Difference between U S E objectives?

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
micro
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:11 am

Difference between U S E objectives?

#1 Post by micro » Sun May 17, 2020 10:31 pm

What is the difference between objectives like Olympus UPlan Apo or Olympus SPlan Apo? I have read about the differences between achromat fluorite plan apo and such but I can't find any in information on what the letters like uplan and splan mean.

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

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#2 Post by apochronaut » Mon May 18, 2020 12:18 am

Splan was a designation on 160mm tube length objectives and was an indicator of the objective having a greater f.o.v. up to 26.5mm . It means super wide field, as opposed to plan or Dplan, which had s standard field of up to 20mm. The S prefix doesn't seem to have been carried forward to the infinity era, with the same meaning. It may have on industrial objectives.

On the BF biolological objective , used in advance of apo, as in UPLSAPO20XO, it designates semi-apo

The U prefix on Olympus objectives appears on the infinity corrected series' and is marked in advance of other designations categorizing the objective as having a greater working distance, as in ultra working distance. A PLAPO 60X OIL 1.4 objective has a .12 W.D., whereas an equivalent UPLANAPO 60X OIL 1.42 has a .15 W.D.

PeteM
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#3 Post by PeteM » Mon May 18, 2020 4:54 am

Could be the "U" is for "Universal" as in Olympus UIS (Universal Infinity System) objectives. Most "U" marked (including LWD U or "LU") objectives will handle DIC and Pol as well as the other modes.

Here's a useful brochure for UIS. There's also a UIS2 version, apparently with slightly better coatings and a bit better UV performance:

https://olympus.magnet.fsu.edu/brochure ... ctives.pdf

Another nice thing about the older SPLan finite objectives is that most (not the 100x) also have a bit higher numerical aperture at each magnification - indicative of a bit of fluorite glass. They're also the finite objectives Olympus spec'd for that era's DIC systems.

In any case, the two systems are distinct and must be matched with the appropriate finite or infinite heads.

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

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#4 Post by apochronaut » Mon May 18, 2020 11:59 am

All of the objectives listed for the UIS work on the system but not all have a U designation in front . Only those with a U designation in front of the rest of the specification indicators show the capability for a greater working distance than others in the same class. I go back to the example given where the PLAPO60XO 1.4 ( plan apochromat 60X oil 1.4 N.A.) has a working distance of .12 mm. The UPLAPO60XO 1.42 ( ultra plan apochromat 60X oil 1.42 N.A.) has a working distance of .15, when logically, due to it's higher N.A., it should have a shorter w.d.
Olympus seems to use the initial U for several different things. In addition to the designator Ultra for working distance it also indicates ultra performance down to 340 nm.

Then there is the use of the designation U or UT for the capability to be used with a universal stage but this may be more of a situation on Nikon.

PeteM
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#5 Post by PeteM » Mon May 18, 2020 3:07 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 11:59 am
. . . Only those with a U designation in front of the rest of the specification indicators show the capability for a greater working distance than others in the same class. . . .
Phil, perhaps someone who worked for Olympus will know if the "U" stands for something like longer distance as you believe or "Universal" as I think possible as part of the "UIS" series.

However, there are plenty of objectives where the "longer" doesn't seem to work. A 100x PLAPO has .10 working distance and a 100x UPLAPO has the same .10 working distance. In the fluorities, a PLFL has a .20 working distance and a UPLFL has a shorter .10 working distance. And, then, when it actually is a long working distance objective, they call it LU... using the "L" to indicate a longer working distance.

It does seem that Olympus puts likely puts better glass in most of the "U" series to get the higher numerical apertures, UV transmission, and strain-free pol and DIC performance -- and likely gives customers a bit better working distance when it can.

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

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#6 Post by apochronaut » Mon May 18, 2020 4:57 pm

The Olympus printed information uses the word ultra to describe the U designation, whether it be ULWD or just U, where it indicates ultra transmission down to 340nm. There are lots of objectives designated for the UIS system(s) that have no U in the specs.
The last Olympus rep I talked to , told me that their achromats were as good as any other company's apochromats!

PeteM
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Difference between U S E objectives?

#7 Post by PeteM » Mon May 18, 2020 5:27 pm

Yep, but the ones with the "U" in them seem to span multiple modes (brightfield, pol, dic, uv, etc.) and are thus somewhat "universal" in that respect.

I don't know what Olympus intended for the "U" - someone surely does.

But their own listings clearly show that the U in something like UPlanFl or UPlanApo doesn't necessarily mean longer working distance. You may be sure, Phil. But it seems unlikely to me, based solely on the evidence. Someone who actually wants a long working distance Olympus UIS objective should be looking for an "L" or "XL" at the front of the description -- or carefully check the individual objectives specs to see just what balance of higher NA and working distance Olympus aimed for in its "U" designated objectives.

Post Reply