Wild Plan Fluotar

[Grahame]

Hi folks,
Does anyone remember these objectives and how they performed ?
I'm guessing they have to be 40yrs old ?
I've found 3 a 3X/0.1, 10X/0.25, 40X/0.65 and figure they would go well with my M20.
Like most of the objectives I see I can find very little to nothing about them.
Did these require a matched set of correcting eyepieces to go with them ?
That would be the deal breaker for me as the scope is my only scope so not looking to go backwards optically for the sake of putting period objectives on it
Thanks
Grahame

[MichaelG.]

An interesting question, Grahame

According to p6 of this [which is p8 of the PDF]:
http://cholla.mmto.org/microscopes/m11-catalog.pdf
The Plan-Fluotars should be used with the Wide field eyepiece
... Compensating eyepieces are specified for use with the lesser objectives

I have no idea what [if any] compensation is provided by the Wide field eyepiece
... But I would be very interested to know.

MichaelG.

[Grahame]

Michael,
Thanks for that lovely catalogue, classic 60's and nicely scanned.
Full of great info as well.
Based on the descriptions of the eyepieces etc it seems that they are flat and corrected.
Will grab the 10x and see how that goes.
Cheers

[MichaelG.]

Based on the descriptions of the eyepieces etc it seems that they are flat and corrected.
Will grab the 10x and see how that goes.

That was my feeling too, Grahame
... Looks like you have probably found 'treasure'.

Please let us know how it performs.

MichaelG.

[Grahame]

That's what I'm hoping for Michael
With some luck will have the 10x next week and see how it goes.
Will definitely let the board know how it goes.
Cheers

[Grahame]

Well finally got the 10x for a trial.
Unfortunately, it's no hidden gem
By comparison with my Chinese acro the ca was worse.
It definitely was not flat, way worse than the acro.
It also had a yellow tinge to the image, of course easy to fix photographically but my eyes never adjusted to it.
The resolution mas marginally worse as well.
I suspect it needs a correction eyepiece.
The strange thing is the dealer tried it in an Olympus before he sent it to me and thought it was fine.
He said when they first came out they always used them with the Wild wide field eyepieces.
No delamination etc on the optics.
I had it on a ten day trial, I only kept it for the weekend.
Sad I hoped I may have found a set of keepers.

[MichaelG.]

Thanks for the update, Grahame

... at least you had it on trial.

MichaelG.

[Hobbyst46]

I wonder: the catalogue or other identifying number on the 10x0.25 Plan Fluotar shown in the picture is 207316.
The Stock No. on the same objective in the M11 brochure-catalogue is 198182.
Why the difference? different production batches, or re-design of lenses?

[75RR]

Hi folks,
The body is a Wild M20 with 6 objective turret and unknown brand Chinese objectives and eyepieces.

This is a quote from: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6154#p55470

Not sure if I got this right but were you testing that Wild Plan Fluotar with Chinese eyepieces rather than Wild ones?
The eyepieces in 160 finite systems are part and parcel of the aberration correction process.
Best to always use matched objective/eyepieces.

[wporter]

The Wild objectives and eyepieces can be a bit confusing (at least to me).

I have both a 10xK and a 10xW eyepiece. Both have exactly the same barrels and dimensions, and this includes the eye lens diameter, etc., and the same apparent FOV. Both are obviously compensating eyepieces (the yellow fringe at the FOV edges).

When used with a 20x Fluotar objective, both have identical fields-of-view (apparent and real), and exhibit the same chromatic aberration and defocus as the edge of the field is approached.

When used with a 20x Pl Fluotar objective, both exhibit the same small off-axis CA, the same wonderful in-focus from one side of the field to the other (one of the best planarities I ever seen).

So I conclude that these are exactly the same eyepiece, despite the different designations. Whether this similarity extends to the rest of the ocular line, I don't know; any Wild experts out there?

I don't really have much confidence in using eyepieces with objectives from different manufacturers, going by my own experiences and from what I have read on this forum. Once in a while you can get lucky, though, so it is good to experiment.

[Grahame]

Hi folks,
75RR, Yes I tested it with the wide field Chinese eyepieces that I have.
The catalogue hinted that it didn't need correction eyepieces and the dealer I got it from tried it with Olympus eyepieces and saw no problems.
It was worth a try.
Finding a pair of Wild wide field eyepieces in NZ, would be hard.
The dealer I got the objective from has 1.
I agree the eyepieces were no doubt a major part of the problem.
At the end of the day it was an experiment.
wporter interesting observation.

[75RR]

At the end of the day it was an experiment.

One that was unlikely to have a happy outcome given the eyepieces you used.

If the price of the objectives are reasonable and funds permit I would recommend that you purchase them.
The correct eyepieces will eventually appear - just a matter of time.
With old microscopes a little patience goes a long way. :)

[MichaelG.]

The eyepieces in 160 finite systems are part and parcel of the aberration correction process.
Best to always use matched objective/eyepieces.

This gets us into interesting territory
Your assertion is certainly a wise generalisation, but the 'exception that proves the rule' might [should?] be fluorite objectives.
The advice in the Wild booklet that I found for Grahame [ ] did not give any explanation, but appeared quite explicit.

MichaelG.
.
P.S. My special thanks to wporter for the useful, thought-provoking, information.

[Hobbyst46]

The eyepieces in 160 finite systems are part and parcel of the aberration correction process.
Best to always use matched objective/eyepieces.

This gets us into interesting territory
Your assertion is certainly a wise generalisation, but the 'exception that proves the rule' might [should?] be fluorite objectives.
The advice in the Wild booklet that I found for Grahame [ ] did not give any explanation, but appeared quite explicit.

MichaelG.
.
P.S. My special thanks to wporter for the useful, thought-provoking, information.

Reading again the booklet, about Compensating, Widefield and Complanat (the main three eyepiece types from Wild), makes me think (since Plan Fluotars are to be paired with Wide Field) that the Wide Field are the least "compensating/correcting" for CA and planarity.
Like wporter remarked - it is confusing!
So, perhaps the best modern eyepiece for the old Wild Plan Fluotar would be the eyepieces from an infinity-corrected microscope?

[75RR]

Your assertion is certainly a wise generalisation, but the 'exception that proves the rule' might [should?] be fluorite objectives.

Perhaps.

The author of his article Paul James (see link below) in microscopy-uk speaks highly of the quality of the objectives. I can make out his eyepieces to be 10x W

I think perhaps Grahame should contact him through the link provided at the end of the article. (I contacted him once on another matter. He was very helpful)

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... jwild.html

[MichaelG.]

At the risk of further confusing matters:
http://www.ronaldschulte.nl/files/Leitz ... s_1985.pdf
includes a brief description of the LEITZ Plan Fluotars, and suitable eyepieces.

Two caveats:
1. it's dated 1985
2. what's in a name ?

MichaelG.
.
Edit: I just remembered this:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/ ... 37_A2b.pdf
... It dates back to 1931, but is quite thorough, and may inspire those who feel the need to experiment.

[75RR]

Wild M20 Parts Schematics:

http://www.frankshospitalworkshop.com/e ... matics.pdf

+ Yahoo Wild_M20 forum:

Forum link: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Wild_M20/info

[Grahame]

Hi folks,
75RR

If the price of the objectives are reasonable and funds permit I would recommend that you purchase them.
The correct eyepieces will eventually appear - just a matter of time.

Yes the price is really reasonable, especially when compared to ebay prices.
But this is a working microscope, banking objectives etc is not an option.
I have way to much redundant optical toys here to start a new collection

Reading again the booklet, about Compensating, Widefield and Complanat (the main three eyepiece types from Wild), makes me think (since Plan Fluotars are to be paired with Wide Field) that the Wide Field are the least "compensating/correcting" for CA and planarity.
Like wporter remarked - it is confusing!
So, perhaps the best modern eyepiece for the old Wild Plan Fluotar would be the eyepieces from an infinity-corrected microscope?

Isn't that an interesting thought.
Possibly why the Olympus eyepieces worked.
I'll ask some questions.

MichaelG., a couple of interesting reads
Confuse away, I have no problems with it.

Thanks folks