Review Amscope 60X Objective

[Suphot]

I have generic brand microscope with 4X, 10X, 40X and 100X Oil Objective, like most of users, the 100 X Oil immersions Objective is rarely use because of Oil and cleaning. When I saw comment on 60X Objective in Microbe Hunter Forum

viewtopic.php?t=2378

I would like to try 60 X Objective in place of 100 X Oil Objective. The reason is, I am not absolutely need high resolution of 1000X from 100X Oil Objective. The dry 60X Objective give me easier to use without cleaning and if I need more magnification, I can use 16X Eyepieces with 60X Objective to become 960X. Yes, I know that with 60X / 0.85 NA it is good for only 850X, the 960X magnification from this configuration is a bit over from their specification.

But my microscope is not Amscope brand, I am not sure that the 60X Achromatic Objective from Amscope will fit which my Objective set or not. After I look at the photo from Amscope website, I can see that the set of my microscope objective look very similar to Amscope objective. So I give it a try.

The Amscope 60X Achromatic Objective is DIN/JIS standard 60 / 0.85 with 160/0.17 as show in the photo below

[Suphot]

My 100X Oil Objective is around 45mm in length without mounting thread, the Amscope 60X Objective is the same length as show here.

[Suphot]

So if you are not using Amscope Microscope, but your Microscope Objective set are look similar to Amscope Objective and your 100X Oil Objective is 45 mm in length (without mounting thread). Your Microscope can fit Amscope 60X Achromatic Objective with your exiting Objective set without problem.

Use without problem mean, Amscope 60X Objective will not crack into slide when you switch from 40X Objective to 60X, and you need a small fine focus adjustment when 60X is in place. But if your 100X Oil Objective is shorter than 45 mm, the Amscope 60X Objective will not suitable to mix in your existing Objective set. If you do, the 60X Objective will crack into slide when switch from 40X to 60X.

If your 100X Objective is longer than 45 mm, the Amscope 60X Objective will not crack into slide, but you may need a long travel for focusing. It may be useable, but not a good fit. By the way, if you are not sure is it workable with your Microscope and existing Objective set, please check seller’s return policy before give it a try.

For my Microscope, I replace my 100X Oil Objective with Amscope 60X Achromatic Objective and it fit perfectly with my existing Objective set. When I switch from 40X to 60X, I need a little fine focus adjustment to bring image to sharp focus.

[Suphot]

I use Cardiac Muscle Cross section permanent slide as an example for viewing. To take photograph I use Samsung Galaxy S6 at 6 M Pixel mode connect to eyepiece by using Afocal Photography technic. The quality of 60X is very acceptable for me. All photo are single shot, Resize and Unsharp Mask

Left Photo 400X (40X Objective 10X Eyepieces) Right Photo 600X (60X Objective 10X Eyepieces)

[Suphot]

If I need more than 600X, I can use 16X Eyepieces to get 960X Magnification and the image quality is acceptable to me.

Left Photo 600X (60X Objective 10X Eyepieces) Right photo 960X (60X Objective 16X Eyepieces)

[Suphot]

Now the 60X Objective was in place of 100X Oil Objective and I keep the 100X Oil Objective in the box for future use. Sometime I think that, the Microscope manufacturer should put the 60X Objective in the set as option A and 100X Oil Objective in the set as option B. It may be more useful for amateur and student.

After I have 60X Objective, I use it more and more, compare to 100X Oil Objective. In the wet mount sample, 60X dry Objective clearly show advantage over 100X Oil Objective, in term of easier switch back and forth from other dry Objective. However if you really need high resolution at 1000X, the 100X Oil Objective is the way to go, no other option can replace it.

[billbillt]

Hi,

Thanks for posting your evaluation of the Amscope 60X objective.. I also had bought one last year.. My results are similar to yours.. I like this objective.. The important thing for me to notice is the "160" engraved on the objective.. This is the tube length, and this tells me which of my stands it is compatible with.... As far being parfocal, I really don't care.. I have a habit of "backing off" when I change objectives anyway... I am never in that big of a hurry, and the extra time taken to re-focus is minimal..

The Best,
BillT

[apochronaut]

Stained subjects are not really very useful in assisting to evaluate an objective lens, even though a lot of microscopy is done with stained subjects.
Something of low contrast and relatively colourless, with fine detail, gives a better evaluation. Diatoms are normal but other subjects, butterfly wing scales, bone sections, even fresh epithelial cells or thin onion membrane show up chromatic aberration and demonstrate contrast quite well.

[billbillt]

Stained subjects are not really very useful in assisting to evaluate an objective lens, even though a lot of microscopy is done with stained subjects.
Something of low contrast and relatively colourless, with fine detail, gives a better evaluation. Diatoms are normal but other subjects, butterfly wing scales, bone sections, even fresh epithelial cells or thin onion membrane show up chromatic aberration and demonstrate contrast quite well.

Surely true in a professional setting for a persnickety person, but for the home hobby use, they are perfect!.. A person just wants to see a good image, the rest of it is just boring details.. This objective presents a very good image...The idea here for hobby use is to have fun, not make a career out of it...

[75RR]

Sometime I think that, the Microscope manufacturer should put the 60X Objective in the set as option A and 100X Oil Objective in the set as option B. It may be more useful for amateur and student.

Given a reasonable working distance I would agree. I imagine however that the choice of 100x has more to do with "selling" max magnification than the actual needs of customers. Especially as super max magnifications of 1600, 2000 and even 2500, in order to beguile both beginners and the impressionable, are just an extra eyepiece away.

[billbillt]

This the beauty of obtaining a stand with a 160 mm tube length... There are a lot of objectives out there so a person can try different combo to see what suits them.. Yes, I agree the excessive sales talk of ridiculous magnifications should be stopped...

BillT

[apochronaut]

Stained subjects are not really very useful in assisting to evaluate an objective lens, even though a lot of microscopy is done with stained subjects.
Something of low contrast and relatively colourless, with fine detail, gives a better evaluation. Diatoms are normal but other subjects, butterfly wing scales, bone sections, even fresh epithelial cells or thin onion membrane show up chromatic aberration and demonstrate contrast quite well.

Surely true in a professional setting for a persnickety person, but for the home hobby use, they are perfect!.. A person just wants to see a good image, the rest of it is just boring details.. This objective presents a very good image...The idea here for hobby use is to have fun, not make a career out of it...

not attempting to be persnickety, just think a better subject would do a better job of illustrating what the poster says they are intending to illustrate. Stained slides, conceal defects in microscope optics.

[billbillt]

Stained subjects are not really very useful in assisting to evaluate an objective lens, even though a lot of microscopy is done with stained subjects.
Something of low contrast and relatively colourless, with fine detail, gives a better evaluation. Diatoms are normal but other subjects, butterfly wing scales, bone sections, even fresh epithelial cells or thin onion membrane show up chromatic aberration and demonstrate contrast quite well.

Surely true in a professional setting for a persnickety person, but for the home hobby use, they are perfect!.. A person just wants to see a good image, the rest of it is just boring details.. This objective presents a very good image...The idea here for hobby use is to have fun, not make a career out of it...

not attempting to be persnickety, just think a better subject would do a better job of illustrating what the poster says they are intending to illustrate. Stained slides, conceal defects in microscope optics.

Fair enough.. Most hobbiysts don't recognize a so called "defect", much less care unless it is glaring and makes an objective useless.. A lot of folks are on a tight budget and must use what they have "in house".. But you make a valid point...


BillT

[PeteM]

My own experience with a (gently used) AmScope 60x objective of the same N.A. wasn't so good. The contrast and detail seen were less than any number of decent 40x objectives (Leitz in both 170 & 160 tube length, both Olympus DPlan and SPlan 40x, Zeiss fluorite, pre-DIN Nikon and Olympus, AO plan, Balplan, even a "Fisher" branded (Japan?) plan lens, etc.) already in hand. Not sure why it was disappointing; as there weren't any obvious defects in the AmScope lens.

I would like to find a good 60-70x dry objective, though, for all the reasons noted earlier.

[apochronaut]

What system were you wanting to put it on? Parfocal length and tube specifications?

[PeteM]

What system were you wanting to put it on? Parfocal length and tube specifications?

It would likely be 45mm parfocal DIN on a 160mm tube. Best possibilities include a Leitz Laborlux 11 or 12, or an Olympus BH-2. Could also do Olympus infinity rather than 160mm with an epi/transmitted adapter on one of the BH-2s. Price combined with uncertain quality and the risk of damage by kids (too short focus distance) is what's holding me back.

Could also fit one to a Leitz Dialux (170mm, long or short barrel), a Zeiss Standard DIN, a Nikon Labophot DIN, or an AO 34mm (Series 10 etc.) or 45mm (Reichert 410 etc.) infinity scope. The main thing would be avoiding oil immersion with the childrens' microscopy programs -- too much of a mess to clean up after - along with wanting a lens design (or the AO scope design) that can reasonably protect the front element from being "focused" right into a slide.

Any ideas, based on your recent comparison? The minty used AmScope 60x I tried was priced right, but my particular example has been worse than the 40x lenses already in hand.

[Suphot]

Hi Everyone,


Thank you very much for all of your comments and discussions. I will update the photo sample of other object with this 60X Objective, when I can find one. My point of view is, It is very good enough for my hobby, not very expensive and more convenient to use. If someone need more than 400X magnification and lazy like me (to use 100X Oil Objective), this 60X Objective is not a bad option to try.

The Achromatic Objective will show chromatic aberration by design, more or less. To my eyes, the Amscope 60X Achromatic Objective is quite acceptable. For the contrast, I did not see much different when I switch from 40X to 60X Objective, may be my 60X Objective is a good one.

Other issue to concern is, you can see that the photo of 60X and 100X Objective is look almost the same. My microscope may be the same design and manufacturer as Amscope, but put different name on it. So it will be perfectly fit in term of mechanical and optical. If your microscope is totally different, I think it may have some issue of compatibility and show up in the eyepieces.


Cheers,

[Suphot]

Now I found a clear Diatom to test with this Dry 60X Objective. I use 16X Eyepieces so the total magnification is 960X.

Afocal Techic by using smart phone take photo from Eyepieces.

60X Objective X 16X Eyepieces (960X)
Bright Field Illumination

Resize and Unsharp Mask

[MicroBob]

Is your diatom here in water? This would be a very demandig test object.

[75RR]

I would suggest purchasing Klaus Kemp's excellent (diatom) 8 Form Test Plate for objective comparisons and indeed any other comparison you might want to do.
Many members of this forum have one - it helps to have a similar test base-line.

Link to his site: http://www.diatoms.co.uk/

This is the list:

Amphipleura pellucida
Frustulia rhomboides
Pleurosigma angulatum
Surirella gemma
Nitzschia sigma
Stauroneis phoenicentron
Navicula lyra
Gyrosigma balticum

This is what it looks like:

[75RR]

Here is a illumination technique comparison sample using Navicula lyra

[Suphot]

Hi Bob,

The Diatom still wet, but the water around it was dry up, you can see some small drop remaining on top of the photo.

After a few minute, I saw water inside th Diatom dry up. But I am not take the photo when it was dry.

This Diatom sample was quite flat, so I can focus it sharp almost the whole Diatom.

It is fun to explore it.


Suphot

[Suphot]

Hi 75RR,

Thank you very much for your recommend, I will check on it.

Your sample photo is very sharp, very high resolution. It is a good reference one.


Suphot.

[MicroBob]

Hi Suphot,
diatoms are transparent and the refractive index of diatoms material is around 1,45 - the refractive index of water is about 1,33. This is a small difference so there is little contrast - a difficult object for any objective. Diatoms are usually mounted in high refractive index mountants with an r.i. of 1,6 to 1,7, sometimes more.
A comparatively cheap and widely available test object is a chinese micrometer slide for about 8€ on ebay. It is useful for other purposes and they are generally of good quality.

When testing objectives or camera adaptations it is important to use a critical object like a diatom slide in high r.i. mountant or a micrometer slide. It is also important to use a cover slip if the objective is meant to be used with one. This also applied to micrometer slides - they sometimes come without a cover slip.

When a microscope optic or a camera mount prooves it's capability with such a critical test, one can use it for whatever else and be sure it is up to spec.

Bob

[Suphot]

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much for your information, I may try chinese micrometer sometime.

My test sample was a simple wet mount and try to see how the objective can show the details. I may not perform the critical test as you mention, according to my limit experience.

By the way, it is good to know some more details that you recommend.


Suphot.

[Suphot]

I have a chance to purchase Micrometer slide at last. So I can take a photo of micrometer scale and calculate size of sample under the same objective magnification easily.

Here is photo of micrometer scale at 60X Objective with 10X Eyepiece. 600X total magnification.
Photograph by using smart Phone S10E. The scale of micrometer slide is 10 micron per 1 scale.

Sorry for some dust on the micrometer slide

[Suphot]

This is another Diatom sample by 60X Objective at 600X magnification, Oblique illumination. Single shoot (no stacking), Noise reduction to reduce background noise.

The Diatom was leave it to slowly dry under cover slip for a few weeks. I calculate it size from micrometer scale around 35 Micrometer long.
The spacing between internal line of Diatom is around 0.75 Micrometer.

[Hobbyst46]

I have a chance to purchase Micrometer slide at last. So I can take a photo of micrometer scale and calculate size of sample under the same objective magnification easily.

Here is photo of micrometer scale at 60X Objective with 10X Eyepiece. 600X total magnification.
Photograph by using smart Phone S10E. The scale of micrometer slide is 10 micron per 1 scale.

Sorry for some dust on the micrometer slide

There is an easily visible pincushion distortion in the image. Horizontal lines, for example, appear to be concave relative to the center. The source (objective ? camera interface ?) can be identified by comparing images of the same micrometer under the 40X objective, for example.

[Mraster2]

Here is photo of micrometer scale at 60X Objective with 10X Eyepiece. 600X total magnification.
Photograph by using smart Phone S10E. The scale of micrometer slide is 10 micron per 1 scale.

Thank you for showing your results with the 60x objective, very interesting and useful.
I am new to the forum and was not aware of your previous observations until you made this update.
It coincides well with me viewing and thinking about Microbehunter/Oliver's video on substituting 100x with a 60x for many needs.

[DonSchaeffer]

I also replaced the 100X oil objective with the 60X dry because I felt I would probably not use the oil immersion lens for what I do (whatever it is). This way all four of my objectives are potentially useful. I use the 40X objective most of the time but I occasionally switch to the 60 for a slightly closer view. Focus on the 60X is very tricky for three-dimensional and un-microtomed subjects and the nearness of the lens to the subject and the slide often makes the lens difficult to use. You do get a little better resolution though. I can see bacteria much better and I can see interior details of microbes and slides I couldn't see well without it. I'm glad I purchased the 60X dry because it makes my instrument complete. Could I have lived without it?--sure.