#0 vs #1 coverslips

[Plasmid]

Hello again, im interested in finding out if using #0 coverslips instead of the standard #1 will cause the image quality to suffer? And is there any online store where that sells #0 covers for a reasonable price?
Thank you.
Plasmid.

[Greg Howald]

I'm sorry. I don't understand no.1 or no.2 coverslips. If you are speaking of thickness of the slip, industry standard is 0.17mm. But slips are sold in a guaranteed range of between 0.13 to 0.17. But I have focussed on extremely small mineral grains with no slip in place.
I believe your scope will have the tolerance for thinner slips but focus at higher magnification may be difficult to impossible with thicker slips. Thinner slips should not adversely affect the quality of image.
I have not seen a number 0 slip available, but when I wanted circular slips at 16mm rather than the standard 18, they were available on Amazon and came from China.
Greg

[Plasmid]

Hello, so the reason I asked is because I run into some available options listing a #0 as an option here's what I found..... But I wanted to see if anyone had any experience with them.
No. 0 is 0.085 to 0.13 mm; No. 1, 0.13 to 0.17 mm
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9. ... up_id=9704

[Greg Howald]

I hope that some one with greater experience than myself will respond to this. My own experience tells me that you can buy terribly expensive optics, cover slips and etcetera which all claim to give you greater performance and optical quality, and they probably do. But with my 70 year old eyes I can't for the life of me tell the difference.
Greg

[apochronaut]

Hello, so the reason I asked is because I run into some available options listing a #0 as an option here's what I found..... But I wanted to see if anyone had any experience with them.
No. 0 is 0.085 to 0.13 mm; No. 1, 0.13 to 0.17 mm
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9. ... up_id=9704

One of the advantages of thin coverslips is that they can compensate for an overly thick sample. I have found this to be useful especially with oil immersion , high resolution DF ( 60-100X objectives) and phase.
The ideal circumstance is to have the thinnest possible sample and a .17 cover but with certain samples there is not the possibility to have a thin sample, so a thin cover can compensate for that and allow a decent w.d. for the objective.
Having both #0 and #1 available to choose from is the best. Get a vernier caliper on ebay capable of measuring at least to .01 mm , mic your slips and organize them according to thickness. The calipers are not expensive. You will get a quick hang of which cover slip to choose for various samples. A range of .08 to .17 is good. I end up using .13 to .16 mostly.

[apochronaut]

I hope that some one with greater experience than myself will respond to this. My own experience tells me that you can buy terribly expensive optics, cover slips and etcetera which all claim to give you greater performance and optical quality, and they probably do. But with my 70 year old eyes I can't for the life of me tell the difference.
Greg

I am 69 and have had a fair amount of tissue shed into the aqueous humor of my left eye recently from a retinal tear. Tons of floaters, lowered contrast and resolution in my left eye.
It does affect my microscopy but with a binocular view I find I can compensate quite well, however I find that I excessively fiddle with the left diopter.
Superior optical corrections and correct immersion procedure, whether it be air, oil, water or glycerin make for better imaging. That is undeniable. With declining vision, I find that the poorer the optical accuracy there is, the poorer my view. Having very sharp and distortion free views , to some degree helps to overcome my ascending lack of visual accuity.
The biggest boost to my viewing however is great contrast. Optics with superior colour correction in the fluorite and apochromat class are also frequently superior in contrast , so I find that when possible I use those.
Bright field microscopy is the most challenging and it is because of difficulties I have in seeing through the floaters. With a bright background it sometimes seems like I am looking from inside a spider web. Not so much with phase or DF , so I increasingly find I àm using some of the phase options as my default BF.

[Plasmid]

Hello, so the reason I asked is because I run into some available options listing a #0 as an option here's what I found..... But I wanted to see if anyone had any experience with them.
No. 0 is 0.085 to 0.13 mm; No. 1, 0.13 to 0.17 mm
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9. ... up_id=9704

One of the advantages of thin coverslips is that they can compensate for an overly thick sample. I have found this to be useful especially with oil immersion , high resolution DF ( 60-100X objectives) and phase.
The ideal circumstance is to have the thinnest possible sample and a .17 cover but with certain samples there is not the possibility to have a thin sample, so a thin cover can compensate for that and allow a decent w.d. for the objective.
Having both #0 and #1 available to choose from is the best. Get a vernier caliper on ebay capable of measuring at least to .01 mm , mic your slips and organize them according to thickness. The calipers are not expensive. You will get a quick hang of which cover slip to choose for various samples. A range of .08 to .17 is good. I end up using .13 to .16 mostly.

Thank you Apochronaut, just ordered a pair of calipers, I've been reading some forums and reviews and it seems like the brand Seoh ( from amazon) is pretty consistent with 0.13-0.16,.The coverglass I've been using (karter Scientific) has been giving problems like I mentioned before with the working distance on the 100x oil, haven't gotten to measure them yet, but saw a couple of reviews on amazon that mentioned inconsistency with their thickness.

[BramHuntingNematodes]

I haven't used these slips exactly, but can recommend ThorLabs. They're pretty great. Good service and all their stuff I have seen is fine quality-- they're catering to a crowd that exactly what they want.