NIKON OBJETIVO MICROSCOPIO APO 100X PLAN HI 1.30

[stjepo]

I have not been able to find any information about this objective. Don't fit properly to my Optiphot.

Can anyone give more details about it?

Thanks

[Hobbyst46]

I have not been able to find any information about this objective. Don't fit properly to my Optiphot.

Can anyone give more details about it?

Thanks

Possibly a short barrel objective ? if its length from the front lens to the shoulder (start of thread) is around 33-37mm ?

[75RR]

If they are 'older' objectives they may be JIS rather than DIN (DIN has become the modern standard)

JIS = Japanese Industrial Standard = 36mm Parfocal distance

DIN = Deutsche Industrie Norm = 45mm Parfocal distance

[MichaelG.]

If they are 'older' objectives they may be JIS rather than DIN (DIN has become the modern standard)

JIS = Japanese Industrial Standard = 36mm Parfocal distance

DIN = Deutsche Industrie Norm = 45mm Parfocal distance

.
Very likely, I would think

Here’s another handy reference, under the heading Objectives and Oculars
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... ompat.html

MichaelG.

.
P.S. __ One source states:

Nikon objectives from the 60's and 70's are often of the "S" type, for use with the Model S system, which is characterized by short barrels with short parfocal distances. They are mostly not well corrected for color or field, but there are exceptions.

One might reasonably hope that yours is one of those exceptions !
Ref. https://lavinia.as.arizona.edu/~mtuell/ ... tives.html

[abednego1995]

That's a Plan Apo 100x NA1.30 for the older "black" painted S series microscopes from the 60-70s. The parfocal distance is only 33.6mm compared with the 45mm of the CF series objectives intended for your Optiphot. Hence the trouble mounting it (it's impossible to raise the stage to compensate) Plus, it is an objective that needs matching oculars due to the compensation system it uses.

P.S. Fun fact. Nikon used to sell the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from around 1964 till around 1972. From 72' they began selling a Plan 100x NA 1.30, and a Apo 100x NA1.40. The later Plan 100x NA1.30 actually was the same thing as the previous Plan Apo 100x NA1.30, but they dropped the "Apo" since it was only corrected to semi-apo standards. Long story short, they sold a half baked objective to scientists for nearly a decade! (They only achieved apochromatic correction with that new Apo objective, and only by compromising by omitting planar correction. Nikon obviously lagged in objective design until they got the CF series in 1976.)

Cheers,
John

[Element 56]

TP.S. Fun fact. Nikon used to sell the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from around 1964 till around 1972. From 72' they began selling a Plan 100x NA 1.30, and a Apo 100x NA1.40. The later Plan 100x NA1.30 actually was the same thing as the previous Plan Apo 100x NA1.30, but they dropped the "Apo" since it was only corrected to semi-apo standards. Long story short, they sold a half baked objective to scientists for nearly a decade! (They only achieved apochromatic correction with that new Apo objective, and only by compromising by omitting planar correction. Nikon obviously lagged in objective design until they got the CF series in 1976.)

Cheers,
John

That's interesting! Makes wonder what else they they were up too. However, I guess it should come as no surprise that a company lied to make money!

Kirby

[abednego1995]

Well, it's a difficult problem there.
Not techincally "lying" but it's a matter of where you place the design goals and acceptable tolerances. At the time it came out, it was probably comparable to competitors designs. But over time, it became "unacceptable" and I think it was Leitz (not sure here, my memory is fuzzy) at the time that complained (or dissed it in their sales talk.)

[75RR]

The parfocal distance is only 33.6mm compared with the 45mm of the CF series objectives intended for your Optiphot.

Did they go from 33.6mm to the JIS Standard 36mm and then to DIN 45mm or did they go straight to DIN?

[stjepo]

I have not been able to find any information about this objective. Don't fit properly to my Optiphot.

Can anyone give more details about it?

Thanks

Possibly a short barrel objective ? if its length from the front lens to the shoulder (start of thread) is around 33-37mm ?

Yes, it is 33mm.

[stjepo]

If they are 'older' objectives they may be JIS rather than DIN (DIN has become the modern standard)

JIS = Japanese Industrial Standard = 36mm Parfocal distance

DIN = Deutsche Industrie Norm = 45mm Parfocal distance

No idea. Is there a way to check it?

[stjepo]

If they are 'older' objectives they may be JIS rather than DIN (DIN has become the modern standard)

JIS = Japanese Industrial Standard = 36mm Parfocal distance

DIN = Deutsche Industrie Norm = 45mm Parfocal distance

.
Very likely, I would think

Here’s another handy reference, under the heading Objectives and Oculars
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... ompat.html

MichaelG.

.
P.S. __ One source states:

Nikon objectives from the 60's and 70's are often of the "S" type, for use with the Model S system, which is characterized by short barrels with short parfocal distances. They are mostly not well corrected for color or field, but there are exceptions.

One might reasonably hope that yours is one of those exceptions !
Ref. https://lavinia.as.arizona.edu/~mtuell/ ... tives.html

I have used in my optiphot using an extension. Image looks ok but no big diference to Plan 100 1.25

[stjepo]

That's a Plan Apo 100x NA1.30 for the older "black" painted S series microscopes from the 60-70s. The parfocal distance is only 33.6mm compared with the 45mm of the CF series objectives intended for your Optiphot. Hence the trouble mounting it (it's impossible to raise the stage to compensate) Plus, it is an objective that needs matching oculars due to the compensation system it uses.

P.S. Fun fact. Nikon used to sell the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from around 1964 till around 1972. From 72' they began selling a Plan 100x NA 1.30, and a Apo 100x NA1.40. The later Plan 100x NA1.30 actually was the same thing as the previous Plan Apo 100x NA1.30, but they dropped the "Apo" since it was only corrected to semi-apo standards. Long story short, they sold a half baked objective to scientists for nearly a decade! (They only achieved apochromatic correction with that new Apo objective, and only by compromising by omitting planar correction. Nikon obviously lagged in objective design until they got the CF series in 1976.)

Cheers,
John

Very interesting!!!

[stjepo]

TP.S. Fun fact. Nikon used to sell the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from around 1964 till around 1972. From 72' they began selling a Plan 100x NA 1.30, and a Apo 100x NA1.40. The later Plan 100x NA1.30 actually was the same thing as the previous Plan Apo 100x NA1.30, but they dropped the "Apo" since it was only corrected to semi-apo standards. Long story short, they sold a half baked objective to scientists for nearly a decade! (They only achieved apochromatic correction with that new Apo objective, and only by compromising by omitting planar correction. Nikon obviously lagged in objective design until they got the CF series in 1976.)

Cheers,
John

That's interesting! Makes wonder what else they they were up too. However, I guess it should come as no surprise that a company lied to make money!

Kirby

True¡¡¡

[stjepo]

Then this objective has little or no value nowadays.

Interesting story about this objective.

Thank all of you for your answers!!!

Regards

Steve

[PeteM]

. . .

No idea. Is there a way to check it?

Stjepo, If you focus the objective and then measure the distance from the base (where the threads hit the shoulder) and the specimen, that should get you the distance.

Since the 100x has such a short working distance to the specimen (likely near or under .2mm) just measuring the length of the objective (not counting the threads) will get you close.

It's still a pretty good objective, though. It just needs to go on a stand like the Nikon S.

[abednego1995]

The parfocal distance is only 33.6mm compared with the 45mm of the CF series objectives intended for your Optiphot.

Did they go from 33.6mm to the JIS Standard 36mm and then to DIN 45mm or did they go straight to DIN?

Well, I'm not quite sure where that number for the JIS came from since Nikon has used 33.6mm (for most normal objectives) until they went DIN (45mm) with the CF series in 1976.Olympus used 36.65mm until their introduction of the LB series when they went DIN.

P.S. Not all pre-CF objectives from Nikon were 33.6mm parfocal. The exceptions were the U5,10,20x and the W10,20,40x which were 45mm parfocal, and the low power 1.2,2,3x which were 60.6mm parfocal.

[abednego1995]

Here's the diagram for the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from a Japanese publication.
The hatched elements are probably fluorite.

Systematic Survey on Optical Microscope Technology in Japan, C.Nagano, 国立科学博物館技術の系統化調査報告 Vol.24 2017. March. p.373

[stjepo]

. . .

No idea. Is there a way to check it?

Stjepo, If you focus the objective and then measure the distance from the base (where the threads hit the shoulder) and the specimen, that should get you the distance.

Since the 100x has such a short working distance to the specimen (likely near or under .2mm) just measuring the length of the objective (not counting the threads) will get you close.

It's still a pretty good objective, though. It just needs to go on a stand like the Nikon S.

Thank you for this lesson!

[stjepo]

Here's the diagram for the PlanApo 100x NA1.30 from a Japanese publication.
The hatched elements are probably fluorite.

Systematic Survey on Optical Microscope Technology in Japan, C.Nagano, 国立科学博物館技術の系統化調査報告 Vol.24 2017. March. p.373

"Nippon Optical Plan Apochromat 100 x oil

a) Configuration diagram b) Appearance

(Machine barrel length = 160 mm, parfocal length = 33.6 mm, NA 1.30 WD 0.12)

Nihon Kogaku introduced it in 1964, It was a semi-apochrome using fluorite" (This fluorite part is not clear.)

Is there a way to see if it is Fluorite?

Very interesting paper. Thank you very much!!!

[abednego1995]

Hmmmm.... how to prove if it uses fluorite...
No idea there, maybe dissasemble it? But destroying an otherwise fine objective is... painful.

Well, if the design calls for fluorite, why doubt it?

[MichaelG.]

Please forgive the digression, but I found this interesting:
http://www.kowa-prominar.com/product/cristal/index.html

MichaelG.

[stjepo]

Hmmmm.... how to prove if it uses fluorite...
No idea there, maybe dissasemble it? But destroying an otherwise fine objective is... painful.

Well, if the design calls for fluorite, why doubt it?

True

[stjepo]

Please forgive the digression, but I found this interesting:
http://www.kowa-prominar.com/product/cristal/index.html

MichaelG.

Interesting!! Thanks