Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Message
Author
JWW
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 9:24 pm
Contact:

Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#1 Post by JWW » Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:55 pm

Does anyone actually know the difference between a Polyvar SC (semiconductor) and the Polyvar MET (inspection/metallurgical) scopes. Are accessories, internal components interchangeable between each other ... DIC, DSlR adaptability, and so forth? If I knew I surely wouldn't be asking.

-JW:
Last edited by JWW on Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#2 Post by PeteM » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:45 am

Don't know for sure, but can pass on a bit of experience.

Various Reichert (and later rebranded Leica) Polyar, Polylite, Metaplan etc. microscopes were sold for wafer inspection here in the Silicon Valley. Of the two I've owned and the few I've seen up close, the objective turrets, DIC prism slots, and focusing systems seemed common. However, the methods of epi illumination and the addition of various Polaroid etc. camera units seemed to vary widely. These scopes have a massive aluminum casting for the stand (very stable for photos BTW) but inside it looks more like a precision optical erector set built to customer spec than a mass produced item. And prices back in the day were many tens of thousands of dollars. Reichert/Leica like most everyone else saw silicon fabrication as a sort of second Gold Rush.

A main difference of many of the wafer scopes (and this applies to other brands as well) is that as wafer production went from 6" wafers to 8" wafers and on up, the scope frame had to get deeper. Thus an "88" scope is for 8" wafers. In most cases the rest of the gear and optics stayed much the same.

So, I'd expect some interchangeability of things like objectives, turrets, and reflected DIC prisms but also expect you'd have to closely examine photos to have a better idea if parts like magnification changers would fit. I had decent luck in combining two partial scopes into one with both reflected and transmitted illumination capabilities. I've also seen models that have the head integral to the scope (on a stacked layer - like the two listings below) and others with the head fitting a dovetail; more like a DM series Leica. Some have only reflected illumination. Others also have transmitted illumination through the base.

Here are a couple of examples of the types of scopes; one branded Reichert Jung and the other Leica:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-REICHERT ... Swu4JcY2Pb

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Reichert ... SwPBFa2eqD

microb
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#3 Post by microb » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:57 am

Does seem like it is just for the frame being deeper. Didn't know about the 88 meaning 8". I'm curious if the Leica DMR's and the Reichert objectives (late 1990's to early 2000's) need lateral correction lenses/relay-lenses for the eye-pieces and camera trinoculars. There are no drop in relay-lens for Leica DMRs, but the magnifiers in DMR's just below the head might be doing more than magnifying.

Polyvar SC
https://caeonline.com/buy/microscopes/l ... -sc/161662

Polyvar MET
https://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Home%20Lab/Mai ... 3/MeF3.jpg
https://www.materials.co.uk/optical.htm

What seems odd is that the microscope industry overall does not seem to realize people are going to want to raise the distance between the objective and the table. Olympus BX51/61 allow the arm to detach, but that took them forever to design that way -- and then the EPIs have two supports that block rotating after putting in large objectives.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#4 Post by apochronaut » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:08 pm

microb wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:57 am
'm curious if the Leica DMR's and the Reichert objectives (late 1990's to early 2000's) need lateral correction lenses/relay-lenses for the eye-pieces and camera trinoculars. There are no drop in relay-lens for Leica DMRs, but the magnifiers in DMR's just below the head might be doing more than magnifying.
When the merger between Wild-Leitz and Cambridge Instruments took place, there were at least 4 infinity corrected optical systems grandfathered into the merger.
There was
the c. 1950 AO 200mm Met system, utilizing 25mm objective threads. not sure of the parfocal distance or of the telan lens corrections.
the c. 1961 AO 200mm universal system utilizing R.M.S. objective threads. The parfocal distance was 34mm and there were lateral corrections in the telan lens. This system was also used at Reichert from 1974 on for certain models.
the c. 1965 Bausch & Lomb ~ 60mm parfocal universal system utilizing R.M.S. and 25mm objective threads. The telan lens applied lateral corrections.
the c. 1970 Reichert 45mm parfocal 200mm universal system utilizing R.M.S. and 28mm objective threads. This was also used by AO from 1985 on as R.M.S. The telan lens applies minimal lateral correction in this system; less than certainly the AO 34 mm system. Of interest is how similar it is to the older AO Apergon MET system. It would be interesting to try an Apergon objective in a Leica and see how it works.

The newly branded Leica company, utilized the Reichert 45mm parfocal system for their Delta optics, maintaining the 200mm tube length and level of corrections in the telan lens. They however, increased the objective diameter to 25mm, presumably in order to keep pace with the emerging requirement for U.W.F.. performance.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#5 Post by PeteM » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:14 pm

microb wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:57 am
. . . What seems odd is that the microscope industry overall does not seem to realize people are going to want to raise the distance between the objective and the table. Olympus BX51/61 allow the arm to detach, but that took them forever to design that way -- and then the EPIs have two supports that block rotating after putting in large objectives.

Higher end scopes somewhat address increasing the distance between objectives and specimens.

Nikon Optiphot and Olymus BHS -- and then beter Nikon Eclipse and Olympus BX models have adjustable stages. These can be set lower, for added room.

Most makers also had an "industrial" line of what were essentially boom mounted compound scopes that could be mounted at whatever height users wanted. AO had these maybe in the 60's. Olympus made them from BH2 on. Ditto Nikon. Not so sure about Leitz and Zeiss.

And since most makers secure the arm to the base with something like 4 socket head screws, it's easy enough to add a spacer.

With the wafer inspection scope, my sense is that these were dedicated to a single wafer size and purpose -- and somewhat quickly designed and shoved out the door. So, as you say, many don't prove particularly amenable to being repurposed for other uses. That said, there are often workarounds in terms of changing stage height and by stripping the former wafer-holding jigs there's a fair amount of room available for thicker specimens.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#6 Post by wabutter » Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:02 am

I'd like to make a few comments and update some information from the earlier discussions in this thread.

The Polyvar-Met microscope was essentially a upright Metallurgical version of the the Polyvar/Ultrastar ( brand name used by AO for the Polyvar in the late 70's) As the size of wafer grew, variation of the Polyvar Met were developed that included the Polyvar Met 66 with a 6x6 stage travel and wafer/mask chuck for the insertion into the stage.
Someone commented that it seemed that variations were pushed out the door quite quickly, and that was in fact the truth. During the early Cambridge ownership era, a new version of the Polyvar was created about every 6 months, an unheard of development cycle for the Microscope Industry. But Semicon, IBM, Intel and Motorola were driving the needs of the fabrication lines. An intermediate development was the Polylite, this was essentially the bottom of the Polyvar, with simplified view tube and eyepieces. If offered a lower cost option for the large fabs that needed simple operation and many units.
As geometries continued to shrink and and automation requirements increased. the Polylite was made into a head assembly mounted to a Z column. This allowed the the optics above the sample to be be mounted on a stable platform and allowed the staging to be custom installed under the objectives with increased stage sizes in a modular manner. Throat depth of the microscope platform could be changed easily. Of course this created unique problems in the placement of focus controls, contrast method change over and contamination protection for the sample.
Concurrent with these developments was the introduction of the Polyvar SC. Specifically tuned to the Semiconductor industry. Ergonomically set up to provide a 8x8 stage travel, specimen contamination protection, automated change over of contrast methods and to this day an objective design and DIC that is unparalleled in the industry even to this day.

Here is also an update on the objective stats.

A0 ( 60's on) /Reichert (1974 on) infinity objectives were reference focal length of 180mm This included the Buffalo and Vienna based products. Also the 34mm barrel and DIN standard barrel lengths used the same reference focal length. RMS threads were used on all bio objectives while the Reichert infinity RL objectives used a 33mm thread
Wild Leitz/ Leica Microsystems: Biological objectives were 170mm or 160mm (RMS) tube length depending on the vintage of the microscope. The reflected light objectives for the Ergolux/Ergoplan used a 250mm reference focal length until the introduction of the Leica DMR that then moved to the 200mm reference focal length. This is one reason Leica switched to the M25 objective thread that is used on the modern Leica Microscopes. RL objectives for the DM line use a M32 thread.
The BalPlan from B&L was not a true infinity microscope.
Although you can find adapters that allow the interchange of objective from one series to the other, there are differences in the lateral color correction and reference focal lengths that may impact image quality.

All of these brand names are now fall under the Leica Microsystems brand.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#7 Post by PeteM » Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:19 am

wabutter wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:02 am

. . . A0 ( 60's on) /Reichert (1974 on) infinity objectives were reference focal length of 180mm This included the Buffalo and Vienna based products. Also the 34mm barrel and DIN standard barrel lengths used the same reference focal length. RMS threads were used on all bio objectives while the Reichert infinity RL objectives used a 33mm thread
Wild Leitz/ Leica Microsystems: Biological objectives were 170mm or 160mm (RMS) tube length depending on the vintage of the microscope. The reflected light objectives for the Ergolux/Ergoplan used a 250mm reference focal length until the introduction of the Leica DMR that then moved to the 200mm reference focal length. This is one reason Leica switched to the M25 objective thread that is used on the modern Leica Microscopes. RL objectives for the DM line use a M32 thread. . . .
Thanks for the post. Having heard numerous times that both the AO short barrel infinity and Reichert long barrel infinity were 200mm, the 180mm tube length is new information. FWIW, I just took a look at a micrometer scale on an Olympus infinity scope. Field with the Olympus UPlanFL 40x was 54 (marked mm) ticks. Field with a Reichert 40x Neofluor was 56 ticks. This isn't a definitive test (could be stops limiting either objective, maybe more likely the Reichert Neofluor), but they're within a few percent (as they should be if both were 180mm).

Can you point us to any additional literature on the history from short barrel (180 tube?) to long barrel (180 tube?) to Leica C Plan, Hi Plan, N Plan, HC etc. (all 200mm tube with various corrections along the way) ??

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#8 Post by wabutter » Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:07 am

When you checked the field size between the Olympus and Reichert 40x objective was it on the same microscope? If not, what was the field number on the Reichert eyepiece? Olympus Eyepiece. If it was on the same microscope, the difference is due to the reference focal length difference. Otherwise the difference is likely from the difference in the field number from the eyepiece.

When I started in the business I was with AO in the mid 70's so the history I am discussing is first hand. The introduction of the Series 10 Microstar in the 60's marked the first time a company had committed to the use of infinity objectives on the entire product range. The Series 10 became the defacto standard for Pathology due to a number of ergonomic advantages that was supported by the fixed stage and focusing nosepiece. The short barrel optics were considered "good enough" as rarely did Pathologist use the full potential of the optical system. Many iteration of the Series 10 were made during its life cycle mostly to accessories such as a gout kit, dual view and multiple viewing systems for teaching hospitals. In the late 70's the Japanese competitors tried to take the market away from AO in Pathology. Olympus was the most aggressive and the introduction of the BH proved to be a viable competitor. The Series 110 was introduced in 1978 or so but continued to use the short barrel objective series.

As Olympus gained traction, it became obvious the Series 110 was not going to be a viable alternative over the long haul. The Series 410 was introduced in 1984 with the DIN standard Plan objective. Now as as DIN standard objective set, the Reichert Polyvar/Univar objective were compatible. The allowed AO/Reichert (by now Cambridge) to enter the high end optics performance market. The Series 420 allowed for DIC using the Reichert single prism solution that was considered to be the best in the world. Still is BTW. Somewhere around 1986 Cambridge also acquired B&L, however by then the BalPlan was barely a player in the routine compound market.

After the Wild Leitz merger in 1989/1990 product line consolidation began to take place. The company was now called Leica. The former Leitz products on the compound side of the product line for Bio were still fixed tube length. However by 1993 or 4 the introduction of the DMR included the Infinity objective series based on the 200mm reference focal length.

The different types of Plan objectives were based on FOV capabilities of each category. The flatness of field supported by the short barrel Plan Achros when up to 20mm. The long barrel DIN objectives from AO would support a 22mm FOV. The Reichert Plan and Plan Fluor objectives supported flat field across a 30mm FOV as was possible on the Polyvar.
N Plan, Plan Fluortar, Plan Apos from the Leica DM program essentially supported 20mm, 25mm and 28mm FOV respectively. C Plans were introduced later to support the DME (educational) scope and supported a flat 18mm FOV.
All plan Objective were achromatic unless the were designated with a the Fluortar or Apo notation.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#9 Post by PeteM » Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:35 am

Thanks very much for that history.

My comparisons were with both infinity objectives on the same BX40 scope and nosepiece. The Olympus 40x UPlanFl has a stated 26mm field, but was viewed with a standard ergo head and 22mm eyepieces. The Reichert Neoplan 40x has a ?? field and was viewed through those same 22mm eyepieces. I had around 55mm of adapters in the infinity space.

Any idea of the difference between the DIC systems for the AO Series 20 and the 420 Diastar? Having seen only pictures of the Diastar DIC setup it looks very similar (except paint color), at least externally. I'd guess the field of view increased, but the prism shear angles stayed much the same??

Also any idea of tube lens corrections from generation to generation? Far as I can tell:

- By the time of the Reichert DIN length infinity scopes (Microstar, Diastar) the tube lens didn't do much correction? This is per a knowledgeable member here. This likely continued through early Leica Delta optics?*

- Then Leica went to the "HC" system which apparently had the tube lens doing more corrections? This per one of the Leica papers extolling their "harmonic" system.

- And then, like competitors, now doing most corrections where they originate (e.g. primarily in the objectives)?

I'm thoroughly confused why Leica says their HCX objectives are backward compatible to earlier Delta optics, but their HC objectives are not. It's been suggested it's just a matter of field numbers, but I'd suspect corrections enter into it as well?

- I've also seen what appear (by external appearances) to be early era Leitz (not Leica) marked infinity objectives - meant for no cover slip. Any idea where these fit in the chronology? The low power ones (20x and under) seem to work fine with Delta era optics and biological specimens.

Appreciate any info you can provide. Having had so many ownership changes over the years Leica/Danaher isn't especially forthcoming. This knowledge will likely be lost to the future.

*FWIW, I've put an AO-era Austrian 100x infinity objective on a DMLS and it looked decent. Could be the 11mm of spacer helped get it closer to the reference tube length. Also adapted Reichert era (branded Leica) DIN length phase infinity objectives on a DMLS with M25 to RMS adapters - and once phase rings were matched up they also looked good.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#10 Post by apochronaut » Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:20 pm

wabutter wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:02 am

The BalPlan from B&L was not a true infinity microscope.
Wayne.
From the objective shoulder to the telan lens, I agree but the objective shoulder of a Flat Field Dyna series or Balplan objective is not the actual top of the objective. The top of the compensating lens is. From there to the telan lens, it is infinity corrected. It is just that , in the B & L system, they have extended the objective above the nosepiece.

Interesting about the tube lengths. I honestly don't know where I got the 200mm number from . It shows up numerous places. I think that number for the Apergon system is in a manual I have. Here is the thing though. Using an Olympus 60X objective in a series 400, I get 67X. Olympus has a 180mm tube, I have also read numerous times.
??????

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#11 Post by apochronaut » Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:39 pm

PeteM wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:35 am
I'm thoroughly confused why Leica says their HCX objectives are backward compatible to earlier Delta optics, but their HC objectives are not. It's been suggested it's just a matter of field numbers, but I'd suspect corrections enter into it as well?
As time goes on, corrections get better and better. Based on the Leica literature, it seems probable just that the HC objectives require less correction and so the HCX and Delta systems overcorrect for them.
PeteM wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:35 am
- I've also seen what appear (by external appearances) to be early era Leitz (not Leica) marked infinity objectives - meant for no cover slip. Any idea where these fit in the chronology? The low power ones (20x and under) seem to work fine with Delta era optics and biological specimens.
Those are Leitz no cover objectives. I think they existed before the merger.

PeteM wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:35 am
*FWIW, I've put an AO-era Austrian 100x infinity objective on a DMLS and it looked decent. Could be the 11mm of spacer helped get it closer to the reference tube length. Also adapted Reichert era (branded Leica) DIN length phase infinity objectives on a DMLS with M25 to RMS adapters - and once phase rings were matched up they also looked good.
Decent?
Surely, you got some ca that should not have been there. When I put a 34mm parfocal cat. # 1323 40X planapo in a 400 series, the image is worse than the old c. 1967 40X cat.# 1023 planachro with the correct telan lens.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#12 Post by PeteM » Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:58 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:39 pm
. . . Based on the Leica literature, it seems probable just that the HC objectives require less correction and so the HCX and Delta systems overcorrect for them. . . .
What little I've been able to read, seems maybe not. That is, the HC system seems to do a lot more corrections in the tubelens than either the Delta system (which did some) or competitive systems. Here's the link that has me confused, and perhaps you and wabutter could help sort it out:

https://www.leica-microsystems.com/scie ... icroscopy/

Per Leica: "At first, the approach of designing each component to be aberration-free in itself seems attractive. (Pete notes: this is what Nikon was doing with its competing CFI (Chrome Free Infinity) system and what Olympus seems to have been moving toward with UIS and UIS2 optics.).

Although this (going the Nikon and Olympus route) is possible in principle, it carries the risk of correction “overload“: the cost is too high and limits of what is possible are reached or overstepped."
. . .

"With the launch of DELTA optics in 1992, the compensation of lateral chromatic aberrations of the objectives was transferred from the eyepieces to the infinity tube lens."

Note: so it sounds like the 180 tube length AO/Reichert infinity system described by wabutter did lateral chromatic corrections in the eyepieces and Leica then moved them to a longer 200mm tube lens in 1992? Note that toward the end of the article Leica references a tube length standardization for them in 1992. One also assumes eyepieces for Delta optics would have been relatively neutral?

. . .

Refer to Figure 3 in the article. Far as I can tell the Harmonic Component System is doing massive corrections (see curved lines) in the tubelens.

"Fig. 3: Compensation of astigmatism and field curvature in the DELTA and HCS systems. The sagittal and meridional image curves are shown for the objective, tube lens and eyepiece. In the HCS system the compensation effect is harmoniously distributed among all the components.

. . .

Additional correction of the remaining field curvature only became possible with the development of the more complex plan objectives, although eyepieces were not involved in this. However, experience has shown that it is more beneficial to distribute curvature and astigmatism correction work more evenly among the components involved, including the tube lens. This has happened with the HCS system (Fig.3)." So, what they're saying is that their HC objectives do less corrections themselves and those corrections are then moved "harmoniously" to the tubelens and eyepieces (unlike their competitors).

Then the article goes on to the HC eyepieces:

"In the HCS system the eyepieces have taken over a larger proportion of curvature correction from the objectives."

The Harmonic Component System (per the article) was introduced in 1998. The article doesn't reference the HCX system, which I’m still in the dark about. What Leica does say in another linke ( https://www.leica-microsystems.com/prod ... bjectives/ ) is that HCX objectives are somehow compatible with both the older Delta system and the HC system (fewer corrections in the objective, more in the tubelens, less in the eyepiece). Seems BS to me, especially given where Nikon and Olympus have landed?

In any case those Delta-compatible HCX objectives are still sold and in this current link are shown in a flagship Plan Fluor : https://www.leica-microsystems.com/prod ... e-classes/ Spectra Services wants over $6000 for an HCX Plan Apo. To me, it looks like Leica backed off from the claims of the "harmonic" system and their HCX objectives are both the current state of the art and closer to their competitors in doing more of the corrections within the objective rather than "harmoniously" distributed to the tubelens and eyepieces as well?? This would make sense in a world of things like confocal microscopy, where researchers would probably prefer most of the corrections in the objective.

Be useful if someone who knows Leica far better than I sorted this out.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#13 Post by apochronaut » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:16 am

PeteM wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:58 pm
apochronaut wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:39 pm
. . . Based on the Leica literature, it seems probable just that the HC objectives require less correction and so the HCX and Delta systems overcorrect for them. . . .
. . ."With the launch of DELTA optics in 1992, the compensation of lateral chromatic aberrations of the objectives was transferred from the eyepieces to the infinity tube lens."

Note: so it sounds like the 180 tube length AO/Reichert infinity system described by wabutter did lateral chromatic corrections in the eyepieces and Leica then moved them to a longer 200mm tube lens in 1992?
I don't think so.

Leica has very good editors, who's task it is to get around stating the obvious. One becomes a rapt inferer, just reading the stuff. Leica, references Delta optics as though they are a new generation of optics they invented, after the Gamma optics. They forget to mention that the Gamma optics are the Leitz 160mm optics. They seem to have adopted a kind of corporate amnesia, otherwise customers might stray from the straight and narrow belief that Leica is just Leitz rebranded and all amazing developments are the result of continuous in house development due to teutonic brilliance. The reference of shifting corrections from the eyepiece to the tube lens is about the improvements over the old Leitz 160mm optical system, which was actually Wild's system, not the AO or Reichert systems. Delta had already been done by AO/Reichert and the merged company inherited the Delta system, tweaked it slightly , carrying the system forward until 1997, while they sorted out what to do next. HCS, is a composite of the HCX and HC systems, an advancement where the corrections ARE better, just spread more practically amongst the components and at the same time more complicated due to the ever increasing requirements for perfect 3-D imaging and an exceptionally wide field to boot.
My guess would be that the bulk of the correction differentials between Delta and HCX/HC take place peripherally, therefore, with the narrower field of the Delta optics, correction mismatches are not obvious going backwards but are going forwards( with the Delta optics providing additional poorly corrected field in the wider field system and therefore not being compatible).

\

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#14 Post by PeteM » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:45 am

I'm wondering if it would be possible to put together a best guess on the attributes of various AO/Reichert/Leica infinity optics? (Might have to expand browser window to see thsi)

As a template, surely wrong in detail (on edit, the BBS stripped out the spacing; there should be columns):

Era -------------------- Objectives ------------- Optics -------- Tube length --------- Objective corrections ----------- Tube Lens Corrections---------- Eyepiece corrections
---
AO Series 10 ------------- 34mm--------------------x---------------- 180?-------------------

AO Series 110/120 ------ 34mm Adv.Plan-------------------------- 180?

Reichert Austria _-------- 45mm DIN -------------------------------- 183 per wabutter?

Reichert 410/420 -------- 45mm DIN, Adv. Plan--------------------180? ------------------ Better corrected?

Early Leica DM ------------M25 N, Fluotars -------1992 Delta? -----200

Later Leica DM ----------- M25 HC -----------------1998 HC----------200

Still later Leica DM ------ M25 HCX?

2107 paper on HCS? ------M25 HC or HCX label?------????----------- 200 ------------------ Less per paper? ----------------- More per paper??--------------------Mainly for WF flatness?
Last edited by PeteM on Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#15 Post by Scarodactyl » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:48 am

I really wish Leica had managed for their compound line to be as continuous and backwards compatible as their stereos (at least the m series).

User avatar
wporter
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:18 pm
Location: United States

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#16 Post by wporter » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:16 am

"I'm wondering if it would be possible to put together a best guess on the attributes of various AO/Reichert/Leica infinity optics?"

What a great idea.

Maybe also separate columns for thread size (e.g., M28 for some of the Reichert Austria ones for the Univar/Polyvars), and for the needed type of eyepiece for the given objectives (e.g., WPK for the Polyvar objectives).

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#17 Post by PeteM » Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:41 am

I'll take a crack at a first pass. Perhaps others (Phil, Wayne, etc.) can add detail? It would be great to find someone formerly part of Leica to help. This will also be good for Leica/Danaher. Whether they believe it or not, I learned in a former new product developming consulting life that maintaining a healthy respect and market for used equipment is a boon to current profits. Companies like Caterpillar and Deere and all the automakers work hard at it. Percent of retained value of used equipment is a measure of both customer satisfaction and highly correlated with profitability. So if anyone from Leica sees this - how about giving us a hand IN YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST?

Is there a place to post a PDF - the board isn't much good for formatted tables. Worst case I could send a PDF of what little I have by PM request. We could open a thread to fill in the blanks.

With respect to whether Leica moved some corrections to the tubelens, the 2017 Leica article referenced above says the did so with the Delta optics and continued to do correction is their "Harmonic Component" HC system. This article says much the same:

https://www.microscopyu.com/microscopy- ... objectives

“In recent years, modern microscope objectives have their correction for chromatic difference of magnification either built into the objectives themselves (Olympus and Nikon) or corrected in the tube lens (Leica and Zeiss).”

What's not clear is how the Reichert/Leica tube lens (and objective, eyepiece) corrections changed over the years. Given the compatibility of current HCX objectives with BOTH Delta and HC optics one wonders how much? I do know that Leica changed its eyepieces in the old DM R (L Plan 10x/25) to the newer DM R with red lettering (HC Plan 10x/25) - but both had that 25mm field. In the older black lettered DM R, the tube lens is seems located in a different position (apparently part of the frame rather than part of the head).

Very much a puzzle -- and not to either Leica's or aspiring microscopists' benefit.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#18 Post by PeteM » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:36 am

If anyone here reads German, these two articles might form a useful contrast and give an idea what might actually have changed in the near 20 years from 1998 to 2017. Seems (to someone who doesn't read German) that much of the 1998 article is regurgitated in the May 2017 Leica article;

1998 (in German):

http://wie-tec.de/mediafiles/Sonstiges/ ... lta_hc.pdf

2017 (posted by Leica/Danaher)

https://www.leica-microsystems.com/scie ... icroscopy/

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#19 Post by apochronaut » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:17 pm

Reference length measures the tube lens focal length only.......the convergent part of an infinity system. It turns out that the "equivalent" focal length of the tube lens in the 34mm parfocal system is 182.77mm and these are it's corrections :

.... the telescope objective is constructed to obtain undercorrected axial or longitudinal color and outward coma (offense against the sine condition), the latter being accomplished, while holding the spherical aberration zero,.

The 45mm parfocal system, can be found in patent documents to be stated as having an efl of 183mm. Is it possible that is rounded off? It also seems that the objectives used for the series 400 are designed to the same parameters as those for the Reichert 45mm parfocal microscopes originating in the 70's. Objectives such as the Reichert 100X 1.30 planfluor apo manufactured in Austria for most likely instruments such as the Diavar 2 seems to be the same as the Reichert 100X 1.30 planfluor manufactured in Austria for a very similar instrument the Diastar 420. the naming on the barrel being one of nomenclature only. Having used both of those objectives, they appear in all ways to be the same. The efl of the U.S. Reichert system would appear to be the same as the 183mm ( or 182.77) of other optics in the family.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#20 Post by PeteM » Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:03 pm

Thanks, Phil. Seems your look at patent docs has given us a definitive answer.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#21 Post by apochronaut » Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:48 pm

One might wonder , why 182.77?

The information refers to the "effective" focal length. This is not the same as the focal length, or more correctly the focal distance, which is a measure of the distance from the optical surface to the point of focus. The effective focal length includes the distance IN the optic to the principal plane of the optic, in this case the tube lens. The focal length and effective focal length can vary somewhat , depending on the thickness of the lens and where it's principal plane is. A non round # for the EFL would result from the the distance from the lens surface to the principal plane, added to the focal length.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#22 Post by wabutter » Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:18 am

Hopefully this will be helpful.
In reference to the AO/Reichert infinity objectives.
The eyepieces for the Series 10 through Series 410 were not compensated. The compensation took place in the objective or the Tele-lens. This is essentially what Nikon did with the CFI ( chrome free) objective series.
The AO/Reichert both used a 183mm reference tube length (RFL)system. Reichert did make a series of Plan Fluotar objectives for the Series 410/420 scopes that carried the Leica name during the late 80's.

Keep in mind, that at the time of the merger of Cambridge and Wild Leitz forming the new Leica company, compound microscope objective manufacturing took place in Buffalo NY, Vienna, Austria and Wetzlar, Germany. As Buffalo and Vienna fell under the former Cambridge umbrella, Wetzlar was the base for the Leitz side of the Wild Leitz group. Each had their own R&D and optical engineers, but infinity optics had been the mainstay of the AO from the 60's and Reichert migrated over in the early 70's. They both used the 183mm RFL regardless of the parfocalizing distance of the objective. Meanwhile Leitz had fixed tube length biological systems and used a 250mm RFL for the reflected light objectives.

Needless to say, that in the early years of the merger, there was a great deal of positioning by each factory to become the center of compound microscopy for Leica. The industry was moving toward Infinity correction and AO/Reichert had a head start with a product line already in place. However, it was decided that Wetzlar would be the compound microscopy center for the new company.

The DMR and Delta optics came about in 1992. Leitz was proud of its research heritage so it started with a platform address the biological market with its new infinity objective series. These objectives were M25 thread based rather than RMS and had a 200mm RFL. The Reflected light optics were also moved to a 200mm RFL with a M32 thread for the BF/DF objectives. In most models of the DMR, the tube lens (tele-Lens) was mounted in magnification changer on the stand, not in the bino tube. If an intermediate optical component was to be used, then a bino tube with a tube lens mounted in it was used. Consequently, tubes from the DMR were not compatible with smaller stands such as the DM LS or DM LB. There was compensation done in the eyepieces for some minor aberrations. Moving forward to 1998 and the introduction the (second generation) DMR HC. As described earlier in this thread, a new series of 200mm RFL objectives were introduced at that time. The first generation HC stands had a red slash on the stand as well as the HC designation imprinted on it. The optical components of the microscope were marked with the HC designation on the objectives, microscope stand, and eyepieces. This also resulted in updated routine microscope platform to the DM LS2, DM LB2 that used the HC optics program as well.

Also reference earlier was the article published by Leica discussing the benefits of the HC System. It is my belief that more of the corrections were built into the objective, although some correction for lateral color correction, and other aberrations were handled in the tube lens and the eyepieces. This allowed some objective to be redesigned to meet environmental requirements as well as making them better suited for applications in Confocal Microscopy. Multiphoton confocal systems were emerging and the DMR and inverted DMIR were platforms for the Leica Confocal systems. The HC concept also allowed for development of some new specialized objectives for electro-physiology that included parfocal imaging from UV to IR spectral illumination.

The use of the HCX on objectives simply let users know that particular objective was compatible with both the HC and Delta optics systems. This allowed some backward compatibility so users didn't feel they had an obsolete instrument and upgrades were possible on an existing platform.

The Polyvar used an M28 thread for the biological objectives and a M33 thread for the BF/DF. No adapters were ever made that would allow Polyar optics to be use on the DMR or vis-versa.

One other interesting bit of information relative to DIC. Normarski only licensed one company in each country to use the DIC after Normarski reference. aka: Normarski DIC

USA: American Optical
German: Zeiss
Austria: Reichert
Japan: Olympus.

So the Leitz systems was Interference Contrast after Smith and Nikon used the Senarmont method. I don't recall what B&L called there system.

Wayne

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#23 Post by PeteM » Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 am

Thanks very much for that, Wayne.

On the chance you might know and have time to reply:

- For a given objective (say, Plan Fluotar or Leica "N") how much improvement, if any, was there from the old black letter DMR Delta optics era versus the newer red letter and HC DMR era? One assumes that while the corrections were handled a bit differently, the optical quality for the bread and butter objectives (rather than the specials that required HC) might be close? Or perhaps something like coatings dramatically improved?

- If an older Leica Plan Fluotar objective has DIC markings (e.g. A,B,C,D) but no "HC" or "HCX" marking can one assume it is Delta era? Or perhaps carried over to HC and not yet marked? More to the point, will the corrections be reasonably good on a newer stand with an "HC" head (and thus HC tubelens and HC eyepieces)? It's not clear to me if these would be more like HCX objectives (OK either way) or not.

- Any thoughts on what changed from the Reichert, the H21 (AO 20) DIC and the Diastar 420 DIC systems? Judging from photos they look very similar. Maybe larger prisms for the Diastar?

- To the extent you've had experience with them or by reputation, what would be some pros and cons of the AO (H21), Reichert (420), Leica (HC), Olympus (UIS), and Nikon (CFI60) infinity DIC systems??

It's terrific that you're able to add to this forum. Thank you.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#24 Post by apochronaut » Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:52 pm

All very good information, Wayne. You certainly fill in a lot of gaps. After you help out Pete, with his D.I.C. quest, could you comment on this.

One thing I don't see factored in, is the objective distance to the telan lens. The reference focal length,probably the same referred to in patents as the effective focal length, is from the telan lens principal focal plane to the telan lens focal point, correct? This is then the convergent part of the optical path or that part that mimics the optical path in a fixed tube system. In a system, where the eyepieces are magnifiers only, i.e impart no corrections to the system,this portion of the optical path has a magnifying factor only, dependent on it's length. It is in fact a fixed tube length portion of the system, with the telan lens to eyepiece essentially being an altered version of the objective back plane to eyepiece distance in a conventional microscope.
The infinite part of the optical path is not included in the effective focal length, or the rfl but all of the corrections in a system where the eyepieces have a neutral effect, take place in that portion of the optical path; from the objective front surface to the telan lens back surface, and the distance between those two planes would be of paramount importance to the optical system as a whole? The rfl , really just determines the magnification factor then? Why is the objective to telan lens distance; the true infinity tube length not referenced or talked about in terms of it's overall performance of an infinity system. Is it because the companies all have this proprietary obsession?

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#25 Post by PeteM » Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:26 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:52 pm
. . . Why is the objective to telan lens distance; the true infinity tube length not referenced or talked about in terms of it's overall performance of an infinity system. Is it because the companies all have this proprietary obsession?
Good question. Scope makers like Olympus will specify how many components (or how much space) is available within the "infinity" space from the back of the objective to the telan lens. Recollection, for Olympus, is that you can't put anything closer than about 50mm from the back of the objective and as you add more than a couple intermediate pieces in "infinity" space, the fully corrected field decreases depending upon the objectives and head in use. They, at least, provide some guidance.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#26 Post by wabutter » Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:59 am

Pete,
Unfortunately I can't quantify the amount of improvement that the HC class objectives brought to the game as compared to the Delta optics. I do know that moving to the HC program allowed the development of some specialty objectives and often better point spread function through the higher performance objectives. As long as the objective is an infinity corrected variety, it would be safe to say it is from the Delta program. However, the catalog number would need to begin with 506xxx, or 566xxx, or 556xxx. If it was the 17xx it would be from the Buffalo program and have RMS threads. I think it would be difficult even for the most discriminate eye to be able to tell a difference visually between a HC vs Delta optic on either stand.

I think the biggest difference in the AO/Reichert H21 to 420 DIC was the improvement in the optics to a DIN standard on the 420. Of course this also allowed for larger field of view, and consequently the prisms need to be adjusted for that as well. If I remember correctly, the 420 also used the 5 element aplanatic/achromatic condenser lens from the Polyvar that could be used dry or with immersion.

In my earlier post, I commented on the differences in DIC from a licensing stand point. I doubt if there is anyone that has experienced the DIC on a Polyvar either Bio or Met that would deny it is the best in the world. Even before Reichert introduced the infinity platform the Zetopan used a single prism for all magnifications in its fixed tube length objectives 210mm btw for the DIC Zetopan. If I remember correctly, the H21 used a turret that had individual objective prisms in a turret. This differed from the 420 in that it followed the big brother (Polyvar) single prism format on a slider with a rotating knob that moved the prism vertical relative to the exit point of the back aperture. In the Delta as well as the HC version of the DM line. the A, B, C, D and E indicated the exit point of the back aperture for that objective and a corresponding prism was selected for the slider. There were also C1, D1 prisms that had different shear angles in the prism to create more or less contrast depending on the specimen. This was usually more important in the inverted scopes.
I think most of the modern infinity microscopes do an excellent job with DIC no matter if it is a true Normarski oriented design or an adapted design as I pointed out earlier. Olympus followed with a single objective prism like the Polyvar with good success. The 60mm parfocality factor for the Nikon provides some extra room to be creative in the objective design that I think they have done a good job taking advantage of.

Phil,
In theory the distance of the back aperture to the tele-lens in infinity. You are right, once the image is presented to the tele-lens, the optical system is a fixed tube length system. In truth because there is divergence in the infinity image projected the distance is limited.

When AO first introduced the Series 10/20 in the 60's they took advantage of the infinity space by having a fixed stage and focusing nosepiece. This was very desirable to Pathology as the scanned a 2.5 to 4x and removed the x-y stage control laying there fingers on the slide to move the specimen quickly. They also became the first company to offer a dual view system that did not add a magnification factor to the optical system and kept the field size the same as with out dual viewing. As necessity is the mother of invention, customers began to stack dual view accessories so they could get 3 to 5 users on the microscope. They quickly learned about the divergent image because now the standard 18mm FOV had vignetting. AO helped with this distraction by offering a sleeved diaphragm to the field stop in the eyepiece reducing the FOV, but eliminating the vignetting. They also developed a 5 headed bridge that was not higher than the standard dual view bridge. In those days, if you stacked higher than 2 beamsplitters, vignetting would become evident.

As time moved forward, FOV increased to 20mm and then to 22mm as a default standard on laboratory class microscopes. O coarse, research stands would offer FOV upto 25 to 28mm unless it was the Polyvar at 30mm. In order to accommodate these increases the tele-lens also need to be upgraded.

I mentioned earlier that on a DM R the tele-lens was located in the mag changer contained in the stand, not in the viewing tube. In the Delta version of the DMR if Dual view was to be added or any other intermediate optical component between the tube and stand, there was a special tube with a tele-lens mounted in it and the mag changer turret was deleted. Not many were configured this way as large photo research stands did not usually require dual viewing capability.

The introduction of the DMLS/DMLB utilized tubes with the tele-lens mounted in the tube. Intermediate optical components like the dual/multiple viewing bridges, ergonomic spacers, analyzer sliders, drawing attachments, etc all had a extra notations on the device such as L1, L2 .L3 or L4. The L indicated is was for use on the DML and the number represented the height index for that component. Each height index number represented 15mm.
The tubes also had a designation such as 0/4/7. This meant that a height index of 7 could be used and support a 20mm FOV, if a 22mm FOV was needed, then the maximum height index that could be used was 4, and if a 25mm FOV was required, then 0 or no intermediate devices should be used. Not all tubes would support a 25mm FOV so that nomenclature would be truncated. If the height index was exceeded, vignetting would occur. This nomenclature is still used today with the DM 1-6K models.

The reference focal length simply lets you know what the tele-lens is expecting from the objective, as if it was a fixed distance. Earlier I posted that the Ergolux infinity objectives had a reference focal length of 250mm. It carried a RMS thread so it was very easy, in the early days, to adapt them to the DM RM if their WD or magnification was not available in the DM R product range. However, if the objective was indicated as a 10x, it would not calculate out to that value on the DMR because the DMR expected it to be 200mm away. This was always an important consideration for OEM's that wanted to build their own system.
I don't think there is any effort by Manufacturers to hide this information, it is usually something that is discussed when a system is specified for purchase so all of the components work together effectively. Some sales reps are better at understanding this than other.

PeteM
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#27 Post by PeteM » Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:13 am

Thank you, Wayne.

The one bit of info I can add is that the H21 DIC system has individual prisms in the condenser, but a sort of 2 position slider mounted in a small 5 hole nosepiece. Far as I can tell the 420 DIC has a larger nosepiece and a similar-looking slider. Have no idea if the prisms are larger, top or bottom, in the 420 version. A very knowledgeable user with a Reichert DIC system is pretty sure the H21 and 420 DIC systems were derived from it - which would make sense given your earlier information that the Nomarski license went to AO in the US and Reichert in Austria.

JWW
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#28 Post by JWW » Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:47 pm

Me again,

1. So, does anyone actually know the difference between a Polyvar SC (semiconductor) and the Polyvar MET (inspection/metallurgical) scopes?

2. How would you attached a digital camera or 4/3rd's camera to a MET?

-JW
Last edited by JWW on Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#29 Post by apochronaut » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 pm

In answer to 2) there is a 35mm camera adapter that fits onto the top of the microscope. Having one of those would allow one to d.i.y. a conversion to a digital format camera. One problem you will encounter with a 4/3 sensor is that the photo optics in the Polyvar would have been designed for formats of 35mm and larger, so the sensor coverage is much larger than 4/3. You may be able to d.i.y. a reduction, so that you get more of the field onto the sensor.

They probably had some sort of adapter for c mount and a small video sensor. You might be able to work with that too. I think they were made up until the early 2000's? I'm not sure though. Maybe there were some later additions to the photo system for some earlier digital stuff.

microb
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Leica Reichert Jung Polyvar (models)

#30 Post by microb » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:57 pm

JWW wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:47 pm
Polyvar SD (semiconductor)
It's a Polyvar SC not SD.

Post Reply