My Zeiss Microscopes

[ImperatorRex]

Thanks Einman, SutherlandDesmids & Redflanker

Yes restoration of old Zeiss Standard microscopes have become part of my hobby. Its usually cleansing and re-greasing.
I love the old Zeiss Standard System because there is a very large used parts market, so you can get everything inclunding DIC components. And most components are interchangeable within the Standard System, so it fits the inverse microscope, the Universal, the WL's/'RA...The pieces from the old black microscopes fit also to the newer grey one.
Often I bought just a microscope because of one piece of equipment & then re-sold the rest.

I feel so much co-incidence with Steve Beats report below:
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... zeiss.html

Meanwhile I have two of this Zeiss IM35 microscopes ... and at least had 4 other ones that I re-sold.

[ImperatorRex]

A splendid collection, especially the Universal. DIC too!

Maybe one thing to comment on this Universal: It has a field of view of "25" by using the special "large field of view Objective turret"
More details here in the article "Field of View - Zeiss Universal vs. Leitz Orthoplan":
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6121

[Hobbyst46]

Citing one a bottom line (which I personally like) from the Steve Beats article about his dream microscope come true:

"Most things I want to try now are supported at normal resolution with simpler techniques using the kit that first came with the scope. The original owner built a thoughtful package to a limited budget...It's the correct approach; buy only what you need for what you want to achieve, and no more."

[redflanker]

I wander did Olympus copyed the standard from Zeiss？Did you tried to use olympus component in zeiss microscope？Because I just bought a zeiss Primo star microscope，and I have a Olympus CX31.

[RobBerdan]

Hi Jochen - I saw your pictures of mini-aquarium slides. I use petri dishes with coverslip bottoms with my inverted microscope. I don't have picture of all my microscopes but will include a photos of some of them. I have an Olympus E with phase contrast, Olympus IM inverted I purchased recently off Ebay and refurbished it - it came with phase contrast - hope to add LED light in the future. I also have an older Olympus Stereo zoom stereo microscope SZ-111, Nikon Optiphot for Fluorescene and polarizing microscopy I refurbished, a Unitron polarizing microscope for Geology - also refurbished, AM stereomicroscope, and Wild Herburg Stereomicroscope. My pride and joy is a Zeiss Axioscope with phase contrast, DIC, darkfield, and polarizing optics - I will be paying for it over a few years. I would like to add Epiflourescence using LED to the Axioscope but can't afford a $11,000 for the Colibri system - maybe in the future. I love taking pictures with the microscopes and I enjoy refurbishing microscopes. If only SEM microscope would be small enough and affordable - most desktop SEM I have seen start at $60,000. I use the free Digicam software to record images to my laptop, a Nikon D500 and D800 most of the time for photomicrography but also use some Canon cameras mostly for macrophotography of snowflakes and insects .

My Darkroom has become a microscopy lab and its spreading to other parts of my basement with centrifuges, aquariums etc. My goal is is to take some stunning photomicrographs and try to promote microscopy as a hobby and also Science & Art.

I am working on photographing as many FW invertebrates as I can. Learning to identify the different species is challenging, though I have lots of books and I am finding experts online willing to help me.

When I am not taking pictures with my microscope - I am photographing landscapes, nature and wildlife and the aurora borealis - but I plan to focus on photomicrography over the next decade or two and share my images and experiences on my web site.

I look forward to seeing more of your photos and learning how you approach microscopy.

[ImperatorRex]

Rob,
thanks for sharing your great set of microscopes. It is good to know that there are more crazy folks out that share the same interest in microscopy. I believe that the Zeiss Axioscope is your famous microscope - with such great equipment! Also the size is huge!
I also think from time to time if I should invest in a more modern infinite Zeiss Axio or Olympus BX50 system, but it is really a lot of money ... so finally I stay with my older Zeiss finite system.

What kind of objects do you want to make micro fotos?

Bye the way ... beside the micro aquarium slides I meanwhile also use plastic pretri dishes with 50 mm round coverglass bottom for my inverted. Its DYI made from cheap chinese plastic dishes. What are you using?
Since a couple of months I am busy with cultures for Haematococcus pluvialis and H. stephanosphaera. So the petri dishes are very usefull here.

[ImperatorRex]

A micro-flash is a great thing if you want to make sharp photos, since it "freezes" any movement.

For the Zeiss Standard and inverse IM35 I have previously pesented such a flash device
Zeiss Standard: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5930#p53445
Zeiss IM35: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5930#p53399

It works great and uses the Zeiss Winkel beam splitter. However the mechanical adaption is a bit tricky.

So I was looking for a solution that does not require any machining or fabrication; it is just printable from 3D model:







So this may provide you some inspiration to think about such a flash device. Actually instead of the Zeiss Winke Beam splitter 3D printing should allow to print a total talor made flash device. Splitter plates are commercially available for few dollars, so printing a casing with 3D printing makes such not be too difficult.
Does anybody already made such stuff?

[75RR]

Thanks for posting this.

I have not done much to advance my flash project as yet (see photo of simulated placing), but your post has made me realize

that attempting to place a flash inside a 60w lamp-housing is not very practicable/sensible.

An adaptation such as yours (rectangular flash holder) may well work better.

[PeteM]

. . . attempting to place a flash inside a 60w lamp-housing is not very practicable/sensible.

Wonder if you could pull out just the flash tube and a reflector from the flash body (which would sit outside) and extend and re-solder wiring so just the tube would fit were the old lamp was? Might be some issues in insulating the extension wires, but might work OK?

Do like ImperatorRex's well conceived solution.

[75RR]

Wonder if you could pull out just the flash tube and a reflector from the flash body (which would sit outside) and extend and re-solder wiring so just the tube would fit were the old lamp was?
Might be some issues in insulating the extension wires, but might work OK?

That was what I was thinking but looking at ImperatorRex's layout made me wonder if the flash tube would actually fit in the lamp-house.

Don't have a flash to test for size at the moment. It would look neater if it did fit, will have to see if it is possible.

In the meantime, any recommendations of which flash to use?

Camera is an Olympus E-P2

[ImperatorRex]

Hi 75RR. Very interested in the splitter cube that you are using. Somehow looks like the the "discussion" cube where you could connect two tube heads? In this case the cube would have tellan lense optics? How well does this then work with the Lamp housing?
I made some tests where I have removed the fresnel lense from the flash and also using a collector lense - however found its not bringing too much advantage. The flash with the fresnel lense itself is sufficient to supply enough light power into the optical path. Anyway I avoided to disconnect the flash tube itself...its risky anyway and cable length itself is limited.

In this case it is just better to use the big gun - the YN568EXII is the chinese low cost clone of the Canon Speedlite flash and is really powerful...and cheap..below 100 USD as I remember.

PS: if you buy the flash as second hand in the bay you really got a bargain!

[75RR]

Very interested in the splitter cube that you are using. Somehow looks like the the "discussion" cube where you could connect two tube heads?

Yes, it is the 47 30 57 - 9900, also known as a teaching head.

My thinking was that used in reverse it would provide 100% light from each of the lamp-houses without having to use a switch.

In this case the cube would have tellan lense optics?

Yes it does.

How well does this then work with the Lamp housing?

Good question! The lamp housing can not fit directly on it as the Telan lens and the lamp housing lens bump into each other.

A spacer is needed.

This is what I should have bought but I could not come to terms with the seller.



Adapting a Telescope connector at the moment that is going to cost me (eventually) almost as much as the original one. :(

Well, to be honest, half as much, but it is a much less neat solution!

I now regret not selling one of my children in order to buy it.

Thanks for the flash tip

[ImperatorRex]

Hi 75RR,
actually you would get 50 % of the light from each side with this split cube.
But I wonder if you cannot unscrew the tellan lenses to remove? (use the black plastic riffled circle thing to get some grip to unscrew). You do not need the tellan lense, it would be important for tube lenght for the tube heads, but the more distance does not matter for the lamps at all. My experience.

An collegue from the German microforum actually has cutted of the cube to connect the flash, have a look here:
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... #msg150830

[75RR]

... actually you would get 50 % of the light from each side with this split cube.

Agree that that is what happens when using teaching heads with the light coming from below the cube. The split would be 50/50. But if the light comes from where the teaching heads would have been, (i.e. reversed) would it not now be 100/100 on each side?

[ImperatorRex]

Hi, I think it does not matter from what side the light enters, transmission will alway be 50%.

Have a look here https://www.edmundoptics.de/f/Broadband ... ers/12627/
In the middle you will find an illustration how such a prism works.

Edit: sorry, you will need to click on "Technische Abbildungen" in the middle section to open the illustration

[75RR]

Hi, I think it does not matter from what side the light enters, transmission will always be 50%.

I have a light meter, I will test each port to see how much light exits each one.

[zzffnn]

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 160#237160

We all think that Kohler light from both flash and lamp is important for DIC. But Anne (above) uses a simple beam splitter cube directly under her condenser for flash (quite a bit above field iris). She got beautiful DIC images.

I would like to know your comparison results (if there is visible difference or not), if you are willing to compare Kohler flash vs beam splitting cube above field iris.

[ImperatorRex]

Thanks zzffnn for sharing this good example.
Having a semi permeable mirror directly over the field iris is a nice setup. Even just using a object carrier slide somehow works as a beamer splitter, of coarse at a lesser efficiency
I think it is then more or less a kind of critical illumination for the flash and I also found that Koehler is not that relevant.

Here is an example of an even more simple to built setups:
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... lash2.html

Few disadvantages of this kind of setup where the mirror and flash is near the field iris:
- dust particles on the mirror are more or less visible on the image
- stuff like flush and cables, setup over the field iris are a bit visible and may disturb a bit.

[75RR]

But I wonder if you cannot unscrew the telan lenses to remove?

I think it would work (they are removable) but it would introduce dust into the cube which would be very hard to remove.

Interesting alternative flash setups. Thanks for the links.

I would like to know your comparison results (if there is visible difference or not), if you are willing to compare Kohler flash vs beam splitting cube above field iris.

I suppose I could try with David Walker's simpler setup (both systems seem to use the same principle) as it only involves obtaining an additional 50/50 beam splitter as the flash will do for both.
I have no flash as yet so this would be a future project.

[75RR]

Hi, I think it does not matter from what side the light enters, transmission will always be 50%.

I have a light meter, I will test each port to see how much light exits each one.

Quick rough and ready port light transmission comparison:

(image1) Output from Center port (light entering from Side port) = 500 Lux

(image2) Output from Side port (light entering from Center port) = 300 Lux

(image3) Lux at same distance Lamp to Cube = 2400 Lux

Lux at total distance - i.e. distance lamp to cube + distance cube width + distance cube to light meter = 500 Lux

This would seem to show that while there is light division of light entering the center port, there is no light loss from light entering the side ports.

Note: photos taken with phone + flash

[Wes]

I am very impressed by ImperatorRex and 75RR's solutions to fitting a flash simultaneously with a traditional lamphouse.

I have a spare Zeiss binocular head (the black kind for older Standards) that I got from ebay a few years ago (the dovetail was grinded to reduce the diameter but this was not specified in the description so the seller refunded me and let me keep it). Its been lying dormant till now and I got inspired by your work to use it as a beamsplitter (even though its grinded it still fits the lamp dovetail acceptor). To fit the lamp in one of the eyepiece holders I would need a female 43.5 mm dovetail acceptor and a 23.2 mm male insert on the other end. For the flash I'd use a rectangular cup with a male 23.2 mm male insert. Other than potentially a limiting beamsplitter area do you guys see any potential problems with this idea?

[Wes]

Here is what it would look like

[ImperatorRex]

Hi Wes,
before making the mechanical adaption just do a quick testing by fitting lights and flash by tape or by hand. You will then find out if light path is appropreate.
Quite a unconventional arrangemnt, but it is a beam splitter anyway.... Good luck!

[75RR]

A cube would look neater. ;)

Probably work well enough until you find one.

I have one of those heads. If you like I can place the light meter on it and see what the ratio is from each port.

[MichaelG.]

I just remembered this:
http://www.micrographia.com/articlz/art ... pc0300.htm
and managed to find it amongst my vast hoard of bookmarks !!

Hopefully of some interest.
MichaelG.

[75RR]

. . . attempting to place a flash inside a 60w lamp-housing is not very practicable/sensible.

Wonder if you could pull out just the flash tube and a reflector from the flash body (which would sit outside) and extend and re-solder wiring so just the tube would fit were the old lamp was? Might be some issues in insulating the extension wires, but might work OK?

Sorry PeteM, missed your post. I was originally thinking of something along these lines (see below) ... but had not really thought it through.

Would need a smaller flash tube. Not sure if there is such a thing.

See image from Chales Krebs site: http://www.krebsmicro.com/microsetup2/index.html




Great link MichaelG!

Like the idea of a side insertion of the flash tube. Only problem would then be the focusing, as in the Zeiss 60W lamphouse the lens is fixed and it is the filament that moves.

http://www.micrographia.com/articlz/art ... pc0300.htm

[Wes]

A cube would look neater.

Probably work well enough until you find one.

I have one of those heads. If you like I can place the light meter on it and see what the ratio is from each port.

I agree that a cube or a beamsplitter as in the case of ImperatorRex would look overall better and perhaps perform better but its a makeshift solution for the time being.

If you would test the transmission I would be very interested to see what happens if you put a polarizer between the light meter and the exit port (reflection should result in polarization parallel to the plane of reflection which would be the diagonal surface of the beamsplitter in this case).

[75RR]

We seem to have done a good job hijacking ImperatorRex's thread!

Perhaps it would be better to continue this under Microscopes and optics

If you would test the transmission I would be very interested to see what happens if you put a polarizer between the light meter and the exit port (reflection should result in polarization parallel to the plane of reflection which would be the diagonal surface of the beamsplitter in this case).

You lost me on this ... can you post a diagram

[Wes]

Light that is reflected from the flat surface of a dielectric (or insulating) material is often partially polarized, with the electric vectors of the reflected light vibrating in a plane that is parallel to the surface of the material.

source: https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/jav ... index.html

This property is exploited in photography where you can put a circular polarizer (although a linear would also work) on your lens and you can kill the reflection off of water and other surfaces as exemplified in the picture below. In fact I believe (but cannot be sure) that the binocular head I posted is of the Pol variety. I have often found that using standard binocular tubes for polarization microscopy results in light intensity of one exit port being quite visibly diminished.



And apologies to ImperatorRex for hijacking your thread, I hope you're not mad about it

Wes

[75RR]

Aware of the effect of polarized lenses on water (used to fish for peacock bass), what I am not sure of was what effect you expected from a single polarized filter placed between the exit port of the binocular head (remember you are using it back to front, so what is considered the exit port is open to question!) and the light meter.

I would be very interested to see what happens if you put a polarizer between the light meter and the exit port

Is this what you had in mind?