Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 3705
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#1 Post by mrsonchus » Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:14 pm

Hi all, just a quick question I've been pondering during the few idle moments I've had over the last couple of days....

With an objective of FN 26.5 and FN 22 oculars in a head also of FN 22(mm), should the field-iris be set to the objective's FN or that of the ocular/head combination.
Last edited by mrsonchus on Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
John B

PeteM
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compund Microscope

#2 Post by PeteM » Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:52 pm

Interesting question; and someone else may have a definitive answer.

It seems to me that as long as you don't illuminate the objective beyond its field, that you'll minimize most reflections, preserve contrast, and get the best resolution of the objective.

On the other hand, there may well be a stop or baffle in your head that will clip that max 26.5mm field to something closer to that head's field of 22mm or so (depending on what head you have)? And yet another stop in your eyepiece. All perhaps suggesting that as a practical matter you might was well use a phase telescope and adjust the aperture to fill the view through your head?

abednego1995
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:32 am

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compund Microscope

#3 Post by abednego1995 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:13 am

The field iris should be set to the smallest FN in the system. If you use a FN22 ocular on a FN26.5 head, it would be FN22. Many heads (and objectives) will allow fields up to nearly 30mm only limited by the ocular tube diameter themselves but whether that periphery would be pretty is a different matter.

Cheers,
John

Scarodactyl
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compund Microscope

#4 Post by Scarodactyl » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:07 am

D
Not to go too far afield here, but does anyone make an eyepiece with a fn over 26.5? I assume it's really hard to get wider FoVs since the Chinese eyepieces never seem to go that high.

User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 3705
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compund Microscope

#5 Post by mrsonchus » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:55 am

Hmm, a few points to ponder, thanks all.

So, the head and oculars are the 'ordinary' widefield Olympus 22mm FN, the objectives with matching 22mm FN are the Plan N UIS2 line.
One objective (a high-dry 60x) is of the UPlanApo variety with the 'super widefield' 26.5mm FN....

Is it 'better' (theoretically at least - I find that theory and experience/perception with microscopy always overlap but almost never coincide!) to set the diameter of the field-iris to 22mm or 26.5mm? In other word maybe - do I set the Kohler-condition of the field-iris to 'my view' (22mm) or that of the objective in question (26.5mm)?

I'll try the two options later and take a few images to post back here.
John B

MicroBob
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#6 Post by MicroBob » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:15 am

Hi John,
you can't see the field beyond these 22mm - so why illuminate it? The illuminated border between 22 an 26,5mm will only produce stray light. Whether this is important with modern high quality optics and their good coatings is hard to predict.
A way to check this objectively ist to take pictures with fixed exposure and mic lighting and compare the histograms.

Bob

User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 3705
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#7 Post by mrsonchus » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:33 am

Hi Bob, that makes perfect sense to me too; also perhaps one may say that the first to receive light is the objective, designed to be illuminated to 26.5mm.

That suggests another related question, namely, 'does illuminating an objective below the diameter of it's FN compromise or alter, either-way, the image 'passed-on' by the objective to the rest of the optical path of the 'scope?' - in a brightfield setup in this particular context.

A few images coming right-up.
John B

User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 3705
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#8 Post by mrsonchus » Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:19 pm

Here's a link to my G-Photos shared folder with a set of images both edited and as-shot of the 22mm and 26.5mm settings of the field-iris.
The 26.5mm are as expected a little brighter than the 22mm images, but I can't see any difference worth mentioning in the two versions. I've included sets of 'enhanced' versions of both the 22mm and the 26.5mm images, the adjustments of PSEv9 'autofix' and levels - RH side of histogram set to 215 to bring up the brightness to the same threshold.

These Botanical slide images are not the best with which to perform such tests as few sharp edges exist with this type of section, but interesting anyway.

Personally my conclusion from this simple comparison is that there's essentially no difference....

Here are a few image-pairs from the enhanced 22mm and 25.5mm sets, the whole sets is available via my above link....

Image

and
Image

Image

and
Image

Image

and
Image

Finally a xylem TS at 22mm and 26.5mm FNs,
Image

and
Image

Not very informative I'm afraid, but I had the spare time this afternoon!
John B

PeteM
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#9 Post by PeteM » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:29 pm

Thanks, John, for running the comparison.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 2711
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#10 Post by Hobbyst46 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:45 pm

Hi John B.,
From the images, especially the non-enhanced ones, it seems that the 26.5mm aperture setting were better illuminated than the 22mm. So I think, that the field width imposed by the photo tube and any components within it is wider than 22mm, irrespective of the eyepieces (I assume the camera is attached for direct projection, not afocal).
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10, Olympus VMZ stereo

User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 3705
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#11 Post by mrsonchus » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:03 pm

As far as I know the phototube and PE 2.5x photo-eyepiece combination is the same for the SW (26.5mm FN) head as for the 22mm FN head. I wonder what the FN of the PE 2.5x is? I'll have a peer down it with the 60x objective in place and see where the field-iris sits when set at 22mm and 26.5mm.
John B

Roldorf
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:58 pm
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Objective FN versus Ocular FN - Compound Microscope

#12 Post by Roldorf » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:44 pm

Hi John.
I guess it is more of a personal preference and on what one expects to see, as I find the 22mm images to have more detail especially on the un-enhanced images. Still an interesting question and experiment. (I looked at the full set on GP)

Alan
Location: Northern Germany

Unknown Brand: Optika SFX 91: Bresser Science Infinity: Canon 4000d
ImageImage

Post Reply