I have a turret with a 4X, 10X, 40X and a 100X objectives. I want to buy a 60X objective so I will have to replace one of the objectives, but which one? Could I get some advice from people who gone this route? I am going to be viewing a variety of objects including animal cells, plant cells, and protists. live Bacteria also if I can find and identify them. I want to see organelles in the cells also. An 80X would be nice but apparently amscope nor amazon has them.
Is the 60X and 100X water proof? I would like to try them with water even though I know the RI would be off.
Thanks,
Paul
UPDATE: Well Ebay has the 80X but they out of my price range right now and besides, I don't trust Ebay.
60X objective
60X objective
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
Paul,
You will be VERY disappointed with image quality from dry 60x or oil 100x objective immersed/dipped into water. But you don't have to trust me, spend your money and you will find out.
I suggest two solutions:
1) just get a dry 60x and use it dry. Image quality may not be top notch but cost is low. AmScope branded dry 60x may not have much resale value though, if you ever want to sell it to finance an upgrade.
Some people replace their oil 100x with a dry 60x and are quite happy that way. Bacteria viewing need 100x oil, but most protists don't demand over 60x objective.
2) modify your AmScope stand to focus with short 33 mm LOMO objectives. LOMO offered water immersion objectives in 30x NA 0.9, 40x NA 0.75, 65x NA 1.1, 70x NA 1.23 and 80x NA 1.0. Their image quality ranges from good to very good (much better than option #1). To get dry 60x , use a LOMO 40x NA 0.95 dry objective with K15x compensating eyepieces.
You will be VERY disappointed with image quality from dry 60x or oil 100x objective immersed/dipped into water. But you don't have to trust me, spend your money and you will find out.
I suggest two solutions:
1) just get a dry 60x and use it dry. Image quality may not be top notch but cost is low. AmScope branded dry 60x may not have much resale value though, if you ever want to sell it to finance an upgrade.
Some people replace their oil 100x with a dry 60x and are quite happy that way. Bacteria viewing need 100x oil, but most protists don't demand over 60x objective.
2) modify your AmScope stand to focus with short 33 mm LOMO objectives. LOMO offered water immersion objectives in 30x NA 0.9, 40x NA 0.75, 65x NA 1.1, 70x NA 1.23 and 80x NA 1.0. Their image quality ranges from good to very good (much better than option #1). To get dry 60x , use a LOMO 40x NA 0.95 dry objective with K15x compensating eyepieces.
Re: 60X objective
P3aul, I added the Amscope 60X dry to my Amscope and have not been disappointed at all. I also added a 20X so most of the time I use the 4x, 10x, 20x, and 40x. When I want to "Move in" past the 40x I screw in the 60x and am hardly ever disappointed. Not all subjects lend themselves to that dry magnification but IMO beats messing with the oil 100x and the cleanup afterwards.
Try it.
JimT
Try it.
JimT
Re: 60X objective
One method to using oil is to set up a nose piece equipped with only oil objectives. Three of my Leitz stands have removable turrets. The turret slides in and out in seconds. I have several of them. They go for less than $50 if you are patient on E-bay. I have one equipped with low mag objectives. One is equipped with Higher mag and the other has all oil objectives. That way you only clean-up when you are finished and not between objectives.
Leitz used this system with the Dialux, Diaplan and Aristoplan stands. I have a Dialux stand for sale on E-bay now. They were research stands and as such are quite large and heavy and fully modular.
Leitz used this system with the Dialux, Diaplan and Aristoplan stands. I have a Dialux stand for sale on E-bay now. They were research stands and as such are quite large and heavy and fully modular.
Re: 60X objective
Hi p3aul, x60 dry - I use one a lot as a quick (in terms of ease of use not quality of image) assessment objective to select slides that I may go to x100 oil with for photographs and it has served me very well really, even stacks well if the images are well-focused and any vibration is avoided, as with any high-power objective/camera setup.
Give a x60 (dry) plenty of contrast to 'get it's teeth into' and the results can be very good in my opinion and experience. Here are a few pics taken with mine of high-contrast stained plant tissue, permanently-mounted and it could be said 'optimized' for photomicrography.
They're taken with a simple 2mp eyepiece-plugin USB camera that I use for all my photomicrographs;
This is a nice bright image with reasonable resolution I'd say,
and this is live tissue in water and is pretty good considering the lack of any prep and the low-contrast, still showing good resolution of the middle-lamella between cells in the sense that it has rendered them visible at all really..
and this is a mounted version that has good resolution of the difficult cell-wall detail although it is suffering a loss of clarity by virtue of the slighly oblique section-plane across the smaller vessels in particular - not bad though.
Nearly all my images are post-processed in PSE-9 for sharpening and contrast-enhancement, but the fact remains that no amount of pp is able to add detail (resolution) that isn't in the original capture (image-deconvolution software aside I suppose! 
).
I'd certainly not be without my x60 dry, it gets a lot of use, although with my permanently-mounted and stained sections the oil x100 is very easy to use also - and this gets almost as much use as my x60! Depends a lot on your subject I think - good subjects will really help your optics I find, especially I think with the lower Chinese-end of the market that my 'scope hails from - it's a good 'scope and not particularly cheap, but not anywhere near some of the classy 'scopes seen in this forum!
Anyway, thought you'd perhaps like a quick peek at some x60 (dry) pictures.
p.s. when I ordered my 'scope (which has a 5-objective head) the default range was for x4, x10, x20, x40, x100 (oil) objectives - I chose the x60 instead of the x10 and am very pleased that I did, as the x60 does deliver decent resolution, as well as getting me 'closer to the x100' - the jump from x4 to x20 is pretty big I suppose, but most of my slides I view at the higher-end of the range anyway. The x100 (oil) incidentally is a superb objective, very bright indeed and with a very high resolution too in my experience.
p.p.s.
Forgot this one, taken this evening whilst slide-surfing - a nicely 'matured' slide that shows a LS of vasculature in a stem - the x60 has resolved the borders of the bordered-pits in the vessel-walls really quite well - the x100 (oil) will beat this, but still pretty good detail considering..
Hope it's OK to put these pictures into this thread, hope they give you a little more to go on with your choices.
Give a x60 (dry) plenty of contrast to 'get it's teeth into' and the results can be very good in my opinion and experience. Here are a few pics taken with mine of high-contrast stained plant tissue, permanently-mounted and it could be said 'optimized' for photomicrography.
They're taken with a simple 2mp eyepiece-plugin USB camera that I use for all my photomicrographs;
This is a nice bright image with reasonable resolution I'd say,
- ws_x60_C21_10mic_3.jpg (194.29 KiB) Viewed 13640 times
- ws_x60_1.jpg (120.2 KiB) Viewed 13640 times
- ws_700x525_x60_S3_1.jpg (85.73 KiB) Viewed 13640 times
).I'd certainly not be without my x60 dry, it gets a lot of use, although with my permanently-mounted and stained sections the oil x100 is very easy to use also - and this gets almost as much use as my x60! Depends a lot on your subject I think - good subjects will really help your optics I find, especially I think with the lower Chinese-end of the market that my 'scope hails from - it's a good 'scope and not particularly cheap, but not anywhere near some of the classy 'scopes seen in this forum!
Anyway, thought you'd perhaps like a quick peek at some x60 (dry) pictures.
p.s. when I ordered my 'scope (which has a 5-objective head) the default range was for x4, x10, x20, x40, x100 (oil) objectives - I chose the x60 instead of the x10 and am very pleased that I did, as the x60 does deliver decent resolution, as well as getting me 'closer to the x100' - the jump from x4 to x20 is pretty big I suppose, but most of my slides I view at the higher-end of the range anyway. The x100 (oil) incidentally is a superb objective, very bright indeed and with a very high resolution too in my experience.
p.p.s.
Forgot this one, taken this evening whilst slide-surfing - a nicely 'matured' slide that shows a LS of vasculature in a stem - the x60 has resolved the borders of the bordered-pits in the vessel-walls really quite well - the x100 (oil) will beat this, but still pretty good detail considering..
- ws_x60_vessel_bordered_pits.jpg (133.91 KiB) Viewed 13638 times
John B
Re: 60X objective
Thanks for all the replies!
I will not get into a flame war in a comparison between the Liecas, Nikons and Olympus scopes versus the Chinese. I don't think the Mods would be happy. A lot of folks here use Amscopes and are as pleased with them as I am. There is no need to upgrade.
Your pictures look great John. I hope one day to get into permanent slide preparation. Jim Your 20X solution is a good one i think but then I would have to buy 2 objectives!
John, I think I will swap the 10 for the 60. That way I still have the 4 for the larger animalcules like the waterbear.
Paul
I will not get into a flame war in a comparison between the Liecas, Nikons and Olympus scopes versus the Chinese. I don't think the Mods would be happy. A lot of folks here use Amscopes and are as pleased with them as I am. There is no need to upgrade.
Your pictures look great John. I hope one day to get into permanent slide preparation. Jim Your 20X solution is a good one i think but then I would have to buy 2 objectives!
John, I think I will swap the 10 for the 60. That way I still have the 4 for the larger animalcules like the waterbear.
Paul
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
Hi again Paul, I think you'll enjoy the x60.
I never see anyone comment badly on an Amscope - I'm pretty sure they must be a perfectly good 'scope. I don't even think of competing with the big classics - my 'scope simply can't. Having said that I'm very happy with my Chinese 'scope (Brunel Microscopes - SP200) for the price brand-new - it's a beauty, just not one of the elite!
If I could justify (and more importantly afford..) the cost, and I can't unfortunately, I'd be straight into a brand-new Olympus or Leitz I think! N000000 - don't even think it!.... calmmm........easy now.....and-breathe..
Good luck Paul with your choice!
I never see anyone comment badly on an Amscope - I'm pretty sure they must be a perfectly good 'scope. I don't even think of competing with the big classics - my 'scope simply can't. Having said that I'm very happy with my Chinese 'scope (Brunel Microscopes - SP200) for the price brand-new - it's a beauty, just not one of the elite!
If I could justify (and more importantly afford..) the cost, and I can't unfortunately, I'd be straight into a brand-new Olympus or Leitz I think! N000000 - don't even think it!.... calmmm........easy now.....and-breathe..
Good luck Paul with your choice!
John B
Re: 60X objective
No flame war necessary. I still have a dry 60x NA 0.85 and use it for quick visual scanning sometimes.
Dry 60x will get you decent image. Excellent images even, if your subjects don't move, are cut razor thin and stained like John B's. Objective will have more heavy lifting to do with fast-moving low-contrast protists though, especially when you are taking photos or videos.
And you won't know the image quality difference (which could be a blessing), until you compare a dry 60x NA 0.85 objective with a water immersion 65x NA 1.1.
But you won't get decent good images, if you dip a dry 60x (it is NOT waterproof and RI difference at NA 0.85 will hurt a lot).
Dry 60x will get you decent image. Excellent images even, if your subjects don't move, are cut razor thin and stained like John B's. Objective will have more heavy lifting to do with fast-moving low-contrast protists though, especially when you are taking photos or videos.
And you won't know the image quality difference (which could be a blessing), until you compare a dry 60x NA 0.85 objective with a water immersion 65x NA 1.1.
But you won't get decent good images, if you dip a dry 60x (it is NOT waterproof and RI difference at NA 0.85 will hurt a lot).
Last edited by zzffnn on Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: 60X objective
eiman,einman wrote:One method to using oil is to set up a nose piece equipped with only oil objectives. Three of my Leitz stands have removable turrets. The turret slides in and out in seconds. I have several of them. They go for less than $50 if you are patient on E-bay. I have one equipped with low mag objectives. One is equipped with Higher mag and the other has all oil objectives. That way you only clean-up when you are finished and not between objectives.
What is lowest magnification oil objective that you have and what is its fair market value? I considered a Leitz oil (IIRC a NPL 25x 0.75) before, but gave up due to its high cost (cheapest on eBay at the time was over $220). Most 10x dry objective can look through a thick layer of oil without problem. And a Leitz oil NPL 10x 0.45 is also very expensive at over $200.
Re: 60X objective
zzffnn - I agree with you there 100%, the dry x60 needs a very amenable specimen to perform to it's potential - it has definite capability but does require careful use with optimized conditions to shine - I think you've hit-the-nail-on-the-head there.
John B
Re: 60X objective
Hi p3aul,
I have 60x dry objectives on my Motic B3 and Optika B380, and I find that I use them a great deal. One thing, definitely do not dip them in oil or water. They are not made for this, it will damage the lens and will give very poor images anyway. As far as which objective to replace, I would keep the dry 40x. These objectives give a good high power but are MUCH less sensitive to cover glass thickness and specimen depth. Do you use the oil lens much? Some users never use their oil lens. If you're not getting much use out of yours, that would be a good one to replace. I find that after buying a 60x, I use my oil lens less, but I still do use it and would not want to give it up. I might give up the 4x. I use my 4x primarily as a finder. Often, when switching to a new slide, I skip the 4x and go straight to the 10x. My scopes both have a quintuple turret, which I like to get so I can have a 60x without giving up the conventional 4 objectives.
As others have observed, the 60x is much more sensitive to cover glass thickness and specimen depth. I find that a 40x gives good images on almost every slide, but not the 60x. On well prepared slides it is very sharp, but many of the cheap slides from China have very thick specimens, and often the specimen is too deep in the slide, which results in images that are noticeably soft. Just because of this, I am thinking about buying a 50x oil lens.
Also, both my 60x objectives are much more affected by lens flare than the 40x or 100x oil. They are particularly affected by light outside the FOV. I would not use them on a microscope without a field diaphragm. My Optika does not have one built in, but I bought it knowing I could easily rig up an improvised field diaphragm. The difference in image contrast is dramatic.
I like my 60's, and they are some of my most frequently used lenses, but high dry lenses are finicky.
I have 60x dry objectives on my Motic B3 and Optika B380, and I find that I use them a great deal. One thing, definitely do not dip them in oil or water. They are not made for this, it will damage the lens and will give very poor images anyway. As far as which objective to replace, I would keep the dry 40x. These objectives give a good high power but are MUCH less sensitive to cover glass thickness and specimen depth. Do you use the oil lens much? Some users never use their oil lens. If you're not getting much use out of yours, that would be a good one to replace. I find that after buying a 60x, I use my oil lens less, but I still do use it and would not want to give it up. I might give up the 4x. I use my 4x primarily as a finder. Often, when switching to a new slide, I skip the 4x and go straight to the 10x. My scopes both have a quintuple turret, which I like to get so I can have a 60x without giving up the conventional 4 objectives.
As others have observed, the 60x is much more sensitive to cover glass thickness and specimen depth. I find that a 40x gives good images on almost every slide, but not the 60x. On well prepared slides it is very sharp, but many of the cheap slides from China have very thick specimens, and often the specimen is too deep in the slide, which results in images that are noticeably soft. Just because of this, I am thinking about buying a 50x oil lens.
Also, both my 60x objectives are much more affected by lens flare than the 40x or 100x oil. They are particularly affected by light outside the FOV. I would not use them on a microscope without a field diaphragm. My Optika does not have one built in, but I bought it knowing I could easily rig up an improvised field diaphragm. The difference in image contrast is dramatic.
I like my 60's, and they are some of my most frequently used lenses, but high dry lenses are finicky.
Re: 60X objective
Wallyrut: you said
Is that the same as a "Shallow Depth of Field"?As others have observed, the 60x is much more sensitive to cover glass thickness and specimen depth
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
I open up the diaphragm and use the 100x dry sometimes. Uther than that I don't use it much because it rests so close to the specimen.
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
I don't think you would get acceptable results using an immersion lens dry.p3aul wrote:I open up the diaphragm and use the 100x dry sometimes. Uther than that I don't use it much because it rests so close to the specimen.
Re: 60X objective
Paul,p3aul wrote:I open up the diaphragm and use the 100x dry sometimes. Uther than that I don't use it much because it rests so close to the specimen.
Thinking on the bright side, if you are used to image quality obtained ^ that way, then your future AmScope dry 60x objective (when used dry) will make you VERY happy
Re: 60X objective
No, depth of field refers to how much depth can be in focus at once. High NA objectives have less depth of field. The problem with improper cover glass thickness or specimen depth is the spherical aberration that results. A very thin specimen that is flat will not have depth of field issues, but if it lies too deep in the mounting media of the slide it can cause problems for high NA lenses. This is because the lenses are designed to look through 0.17mm (the standard thickness of a cover glass) of media with a refractive index matching glass. If there is more or less thickness, then there will be spherical aberration. That is why some high dry lenses have a correction collar to allow the spherical aberration correction to be varied. Oil lenses don't have this problem, because they use homogeneous immersion. The oil lens is looking through oil, glass, and mounting media, but since they all have a refractive index like glass, the relative thicknesses of the three substances doesn't matter. If a specimen is mounted too deep, you can focus down more, and the oil lens will be looking through less oil, and more mounting media, but to the lens it's all the same.Is that the same as a "Shallow Depth of Field"?
Re: 60X objective
Just in case some people mistakenly considered me a brand snob:
I am still using two Chinese scopes, one of which is an Amscope. So I have nothing against AmScope or any brand. I believe other factors, such as microscopist's knowledge and sample preparation, are as important as quality optics.
I am still using two Chinese scopes, one of which is an Amscope. So I have nothing against AmScope or any brand. I believe other factors, such as microscopist's knowledge and sample preparation, are as important as quality optics.
Re: 60X objective
Zzffnn has hit the nail on the head... What he states is what really matters...
Billt
Billt
Re: 60X objective
I totally agree with Zzffnn and Billt. You can get good or poor results with whatever the equipment is. Knowledge, preparation, and experience trumps all.
JimT
JimT
Re: 60X objective
Very true, definitely the crux of the matter there.JimT wrote:I totally agree with Zzffnn and Billt. You can get good or poor results with whatever the equipment is. Knowledge, preparation, and experience trumps all.
JimT
John B
Re: 60X objective
Well I don't know how the thread veered off into a discussion of the poor quality of chinese microscopes. That was not my intent to let the brand snobs control my posts. My intent was to which objective i should replace the 60X with. I have made the decision with your help and I don't need to be ostracized by my choice. I may not be an expert, indeed my attempts at slide mounting have not been the best. My next purchase will be a hand microtome to help prepare slides so I can view cells.
I had thought this forum would be free of the brand snobbery I have seen on other forums, alas such is not the case.
I had thought this forum would be free of the brand snobbery I have seen on other forums, alas such is not the case.
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
Brand snobbery is an ancient human trait... It is worldwide and in everything... Get used to it... The idea is to use what YOU like and ignore the rest.. I have Chinese, German, Japanese and American stands here and I like them all equally... I have little concern what kind of stand a person has... I want them to show what they can do with it..
BillT
BillT
Re: 60X objective
Surely Paul, nobody is trying to 'control your posts' here? This is a superb forum and you may have been offended, but certainly not intentionally of that I'm sure. Everyone here loves a good discussion and we all have our preferences, but nobody is really deserving of being referred to as a 'brand-snob' - a quite ugly term in my irrelevant opinion. 
I joined this forum as an absolute beginner who didn't even know what the condenser was for, and the fine folks here have encouraged, advised, supported and inspired me with every encounter - so please, cut whoever has upset you some slack - you're among friendly folk who are really pleased to have your company.
We all love different aspects of microscopy with varying passion, some love the equipment, some the history, some the science, some the specimen preparation etc - passion for something isn't snobbery with regard to 'the other' surely.
Enjoy the forum Paul, I for one enjoy your input and find it interesting and inspiring - you're with friends here!
I hope you will see this forum and it's fine members for what they are, a friendly, driven, talented and generous group of folk who simply love a good discussion.
I joined this forum as an absolute beginner who didn't even know what the condenser was for, and the fine folks here have encouraged, advised, supported and inspired me with every encounter - so please, cut whoever has upset you some slack - you're among friendly folk who are really pleased to have your company.
We all love different aspects of microscopy with varying passion, some love the equipment, some the history, some the science, some the specimen preparation etc - passion for something isn't snobbery with regard to 'the other' surely.
Enjoy the forum Paul, I for one enjoy your input and find it interesting and inspiring - you're with friends here!
I hope you will see this forum and it's fine members for what they are, a friendly, driven, talented and generous group of folk who simply love a good discussion.
John B
Re: 60X objective
It is certainly nothing to take TOO seriously... It is only other's opinions, no matter how annoying it is... I think you are doing a fine job here...
BillT
BillT
Re: 60X objective
Thanks, Bill!
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
P3aul, next we will talk politics and religion
Think of this forum as a good discussion over a few beers with friends who don't all agree. Enjoy it and stick around. I learned lots thru this site and actually enjoy the differing opinions.
JimT
Think of this forum as a good discussion over a few beers with friends who don't all agree. Enjoy it and stick around. I learned lots thru this site and actually enjoy the differing opinions.
JimT
Re: 60X objective
Well said young-feller-me-lad! We're all friends here and you've been absorbed into the forum's collective consciousness Paul!JimT wrote:P3aul, next we will talk politics and religion
Think of this forum as a good discussion over a few beers with friends who don't all agree. Enjoy it and stick around. I learned lots thru this site and actually enjoy the differing opinions.
JimT
John B
Re: 60X objective
A difference of opinion over technique I have no problem with. When someone who thinks that only brand name scopes are worth considering or that brand name scopes represent an "Upgrade" regardless of their condition when bought, I have a problem. For instance, probably many of you would advise a beginner to get a used American Optical on ebay over a brand new Chinese scope but I have worked with AO scopes over 30 years as a DoD Civilian and I can assure you that the government buys from the lowest bidder. Ordinarily, I would buy nothing made in China or Russia, but, having owned and used one, I know a beginner could do a lot worse.
There will always be people who think that if it costs more then it must be better. I am not one of them.
There will always be people who think that if it costs more then it must be better. I am not one of them.
Paul Microscope: Amscope T400b Camera: Amscope MU300
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Telescope: Orion xt6 classic Dob, Zhumell z10 classic Dob
Re: 60X objective
I don't think anyone here "thinks that only brand name scopes are worth considering or that brand name scopes represent an "Upgrade" regardless of their condition when bought".
I am not even sure there is clear consensus as to what "brand names" are. For example, some consider AO Spencer and B&L good brands, while some don't. Many people over at photomacrography. net for example, belong to the later camp.
Some consider LOMO budget copycat (as they copied Zeiss Jena indeed). I don't care for brands, which is why I use and recommended LOMO. People who care about brands would buy Zeiss instead. Tell my wife about LOMO vs Zeiss and ask her to choose, she would say "I would never buy a copycat like my cheap husband did!"
Buy /use whatever that makes you happy. No one needs to spend money to impress people he/she does not care for.
Condition of optics is very important. Some Zeiss branded (and LOMO copies) apochromatic objectives have delamination issues. Try getting Zeiss/LOMO 20x or 40x apo objectives in good optical condition and you will understand how rare they are. Most eBay microscope sellers don't even know how to identify minor delamination. If you buy used Zeiss apo objectives, you should always ask if there is delamination. Same goes for fungus. Minor scratch on an objective lens may not affect image very much, but a deep crack will.
And of course, optics costing more do not always image better. I sold off most of my more expensive Nikon achromatic optics to buy cheaper (and better performing) LOMO apo optics. My Nikon E Plan 20x NA 0.40 cost me $140 from eBay and I sold it off for $110. My Zeiss 20x NA 0.65 apo cost me $40 from eBay (I took the risk that it may have delamination, but it does not - nobody bid on that objective, probably due to fear of delamination) and I am keeping it forever. Yes, the Zeiss image much better and cost less.
I am not even sure there is clear consensus as to what "brand names" are. For example, some consider AO Spencer and B&L good brands, while some don't. Many people over at photomacrography. net for example, belong to the later camp.
Some consider LOMO budget copycat (as they copied Zeiss Jena indeed). I don't care for brands, which is why I use and recommended LOMO. People who care about brands would buy Zeiss instead. Tell my wife about LOMO vs Zeiss and ask her to choose, she would say "I would never buy a copycat like my cheap husband did!"
Buy /use whatever that makes you happy. No one needs to spend money to impress people he/she does not care for.
Condition of optics is very important. Some Zeiss branded (and LOMO copies) apochromatic objectives have delamination issues. Try getting Zeiss/LOMO 20x or 40x apo objectives in good optical condition and you will understand how rare they are. Most eBay microscope sellers don't even know how to identify minor delamination. If you buy used Zeiss apo objectives, you should always ask if there is delamination. Same goes for fungus. Minor scratch on an objective lens may not affect image very much, but a deep crack will.
And of course, optics costing more do not always image better. I sold off most of my more expensive Nikon achromatic optics to buy cheaper (and better performing) LOMO apo optics. My Nikon E Plan 20x NA 0.40 cost me $140 from eBay and I sold it off for $110. My Zeiss 20x NA 0.65 apo cost me $40 from eBay (I took the risk that it may have delamination, but it does not - nobody bid on that objective, probably due to fear of delamination) and I am keeping it forever. Yes, the Zeiss image much better and cost less.