Zeiss Citoval 2

[nikopol]

Hello
I found a Citoval 2 stereo microscope for sale in good condition.
According to manual it seems a fine modular stereo microscope with very high magnification possibility. Up to 100x-300x.
Can someone comment on that model? Maybe someone has experience using it?

Thank you. Regards.

[Scarodactyl]

They have a mixed reputation. Most of what I hear is the optics are only OK and they don't ship well and repairing them after they break is impossible. I have recently seen some nice pictures tsken with one though.
300x might be technically possible with 30x eyepieces or something like that but is no doubt going to perform quite poorly.

[nikopol]

On pictures it looks like it is in good condition.
How can i check it remotely? If owner has no experience with microscopes?
I would be able to check it in post office before paying for it. What should I look for if I have 5-7 minutes?

Thank you.

[Scarodactyl]

I would guess misalignment is the buggest thing like most stereos.
How cheap is it?

[nikopol]

How to check misalignment ? Looking in both oculars, then in each one individually?
300 usd

[Leitzcycler]

I don't know about Citoval, but how about this one https://www.ebay.com/itm/VTG-Soviet-Era ... Sw3JhfAKfV
I have a one just like this and I am quite satisfied. Is it possible for you to go and see. It is in Kiev, right?

[Scarodactyl]

300 doesn't seem like an amazing deal for one of these. Demand isn't very high, though then again niether is supply. I remember one for about 300 sat for a long time on eBay.
Misalignment will usually be obvious and painful, but if it's subtle you might need to look at something flat and see how the edges of the image line up.

[nikopol]

It looks almost not used. Has 2 light sources - 1) lamp on an arm and 2) box with two fiber light wires (not sure whats the right name of those). And a stative
I like that it is a modular zeiss device, that can be upgraded to 3rd ocular for camera.
Only other trinocular stereo microscope on local market that I saw, was - Nikon SMZ-2T for 650$. Nikon looks modern tho, not sure which has better optics.

[Scarodactyl]

Zeiss jena stereos don't have the same optical reputation as Zeiss wests. Then again I've seen a lot of delaminated west zeiss stemis offered for sale which Jena microscopes don't struggle with to the same extent.

The smz-2t is quite nice but 650 seems steep for one.

Thr citoval is mpdular but that's less useful when accessories aren't as common. With something like the Leica/Wild m series or modular Nikon smzs there are many generations of compatible or partially compatible scopes along with third party accessories, so they are available and deals come up with relative frequency. With a citoval it's going to be harder to find a nice trinoc port or other addons/upgrades, though you might get lucky. Unfortunately per a friend who had one they didn't seem to be compatible with anyone else's accessories.

[nikopol]

Thank you. Very helpful, as I am doing my first steps in understanding stereos.
Is there any popular hobby oriented articles or websites on stereo microscopes? Maybe a list of models, that are worth buying / practical in hobby use?

[75RR]

.
I think that when recommending or not the purchase of a used stereoscope/microscope one should take into account the location of the buyer, the options that are therefore available and the currency to be used.

In this case the buyer is in Ukraine, stereoscope is in local currency (amount mentioned was a conversion to us dollars),

country is not a member of the EU and therefore taxes on top of shipping need to be taken into account if importing is an option. More so if importing from further away.

Also one should allow for the fact that prices in all of Europe are higher than in the United States on just about everything,

so while something may seem a little overpriced in one's own context that may not be so much so in another.

Lastly, I would say that condition plays a very important role in the purchase of a used stereoscope/microscope - enough I think to compensate for other shortcomings.


Unless the buyer is looking for something that this stereoscope cannot provide, say for example a trinocular head, then it might well be considered a reasonable buy.

[Scarodactyl]

It is a bit hard to gauge pricing with those factors--if it were in guaranteed excellent condition I'd think 300 was a fair price anywhere, but it sounds more like a surplus situation where the seller can't assess condition and may not know how to pack it well either. The risk involved in buying a scope known for breaking and being particularly difficult to service makes it a hard sell. If it's really the only option it could be worth a try as long as there's a good return policy--my main point is that it isn't considered a particularly desirable model and its modularity isn't necessarily of much benefit, so it isn't one to go out of your way for if there are other options.

[75RR]

.
Good points - don't think there ever is an easy answer when buying from afar.

[MicroBob]

How would you like a Lytkarino MBS 10, somtimes sold by LOMO? They offer a good image in the lower and medium magnifications and there should be more of them on your local market. Here is a manual on how to adjust the prisms which would make it a less risky buy. Nothing fancy but I like them.

For me a stereo microscope is most useful in the range 7-40x magnification and just for observation, not photography. So accessories would not be important for my buying decision. What I like is to have incident and transmitted lighting available.

Bob

[nikopol]

For me a stereo microscope is most useful in the range 7-40x magnification and just for observation, not photography.

Why stereo is bad for photography? I do not pretend to make photos for esthetics on such a budget. But it will be useful to have a picture for sharing/discussing on the internet. My main interest in stereo, i think, is to identify if plant leaf have a fungal problem or that problem is not fungal in nature. With pictures it would be easier to ask help from professional botanists.
MBS-10 is indeed present on our market.
This one seems not used for 215$
https://www.olx.ua/uk/obyavlenie/prodam ... f1eb8e5dbe
This one has photo tube is 460$ for some reason
https://www.olx.ua/uk/obyavlenie/mikros ... f1eb8e5dbe
But for some reason I think that zeiss should give better picture. This is Citoval for 300$
https://www.olx.ua/uk/obyavlenie/mkrosk ... 9d63ad73eb

Thank you. Regards.

[MicroBob]

For your documentary purposes like the ones you have in mind a stereo microscope is just fine. But when trying to make photos of really high quality the comparatively low resolution of the objectives is a limitation. The optics are more designed for a big free working distance han resolution. For this reason I would just use a smartphone or small camera on one of the eyepieces and wouldn't spend much money for a trinocular version.

I can't compare the quality of the MBS 10 and the Citoval. In theory the Zeiss Jena instrument should be better. What I like about the MBS 10 offer: It has the transmitted light base included.
Used stereo microscopes often had a rough life. So A model that is easier to service and repair has an advantage (the MBS 10). A big advantage is to be able to check it out in person before buying or buying from a reputable source, which often is just not possible.

[nikopol]

Here are some other options. Seems that this person buys stereo microscopes used from States, services them and sells. He is in the same city as I, so can check in person.
https://microscope.olx.ua/
Sorry previous link was incorrect

[MicroBob]

A fresh service is well worth some extra expense. Does he sell the microscope heads together with a stand?

[Scarodactyl]

A good stereo can take pictures that are good enough to print. There are limitations but it isn't quite as grim as we sometimes make it out to be, even if a macroscope or fixed lenses can give technically better results.

That guy has some neat scopes. The motic m700z he has listed is a clone of the Wild m7. I have one and it is surprisingly good. As soon as my 3d printer is online again so I can make an appropriate camera adapter I'm going to do a shootoff between it and a genuine m7. It is also modular and is compatible with some wild/leica accessories.

[nikopol]

How you take pictures from m700z ? An adapter to one of the viewing tubes?
Do you think, optically it is better then Citoval? Price is higher...

[MicroBob]

I use a few microscopes parallel to each other. Fot this is is convenient to use a lightweight DSLM that is directly connected to an eyepiece.

Bob

[Scarodactyl]

I can't really unconditionally recommend the m700z since it might not match the specs you're after, but it's an interesting and lesser-known option. One major downside vs the citoval is the lower max mag, since it is meant for lower mag work.

I suspect the optics are better--I haven't tried a citoval myself though, and only one copy of the m700z. The M7 is excellent though--I'm hoping to compare my m700z in a shootout against my m7 today so i'll have better optical info soon..

Like the citoval it is modular, so the binocular head can be removed and an intermediate camera tube added. That said the correct camera tubes aren't usually cheap because they're compatible with the entire Leica/Wild M series.

At 450usd I have mixed feelings--it's hard to put a value on a chinese microscope, but if it's serviced that guarantee is worth a lot too. Motic sells the restyled equivalent, the k700, for about 1500usd new. I got mine for something like 170usd, though in not great cosmetic shape and needing a few minor fixes (and the seller didn't know or care what it was).

[Scarodactyl]

Just had a first look at the m700z vs m7 tests, it's worse than I thought. The m700 looks good to the eye but not as good to the camera--still better than some I've tried but not great, especially compared to the wild m7. The eyepieces also vignetted a bit with the trinoc attachment suggesting its modularity might be more theoretical than practical.
It's still OK and all but not something I'd recommend going out of your way for.

[nikopol]

I use a few microscopes parallel to each other. Fot this is is convenient to use a lightweight DSLM that is directly connected to an eyepiece.

So you use short DSLR objective lens instead of a microscope eyepiece lens? Does it work for both - stereo and compound microscopes?

[MicroBob]

These are little mirrorless cameras with intercangeable objectives, a Pentax Q7 and a Nikon 1J5. They are used with a wider normal objective on top of an eyepiece. This is called afocal camera adaptation. I have adapters with correcting and non-correcting eyepieces built in. For a stereo microscope I use a non-correcting Zeiss Jena "P" eyepiece in an adapter sleeve RMS=>30mm. Ideally the entrance pupil of the camera objective and the exit pupil of the eyepiece fall in one place. This is most probably to acheive when using a high eyepoint eyepiece and a flatly built or preferable pancake camera objective. These setups work very well as the cameras ar light and the combinations have a short lenght ans thus very little leverage. With a big DSLR and a longer objective I wouldn't stick this into a binocular tube.

Bob

[nikopol]

Got it. Adapter screws on to a camera lens with one end and fixes microscope objective with another end. Was confused with first picture - it appears that camera is closer to an intermediate image location (seemed like no eyepiece there).
My Sony NEX-5n has longer objective (with 3x zoom). Will it work with such an afocal adapter or I need short objective for that?

[MicroBob]

Got it. Adapter screws on to a camera lens with one end and fixes microscope objective with another end. Was confused with first picture

You're still confused - the adapter connects the camera lens with a microscope eyepiece.

Your NEX 5N ist a good camera for this, lightweigt, good image quality and it has an electronic first shutter curtain. My NEX 5 (without "N") doesn't have EFSC and is not much worth as a microscope camera. You can try the Sony standard zoom an see how good it works. In theory it will have an entrance pupil that sits too deep inside the barrel. But if you combine it with a high eyepoint eyepiece it might work fine. Use it with open aperture. The "ideal" camera les ist something like the Pentax M 40mm 1:2,8, a pancake lens that can be adapted to your Sony with a cheap adapter. But first try what you have. A Sigma 30mm might also work very well and is short, so little leverage. Depending on the eyepiece it will show some black corners. But that is no real disadvantage.

[Scarodactyl]

It's probably best to avoid using the term 'objective' to describe a conventional camera lens in a microscopy context (I understand that's normal convention in some countries, just helps clarity in this context).

[nikopol]

You're still confused - the adapter connects the camera lens with a microscope eyepiece.

Mistyped, sorry. Words objective and ocular still sometimes interchange inside my head.
Will stick to terms microscope objective, eyepiece and camera lens from now.
Thank you.

[MicroBob]

I once wrote "camera lens" in this forum and an englishman pointed out that "camera objective" would be the better name. As long as we understand each other this shouldn't be a problem.
If you have an expensive smartphone of newer generation you might actually get very good micro photographs from it. With a more ordinary smartphone the images will still be quite good.
I use such an adapter for this: https://www.ebay.de/itm/SWIFT-Handyadap ... Sw2ZhfjMEu
I have married this thing to a separate wide angle eyepiece by means of a self made bushing to replace the plastic insert in the eyepiece.