Inverted scope

[Greg Howald]

I am considering the addition of an inverted scope to my collection. I already have several wonderful microscopes..
Is inverted microscopy worth the investment?

[einman]

I, myself, have 3 inverted microscopes. Whether or not they were worth the investment is subjective. How much did you or are you willing to pay? My most recent purchase was a Zeiss Axiovert. It came along with 2 other microscopes; A Nikon Microphot and a Zeiss compound scope. All three cost a little over $300. So, Yes the purchase was well worth it. The quality of the image produced by the Zeiss easily exceeded the Olympus IM and AO Biostar I already owned.

I enjoy viewing pond/lake samples via the inverted and then if I find the sample sufficiently populated, I transfer organisms to a compound scope for better resolution. Inverted scopes tend to offer a significantly larger working distance at the expense of resolution. The objectives tend to have a much lower na. I would not want an inverted as an only scope. It does, however, round out a collection.

There are several topics in the forum dealing with the utility of inverted scopes vs a stereo or a compound scope. Take a quick read.

[apochronaut]

Back when I had a Biostar, the thought crossed my mind that it was a platform that was never developed. It got stuck in the 34mm parfocal era because the focus of the company became consolidation rather than innovation after 1991, breaking it's 140 years of tradition. It is up for some potential development. The why seems obvious but how a little more difficult.
What I considered but never pursued ( I think you ended up with my Biostar phase condenser) was to use coverslip bottom petri dishes and some higher end Reichert 45mm parfocal objectives. I don't have a Biostar anymore but recall that the 45mm objectives can fit in there. Am I correct in that?

The 40X .70 planfluor for instance which is a stellar objective functioning well beyond it's modest .70 N.A would be a good candidate. There is a phase version of that too. It has a longer w.d. than the Reichert 25X .65 planapo. When teamed with the cat.# 182 15X eyepieces, you get superb 600X with an apparent f.n. of 24mm, which it would be if the set up at that breadth of field was a 10X eyepiece by 60X objective. You might be able to rig up dry DF with it too.
Subsequent to that, I ended up acquiring some N.O.S. 1.4 N.A. series 400 condenser barrel blanks , which can screw right into the Biostar condenser housing. The top lens is intact and 1.4. A couple of them I built up into novel condensers for the Microstar/Diastar. One seems happy working dry and at an N.A. over .90 with very accurate optical characteristics. It is my favourite quick use condenser on the Diastar, for when I don't want to immerse : better than the .90 achromat for instance.
For sure some more experimenting in that direction would yield a superior dry condenser that could support some higher N.A. objective choices on a Biostar.

[einman]

Thanks Phil. I believe I have some petri dishes with a 0.17mm glass bottom insert. I had planned on trying them with the Olympus IM as I have more 160 TL objectives than infinity corrected. I currently do not have any Reichert 45 mm objectives. However- I will take a look around.

[apochronaut]

Thanks Phil. I believe I have some petri dishes with a 0.17mm glass bottom insert. I had planned on trying them with the Olympus IM as I have more 160 TL objectives than infinity corrected. I currently do not have any Reichert 45 mm objectives. However- I will take a look around.

I still have a couple of those 1.4 N.A. condenser barrel blanks. They are up for grabs.They will fit in any of the infinity corrected phase condenser housings as well as the plain iris equipped condenser housing that was normally used for the .90 achromat aplanat and 1.25 abbe aspheric condenser.