Objectives types comparison images?

[fibreoptix]

So as a newbie who will upgrade his objectives slowly ($$$) in the future I've been learning about lenses. Are there any visual comparisons online that demonstrate the differences between Achro, Flou and APO in terms of what to expect? Also PLAN/PH versions of those lenses would be a great bonus too.

Overall I just want to gauge what to expect in terms of sharpness and clarity and compare it to price point.

Oh and pond water organisms would be the main specimen of interest if that changes things.

[apochronaut]

The differences are not startling but they are there. Looking at still images doesn't give an accurate representation of the overall sense of increased accuracy that using objectives with enhanced colour correction gives.

Fluorites are usually closer to apochromats than to achromats but within a particular manufacturers model line, or within any particular series this will vary.

I did this little test for a request and posted it, some time ago. It is for the AO infinity corrected series of plan 40x objectives, produced over the roughly 20 year period from 1967 to the late 80's. AO did not make any fluorite objectives for their first infinity series but returned to making them for the second D.I.N. series of objectives, after 1985.
Usually, higher N.A. or improved colour correction in an objective series, when newer designs or models are introduced, is the result of the addition of low dispersion glass into the design. Up until recently, that meant some form of fluorite glass, originally those being glass made from natural fluorite crystals. So, even though a particular lens of excellent colour correction might not be designated " a fluorite lens", it's quality is often enhanced by the use of fluorite glass and traditionally, apochromats achieve their high level of performance from a fair inclusion of cemented doublets or triplets containing fluorite elements.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4420&hilit=40x+objective+comparison

[fibreoptix]

Thanks for taking the time and your test is fantastic, but I'm going even more basic than comparing high end lenses to high end lenses over time.

This is more what I'm talking about. A standard lens vs an expensive lens and what would the visual differences be to a newbie.

Plan Apo vs Plan Achro. Would be nice if they included a DIN Achro lens to compare as well.



Is this image an accurate representation of what to expect? If it is I'm saving my pennies now.

[Hobbyst46]

This are fluorescence images, and I think that these are not true colors but pseudo colors added in software. Even if they are physical colors, they originated from monochromatic light. So at least this difference is not what you see in "ordinary" hobby microscopy.

[fibreoptix]

This are fluorescence images, and I think that these are not true colors but pseudo colors added in software. Even if they are physical colors, they originated from monochromatic light. So at least this difference is not what you see in "ordinary" hobby microscopy.

What about the clarity?

[apochronaut]

I wouldn't think, normally. The planachromatic image that you posted looks like there is something wrong. There should be no difference in the sharpness between a planachromat and a planapochromat, nor if either of them were not plan and the degree of difference in contrast represented in those images is extreme. The images you posted, the triple overlay stained Bovine Pulmonary Artery Endothelial cell slides, due to the staining, are masking one of the principle differences one experiences, as you climb the ladder of colour correction in objectives: colour correction. Better corrected objectives also tend to have superior resolution too but what I am seeing in those two images is more than superior resolution. The second one is washed out. Normally, there would be differences but not as much as I am seeing there.

Usually non-plan objectives are about as good as plan objectives, aside from planarity, with the caveat that often plan objectives are developed , or have in the past been developed later than the achromats as the system evolved. Thus, they sometimes have benefited from improvements in coatings or glass formulas. The only major difference is that, when very thin samples are being viewed, the field viewed is fairly flat with plans and suffers from curvature of field with non-plans. With thick samples, aside from a non-plan objective focusing on a different plane towards the periphery, they are not noticeably poorer than plan objectives. If all you ever look at is pond water and have a limited budget, you can save a fair amount of money, buying standard achromats. There should be little difference in resolution, colour correction or contrast, as long as the N.A. and series are the same.

I have an objective series that includes neoplans, planachros, planfluors and planapos. I will post some images in the future, when I get a minute.

[Hobbyst46]

This are fluorescence images, and I think that these are not true colors but pseudo colors added in software. Even if they are physical colors, they originated from monochromatic light. So at least this difference is not what you see in "ordinary" hobby microscopy.

What about the clarity?

The comparison shown by the photos is an extreme one. In hobby microscopy, you will not see such differences.

[fibreoptix]

I have an objective series that includes neoplans, planachros, planfluors and planapos. I will post some images in the future, when I get a minute.

Fantastic!

[photomicro]

untitled (1 of 2)-11.jpg (212.81 KiB) Viewed 5200 times

You have to be careful what you wish for, and as in most things, it is horses for courses.

These two shots are both with x10 objectives, of the same maker, using exactly the same set-up, slide, lighting, camera etc. Even the post-processing is identical.

The first is NA 0.25, that below NA 0.50.

You get more depth with the former, and of course colour, but then that isn't realistic. Most will prefer the former, Plan achromat I am guessing.

Food for thought.

[apochronaut]

I am unclear what you are implying with this demonstration?

[fibreoptix]

Thanks photomicro