How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
I have mostly plan achro objectives but have had one neoplan 10X for a while. Viewing through the eyepieces I would say the difference vs. the 10X plan achro is mild -- noticeable if you put them both in the nosepiece and switch back and forth, but not really dramatic. Based on that experience with the neoplan 10X I had been looking for a neoplan 50X oil. However I recently got a neoplan 100X and compared it with my 100X plan achros and the difference is much more dramatic than at 10X. With the plan achros my eyes can easily focus across the entire field without adjusting the microscope focus, with the neoplan only about 10 mm in the center, need to change microscope focus to get the periphery sharp. I don't think there is anything wrong with the neoplan 100X -- it is in good cosmetic condition, the image is sharp with good contrast at the center, and aberrations are well-centered. How does the neoplan 50X oil compare to these in terms of field curvature?
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
I would love to give you an answer but, I have not been able to obtain working distance with my 100x Neoplan, at least with a cover glass that is, theres just not enough room for the objective to clear the cover glass, regardless of how thin I prepare the slide sample. Have you encounter the same issue?
Now without a cover glass the image on my 100x achromatic on a Carlsan Cs 700 is inferior to the 100x Neoplan on my Microstar IV, it could be the lighting or the actual condenser it self.
Now without a cover glass the image on my 100x achromatic on a Carlsan Cs 700 is inferior to the 100x Neoplan on my Microstar IV, it could be the lighting or the actual condenser it self.
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
Working distance is small but I have not noticed any problem using either the neoplan or plan achro with #1.5 cover glass. Do you have a micrometer you can measure your cover glass with? All my cover glass is unopened surplus from reputable manufacturers I bought on eBay and very close to the specified thickness whenever I have measured it. I have heard the inexpensive generic cover glass can sometimes be much thicker.Plasmid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:20 amI have not been able to obtain working distance with my 100x Neoplan, at least with a cover glass that is, theres just not enough room for the objective to clear the cover glass, regardless of how thin I prepare the slide sample. Have you encounter the same issue?
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
That could be it, So far I've purchased Karter Scientific from Amazon with the following specs
Glass Blank Slides: 1" x 3" x 0.04" (25.4x76.2x1mm)
Glass Cover Slips: 7/8 x 7/8 x 0.006" (18x18x0.13mm)
Will have to measure to be sure, although I haven't encountered the issue with the 160 objectives just Infininiti. Would you mind recommending the supplier you use?
Thank you.
Glass Blank Slides: 1" x 3" x 0.04" (25.4x76.2x1mm)
Glass Cover Slips: 7/8 x 7/8 x 0.006" (18x18x0.13mm)
Will have to measure to be sure, although I haven't encountered the issue with the 160 objectives just Infininiti. Would you mind recommending the supplier you use?
Thank you.
-
BramHuntingNematodes
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
I have a ton of #1.5 slips from Globe Scientific. They are pretty decently uniform and very cheap.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
There is no reason that an AO/Reichert Neoplan 100X should not focus with any normal cover glass. Typically, the 100X Neoplan will focus up to a .250 cover/sample sandwich. The 100X Planachro, slightly less, .230 or so.
Randomly picking out a Carolina Biological spirogyra slide , it mics at .254. The Neoplan will focus down entirely to the bottom of the sample, the planachro, just the upper section of it.
One has to bear in mind that objectives will vary somewhat from the specification and can vary a lot if there is a history of disassembly. Mixing up shims and spacers is usually the culprit and while the objective seems like it works properly, such performance anomalies like an unusually close focus, increased curvature of field or a higher degree of peripheral ca or spherical aberration can result. Without a properly working identical objective as a comparator, it is sometimes difficult to determine if the performance is normal or not, because the effects can be subtle.
I once traded for a phase objective (member actually) which had around an 80 micron increase in the point of focus, from the norm. The reason it was traded became clear all of a sudden. Having similar objectives to compare it to helped me see the subtle image degradation and background colour shift that also affected it. Sure enough, all the shims were in there but just rearranged somewhat.
In my experience, I find the Neoplan 100X to be surprisingly close to the 100X planachro. The curvature of field begins at around the 75% of field point , with a small amount of coma occuring near the periphery. The Neoplan also has a tiny bit more peripheral ca and of a more red/yellow character.
It seems they mostly tweaked their existing pedestrian planachros into the Neoplan barrels and then redesigned some of the better ones as planachros but certainly they had a focus on elevating the 2.5X , 4X and 10X entries with new designs. The change between the 1028 34mm 2.5X and the 1730 45mm 2.5X is dramatic.
The 50X .80 oil Neoplan is clearly derived from the #1016 50X oil planachro. The 1016 has some small peripheral defects, which they mostly rectified in the longer barrel of the Neoplan but not all..... and dropping the unnecessary iris too. I used to use the 50X Neoplan quite a bit, due to the high N.A. It is a little better than the .66 objectives. Oil doesn't bug me , since I often use oil immersion 100X objectives. The image quality is very very good. Not as good by any means as the 40X .70 planfluor, which provides even excellent images at 60X with #182 oculars.
Oddly, both 50x .80 Neoplans I have had , focused closer than the 100X Neoplans, about the same tolerance as the 100X planachro, about .23 or a little better. It was probably a fairly easy conversion to re-design the 1758 out of the 1016 and it was therefore a fairly cheap oil immersion introductory objective for scholastic purposes, where a 100X might have been just a little too much. An oil immersion training objective, so to speak, while still good enough to be capable of holding a place as an inexpensive partner to an oil 100 planachro, particularly the 100X used for DF.
So, a stand alone training objective and a partner to the 1736 or 37.
Randomly picking out a Carolina Biological spirogyra slide , it mics at .254. The Neoplan will focus down entirely to the bottom of the sample, the planachro, just the upper section of it.
One has to bear in mind that objectives will vary somewhat from the specification and can vary a lot if there is a history of disassembly. Mixing up shims and spacers is usually the culprit and while the objective seems like it works properly, such performance anomalies like an unusually close focus, increased curvature of field or a higher degree of peripheral ca or spherical aberration can result. Without a properly working identical objective as a comparator, it is sometimes difficult to determine if the performance is normal or not, because the effects can be subtle.
I once traded for a phase objective (member actually) which had around an 80 micron increase in the point of focus, from the norm. The reason it was traded became clear all of a sudden. Having similar objectives to compare it to helped me see the subtle image degradation and background colour shift that also affected it. Sure enough, all the shims were in there but just rearranged somewhat.
In my experience, I find the Neoplan 100X to be surprisingly close to the 100X planachro. The curvature of field begins at around the 75% of field point , with a small amount of coma occuring near the periphery. The Neoplan also has a tiny bit more peripheral ca and of a more red/yellow character.
It seems they mostly tweaked their existing pedestrian planachros into the Neoplan barrels and then redesigned some of the better ones as planachros but certainly they had a focus on elevating the 2.5X , 4X and 10X entries with new designs. The change between the 1028 34mm 2.5X and the 1730 45mm 2.5X is dramatic.
The 50X .80 oil Neoplan is clearly derived from the #1016 50X oil planachro. The 1016 has some small peripheral defects, which they mostly rectified in the longer barrel of the Neoplan but not all..... and dropping the unnecessary iris too. I used to use the 50X Neoplan quite a bit, due to the high N.A. It is a little better than the .66 objectives. Oil doesn't bug me , since I often use oil immersion 100X objectives. The image quality is very very good. Not as good by any means as the 40X .70 planfluor, which provides even excellent images at 60X with #182 oculars.
Oddly, both 50x .80 Neoplans I have had , focused closer than the 100X Neoplans, about the same tolerance as the 100X planachro, about .23 or a little better. It was probably a fairly easy conversion to re-design the 1758 out of the 1016 and it was therefore a fairly cheap oil immersion introductory objective for scholastic purposes, where a 100X might have been just a little too much. An oil immersion training objective, so to speak, while still good enough to be capable of holding a place as an inexpensive partner to an oil 100 planachro, particularly the 100X used for DF.
So, a stand alone training objective and a partner to the 1736 or 37.
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
Certainly possible there is something wrong with my neoplan 100 and I only have one of them so can't compare. Focus point is close, I went back and checked more carefully after you mentioned it, it is about 5 um off from the planachro I have been comparing it to, does that sound reasonable? And the performance is very close to the planachro in the center.
I guess what I was thinking is, if the peripheral corrections of the neoplan 50 are similar to the neoplan 100, then maybe the increased FOV over the planachro 100 is not as useful, if one already has a planachro 100 which looks very good all the way to the edges. But from what you are saying it sounds like either my neoplan 100 is not quite right, or the neoplan 50 is better toward the edges and so is still useful next to a planachro 100.
(Side note -- messing with oil immersion more and especially switching back and forth to compare objectives, the "autofocus" lock on the black-top stand I was wondering about a while back in post #7 of this topic has been quite useful. Now that it is cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted the repeatability is very good, within 1-2 um after raising then dropping the coarse focus back down.)
I guess what I was thinking is, if the peripheral corrections of the neoplan 50 are similar to the neoplan 100, then maybe the increased FOV over the planachro 100 is not as useful, if one already has a planachro 100 which looks very good all the way to the edges. But from what you are saying it sounds like either my neoplan 100 is not quite right, or the neoplan 50 is better toward the edges and so is still useful next to a planachro 100.
(Side note -- messing with oil immersion more and especially switching back and forth to compare objectives, the "autofocus" lock on the black-top stand I was wondering about a while back in post #7 of this topic has been quite useful. Now that it is cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted the repeatability is very good, within 1-2 um after raising then dropping the coarse focus back down.)
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
I really don't notice much difference in the planarity between the Neoplan and the Planachro. With a very flat smear or something like that, there is some but still not much. There is a little more ca with the Neoplan, most notably towards the edge. The 50X I used for avwhile with a 100X Austrian Planachro for DF.and it was a great partner but it has as tight a w.d. as a 100. You have to be willing to accept that.
If every microscope related thought or item I own evaporated instantly but I still retained my understanding of the relative usefulness, availability and cost of it all and had 500.00 to spend, a Diastar with 2.5X, 4X, 10X, 20X, 50X , 100X and a BF and DF condenser would be pretty close to the top of my list. I might have to settle for a Microstar.....the days of 149.00 Diastars are probably over but I then would ditch the 4X.
The only reason I don't use one as much these days is that I lucked out and scored a 40X 1.0 oil planapo with iris for 150.00. There isn't any w.d. difference so the 50X Neoplan doesn't get called on as much. I have a great deal of respect for that objective.
If every microscope related thought or item I own evaporated instantly but I still retained my understanding of the relative usefulness, availability and cost of it all and had 500.00 to spend, a Diastar with 2.5X, 4X, 10X, 20X, 50X , 100X and a BF and DF condenser would be pretty close to the top of my list. I might have to settle for a Microstar.....the days of 149.00 Diastars are probably over but I then would ditch the 4X.
The only reason I don't use one as much these days is that I lucked out and scored a 40X 1.0 oil planapo with iris for 150.00. There isn't any w.d. difference so the 50X Neoplan doesn't get called on as much. I have a great deal of respect for that objective.
Re: How does the Reichert neoplan 50X 0.80 oil compare to the 100X neoplan and plan achro?
Thanks, I will continue to keep an eye out for a 50. I don't think I have ever seen one for sale individually on eBay, although there is currently a comically-overpriced set of neoplans including the 50, as well as a couple beat-up 410 stands that have one.