First time buyer - looking for benefits and pitfalls of various models

[Technicolor]

Hello, I'm brand new to this forum and was hoping to get some guidance on this increasingly-complicated world of microscopes. I'm starting from zero but have spent about 6 weeks trying to get my head around what I thought would be a relatively simple process of buying a microscope. I'm wanting a scope to help me diagnose fish diseases for my aquarium hobby + general nerdiness. I actually bought a B&L Galen III w/ a phase kit from an online retailer but it had issues with the light and a defect in an eyepiece. On shipping back to the retailer, one of the phase adjusting arms on the turret condenser broke off. They glued it back on, fixed the light (loose screw, but what did I know), and swapped out the eyepiece. I can now get it back, get a refund, or a new Accu-scope EXC-120 w/ phase kit (same price). I'd like to explore my options and y'all seem like you have this stuff down pat.

I know I need phase contrast. The weekend I had the Galen III I couldn't see squat without using phase. But with phase, I was able to diagnose that my fish had worms, not protozoa. Switched meds. Killed worms. Healed fish. Felt like a champ.

Ideally, I'd like the best image/optics I can get and room to grow if I eventually want other bells and whistles (apo, DIC, etc.). I have an ever-ballooning budget which now is ~$2K. I'm definitely open to the old scopes, but I'm not an engineering-type, and definitely don't want to drop a bunch of money and then have to wait for the rest of the parts I need to show up on ebay, if they ever do. I now find myself looking at microscope brochures from the 80's, wondering how on earth I can navigate the compatibility issues of all these scopes without knowing the entire histories of 7 different manufacturers, and having to track identifiers like "Fl 40/1.30 Oel Phaco 3 Fluoresz 170/0.17", which to the uninitiated looks downright bonkers.

I'm up for it.

Based on things I've seen on this forum, and after hunting on ebay for a couple days, I've come up with the following. I was hoping that some of you good folks could give me the benefits and pitfalls of these makes/models (and these particular purchases) to help me get a great scope that’s going to be fun, produce beautiful and satisfying images, will be lasting, and not have me hunting under rocks to find that one part. And anything else you can think of. I'm eager to get a scope, but I'd rather not waste money.

-------

Accu-Scope EXC-120 ($1200) -- New. Shiny. Heard they're a good brand w/ QC in the USA. It'll probably get the job done for my noob self, but for the money could I get something deluxe from past?
https://microscopecentral.com/products/ ... microscope

Olympus CHA ($485) – What I understand was a student scope. Less than half the price of the accu-scope. But would it really be better? Missing 20x and 100x phase objectives. Seller seems good.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-CHA-PC ... 1438.l2649

AO 110 ($225) – Seems like guys on the forum like this model. No Phase Kit. But Super cheap. I’ve wondered if this is worth buying as a second scope to keep on the side and build it up over time. Same seller on ebay has multiples; some even cheaper. Seems like piecing together the phase kit might be difficult.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/AO-American-Op ... 1438.l2649
An online retailer is selling this w/ the phase kit, but they want $2300.

Leitz Ortholux II ($892) – Seems like a well-respected work horse. But the seller states “This unit includes a light source, which has been tested, but it will require an addition low voltage power supply”. Pictures show power cord is cut. I also can’t figure out what they mean by “the 4 following poems [!?] are installed: N, I-2, K-2, and L-2”. And, are the objectives fluorite but not Plan?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leitz-Ortholux ... 1438.l2649

Olympus IMT-2 ($900) – It’s big! No phase objectives, but it seems like ones are even currently available on ebay, but potentially doubling the cost. Worth it for a super deluxe scope? But also, the seller states 2 issues “The Pull. Shut knob seems to be stuck. (Called a light excluding shutter knob). This is stuck in the position where light excluding shutter is not excluding light (you can see through the eyepieces). The stage forward / back knob is hard to turn. It works when you move the knob slowly and the stage moves.”
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-IMT-2- ... 1438.l2649

Thanks for any help. Sorry for the lengthy post.

[Hobbyst46]

Technicolor - Hello and welcome.

I will suggest some non-expert points.
1. I had some short-term experience with a "Cambridge Galen III" made in china. If the B&L you have is similar, I would switch to something else. Its only virtue IMO was the small size and price.
2. A ~2K budget can get you an excellent start.
3. Two compound microscopes, IMO, is not a good idea. Either invest in one good quality, expandable system, or - if you must - buy one compound and one stereo microscope, they complement each other.
4. The Olympus IMT-2 is a large inverted microscope. Those (and similar scopes from Zeiss, etc) are typically more expensive than upright microscopes, and are especially advantageous when your samples are in open deep containers (petri dishes, cell cultures etc). Unless such are your planned specimens, I would avoid such instruments.
5. I am not familiar with Leitz. However, the Ortholux shown in the link is a sophisticated research instrument that can host two separate light sources, one for transmitted light and one for reflected light, especially fluorescence. They would be different types of lamps and power supplies, and I would contact the seller and ask for details on them, which light port has been tested, which lamp is available etc. Power supplies for halogen light (the transmitted) should be easy to find, power supply for fluorescence are less common but are usually sold together with the lamp.
6. For the Accu-Scope, you can probably find out, from the supplier, the availability and prices of the future bells and whistles (DIC etc). This will allow you to better compare it with other options (like the 2nd hand microscopes that you listed).
7.

and having to track identifiers like "Fl 40/1.30 Oel Phaco 3 Fluoresz 170/0.17"

OK, these and similar designations are part of the microscopy world, and rapidly become familiar. Here it means a Fluorite, 40x magnification, 1.30NA, Oil immersion, phase-contrast no.3, for fluorescence, tube length 170mm (the old Leitz size), for 0.17mm thick cover slips. Google and download the file "500_files/500_d9 Specifications of Leitz microscope objectives and ...PDF", and look in sites like Microscopy4U for similar designations from other makers.
8. On the site "https://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/.../Th ... I_Research..." you can find a downloadable file with detailed very instructive description of these large Leitz microscopes, and explanation of the PLOEM items.

This is not to mean that I recommend this or other microscope. Just general info.

The first steps in microscopy involve a lot of reading and learning, but it pays and rewards!

Good luck.

[MikeA]

Hello!

From my first reading of your post (and the subsequent reply) it certainly seems you are doing this in the correct manner - not falling for the '2,000X' BS that some of the new, relatively inexpensive makers claim.

No question, there is a new language to be learned just to understand microscopy, but as Hobbyst46 says, plenty of information available on the 'net and many here who will be happy to offer suggestions to avoid pitfalls.

The first and most important question is 'what do you want to look at?' You say it is for diagnosing things with your fish, and 'all around nerdiness' - even if you think at this point that might be the extent, it would serve you to get something that gives the options. As Hobbyst46 stated - the big inverted microscope is ideal for looking at protists and other microorganisms, but perhaps less so for other applications.

The second question you have already raised - new or used? You have a substantial budget to start, but like many things, the ancillary items you will want/need also take a healthy bite of your budget. I would guess you are already aware the your choice in 'new' is basically Chinese; even the entry models (if they even have any!) from the 'Big Four' - Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss and Leica (Leitz) would destroy your budget rapidly.

evilBay has been a good source for bargains, if one knows and accepts there are many, many potential downsides/traps. In truth, the pricing on really decent quality microscopes on evilBay seems to have dropped precipitously in the last few years, perhaps as a result of less interest in general, but nonetheless, something like that AO Microstar 110 is a very solid and useful piece of equipment with the single caveat that the illumination is built into the base and has a 'sketchy' history, so if it goes, it is gone, unless you know someone who is into electronics.

The Oly HCA is a solid scope as well, but I would probably lean toward the Ortholux II, being a Leitz fan from 'way back.' (Currently have four Orthoplans!)

One of the things you need to determine right up front is do you want fixed tube length optics (160, 170, etc.) or Infinity found on all the newer scopes. Once you make that choice, you must use only those optics made for that particular TL.

A benefit of buying something like the Ortholux II is there are loads of parts/accessories available on evilBay, maybe not today but almost everything eventually shows up.

There have been many, many discussions on this forum and every other one re 'my first scope' and all make good points, but all have a built in bias (e.g - my preference for Leitz!)

A source that may help is http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html ; they have many many articles on just about any aspect of microscopy including buying one's first - http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... scope.html or http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... roscope%22

Another route is to buy one from a trusted supplier, I believe Charles Guerrara, a member here, does some sales of microscopes and will stand behind them.

Best of luck and welcome to a fascinating field!

[Tom Jones]

Technicolor,

Let the homework begin!

I see you are in LA. I'm East in Redlands. Since it's really hard to figure out what you want to do without a bit (or more) of hands-on experience with some of the microscopes available, I thought you might like the opportunity to take a closeup look at some of them.

I have several microscopes I can show you to let you get a first hand view of some of your choices. Right off the top I have BH-2s (BHTU/BHT and BHS), BX-40s, a Zeiss Universal, and even an IMT-2 you can look at and try. I really like the Olympus scopes. They're quite sturdy, parts are generally available, and have a lot of bells and whistles can be added if you choose. I use seven BH-2/BHTUs for outreach and well over 40,000 kids have had a chance to look through them with no damage to anything.

They're all for sale if you're interested (not the outreach scopes), and I'll certainly show you how to use and take care of them, but don't feel pressured to buy one from me. It's mostly an offer to show them to you so you have a better idea what you're getting yourself into!

Tom

[coominya]

A secondhand phase contrast microscope from one of the big 4 manufacturers can be had at a great price. Even the ones from the 1960's, if in good condition are worth having, lots posting here use such to great effect. In my humble opinion what makes a scope is good engineering in the optics and in the mechanical parts and when you are spending hour after hour adjusting that focus knob and stage knobs you learn to appreciate smooth precise operation. There is no substitute for quality brass and SS parts IMO.

[Technicolor]

Thank you all for the replies and links!

@ Hobbyst46

…If the B&L you have is similar, I would switch to something else.

It seems that the forum member Lorez is also down on them. I’m not really considering it at this point.

…the PLOEM items…

Oh so those are fluorescence filters?! Looking more closely at the orthoplan/luxII doc you posted makes me realize that the scope being sold also has the fluorescence illuminator (Ploemopak 2.2)! The same doc makes it look like I’d need another (upper) lamp house to use it. I wonder if I can still use the scope w/o fluorescence w/ the Ploemopak attached. If not, surely I could just remove the nose and attach it to the stand (which is what it looks like it was designed to do).

I’m realizing now that the lamps plug into a separate power supply box/transformer. Those also appear to be for sale on ebay.

Or…this site looks like he’s selling LED adapters for the Ortholux ii lamp house. Any experience/recommendations?
http://www.s-fernald.com/retrodiode/Ortholux2.html

@MikeA

…'what do you want to look at?'…

Particularly, I want to be able to distinguish if a fish disease is being caused by bacteria, protozoa, fungi, or worms (flat, round, etc.). Broadly classifying algae is another possibility. As well as just the gee-whiz stuff that’s in the water (I saw a number very strange creatures the weekend I had the Galen III!). I can also foresee using it to help distinguish plant diseases (“Is that a fungus or just hard water?”). I can probably do those things without going beyond phase contrast, but I’d love to have the option, like you say. There’s a very strong naturalist bend in my family, although most of us are creative types.

…many, many potential downsides/traps…

Yeah. I have near zero experience with ebay. Since you call it “evilbay” any sage advice will be welcome. Right now I’m just going with my gut (“do they describe things?”, “do they seem up front?”, “do they only tell you to look at the picture?”; seller rating, etc.)

…the single caveat that the illumination…

This is exactly the kind of guidance I’m looking for!

…being a Leitz fan from 'way back.'…

The Ortholux is kinda my frontrunner. Especially after realizing that it comes with some fluorescence stuff (for down the road) and the power supply issue is probably an easy hurdle. I'm wondering if I could get away with the whole shebang for around $1200. I'm seeing 3 of the power supplies for less than $100.

Are those objectives good? Fluorite is good, right? Am I right in assuming that they are not plan, though? I'm not sophisticated enough yet to understand how all the apertures interact with one another.

…fixed tube length optics (160, 170, etc.) or Infinity…

I’ve gathered that I’d be marrying into one of those families (and they don’t mix…although that orthoplan/luxII doc made it seem like the Leitz’s 160 & 170 objectives did have some interchangeability w/ the Ortholux II). I figured I’d accept whatever class since I don’t know of the advantages of one over the other. 160 is more common that 170, right? But it’s not like all the parts are compatible even within those classifications. I just don’t know enough to understand what those different pools entails (170 = least options, I'm guessing). I know infinity is newer, but if I’m getting a 35 year old scope, then I assumed I’d just have to get the 35 year old parts that go with it. Let me know if that’s ignorant.

@Tom

…I can show you to let you get a first hand view…

I’D LOVE THAT!!! For the life of me I can’t figure out why this whole thing is so mysterious. Like, why can’t I just find microscope shops…in Los Angeles!? When I search on Google maps, 75% are just someone’s house! I’ve only found one, near Garden Grove, that seems like it’s a regular, walk-in, look-at-stuff-and-ask-questions shop.

I’ll PM you! Thank you!

You’ve all been very generous. I haven’t even read any competitive, nasty comments on the forum. Nice bunch!

[Technicolor]

A secondhand phase contrast microscope from one of the big 4 manufacturers can be had at a great price. Even the ones from the 1960's, if in good condition are worth having, lots posting here use such to great effect. In my humble opinion what makes a scope is good engineering in the optics and in the mechanical parts and when you are spending hour after hour adjusting that focus knob and stage knobs you learn to appreciate smooth precise operation. There is no substitute for quality brass and SS parts IMO.

That's the picture I'm getting. If I could get a super cheapo phase scope for $350 then I'd consider that as a fun, quick, welcome-to-the-neighborhood. But I can't. It's gonna cost me at least $650 from AmScope, if not $1200 from Accu-Scope (which is the "new" brand I've considered). I'll be furious if I spend $650 and hate the quality (that is a LOT of money for me). And for $1200-$2K it seems like I could get set up with one of the oldies that everyone on here seems to be using (and which the online retailer was pushing me toward).

The scale of foreknowledge required to get the oldies seems huge, though. Decades old catalogs written in German?! Uh... It's pretty daunting!

Thanks for the advice!

[MikeA]

Hello Technicolor,

Addressing some of your comments/points in no particular order:

I very much doubt you will see any snarky/snide/negative comments on this forum - just not their style!

160 vs. 170 TL - you are correct, these can be used on the same microscope as long as they are 10X or above; the lower power objectives are not interchangeable.

Fluorescence - yes, this does require 'different' illumination - usually high pressure gas discharge such as Hg or Xe, and a much different, i.e. high voltage power supply, and they are becoming more and more difficult to find. Beyond that, although the Ortholux II you are considering has a Ploemopak 2.2 (it is the gray/white box under the top limb of the stand) it is very possible, even probable, that there are no filter cubes in the Ploemopak (it holds four in a carousel.) Filter cubes are specific to certain light/stains/fluorescing material and while regularly available on evilBay, be prepared to spend ~$100 for each one. The decision to do fluorescence microscopy is not an inexpensive one, but it is beyond comparison for some types of work.

And yes, the Ploemopak simply slides out and you can use conventional objective carrier in its place, or just use as is with the filter cube not in the optic train for normal microscopy.

That replacement LED illuminator looks like a reasonably good deal if you do not already have the standard illuminator, and being LED based it will/should have a useful bulb life of ~100,000 hours. It depends on the comparative costs.

Again - considering your initial intent and your possible interests in expanding into "gee whiz stuff and strange creatures" - the Ortholux being 'modular' allows you to equip it to do all types of work - from transmitted BF to Incident Pol to Phase, DIC, transmitted/reflected fluorescence, etc., etc. And the best part is you can pick up the necessary bits & bobs as desired/needed/available, but the base is already on hand! If you have not seen this brilliant article by Drs. Normand and Gregory Overney, I would suggest you take a few minutes to review: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... _Ver_4.pdf

Insofar as 'evilBay' is concerned - yes, you have identified the things you need to be wary of and for the most part you are protected by using PayPal and evilBay policies; it is also incumbent on you as the purchaser (caveat emptor) to ask questions before buying, and if you sense the seller is evading or not being forthright, best to move on to the next whatever. With the Ortholux the primary thing to be concerned about is the focus mechanism - does it move smoothly and easily, both fine and coarse focus.

Objectives are one thing I would never buy without right of return - even many hobby microscopists could honestly not know that a lens has problems.

While we are on the topic of lenses, I will repeat a lesson learned long ago, 'the objectives are the crown jewels on a microscope' - that was always true and will always be true. Be prepared to spend a lot of money on lenses, but also know modern (i.e >1950s') lenses are all quite good as designed/produced. It is nice to have a complete set of Plan Apos if you intend to do large scale color micrographs, but not in the least necessary for visual viewing. Bog standard achromats give fine images. In answer to your question, there are varying levels of 'good' and a poorly maintained top quality plan apo may give a poorer image than a achro in excellent condition.

A few hours spent with Tom with some 'hands on' use of various 'scopes will be better than many pages of writing - I would definitely take advantage of his generous offer.

Hope we have covered some of your points, if not, come on back!

[MicroBob]

There are more differences between microscope objectives than just the tube length.

-The objective has it design length to the flange of the revolver (e.g. 45mm)
-The tube has it's lenth (often 160 or 170 but also others)
-The eyepiece pick the image up at a certain point within the tube (Zeiss West 10mm, Leitz 170mm TL 18mm, Leitz 160mm TK 10mm....)
-Each maker has his own way of correcting chromatic errors. Zeiss West and Zeiss Jena are similar, Leitz is slightly different, Olympus is even more different

So a Leitz objective of (newer) 45mm design length can have a distance between revolver flange and eyepiece pichup point of:

TL 170mm: 170-18=152mm
TL 160mm: 160-10=150mm

This difference is so small that you can mix these Objectives without practical disadvantages.
On a 170mm Leitz microscope you would have to use e.g. Periplan 10x eyepieces
On a 160mm Leitz microscope you would have to use e.g. Periplan 10x 18 eyepieces

[desertrat]

A secondhand phase contrast microscope from one of the big 4 manufacturers can be had at a great price. Even the ones from the 1960's, if in good condition are worth having, lots posting here use such to great effect. In my humble opinion what makes a scope is good engineering in the optics and in the mechanical parts and when you are spending hour after hour adjusting that focus knob and stage knobs you learn to appreciate smooth precise operation. There is no substitute for quality brass and SS parts IMO.

+1 on that. Several years ago I pieced together an A/O 4 Series Phasestar system from two separate incomplete units for a total cost of less than $100. However, I took big gambles on the two poorly photographed, poorly described auction listings. They could have easily been unusable junk.

Some minor repairs and cleaning were still required. Every 4 Series binocular and trinocular head I've bought needed the prisms cleaned. The grease on the eyepiece tube slides had hardened and outgassed a film on the prism surfaces. Cleaning them properly required removing one or the prisms, and a long, slow trial and error process of getting the images in both tubes lined up again. I imagine the factory had special fixtures and alignment tools for this job.

[PeteM]

. . . with phase, I was able to diagnose that my fish had worms, not protozoa. . .
.-------

Accu-Scope EXC-120 ($1200) --
https://microscopecentral.com/products/ ... microscope

Olympus CHA ($485) –
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-CHA-PC ... 1438.l2649

AO 110 ($225) –
https://www.ebay.com/itm/AO-American-Op ... 1438.l2649

Leitz Ortholux II ($892) –
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leitz-Ortholux ... 1438.l2649

Olympus IMT-2 ($900) – It’s big!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-IMT-2- ... 1438.l2649

Thanks for any help. Sorry for the lengthy post.

I've had most of those scopes or their near kind. Some thoughts -- the first of which is that you might want to take up Tom Jones on his offer to look at several Olympus models.

1) I have an Accu-Scope 3025 - bought used for its trinocular head -- and it's OK. I wouldn't pay the $1500 they cost new if there were a used Olympus BX series, a Leica DM series, or a Nikon E200up series for the same price.

2) The Olympus CHA uses older short barrel Olympus optics. While the older short barrel phase optics from both Olympus and Nikon (another option) are surprisingly good, they don't have a very wide field of view. They'd do the job, but you'd probably want to eventually retrofit brighter LED illumination -- an additional cost and hassle. For $500-$700 you should be able to get either with a complete phase setup in working condition. In this class of older microscope, I prefer the old black Nikon S series converted to LED - gorgeous and compact microscope. The Olympus is, optically, as good.

3) I wouldn't get an AO Series 110 from anyone other than a trusted seller on Ebay. I've bought several - and many have difficult-to-fix problems with the lamp base (fried electronics) and the head (detached prisms). For about the same money you can get an AO/Reichert/Cambridge/Leica MicroStar 410. This will have long barrel infinity optics and problems, if any, more likely to be an easy fix. If you buy an incomplete phase system, recognize it may take you more time and money to get it fully equipped than you might want.

4) The Leitz Ortholux is a pretty cool microscope -- and maybe a good choice if you wanted to play around with microscopy in addition to diagnosing aquarium problems. I've had Leitz 170mm and 160mm Leica phase systems and think the newer 160mm lenses are a bit better - slightly flatter fields, better contrast.

5) The Olympus IMT is a surprisingly competent and sometimes affordable microscope if fully equipped for phase. With really good 20x and 40x long working distance phase lenses it might be ideal for dipping a bit of aquarium water into a petri dish (or on a slide) and seeing what you have. Three cautions. Many won't be complete. These are huge -- it wants a sturdy table pretty much to itself. And not as versatile if you have other uses for a microscope.

I can also add that I acquired a "high end" AmScope phase set (infinity, 4 lenses, and phase turret). Turns out, it fits the Olympus BH2/BX condenser holder (but not Reichert or Leica infinity) -- and the lenses and phase effect are pretty good. An Olympus BH2 can also be converted fairly easily to infinity (BX series) at the cost of a new head, infinity lenses, and perhaps eyepieces and a dovetail modification. So if you end up buying something like an Olympus BH2 from Tom, ideally with a removable lens turret, that's one route to completing a phase setup and having a microscope good for other activities as well.

Also have a couple Zeiss Standards with a phase setup, some of the lenses fluorite, and they are very good. Hit or miss, though, if you can find one reasonably priced and without delaminated lenses.

It's difficult to find Olympus (BH2, BX) and Nikon phase (Labophot, Optiphot, E series) phase condensers, annuli, and the better phase lenses at affordable prices. So, I'd suggest looking for an as-complete phase microscope as possible.

[coominya]

Cleaning them properly required removing one or the prisms, and a long, slow trial and error process of getting the images in both tubes lined up again. I imagine the factory had special fixtures and alignment tools for this job.

I imagine they would DR, it's why I have put this job off on my ece (the main scope I use) One day I will find another and will experiment on that. I recently bought an old Nikon S model with phase contrast just because it was going cheap at $350, that's aussie dollars which would be about $US 270. It needs a bulb but I tested it with jury-rigged lamp and the optics are great, so much so I took the wide-field eyepieces out and put them in my olympus ece which had old narrow fields.

They work just fine and I can't detect any abberations due to mix and matching brands. A lot of key parts can be swapped among scopes of similar design I hear, sometimes with consequences, sometimes without. To me it makes sense to buy a few older band name ones cheap than to spend $1000 on a new one from china.

Funny, I just checked gumtree and found this. I think I'll go buy it and experiment with the prisms

[Hobbyst46]

...They work just fine and I can't detect any abberations due to mix and matching brands. A lot of key parts can be swapped among scopes of similar design I hear, sometimes with consequences, sometimes without

"Consequences" can mean frustration and unexpected expenses. As some folks here reminded me half a year ago, compatibility should be tested by photography, not only by vision through the eyepieces.

you might want to take up Tom Jones on his offer to look at several Olympus models.

A 20 min session, where you touch a potential candidate microscope yourself, and try the knobs and switches, is worth more than hours of conjectures and inquiries with sellers and comparisons and price cutoffs on eBay. Just remember that to inspect an objective, look at its back focal plain through the eyepiece tube, using a phase telescope, not only through the eyepiece and objective at the sample slide.

[coominya]

If I could get a super cheapo phase scope for $350 then I'd consider that as a fun, quick, welcome-to-the-neighborhood. But I can't.

I bought this Nikon phase contrast off ebay a few weeks ago for $350 Australian, I live in Australia. They are out there, just look around

[75RR]

@Tom

…I can show you to let you get a first hand view…

I’ll PM you! Thank you!

Big + on contacting Tom Jones. Nothing like a road test/hands on learning. Best way to start.

Do note that as a new member you will not be able to send PMs for a while. You can receive them though.

Tom needs to send you a PM with his email!

[Technicolor]

I’m really shocked at the response I’ve gotten from the forum. Gents all around. Thank you!

I’ve made arrangements w/ Tom. Very excited about that. Gonna sit on my hands until then.

I’m pretty excited about the ortholux ii on ebay. It seems to have what I need for now (10x/40x/63x phase/fluor objectives) and room to grow (the scope already has components for fluorescence). I believe I can replace the lamp housing and get a power supply for less than $200 total (also from ebay). I could potentially use the old lamp housing for an LED conversion from the link I posted yesterday, too.

That would put the cost at around $1100. Is that a good deal? That’s about where I was at before I came here. I’m gonna see Tom. And potentially reach out to Charles (per MikeA). But if people think that’s a particularly good deal I might take the plunge.

All the objectives on the Ortholux II are oil. Any issue there?

@MikeA

…it is very possible, even probable, that there are no filter cubes in the Ploemopak…

The ad for the Ortholux II says “the 4 following poems [sic] are installed: N, I-2, K-2, and L-2.”. When Hobbyst46 mentioned “PLOEMS” I looked around and thought that those must be fluorescence filter cubes. That idea + the Ploemopak is one reason I’m hot-to-trot about this scope, in particular. It seems like it has a big chunk of what I’d need to do fluorescence down the road. Are they not? Or are they so specific, I’d likely need more if I got into it.

…if you sense the seller is evading or not being forthright, … . With the Ortholux the primary thing to be concerned about is the focus mechanism…

I sent a few questions to the seller of the Ortholux II. I felt they were very forthcoming. These were their responses (thanks for the tip about the focus mechanism):
“1) The lamps cord is indeed cut and there is no power supply included, we would guess the cord was routed through a lab table and it was more convenient to remove it that way.
2) No delaminations in the optics, a nice scope overall.
3) Everything fits together as it should, we would guess that the light housing is the original to this scope.
4) For an item of this cost we would actually use our foam machine and create a custom molded enclosure for this to ship in, it will arrive intact.”
and
“just went and double checked the stage and focus movements, stage is very smooth, not too tight and not too worn, coarse focus was a bit stiff from sitting but after a few movements felt good, fine focus was perfect with no issues. Let me know if you have any other questions.”

@MicroBob

TL 170mm: 170-18=152mm
TL 160mm: 160-10=150mm

How all the numbers synch up…aperatures, working distances, lengths, parfocal, etc. is a little much for me right now, but if I follow what you’re saying: when Leitz switched from 170 to 160 TL they also switched eyepieces. So regardless of the objective (160/170), the distance from them to the point in the tube where the eyepiece picks things up is only 2mm different, and therefore, they’re interchangeable as long as you use the intended eyepiece. That about right?

@PeteM

I've had most of those scopes or their near kind. Some thoughts…

Wow. Pete. This is all great!


@ coominya

…I bought this Nikon phase contrast off ebay a few weeks ago for $350 Australian…

Nice! Maybe I should be more patient?


Thank you all for your advice!

[Hobbyst46]

It seems to have what I need for now (10x/40x/63x phase/fluor objectives) and room to grow (the scope already has components for fluorescence). I believe I can replace the lamp housing and get a power supply for less than $200 total (also from ebay). I could potentially use the old lamp housing for an LED conversion from the link I posted yesterday, too.

All the objectives on the Ortholux II are oil. Any issue there?

Nice! Maybe I should be more patient?

1. Forgive me for saying so, but I feel you are being over-excited by the fluorescence option. From what you described as your immediate targets for this scope, I feel that fluorescence is not a must, but maybe - just maybe - a nice-to-have on the long run - maybe. The fact that most (IMHO) hobbyists concentrate on brightfield, darkfield, phase, DIC, POL etc is that they quickly provide enjoyable results. Fluorescence is a great research tool, it offers super-resolution and much more, but it is highly specific. For example, most fluorescence images are single-colored, because of the basic physics of this phenomenon.
For example, a quote from your previous response:

The ad for the Ortholux II says “the 4 following poems [sic] are installed: N, I-2, K-2, and L-2.”. When Hobbyst46 mentioned “PLOEMS” I looked around and thought that those must be fluorescence filter cubes. That idea + the Ploemopak is one reason I’m hot-to-trot about this scope, in particular. It seems like it has a big chunk of what I’d need to do fluorescence down the road. Are they not? Or are they so specific, I’d likely need more if I got into it.

In general, cubes are specific. For example, a common cube in the research world is for fluorescein. That means a set of two filters and a mirror (each around 50-100 USD), that provide excitation at about 490nm and emission at about 515nm. You see green fluorescence - provided that you stained your sample with fluorescein first. Otherwise you see NOTHING. Empty cubes, without the filters, are useful only if you intend to fit them with the filters.
Another concern is the light source. High pressure mercury or xenon arc lamps can cost (new) on order of magnitude $1000. LED lamps for fluorescence (for example, PE-100 from coolLED) are cheaper but still hundreds of USD, and each one is just for a single wavelength.
However, if your fish parasite specimens are naturally fluorescent, and identifiable by this feature, then the investment in fluorescence equipment may be fruitful.

2. Nevertheless, if a microscope includes gadgets or easy options for phase, DIC, POL, it is a good buy.
3. Buying a scope with only oil objectives is definitely an issue unless you can right away obtain compatible dry objectives. Are you sure that the 10x objective is an oil one? but even if it is not, for your purpose, some higher magnification dry objectives are a must IMO.
4. Should you be more patient? I suggest so. Both prior to purchase and after purchase, when you first encounter an unclear situation.
5. Should you buy an old, dusty, uncertain status of mechanics and optics, just because it bears the name Nikon/Olympus/Zeiss/Leica and is cheap? No. Such adventures are best left to experienced and experts. What you are after (IMO) is a good working expandable scope (from any make) from a reliable seller.

[mrsonchus]

Hi, I've just read Hobbyst46's reply and really must support every point made - therein is very sage advice on all points.
For a quick solution to get you started, and achieve undeniable quality and 'upgradeability' I'd suggest a Leitz SM-LUX.

A beautifully made 'scope by an acknowledged titan of microscope manufacture. Upgrades and add-ons are numerous and the prices for a used 'scope are extremely reasonable.

As advised, start with a set of bright-field objectives, maybe the highest to be an oil-immersion x100 to begin with.
For example, x4, x10, x25, x40, x100 oil - a std range for very good reasons.

Good luck!

John B.

[MicroBob]

@MicroBob

TL 170mm: 170-18=152mm
TL 160mm: 160-10=150mm

How all the numbers synch up…aperatures, working distances, lengths, parfocal, etc. is a little much for me right now, but if I follow what you’re saying: when Leitz switched from 170 to 160 TL they also switched eyepieces. So regardless of the objective (160/170), the distance from them to the point in the tube where the eyepiece picks things up is only 2mm different, and therefore, they’re interchangeable as long as you use the intended eyepiece. That about right?

The eyepiece has to fit to the tube length of the microscope - the objectives are nearly the same between 160mm and 170mm tube lenth. This is only true for Leitz objectives with 45mm design length - doesn't neccessarily apply to all other stuff.

Lietz with oil immersion objectives: These are special fluorescence objectives with high apertures. They might be quite good for normal use but I have no experience with them. Most microscopists use oil immersion only when really needed because you have to clean the slides afterwards. It is difficult to use oil immersion with fresh preparations like plancton because the cover slip sticks somewhat to the objective.

Three normal EF PLAN or NPL Fluotar objectives would not be too expensive when the is a used market available for you. I has many advantages to invest into a system that is common locally.
I don't know this specific Leitz model and I don't know what else you would have to find to use it for normal microscopical objects. Anyway it will be way easier to convert it for standard use than the other way round. For the parts you would probably end up buying a complete second microscope.

If I were a "first time buyer" I would look for a much cheaper basic used microscope of a major brand und get started with it. For most objects that are suitable for the amateur you don't need more. A trinocular head and plan objectives would be an advantage. It is quite unlikely that you will ever have a use for the fluorescence parts.

[MikeA]

Whew!

At this point I bet your head is spinning with all the input, and opinions you have received. Lots of good stuff and you need to think about all that has been offered, but ultimately the choice is up to you and yes, buying from evilBay always carries a risk so you need to ensure you have the right of return.

Having said and admitting my bias towards Leitz products, I did some minor sleuthing to see the specific microscope (Ortholux II) you are considering buying.

Not sure how to break this to you, but that particular 'scope is completely outfitted for Fluorescence Phase Contrast, with the likely 400 series Phase Contrast condenser and Fluorescence Phase Contrast, Oil and WATER immersion, wide aperture, lenses!

This opens up a whole new area for consideration! The phase contrast could be used without the fluorescent illumination, just normal transmitted light.

You could easily buy a conventional nose piece for ~ $100 and either populate it with decent set of achros for not much more money, and have many methods of illumination available to you.

I would suggest you make the seller and offer of perhaps 50% of the asking price, with the concern about the focusing being stiff and the possibility if it was 'forced' there could be damage to the internal gears made of plastic/polymer. You should also confirm the coarse focusing operates without catching/skipping. I would be open about your concerns with the seller, as he may be interested in just moving it out.

You likely could sell the Ploemopak and objectives for most of what you end up paying, being mindful you would need a specific illuminator for fluorescence that is not low power or at least one of the aftermarket LED units specific for that use.

Remember, everyone has an opinion and each is as good as the other, but ultimately it is your decision.

[Hobbyst46]

Lietz with oil immersion objectives: These are special fluorescence objectives with high apertures. They might be quite good for normal use but I have no experience with them.

Not only Leitz, all fluorescence objectives should be optimized for UV, since a lot of fluorescence work is done with 365nm excitation light for example- and that is UV.
For example, Olympus objectives for fluorescence are marked UV. Such lenses are excellent and cost accordingly... Can be used for other types of illumination as well.

MikeA
...being mindful you would need a specific illuminator for fluorescence that is not low power or at least one of the aftermarket LED units specific for that use.

Yes, and vice versa: Fluorescence lamp units, whether mercury, xenon or LED, are not suitable for general purpose microscopy.

I agree with MikeA that the configuration is tempting - in my opinion, might be a true bargain for an experienced microscopist/researcher.

[MikeA]

Hello Hobbyst46, (tough name to remember!)

True, the fluorescence lenses are specifically geared to various bandwidths of light, and all require UV to function in that use, and as you point out, they can be used for all other forms of illumination, but the added benefit is these are Phase Contrast - the lure of Phase Contrast Fluorescence is strong, but with that Phase Contrast condenser and a normal BF illuminator one has the benefit of PC! The Flouresz lenses are second only to the Plan apos in image quality, and a fine difference it is.

The added benefit of the objectives on that turret all being oil/water immersion is truly 'icing on the cake' IMHO and I will admit to being sorely tempted!

[Hobbyst46]

...The added benefit of the objectives on that turret all being oil/water immersion is truly 'icing on the cake' IMHO and I will admit to being sorely tempted!

Agreed. The price of those three objectives, is bought separately, could be the same or even much more than the price on this transaction. But for the immediate targets of Technicolor as he described, I would at least check out (in person, hands-on, or from a trusted source) a less expensive phase contrast scope that can be immediately put to use.