either of the Bausch & Lomb Flat Field microscopes or the Balplan. There are several different barrel styles but they all will say 20X .50 N.A. on them and either Flat Field or Planachromat at the top, near to the threads. The colour code ring on them is a sort of pinkish lavender. There is also a 4X and of course the 100X oil immersion. You will need a cover slip with the 20X because it's working distance is .62mm only .21 greater than the .41 of the 40X. The 2.5X is 9.17, the 4X is 9.2, the 10X is 1.02 . There was also a 10X L.W.D., with a 9.95 mm relief.
Dark field should be fairly easy to accomplish with stops . There is lots of info. about doing diy darkfield on the web.

The 15X eyepieces might be of value. One nice thing about them is that they have a larger apparent field than the 10X eyepieces , so if you use them with a 10X objective, you will get the magnification as though it is a 15X objective but with a larger field , yet retain the longer working distance of the 10X objective. They are equally flat, well corrected and have lots of eye relief ; all comparable to the 10X. They can easily be used with up to the 40X objective because the N.A's. of the objectives are sufficient.
B & L made a lot of different eyepieces over the years , with each design being critically corrected for the optical characteristics required. In the latter years of their independent existence, stereomicroscopes out sold their compound microscopes, so most used B & L eyepieces are for the stereos. The cat. # you want is 31-15-62, for the 15X. A knockoff eyepiece would have to be patterned after that and not the 31-05-62 or 31-05-68, which are the 15X for the stereozooms.
I will track some down and report back but I already see that original eyepieces might also be an option, sjnce they are not that expensive. They show up on ebay, from time to time.

As an aside, I looked up the last price I have for a Balplan, configured like yours . The Oct. 1 1977 catalogue puts the model BLB41H.....the closest model to yours but filling the extra hole with a 100X 1.25 oil planachromat , at right around $2,000.00 suggested list.

[grahamma]

Thank you so much for the super detailed reply.

After reading what you wrote about the flip top condenser again, I re-read my manual and then tried to adjust my microscope so that I'd use the condenser with 10x and 40x, but not 2.5x. I started with 10x and ran through all of the diaphragm and condenser stage adjustments to get a good picture. I then went back to the 2x, flipped out the condenser, and was able to get a good picture without moving the condenser stage (well, I moved it a hair to get rid of some distortion at the center of my view). I went back to 10x, flipped in the condenser, got a good picture and then did the same with 40x (no condenser stage movement in either case). Prior to reading your post, I always had the condenser flipped out, but at 40x with it flipped in, I thought my picture was really nice and much better than before! I spent a good amount of time looking at a really fat rotifer (I think) that was two beautifully disgusting shades of yellow. I'm very happy to finally get things working with my condenser and I'll probably want to use my 40x more frequently now that I can get such a nice picture with it.

I need to watch some videos on how to better isolate things that I find in my petri dish. I tried (and failed) to transfer a tardigrade from the dish to a slide, but I succeeded with some tiny animal (with segmented legs) by sucking less water with my pipette. "Too much sucking" on that first try I think.. When I'm finally able to view a tardigrade at 40x, it'll be a little milestone for me.

I'm excited about your comments on dark field.. It sounds like I don't need to try to hunt down an expensive condenser and can, instead, try one of the DIY dark field tutorials (as you suggested). I pulled my condenser out last night (love how easy that is) and looked at it to find the filter slot. I think I've found the slot (just an open slot above the non-flippable lens in the condenser) and was thinking I should just measure the width to determine the max diameter for a filter. I watched a microbehunter tutorial last night and I think he 3d printed his filters so this will give me an excuse to fire up my printer again. I'll bet that yellow rotifer I was looking at last night would look intense on dark field!

As for objectives.. I had seen that 20x on the "Baffling Buffalo" thread and thought that color was brown. Now that I look at it again, I can see that it more "pinkish lavender" as you say.

I've researched the oil objectives and I really don't think they're my thing (for now). If I recall correctly, it sounds like you can get away with oil on the slide, but not the condenser, but then I read some threads describing the difficulty of doing that with aquatic slides and just thought, "sounds rough".

I'll bet a lot of people think 2.5x isn't worth much, but I like it as it allows me to scan water for interesting things very quickly. Maybe I'd like the 4x as well.

Thanks again, more things "stick" each time I read them. For example, now I know to pay attention to the working distance of an objective when considering what will work over open water and what won't. All the information I needed to figure out if the 20x would work over water was right there in the manual on irak, I just didn't see it / know to look for it.

[BramHuntingNematodes]

Yeah all those planachromat lenses are good but the 40x is a masterpiece

[Hobbyst46]

I'll bet a lot of people think 2.5x isn't worth much, but I like it as it allows me to scan water for interesting things very quickly. Maybe I'd like the 4x as well.

A 2.5X is very appropriate for larger specimens, for example foraminifera, moss leaves... There are even 1X objectives, and they are often expensive !

[apochronaut]

Some of the older 20X look brown. Possibly they were or the ring is just dirty or faded over time.