MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Hi all, after the debacle with the newly-bought x1 Leitz objective for my Orthoplan I have posted it back to the seller who kindly agreed a full refund...
So, I now have a newly-bought x2.5 Plan Leitz objective as the next instalment of the continuing saga of low-power scanning objectives for my Orthoplan....

This time, no 'special' wide-field condenser is needed, just the same conditions as used with the ubiquitous x4 objective that this one will usurp. That is to say, the condenser simply requires it's top lens 'swung out' and a slight lowering to even the light-source perfectly again.

Here's a set of images to show the relative sizes of, and of course differences between the fields-of-view of a selection of 6 different objectives as fitted to my Leitz Orthoplan. The photo-tube optics are a photo-eyepiece periplan x10 plus a Leitz intermediate (reduction) optic of x0.32... Of course the field of view through the eyepieces is considerable larger as the camera only 'sees' a part of this with this set-up.

Images from the new x2.5, the x4, x10, x25, x40 and x63 dry objectives....

The x2.5
I've marked two sets of lines as you can see, the red lines are the 2-edges of each carpel (- think of each carpel as a 'folded-around' leaf where the two edges meet along this red line - seen in TS remember - so 'looking down onto' the abutment/s) coming together - along each meeting edge is a row of ovules - so at each red line there are two rows of ovules running the length of each of the three carpels.
The blue lines are where the carpels each fuse to their neighbouring carpel - near the middle of the ovary the carpels have an oval hole in the lines of fusion - clearly a genuine morphological feature rather than an artefact as the 'holes' have a lining of what look like epithelial cells. In fact they will probably be ducts filled with substances, either secretory or excretory, passed from those lining epithelial-like cells into the duct's locule....




The x4


The x10


The x25


The x40


Finally, the x63 - a 160mm TL objective but still comparable


The new x2.5 is giving the most beautifully planar and crisp images through the eyepieces and about the same when comparing the always inferior photomicrograph image with this eyepiece view as the other objectives. I'm very pleased with this one indeed - I've put the x1 'down to experience'.....

The images are of the center of a TS through the ovary of a Daffodil. Three carpels comprise the Daffodil's ovary, three carpels, each with many ovules borne on an axial placenta - axile-placentation is one of the terms used to describe the ovary (not a single carpel) of a Daffodil.


John B.

Excellent result, John [in both senses]

'fraid I can only currently see your first image though.

MichaelG.

MichaelG. wrote:Excellent result, John [in both senses]

'fraid I can only currently see your first image though.

MichaelG.

Thanks Michael - should be OK now, sorry

Hi John,

it is interesting to see this comparison, but it would be nice to know the precise type of objective. Especially Leitz had a big variety of objectives and small details like "PL" or "Pl" make a difference.

Bob

MicroBob wrote:Hi John,

it is interesting to see this comparison, but it would be nice to know the precise type of objective. Especially Leitz had a big variety of objectives and small details like "PL" or "Pl" make a difference.

Bob

Hi Bob,

The objectives are:
(All Leitz, fitted to Orthoplan with 1.25 n.a. Aplanatic condenser - 603)
x2.5 = Pl 2.5/0.08
x4 = Pl Fl 4/0.14
x10 = Pl Fl 10/0.30
x25 = 25/0.50
x40 = Pl Apo 40/0.75
x63 = Fl 63/0.85 (160mm TL)

I have a PL 25 but it's so low in contrast that the 'ordinary' 25 above (which is in pristine condition and performs correspondingly well, kindly sold to me by a forum member a while back now) easily outperforms it and is my x25 of choice.

Hope these extra details help a little.

John B.

Thanks John B. for sharing more of your wonderful work!

BillT

Gorgeous images! I think that 2.5 is a keeper.
CE

Edit:
But the first two images are gone now, Sunday 7:59pm GMT.

Crater Eddie wrote:Gorgeous images! I think that 2.5 is a keeper.
CE

Edit:
But the first two images are gone now, Sunday 7:59pm GMT.

Hi Eddie - thanks my friend. Yes, I now have the x2.5 where the x4 was..... I think Google is having intermittent problems at the moment - I've just restored the links for about the 6th time - probably settle-down soon...probably...

John B.

Fantastic that you have a 2.5X Plan objective now, Mr.Sonchas! This objective permits your botanical orientations, and observations with fresh collected/ raw specimens...so much more than a scan-objective tool (IMHO, natch.).

I'm curious, is there an etched: TL/ coverslip vrs. "-" spec on this instruments barrel?

I enjoy my Nikon Plan 2X objective with dark field-contrast illumination for live pondlife algae, protists, meiofauna ( the water fleas, the flat worms, the rotifers, gastrotrichs, nematodes, water-bears, hydras, etc...). But with my DF illumination with this 2X objective...only central 30% of field of view illuminates as DF.

I am comfortable doing manipulations of materials under the 2X objective ...this another reason for my silly quest for a : 1X objective..but 1X Plan objective too costly for my purchase needs now .

Thanks for sharing your bench acquisitions, John B., we all are vicarious microscopist pupils of your microscopy. Charlie guevara

Hi Charlie, sorry, just seen your post my friend.
The x2.5 has Pl 2.5/0.08 170/- on the barrel, and I'm very pleased indeed with it.

I use a stereo-zoom 'scope for dissection and viewing of whole specimens - it's a real beauty that Brunel sold me for a very generously low price indeed a while ago now - just one of those good-luck occurrences that come by now-and-again.

John B.

I have used the Leitz 2.5X for macro photos using a bellows and my T3I. It is one of my best objectives.

einman wrote:I have used the Leitz 2.5X for macro photos using a bellows and my T3I. It is one of my best objectives.

Hi einman! That sound a little tempting too - would you be able to give some details of 'how to do it'? my friend?
I may even give it a go.

p.s. Rather ironically the 'special condenser' for the x1 (that I have returned....) came onto e-bay the next day or so! Starting-bids at £150 would however preclude me from buying it - I did allow myself the indulgence of a silent-scream or two and a little knuckle-gnawing, but I'm really pleased with the x2.5!

I may have to try the 2.5 with macro. I've a 1200D but no lens - but I suppose I would attach the objective directly?

Thanks einman, good to hear from you my friend.

John B.

mrsonchus,
Thank You. I have been quite busy traveling and attending workshops, field trips etc. I have not had much time for microscopy as my focus has been more on entomology over the summer but now the cold is coming back I am turning my attention to microscopy once again. I have several projects going I can update the forum on once I get a chance.

I'm not sure of the best way to post photos given Photobucket changed their structure and I no longer use that service. Any suggestions?

einman wrote:mrsonchus,
Thank You. I have been quite busy traveling and attending workshops, field trips etc. I have not had much time for microscopy as my focus has been more on entomology over the summer but now the cold is coming back I am turning my attention to microscopy once again. I have several projects going I can update the forum on once I get a chance.

I'm not sure of the best way to post photos given Photobucket changed their structure and I no longer use that service. Any suggestions?

I still find G-Photos to be the best of a bad bunch. With G-P upload your images, create a 'shared by link' or 'link-shared' 'album' and put them into that (I believe you are able also to upload directly into an existing shared album also). Then, 'go into' the (shared) album and open an image - i.e. look at it. From this shared image on your screen, just right-click and select 'copy image address'. Then, with this address of the image from a shared area - (in this case the shared album) simply paste it into this forum's editor after selecting the 'image' button - which leaves the cursor in the right place in the forum's editor for you to simply 'paste' the address waiting in your 'copy' buffer.

Check to see if it's truly visible to others by viewing it in an 'incognito' tab which won't identify you to the forum as the owner of the image (as then you'd automatically be able to see it even when others can't).

Sorry that's a little waffly - hope it helps.

John B

Well I am trying another service called Imageshack.

Here is one of my set-ups.

The objective screws into an adapter at the end of the bellows. I will post additional pics. However many of my photos are on photobucket so I will have to re-take them or download them all. I built the base. I have 2 types of bellows. The one shown is a cheap Chinese one purchased on E-bay. I also have another much better built one with additional controls for manipulating the bellows. Each requires a different adapter for both the bellows to camera and objective to bellows. I also have another stand which uses a Meiji measring scope that allows the use of more than one objective as well as observing the specimen while photographing. I have been playing with macrophotography off and on. I intend to get a little more serious.

Oh my gawd! That's some kit einman!
Thanks for the image, I get the idea. The bellows reminds me of my teenage years (oh...so long ago.... ) of 'wet' photography.

John B.

This Kirk FR2 focus rail allows me to move the objective 1066 micrometers per single turn. The depth of focus for the Leitz 2.5X objective is about 65 micrometers so that is about a 22 degree turn for each shot if stacking. That is how I determine the minimum number of shots for stacking. Take the depth of the subject divided by the DOF = number of incremental turns of the focus knob. My reason for using the Meiji set-up is due to the fine focus on the Meiji focus rack. You can control the incremental focus better than with the KIRK focus rail. The Kirk is more designed for Macro photography on a much larger scale of That is why so many individuals much better than I use more sophisticated set-ups. But, I am getting there! I just do not have that much time to devote to a single interest. I have severe ADD when it comes to science.
Here is a photo of the Meiji set-up without the trinoc head I use when photographing.

Here is the other bellows set-up.

mrsonchus wrote:Hi Charlie, sorry, just seen your post my friend.
The x2.5 has Pl 2.5/0.08 170/- on the barrel, and I'm very pleased indeed with it.

I use a stereo-zoom 'scope for dissection and viewing of whole specimens - it's a real beauty that Brunel sold me for a very generously low price indeed a while ago now - just one of those good-luck occurrences that come by now-and-again.

John B.

When considering using the Leitz 2.5X for macrophotography you might note the na is 0.08. Most of the older research grade stereoscopes, such as the SZH and the SMZ-U, have an na using a 1X objective of about 0.08 which makes them a bit easier to use at times. You get more working distance. If it gives me sufficient working distance, the Leitz is preferable for stacked images for reasons discussed elsewhere on this forum.

@Mr einman, if I could quiz you on this one...
Do you find this objective covers your sensor OK?
I understood that Leitz needed a compensating eyepiece - presumably that's not a problem with the 2.5x?
And roughly what's the WD?
thanks

Chris