Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Message
Author
Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#1 Post by Sir » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:55 am

EDIT: Please note that my initial post was NOT CORRECT - Please see my updated post below that shows a more realistic comparison between the objectives.

I own an AmScope T490B - Which comes with 4x, 10x, 40x, and 100x (oil) Non-Plan objectives (160mm). I figured I should upgrade to their Plan objectives, and wanted to do a comparison in case anyone else was also looking to buy the same objectives. I took pictures of a printed image with a coverglass (I don't have a reliable test slide yet) and found that there is hardly any difference between the objectives at lower magnifications. The 40x was the only objective that had some notable difference.

In my opinion, buying the 20x and 60x alone are worth it, but I probably wouldn't recommend upgrading to the Plan objectives with AmScope. You are welcome to look through the full album of images here and comparison below to see if you can notice much of a difference.

Please keep in mind that this was just a quick comparison and is just reflective of my own observations. I'm assuming my results would not be the same with some of the big 4 objectives, but I'm curious to hear other people's experiences.

Image
Last edited by Sir on Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#2 Post by Hobbyst46 » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:13 am

Sir wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:55 am
I own an AmScope T490B - Which comes with 4x, 10x, 40x, and 100x (oil) Non-Plan objectives (160mm). I figured I should upgrade to their Plan objectives, and wanted to do a comparison in case anyone else was also looking to buy the same objectives. I took pictures of a printed image with a coverglass (I don't have a reliable test slide yet) and found that there is hardly any difference between the objectives at lower magnifications. The 40x was the only objective that had some notable difference.
This comparison is very important and potentially of benefit to many.
I copied the picture to Irfanview and zoomed in. IMHO, there is no significant difference in planarity between the plan and non-plan, including the 4X, 10X and 40X.

perrywespa
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:13 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#3 Post by perrywespa » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:31 am

Thanks so much for doing this. I've been considering changing the objectives on my Seiler Westlab II to the Amscope Plan lenses and now I think I'll just replace my 100X oil, which I rarely use, with a 20X plan.
Perry
Insatiably curious.

MicroBob
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#4 Post by MicroBob » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:34 am

The term "PLAN" should ideally be accompanied by the size of the planar image. Over a field of 10mm many achromats are fairly plan, over e.g. 25mm not so.
Do you know how big the field is that your camera captures?
Did you cover the paper with water or oil and a cover slip?

I'm sure your comparison is valuable since many people are interested in buying Amscope microscopes.

Bob

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#5 Post by Sir » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:43 am

MicroBob wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:34 am
Do you know how big the field is that your camera captures?
Did you cover the paper with water or oil and a cover slip?
I'm unsure how to check the field size. I used an afocal setup with a 10x eyepiece and my Canon M50 with an 18-45mm lens. I wanted to leave the entirety of the eyepiece visible so that the field of view could be compared. It wasn't the strictest of experiments since the intention was just to check if there was any easily observable differences between the objectives, but I did ensure the camera and slide did not move between shots.

For all the images I had covered the paper in water and used a cover slip. Both to ensure it remained flat and also because I typically observe wet-mounted samples. Only the 100x had the additional of oil.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#6 Post by Hobbyst46 » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:06 pm

Sir wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:43 am
MicroBob wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:34 am
Do you know how big the field is that your camera captures?
Did you cover the paper with water or oil and a cover slip?
I'm unsure how to check the field size. I used an afocal setup with a 10x eyepiece and my Canon M50 with an 18-45mm lens. I wanted to leave the entirety of the eyepiece visible so that the field of view could be compared. It wasn't the strictest of experiments since the intention was just to check if there was any easily observable differences between the objectives, but I did ensure the camera and slide did not move between shots.
If the zoom was set to 40-45mm, I would guess that 60-70% (may be even more) of the actual field of view (by diameter, not area) was covered by the camera. Based on experience with my setup.
Last edited by Hobbyst46 on Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#7 Post by Sir » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:14 pm

Hobbyst46 wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:06 pm

If the zoom was set to 45mm, I would guess that 60-70% (may be even more) of the actual field of view (by diameter, not area) was covered by the camera. Based on experience with my setup.
Thanks! For these pictures it was set to 30mm if that helps

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#8 Post by viktor j nilsson » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:16 pm

I do agree that the soft edges looks like vignetting rather than the sharp edge of the field stop, suggesting that we are not seeing the full field of view.

When you sort it out, it will be very interesting to see this comparison.

May I also suggest that you crop just outside the field of view and post separate images for each magnification?

User avatar
ImperatorRex
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:12 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#9 Post by ImperatorRex » Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:51 pm

Best would be to use a kind of "mash" or specimen with lines for a comparison.
Example ist here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5930&start=60#p71902

But this of coarse raises the question where to get such. But maybe somebody has another idea? Micrometer slides are sometimes used as a reference. Something else?

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#10 Post by Hobbyst46 » Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:44 pm

ImperatorRex wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:51 pm
Best would be to use a kind of "mash" or specimen with lines for a comparison.
Example ist here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5930&start=60#p71902

But this of coarse raises the question where to get such. But maybe somebody has another idea? Micrometer slides are sometimes used as a reference. Something else?
A stage micrometer would be best, but for the low magnifications, even a thin transparent ruler, or a graph paper/grid paper (either plain, as was used in the previous 200 years, or printed from the internet on translucent paper) might give an estimate. Because with 10X20mm eyepieces, the field of view is normally 2mm through the 10X and 5mm through the 4X.

PeteM
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#11 Post by PeteM » Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:31 pm

The field of view really is important. Hoping you can double check?

An achro should look the same for, say, about 15mm of the field as a Plan Achro. It would be out at 20mm (or up for better objectives) that we'd expect the Plan objective to keep more in focus. Using wide field eyepieces (maybe 10x/20FN with your scope?) it should be possible to double check if what the eye is seeing the same or wider than what the camera is seeing.

If they're actually the same, you'll have saved many new scope buyers some money. I suspect there are differences at full field edges??

One thing to keep in mind for purely visual purposes and especially when doing something like chasing protists around on a slide that the eye compensates for a lot and if a subject that is moving in and out of the plane of focus doesn't look much (if any) better (visually) in a plan objective. It's with photos that the plan objective should shine.

FWIW, there are now some pretty cheap micrometer slides available via Ebay from China. Even easier to know what field you're seeing through the eyepieces and through the camera.

Thanks for this test, Sir.

MicroBob
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#12 Post by MicroBob » Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:31 pm

Sir wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:43 am
I'm unsure how to check the field size.
The 4:1 objective places an image of 4x linear size inside the tube. There it is picked up by the eyepiece and further enlarged. When you would take a ruler with 1mm scale you should be able to calculate the field number of the used eyepiece.

Bob

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#13 Post by Sir » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:11 am

Thanks everyone! I did just get a calibration slide, I'll try to get more photos later tonight to figure this out.

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#14 Post by Sir » Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:27 am

I've taken another look and the suggestions that the entire field of view was not visible was absolutely correct. I took some images with my phone instead, which covered the entire field, and the differences between the objectives are very clear. The Plan objectives are certainly better and provide a much flatter view. This is observable at all magnifications, but is much more visible at higher magnifications as you can see below. Here are the full res images.

Thanks to everyone that pointed this out! I can only apologize for my initially misleading post. I've added a disclaimer at the top so that I don't steer anyone in the wrong direction with my initial test. Please feel free to suggest anything else I can add. I hope this makes the differences clearer. For me, the Plan AmScope objectives are absolutely worth the upgrade.

Image

User avatar
mrsonchus
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:42 pm
Location: Cumbria, UK

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#15 Post by mrsonchus » Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:38 pm

Hmm, looks significant to me, especially for the 40x, where the central part of the image is improved within the area most concentrated-upon and indeed covered by a camera's FOV.
Almost seems to be a case of the higher the mag, the more noticeable the improvement.
John B

MicroBob
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#16 Post by MicroBob » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:13 pm

Hi,
thank you for this thorough test! To me this looks like 19mm field of view. For flat objects the basic achromats are just about good for the central 10mm of the field of view. The 40:1 achromat also seems to have a lot of pincushion distorsion - is it possible that the autofocus of your phone focussed differently? What you could add are photos with the achromats focussed on the edge of the field. For objects that are not flat some curvature of field is less important, but there should be a point where the image at the edge actually is sharp.

Bob

PeteM
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#17 Post by PeteM » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:46 pm

Another than you. Very much appreciate your following through.

Perhaps another question. My guess is that you've been delighted to now have the 20x Plan, but maybe don't see the 60x as all that much better than the 40x - and not up to the 100x oil immersion? Have you had a chance do try those objectives and any qualitative thoughts?

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#18 Post by Sir » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:32 am

Sorry for the late replies, it's been a busy week!
MicroBob wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:13 pm
is it possible that the autofocus of your phone focussed differently? What you could add are photos with the achromats focussed on the edge of the field.

Bob
I don't believe it was the auto focus, but I did have to refocus the microscope when switching objectives. The eyepieces did reflect what I was seeing in the images. I had another look and I can indeed focus on the edge of the field so I will add some reference images later. Thank you for the suggestion.
PeteM wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:46 pm

Perhaps another question. My guess is that you've been delighted to now have the 20x Plan, but maybe don't see the 60x as all that much better than the 40x - and not up to the 100x oil immersion? Have you had a chance do try those objectives and any qualitative thoughts?
I have to say I absolutely love the 20x and find myself using it all the time. The 60x is great if you want a dry alternative instead of messing around with oil for the 100x. From what I've read on here there might be better alternatives, but I personally find myself using the 60x quite often, especially when observing tiny diatoms where the 40x falls a little short. At $72 I really can't complain :D

hans
Posts: 986
Joined: Thu May 28, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#19 Post by hans » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:47 am

MicroBob wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:13 pm
What you could add are photos with the achromats focussed on the edge of the field. For objects that are not flat some curvature of field is less important, but there should be a point where the image at the edge actually is sharp.
This reminds me of something I have been wondering about for a while. In typical achromatic vs. plan achromatic objective designs, is the planarity the only major difference, or does the correction for field curvature generally also result in better correction of other aberrations? In other words, with the non-plan and plan objectives both focused at the edge of the field as MicroBob is suggesting, what is the expected result?

perrywespa
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:13 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#20 Post by perrywespa » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:58 pm

Thanks for your PM about the update!
Perry
Insatiably curious.

Red_Green
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#21 Post by Red_Green » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:18 am

Sir wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:55 am
EDIT: Please note that my initial post was NOT CORRECT - Please see my updated post below that shows a more realistic comparison between the objectives.

I own an AmScope T490B - Which comes with 4x, 10x, 40x, and 100x (oil) Non-Plan objectives (160mm). I figured I should upgrade to their Plan objectives, and wanted to do a comparison in case anyone else was also looking to buy the same objectives.

In my opinion, buying the 20x and 60x alone are worth it, but I probably wouldn't recommend upgrading to the Plan objectives with AmScope. You are welcome to look through the full album of images here and comparison below to see if you can notice much of a difference.



Image
Dude, did you buy the silver plans or the black coated plans? I am thinking of upgrading mine and getting the black coated plans. I also have the t490B.
After all this time has passed sine you upgraded, would you still say it's worth it?

How are the amscope plans while looking at living things like ciliates, algae etc?

MicroBob
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#22 Post by MicroBob » Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:20 am

hans wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:47 am
In typical achromatic vs. plan achromatic objective designs, is the planarity the only major difference, or does the correction for field curvature generally also result in better correction of other aberrations? In other words, with the non-plan and plan objectives both focused at the edge of the field as MicroBob is suggesting, what is the expected result?
Hi Hans,
sorry I didn't read your eply before. "Achromat" and "Plan", but also "Apochromat" only state a quality, but not the extent to which it is reached. So from the designation alone one will not be able to draw an answer to your question. It also is a question of the field of view we look at: The 28mm of an Orthoplan are a much higher hurdle for the optics designer tahn e.g. 18mm. This is especially true for the planarity quality.
The old Zeiss Plan objectives were calculated for 25mm planar field size, leading to a nicely complicated stack of lenses, especially in the stronger objectives. For the high price Zeiss demanded (above Neofluars) I would expect a really satisfying image quality at the borders too. And this is what these objectives offer.

Bob

apochronaut
Posts: 6271
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#23 Post by apochronaut » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:09 pm

hans wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:47 am
MicroBob wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:13 pm
What you could add are photos with the achromats focussed on the edge of the field. For objects that are not flat some curvature of field is less important, but there should be a point where the image at the edge actually is sharp.
This reminds me of something I have been wondering about for a while. In typical achromatic vs. plan achromatic objective designs, is the planarity the only major difference, or does the correction for field curvature generally also result in better correction of other aberrations? In other words, with the non-plan and plan objectives both focused at the edge of the field as MicroBob is suggesting, what is the expected result?
After a certain point in time when the era of initial experimentation wound down, achromat objectives being the bread and butter of the microscope business, were pretty much formula designs. That explains how Steindorff could hire a mathematician to design their objectives at her kitchen table, then get a third party to manufacture them.
The corrections inherent in Huygenian eyepieces were good enough for average use. Sometimes Kellner or Ramsden were employed but not much.
Most of the wizardry took place in the design of fluorites and apochromats where proprietary over correction and subsequent compensation in the eyepiece created some really wonderfull well corrected fields but with field size limitations based on the glass formulas available in the diameters possible.
In the 50's the needs of medicine brought the wide field revolution forward and average fields of view were no longer adequate. It made more sense to create whole other achromatic designs with fully corrected fields. Over a period of not very many years very wide fields became economically feasable and peripheral corrections generally kept pace. Generally speaking, it became the job of the eyepiece as a proprietary design to flatten and fully correct for the objective's inadequacies in many plan designs. Often the achromat objectives could be made to benefit some too.
It was a gradual process and in many cases the achromat cousin cannot benefit to as wide a field. Much of later improvements came by way of an increase in the diameter of the objective's elements, so achromats have been improved in default due to a change in format. Plan optics too but also more due to the inclusion of optical components.
In modern optics there do seem to be fairly wide fields that are quite well corrected except for planarity but that is a fairly recent phenomenon, given that even some plan systems, lack for full correction to the edge.

Greg Howald
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:44 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#24 Post by Greg Howald » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:23 pm

Things I have noticed regarding plan objectives.
1. They work best with plan Eyepieces.
2. In a metallurgical scope where top light passes through the objective to illuminate the specimen, plan objectives give outstanding results with plan Eyepieces.
3. In a standard bottom lit scope where light passes through the condenser I can detect little or no difference at lower levels of magnification.
Greg

apochronaut
Posts: 6271
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#25 Post by apochronaut » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:54 pm

Greg Howald wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:23 pm
Things I have noticed regarding plan objectives.
1. They work best with plan Eyepieces.
2. In a metallurgical scope where top light passes through the objective to illuminate the specimen, plan objectives give outstanding results with plan Eyepieces.
3. In a standard bottom lit scope where light passes through the condenser I can detect little or no difference at lower levels of magnification.
Greg
Plan eyepieces are used where the plan performance is system dependent. In other words, the objective is not really plan but requires a corrective eyepiece to complete it's planarity, providing a fairly flat field image. That doesn't necessarily mean those plan compensating eyepieces will work with another manufacturer's plan objectives.
Some objectives do have inherent correction for field curvature such as Bausch and Lomb's Flat Field series or Meiji's Flat Field series. These require eyepieces that are neutral in terms of correction for field curvature but might otherwise provide corrections for other aberrations . This is again systematic harmony and illustrates the folly of swapping eyepieces around unless a system test has been performed and checks out.

The reason for your observations regarding good plan performance with episcopic illumination compared to diascopic illumination is probably due to sample preparation. There should be no difference based on illumination technique. Metallurgical samples are often machined flat for observation. Curvature of field is very apparent. Diacopic microscopes are more often used with thick samples that may or may not have planar structures. In order to test a plan optical system with a biological sample, it needs to be very thin such as with a smear, otherwise even an objective with a fair degree of curvature of field will find something to focus on, giving the illusion of planarity.

Greg Howald
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:44 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#26 Post by Greg Howald » Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:51 pm

Thanks for that. Greg

hans
Posts: 986
Joined: Thu May 28, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#27 Post by hans » Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:54 pm

After reading more about aberrations and looking at various patents I understand now that in technical contexts there is not just a single field curvature discussed. Sagittal and meridional rays are considered separately and the difference in curvature between those two cases corresponds to astigmatism. (And sometimes also curvature of the field where the circle of least confusion between sagittal and meridional focus occurs is discussed.) I'm still not sure what is typically prioritized when increasing budget/complexity above a basic achromat -- whether it considered more important to minimize astigmatism or overall curvature?

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#28 Post by Sir » Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:39 am

Red_Green wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:18 am

Dude, did you buy the silver plans or the black coated plans? I am thinking of upgrading mine and getting the black coated plans. I also have the t490B.
After all this time has passed sine you upgraded, would you still say it's worth it?

How are the amscope plans while looking at living things like ciliates, algae etc?
I ended up getting the silver ones. I'm not aware of any differences between the two beyond colour, but maybe AmScope could clarify for you. Personally, I've found that the Plans provide a flatter image overall, but the difference isn't very noticeable at the 4x and 10x magnification, and was much more noticeable when comparing the 40x. Also, when using the DSLR adapter that AmScope sells, I could barely tell the difference because it doesn't cover the entire field of view.

Would I say it's worth the cost to upgrade those? Probably not, but cost wasn't an issue for me so I was happy with the decision. Plus I found the 20x and 60x very useful since they don't typically come with the microscope. After learning more from the others on this forum, I would likely put my money towards a better second-hand scope rather than upgrading the T490b. But that's just my 2 cents. I'm still using the same scope and I'm very happy with it.

Red_Green
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#29 Post by Red_Green » Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:45 pm

Sir wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:39 am
Red_Green wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:18 am

Dude, did you buy the silver plans or the black coated plans? I am thinking of upgrading mine and getting the black coated plans. I also have the t490B.
After all this time has passed sine you upgraded, would you still say it's worth it?

How are the amscope plans while looking at living things like ciliates, algae etc?
I ended up getting the silver ones. I'm not aware of any differences between the two beyond colour, but maybe AmScope could clarify for you. Personally, I've found that the Plans provide a flatter image overall, but the difference isn't very noticeable at the 4x and 10x magnification, and was much more noticeable when comparing the 40x. Also, when using the DSLR adapter that AmScope sells, I could barely tell the difference because it doesn't cover the entire field of view.

Would I say it's worth the cost to upgrade those? Probably not, but cost wasn't an issue for me so I was happy with the decision. Plus I found the 20x and 60x very useful since they don't typically come with the microscope. After learning more from the others on this forum, I would likely put my money towards a better second-hand scope rather than upgrading the T490b. But that's just my 2 cents. I'm still using the same scope and I'm very happy with it.
Would it be best just to invest a few hundred more and get the phase contrast kit then that comes with plan/phase objectives?

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Comparison of AmScope's Plan & Non-Plan Objectives

#30 Post by Sir » Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:27 pm

Red_Green wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:18 am

Would it be best just to invest a few hundred more and get the phase contrast kit then that comes with plan/phase objectives?
I'm not familiar enough with AmScope's phase contrast kits to comment on their value. Since you already have the microscope I understand the intention to want to upgrade it, but there might be cheaper alternatives out there. I personally would not want to spend that much (it seems to cost more than the entire microscope!) Since the T490b uses the 160mm standard I believe you can use it with any 160mm objective. Though, this being the only microscope I've ever owned, the extent of my knowledge is quite limited :lol:

Post Reply