Lomo objective designations

[vendav]

Hi All,
Is anybody able and willing to supply a definitive list of Lomo objective markings and their meanings?
I have managed to deduce a few; Apo, water immersion, and oil immersion for example, but there are still quite a few which leave me puzzled.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I should add that I have already searched the web but have found very little of use there.
Kind regards,
David

[Crater Eddie]

п = polarizing

план = plan

апо = apo

ф = phase

ЛОМО = LOMO

That's all I have, what else?

CE

[apochronaut]

ви.......adjustable? I see that on both objectives with an iris diaphragm, as well as with a correction collar.

ми.......oil immersion?

[zzffnn]

ви.......adjustable? I see that on both objectives with an iris diaphragm, as well as with a correction collar.

ми.......oil immersion?

ви = water immersion, for sure. Your iris water objective is a 30/0.9 (which is the only water iris I know/remember from LOMO), while correction collar one is likely the 70/1.23.

ми = oil immersion

[zzffnn]

LOMO did not consistently mark their correction collar or iris. I have two iris objectives (60 oil old version and 30 water new EAF English version) and two correction collar objectives (40/0.95 dry and 70/1.23 water); none of them were marked for such. I just double checked.

When LOMO did mark them, they used:

KOPP: correction collar
иPиC: iris

Also:

Л: luminescence (meaning lens elements do not contain impurities that can affect luminescent techniques)

Д: D (cover slip depth, for example D= 0 means no cover)

K: contacting objective utilizing gelatine (usually not useful for hobbyist)

There are some more that I do not know:
AXP
AПOXP
УФ
A
ФOИ

Those are Cyrillic letters. For example, "ФOИ" likely means phase contrast and something. "A" in Cyrillic is the same as "A" in English.

[vendav]

Many thanks to all; most of the mysteries are now solved and I can sort my modest collection accordingly.
I have assumed that all should be used with the Lomo compensating oculars (K), am I correct in this assumption?

Kind regards,
David

[Crater Eddie]

That is an excellent question.
CE

[zzffnn]

Many thanks to all; most of the mysteries are now solved and I can sort my modest collection accordingly.
I have assumed that all should be used with the Lomo compensating oculars (K), am I correct in this assumption?

Kind regards,
David

David,

I heard low power LOMO objectives (that are less powerful than 10x NA 0.25) do not need much eyepiece compensation. A few forum members have done tests and hold the same opinion.

I don't know about the 10x ones. But those 3.7x, 3.5x, 8x and 9x can perform well without eyepiece compensation and cover an APSC sensor with good image circle.

[vendav]

Thank you again for the information. I have only "K" Lomo oculars - I'll try these against an "other brand" non-comp ocular when I get hold of a suitable stand.

Rather shortsightedly and regrettably I sold my Lomo 'scope some while ago. I've tried the objectives on a CTS stand but the short, non DIN Lomo objectives meant that I had to use spacers behind them to enable focus; I couldn't rack the stage up high enough.
I guess that this would compromise performance to some degree.

On another tack, you mentioned earlier that the 30/0.9 was the only Lomo water immersion objective of which you were aware.
I can't remember where it came from now but I have a somewhat odd APO 60/1.0 no coverslip water immersion objective (pond dipping?) and am looking forward to seeing how it performs under optimum conditions - just waiting for that stand!

Kind regards,
David

[zzffnn]

David,
I said 30/0.9 is the only water objective with iris, if you reread my previous post.

[vendav]

OOOps! My apologies, missed that bit, I must stop speed reading.
Kind regards,
David

[J_WISC]

Hello.

Thank you for this thread. Can someone suggest the meaning of the following symbol on a LOMO water immersion objective?

IMG_5630.jpeg (85.61 KiB) Viewed 2035 times

Thanks.

[Scoper]

A related question…how “good” are Lomo objectives?

I am considering adding to my objective collection.

Thanks

[zzffnn]

A related question…how “good” are Lomo objectives?

I am considering adding to my objective collection.

Thanks

In general, the higher (> 10x) power ones are not very good; they lack contrast / field flatness, need eyepiece correction and are oftentimes not strain-free for polarizing microscopy.

I use them because they offer water immersion and dipping features for 160mm tube length at mid to high powers for cheap; alternative modern versions would cost >$300 USD (if not in thousands).

[zzffnn]

Hello.

Thank you for this thread. Can someone suggest the meaning of the following symbol on a LOMO water immersion objective?


IMG_5630.jpeg


Thanks.

Sorry, I do not know what that symbol means.

[MichaelG.]

Hello.

Thank you for this thread. Can someone suggest the meaning of the following symbol on a LOMO water immersion objective?


IMG_5630.jpeg


Thanks.

At a very wild guess, I would say it’s a simple biconvex lens element !
… but I hope that’s not valid

What other markings are there on the objective barrel ?

MichaelG.

[J_WISC]

What other markings are there on the objective barrel ?

MichaelG.

Just the Russian letters for V and E, indicating water immersion. Plus magnification, aperture, and serial number.

I tried Google Image search. It actually resembles the Reichert logo, minus word Reichert, on one objective I found.

[MichaelG.]

The mystery deepens
… this ebay item has a “plano-convex” egraved on it
https://www.ebay.com/itm/395033242941

I admit, I am lost !

MichaelG.

[Scarodactyl]

A related question…how “good” are Lomo objectives?

I am considering adding to my objective collection.

Thanks

The 3.7x is weirdly great for macro shootin'.

[apochronaut]

The mystery deepens
… this ebay item has a “plano-convex” egraved on it
https://www.ebay.com/itm/395033242941

I admit, I am lost !

MichaelG.

One is Kruschev era, the other is Brezhnev era. Those graphics aren't lenses, they are renditions of their respective muzzles on a good day.

Lomo objectives are a mixed bag. I agree with zzffnn that in general the older short ones are mediocre, except for some of the fancier ones. I use a 30X .90 with iris W.I. along with a 50X 1.00 Baker W.I. and a 100X 1.20 F. Koristka Acqua in an AO series 4 nosepiece and the Lomo stands up well. Mine is coated and one of the newer ones printed in English.
The 45mm parfocal coated planapos are very good. I use a set of those in a PZO. for DF but they need compensating eyepieces. Fortunately, Olympus anticipated that Lomo planapo objectives would need decently W.F. compensating eyepieces and made some .

[J_WISC]

I give up. After more intense Googling, I've concluded the weird shape is a partial Zeiss logo the LOMO engineer couldn't eliminate from the manufacturing process ... or a primitive LOMO logo based on the Zeiss logo.

opton.jpg (24.76 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

lomo-logo.jpg (12.93 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

[zzffnn]

A related question…how “good” are Lomo objectives?

I am considering adding to my objective collection.

Thanks

The 3.7x is weirdly great for macro shootin'.

It is quite good and covers full frame sensors if I remember correctly, assuming one shoots focus stacks, because it is not plan.

It was actually my exact LOMO 3.7x that RobertOToole tested and praised, after which the price went up dramatically.

[MichaelG.]

It is quite good and covers full frame sensors if I remember correctly, assuming one shoots focus stacks, because it is not plan.

It was actually my exact LOMO 3.7x that RobertOToole tested and praised, after which the price went up dramatically.

Congratulations !!

I was looking back at his reviews last night, and spotted this “Marriage made in Heaven” … https://www.closeuphotography.com/lomo-3-7x-and-sr120

It almost defies comprehension, but the results are astonishing.

MichaelG.

[J_WISC]

I use them because they offer water immersion and dipping features for 160mm tube length at mid to high powers for cheap; alternative modern versions would cost >$300 USD (if not in thousands).

What sort of eyepiece do you use for the LOMO 40x water immersion objective?

I've decided I want a LOMO 40x water immersion objective to experiment with. I want to make sure I have the proper eyepiece as well.

[zzffnn]

I use LOMO K10x/18, which is not easy to find (they came together with my LOMO objectives from Russia).

I think apochronaut said Olympus Tokyo (Bi) WF10x works well too (which is much cheaper and much easier to buy). I have not tested that combo myself, but I trust (and have been replying on) apochronaut’s eyes and wisdom.

LOMO 40x 0.75 has very long working distance and can be easily used for both dipping and immersion. Good choice.

[apochronaut]

I use the Olympus 10X Bi eyepieces with the Lomo 45mm parfocal planapos and they work perfectly. Flat and compensated to the edge of the field, sharp, with excellent contrast. I can check the shortie 40X .75 water objective with those but if Fan says the K 10X/18 work, then that's the factory eyepiece that is designated for those 45mm planapos too, according to one of the Russian ebay merchants that owned a catalogue, so the Olympus and Lomo eyepieces have similar( maybe same) compensation levels.

[zzffnn]

Just for reference, the following are some of my old videos shot with LOMO K10x/18, using afocal connection (objective -> microscope turret + eye tube -> K10x/18 eyepiece-> 30mm lens (equivalent to 60mm in full frame) -> micro four thirds camera). All my microscopy videos were shot that way.

I used a variety of LOMO short objectives (70x apo or 30-40x achromat) and illumination techniques (oblique or darkfield):

https://youtu.be/IwpiNs2rXW8?si=8P2QuD5SKC5qAVOG

https://youtu.be/Wzoadr0-CKI?si=UKf9KsYg6W16EVHN

https://youtu.be/vJDKo9YNggw?si=ZxYGAKzL0beYo2m0

https://youtu.be/5uHGUlFnknI?si=RtaF2Ivrfrw7EsT0

https://youtu.be/OiEnCkOzcjI?si=lU0nHOAJx250-zhD

I forgot to mention that the best (factory) eyepieces for those LOMO short objectives are supposedly those LOMO K7x and K10x with narrow top lens (which are cheap and easy to buy), but my eyes cannot tolerate the narrow view field of them. To my eyes, the wider field LOMO K10x/18 is my best compromise.

The nice thing about immersion achromats in 30- 40x NA 0.75 -0.85 range is that they are not terribly picky about eyepiece correction and they tolerate user errors quite well. Higher NA objectives are not as easy to work with.

[apochronaut]

Wider field eyepieces with better eye relief are always best but the advantage gets lost when a significant portion of the additional field gained gets taken up by distortion and aberration, so searching out the best choice with the desired corrections or if needed instead, compensation, is well worth the effort.. With some older objective designs however, peripheral image breakdown is unavoidable. If they weren't planar and corrected well off axis to begin with, there is little hope of finding magic eyepieces that will make them so, although perhaps a little bit so.

[J_WISC]

Okay. I might have figured out the symbol. It appears associated with “homal” or “gomal” eyepieces that flatten the curvature of the field of view. Sorry, cannot figure out how to type proper Russian letters.

[apochronaut]

I use them because they offer water immersion and dipping features for 160mm tube length at mid to high powers for cheap; alternative modern versions would cost >$300 USD (if not in thousands).

edit: I did a little searching and apparently the W10X-15.5MM eyepieces referenced below are the older Japan made Swift. I don't know who made Swift for them. It might have been Kyowa or Seiwa or another stencil brand maker in Japan.

What sort of eyepiece do you use for the LOMO 40x water immersion objective?

I've decided I want a LOMO 40x water immersion objective to experiment with. I want to make sure I have the proper eyepiece as well.

I did a quick test of various eyepieces with the Lomo 40X .70 W.I. objective mounted in an AO series 4. The slide was a wild boar tusk section that I frequently use for chromatic aberration and spherical aberration tests, since the fine black and white grain structure easily shows both well.

AO 10XW.F. cat.146 is a slightly undercorrecting eyepiece yielding some ca beginning about 35-40° off axis to a lightly noticeable blue inside and yellow/red outside at the periphery. A tolerable eyepiece for that objective.

Olympus WF10X Bi is a strongly compensating eyepiece, which works well with some older apochromat objectives which require strong compensation. It works well with late 80's Lomo apochromat objectives but this 40X .70 is not an apochromat, and likely requiring correction, not compensation. This eyepiece bears that out and while noticeable aberration doesn't begin until about 65° off axis it accelerates rapidly, giving both overcompensated yellow inside and blue outside ca and noticeable sa towards it's 18mm f.o.v. periphery. Significant field curvature too. Not tolerable.

Zeiss Kpl 12.5X. As a less compensating eyepiece than the Olympus, this one yields slightly better performance with less objectionable ca and sa. Howevrr it's narrow f.o.v. of about 16 f.n. is a game changer i.m.o.

W10X-15.5mm. I don't know who made these but I suspect Kyowa. The 15.5mm is the eye relief, not the field number. These are very, very, very slightly compensating, almost neutral, leaving a trace of ca at the 18 f.n. periphery but they are as close to perfection for this objective as one is likely to find.

Leitz GF 10X Periplan. This is the Periplan for the 170mm tube 45mm parfocal objectives, so the p/u point is a little down the tube. Not terrible but not great either. Ca at the periphery and sa too.

Reichert Plan 10X. From the standpoint of peripheral aberration corrections this would be a winner too if the field was not too narrow and it didn't have curvature of field correction obverse to that required. Odd.

CBS ( Conrad Beck & Sons) 10X PK. Almost as good as the W10X-15.5 above but a narrower field and some but less pincushion effect than the Reichert Plan 10X. A tiny fraction of peripheral ca of the compensating type.

CBS 10X PL A whole other eyepiece than the one above. A correcting type with ca beginning about 40° off axis and progressing to objectionable.

AO 10X W.F. cat.138. Very similar attributes to the cat. 146 but with a more pronounced pincushion effect due to it's field flattening design.

AO 10X W.F. cat.176 Again , similar correction attributes to the # 146 but instead a pronounced cupping. It is an eyepiece designed to maintain the planarity of plan objectives, not assist in creating that.

I didn't go any farther, since those Kyowa (?) seem to be almost perfect.