Best DIC options?

[ImperatorRex]

Might be a mix of generations. ....

The very early ZEISS Axio (..skopes) had an DIC Condenser 44 52 48 - similiar looking as on the photo.

[75RR]

Might be a mix of generations. ....

The very early ZEISS Axio (..skopes) had an DIC Condenser 44 52 48 - similiar looking as on the photo.

That is an unhelpful numbering sequence :)


Not sure if this date is right but the Zeiss Optical Systems Catalogue http://www.science-info.net/docs/zeiss/ ... ystems.pdf

would seem to have been printed in 1971? See small square image of back below:

The DIC system it shows is 'old' DIC with the 4 condenser positions, condenser number 46 52 84. The highest numbered condenser in the catalogue. See image:

My 'new' DIC has condenser number 46 52 85 See image

[ImperatorRex]

That is an unhelpful numbering sequence

Indeed, the later (newer) invitinite Zeiss scope seem to have smaller numbers than the old finite stuff.

[Charles]

May I suggest there are five different Zeiss DIC condensers made for the 160 TL finite systems.
The first had 3 prisms and the second another prism was added to include a fourth prism for the 6.3X objective and there was no empty J position. There are also two different DIC condensers with the S and T on the surface. One made for the upright stand with 1.4 NA top and the other made for the inverted stand with a 0.63 NA top. The inverted prisms and the upright prisms also have different part numbers. The fifth is the one 75RR posted above, which was made for the initial Axio stand, which started as a 160 TL finite system.

Zeiss DIC 4.jpg (114.77 KiB) Viewed 9569 times

[PeteM]

I've updated the earlier table of Zeiss transmitted DIC systems. However, the site wouldn't accept the original 380K or so .PNG file (with the somewhat confusing warning the 380K file had to be under 500K), so I split it up into two sub 200K screenshots. If anyone would like to host a version, PM me and I'll send a Word doc.

I'll do a third update and fix some of the typos if there is additional input. Still lots of open questions.

My personal impression is that the DIC product evolution has been a bit less confusing (in terms of buying a used system) and better documented (often by users) for Olympus and Nikon rather than Zeiss and Leica. Even harder to find documentation for some of the other systems.

Hopefully, we can continue to add information and experiences to this thread.

[viktor j nilsson]

One somewhat confusing - and poorly documented - aspect of the Nikon DIC system is that only some versions of the Optiphot stand can accommodate the DIC intermediate tube. The stand needs to have a rectangular cutout immediately behind the nosepiece.

[PeteM]

One somewhat confusing - and poorly documented - aspect of the Nikon DIC system is that only some versions of the Optiphot stand can accommodate the DIC intermediate tube. The stand needs to have a rectangular cutout immediately behind the nosepiece.

I may be wrong, Viktor, but I believe the Optiphot 1 used a DIC adapter where the slider went from left to right and the Optiphot 2 an adapter that came in at a diagonal. The Optiphot 2 adapter would not fit the Optiphot 1 - requiring that extra space as you say.

[75RR]

Text reads as if there were different types of nosepieces, however while some nosepieces come with the slider holders installed from the factory (when a DIC system microscope is purchased new), subsequent upgrades to DIC require the owner/technician to install them.

Either way, it is the same nosepiece and slider holders in both instances.

[PeteM]

Text reads as if there were different types of nosepieces, however while some nosepieces come with the slider holders installed from the factory (when a DIC system microscope is purchased new), subsequent upgrades to DIC require the owner/technician to install them.

Either way, it is the same nosepiece and slider holders in both instances.

Thanks, Glen. I''ll change it next update.

I've seen some Zeiss nosepieces with integrated slots; but they must be for the Axio infinite scopes?

[ImperatorRex]

some more details to add:


46 52 85 - is the condensor with the 1.4 n.A Frontlense and the matching Wollastan prisms.
46 52 73 - is the condensor with the 0.63 n.A Frontlense and the matching Wollastan prisms.

Both condensors could be installed on conventional or inverted microscopes. Certainly the condenser with 0.63 allows larger working distance and therefore has benefits installed on a vertical if you have some dishes. But I often also use the 1.4 n.A condenser with my vertical Zeiss IM35.

Only thing that applies: The orientation of the condenser wollastan prisms must be turned by 180° if you swith the condenser from the Zeiss Standard 14/16/18/WL to the Zeiss Universal, Phomi or IM35. There is a special tool to do that. The cylindrical tool has a thread that is turned into the prisims. Then the prism can be removed, turned by 180° and can be re-inserted into the condenser:

[Charles]

There are two different sets of prisms in the 46-52-85 and the 46-52-73 condensers. The prisms will match the condenser numbers. Open up the back of your condenser and see. The 46-52-85 condenser will have prisms 46-52-85 < and = to 16 and 46-52-85 >and = to 40. The 46-52-73 condenser will have the prisms 46-52-73 <and= 16 and The 46-52-73 > and = 40. Each is designed for a specific use.

[Charles]

The special tool is nice but not needed. All that holds the prisms in is an rubber O ring. All you need to do is pop one out, turn it and pop it back in.

[75RR]

There are two different sets of prisms in the 46-52-85 and the 46-52-73 condensers. The prisms will match the condenser numbers. Open up the back of your condenser and see. The 46-52-85 condenser will have prisms 46-52-85 < and = to 16 and 46-52-85 >and = to 40. The 46-52-73 condenser will have the prisms 46-52-73 <and= 16 and The 46-52-73 > and = 40. Each is designed for a specific use.

Was wondering if they were the same. These are the ones on my 46 52 85, not standard then?
.

[ImperatorRex]

Was wondering if they were the same. These are the ones on my 46 52 85, not standard then?

They are the same, just different kind of numbering. Maybe Zeiss recognized that all the different prism numbers are just confusing, so printing matching condensor numbers on the prisms would be more transparent?
It is really just to match prism with the according condenser front lenses used on the condenser.
I am using 46 52 73 condensor with the two prisms designed for the front lens 0,63. There is a third position empty for a DIC prism. So I fitted a 3rd prism for 1.4 Front lense for the > 0.5 nA Objectives. So I can switch from 0,63 to 1.4 na Frontlense case I have hign n.a. Water or Oil immersion objectives installed.

Some docs:

[75RR]

Had forgotten about that chart! Thanks for the reminder.

[Charles]

I don't remember seeing that chart. It's a great reference.

I checked the prisms in my Zeiss DIC condensers with the 465285 number and two had matching numbers for the 465285 and one had the 434404 and 434405. I saw signs of small delamination in the 465285 but none in the 434404/05. Maybe the older ones don't delaminate as much as the newer ones.

DIC 465285 Prisms.jpg (38.45 KiB) Viewed 9474 times

[PeteM]

Thanks for the info Charles and that chart, Jochen. Should be of great help to anyone trying to put a Zeiss DIC system together or add to what they have.

Does anyone know about what plan field sizes Zeiss supported in the various eras? My impression is that they didn't get to 20mm in objectives, prisms, heads, etc. until somewhat later in the game??

[75RR]

I am using 46 52 73 condensor with the two prisms designed for the front lens 0,63. There is a third position empty for a DIC prism. So I fitted a 3rd prism for 1.4 Front lense for the > 0.5 nA Objectives. So I can switch from 0,63 to 1.4 na Frontlense case I have hign n.a. Water or Oil immersion objectives installed.

Like your idea of using the 3rd prism option, though in my case a future project might entail obtaining a 0.63 top lens and a 43 44 07 condenser prism that would give me 40x DIC with plenty of distance for incident light.

[viktor j nilsson]

One somewhat confusing - and poorly documented - aspect of the Nikon DIC system is that only some versions of the Optiphot stand can accommodate the DIC intermediate tube. The stand needs to have a rectangular cutout immediately behind the nosepiece.

I may be wrong, Viktor, but I believe the Optiphot 1 used a DIC adapter where the slider went from left to right and the Optiphot 2 an adapter that came in at a diagonal. The Optiphot 2 adapter would not fit the Optiphot 1 - requiring that extra space as you say.

If you are on facebook, here is a very informative thread in the Nikon Microscope User Group page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/7350218 ... 550721339/

You are almost entirely right, and I misremembered a bit. The Optiphot 1 intermediate tube indeed had a slider that came in straight from right to left, and the Optiphot 2 a slider that came in at a diagonal. In most cases, the Optiphot 2 intermediate tube won't fit the Optiphot 1. However, as shown in the thread above, there exists a special version of the Optiphot 1 that has a rectangular cutout behind the nosepiece which allows it to fit the Optiphot 2 intermediate tube! Sorry for the confusion.

If you are not on facebook, I can PM you with the relevant information if you want to. Don't want to share the original post without permission.

[ImperatorRex]

Does anyone know about what plan field sizes Zeiss supported in the various eras? My impression is that they didn't get to 20mm in objectives, prisms, heads, etc. until somewhat later in the game??

It seems that even the old Zeiss West "finite" Plan Objectives itself were designed with a "reserve" to be good enough up to field of view on 25mm. However eyepieces have been limiting the FOV because of the too small outer diameter of 23.2mm. There is a story how Zeiss managed to achive rather large FOV without re-design their old finite scopes:

Anybody who is interested: here is an article: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6121&p=55179#p55179

If somebody is interested in more details an can mail an Zeiss article from Dr. Michels providing more details, however it is written in German language only.

[Leitzcycler]

Though Leitz Orthoplan is a very versatile modular system, It seems practically impossible to extend it for DIC. I have only seen a photo of Leitz DIC condenser, However never a single one in Ebay. The DIC objectives in Ebay are all for infinite system, which would, in turn, need a special objective nose piece, which I don't have and which is also very rare. I have never seen a part list or a diagram of Leitz DIC system, which would help to understand the composition of the system. Have any idea where to find?

To collect all the necessary parts, even if they were for sale, would be a hard and extremely expensive task. In theory, would it be possible to build such system using parts form another brand? DIC condenser would be possible to fit? As the upper prisms are in the form of sliders for some microscopes, would it fit into the Orthoplan's filter slider slot? Of course not, as it is too far from the objective?

So would it be more realistic and cheap to buy another scope with DIC? Which is also impossible option for me anyway as it would be also too expensive.

I just bought a phaco system and spent all my money and now living with water and crackers. Though it is better than adding contrast with aperture diaphragm, honestly I am a bit dissapointed...

[viktor j nilsson]

I think the best strategy is almost always to buy whatever DIC equipment you can find at a price you are able to pay, and then buy whatever scope you need to use it. Microscope stands are cheap. This probably applies even more to Leitz, where you almost never find any DIC parts.

[75RR]

I just bought a phaco system ...

Have you posted photos of it anywhere?

[Leitzcycler]

Have you posted photos of it anywhere?

Absolutely not. This won't happen for a long time. First of all, I must buy a better camera to take any pictures which could be published. The second problem is that my led lighting is not powerful enough for phaco so I have to build a better system for that.

I am sure I will learn using phaco, thaks anyway for your kind offer for evaluation

By the way, how important is the centering of the ring? I also bought a telescope, however found it rather difficult to see the location of the rings. Perhaps the problem is in my eyes... Not so important I conclude, as there is also the relief lightning option for phaco which I will also try when I find time.

[75RR]

Absolutely not. This won't happen for a long time. First of all, I must buy a better camera to take any pictures which could be published. The second problem is that my led lighting is not powerful enough for phaco so I have to build a better system for that.

I meant of the microscope.

[Leitzcycler]

Photos of the microscope? Why? There are some here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9617&p=82035#p82035
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9420&p=80594#p80594

[75RR]

Photos of the microscope? Why? There are some here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9617&p=82035#p82035
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9420&p=80594#p80594

Thanks, from what one can see of it it looks very nice

[PeteM]

I've updated the earlier chart in light of comments. Thanks all.

Two additional questions.

First, are the upper DIC sliders the same for both the earliest (what we're calling the rarer type 1) and the second systems; perhaps with still the one marked II for the Universal scopes and the one marked III for the Standard scopes. Can I assume any of the upper sliding type prisms work with either the 3 prism or 4 prism condensers?

Second, does anyone have any comments to add on Axio (finite or infinite) systems - perhaps a representative nosepiece shown here.

ZeissAxioNose.jpg (64.77 KiB) Viewed 9170 times

[JWW]

3) Does anyone have a complete PZO system - and able to comment? The one PZO condenser I have seems to (sort of) work with many other systems. My assumption is that the older PZO objective designs (older coatings, narrower fields, etc.) would compromise quality?? How does a PZO DIC system compare to something more modern?

I was hesitant to comment since I'm not well versed with my PZO, nor microscopes in general, just the basics. I've used DIC,  PhA is negative, PhS is positive, and PhZ is variable with some success. Mostly guessing what the procedures and protocols should be. Unfortunately, all of my equipment is in storage at the moment since I'm moving to another state. I do have a few pics here taken with my PZO. You would need to look at the titles on the pictures' border to see what was used. In some cases, I didn't annotate enough information being a novice. 

https://squattingdog.smugmug.com/Diatoms/i-Nk3G3Qg

-JW:

[Hobbyst46]

3) Does anyone have a complete PZO system - and able to comment? The one PZO condenser I have seems to (sort of) work with many other systems. My assumption is that the older PZO objective designs (older coatings, narrower fields, etc.) would compromise quality?? How does a PZO DIC system compare to something more modern?

I was hesitant to comment since I'm not well versed with my PZO, nor microscopes in general, just the basics. I've used DIC,  PhA is negative, PhS is positive, and PhZ is variable with some success. Mostly guessing what the procedures and protocols should be. Unfortunately, all of my equipment is in storage at the moment since I'm moving to another state. I do have a few pics here taken with my PZO. You would need to look at the titles on the pictures' border to see what was used. In some cases, I didn't annotate enough information being a novice. 

https://squattingdog.smugmug.com/Diatoms/i-Nk3G3Qg

-JW:

Stunning photos !
I would love to know how you achieved (illumination mode, PP etc) - of photos no 1 and 52.