Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Olympus LB versus SB objectives
When one compares Olympus Long Barrel objectives to their Short Barrel counterparts, how do the compare optically?
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
From my perspective as an amateur player, the more significant difference is FOV.
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Any documentation out there that covers both types of objectives?
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
If you go to:
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/downloads.html
Then the "Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf is a comprehensive overview of the SB optics, and the "Olympus LB Objectives" and "Olympus LB Objective Series for Biological Use" pdfs are the same for the LB ones.
I own all of the Olympus SB fluorites and planapos. I don't own any Olympus LB objectives, but I do own a lot of Nikon CF/CFN Fluor, Plan Fluor and PlanApo objectives that should be very similar to Olympus SB fluorites and PlanApos. The Olympus SBs hold up quite well in direct comparison, when used with correct eyepieces.
The Olympus SB PlanApos are actually corrected for a huge field number of 29mm according to the literature! That's even greater than modern Olympus infinity systems with 26.5mm FN. Unfortunately I don't own a SW head so I haven't ben able to test that. So I use them with 18mm BiWF eyepieces, that are indeed a bit limited in FOV. Very well corrected with those eyepieces, though.
To me, the biggest difference is a tiny bit more CA, and a bit less contrast. And there are some gaps in the lineup, no 60x 1.40 for example.
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/downloads.html
Then the "Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf is a comprehensive overview of the SB optics, and the "Olympus LB Objectives" and "Olympus LB Objective Series for Biological Use" pdfs are the same for the LB ones.
I own all of the Olympus SB fluorites and planapos. I don't own any Olympus LB objectives, but I do own a lot of Nikon CF/CFN Fluor, Plan Fluor and PlanApo objectives that should be very similar to Olympus SB fluorites and PlanApos. The Olympus SBs hold up quite well in direct comparison, when used with correct eyepieces.
The Olympus SB PlanApos are actually corrected for a huge field number of 29mm according to the literature! That's even greater than modern Olympus infinity systems with 26.5mm FN. Unfortunately I don't own a SW head so I haven't ben able to test that. So I use them with 18mm BiWF eyepieces, that are indeed a bit limited in FOV. Very well corrected with those eyepieces, though.
To me, the biggest difference is a tiny bit more CA, and a bit less contrast. And there are some gaps in the lineup, no 60x 1.40 for example.
-
- Posts: 2810
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
I remember the crazy field number. Did they ever make any accessory that could actually take advantage of it?
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
I cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.
Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.
The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.
The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
-
- Posts: 6396
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Something I did quite a few years ago, which opened my eyes a bit regarding corrections and image circles was to use a teaching head as a photo tube. Instead of setting up a photo tube photo relay lens on the teaching head I had some adapters made by Raf camera that had a 2" (50.4mm) male dovetail on one side and 52mm as well as 46mm on the other. The metric thread is designed to thread into the filter thread of a camera lens. I mounted a 200mm Nikkor Q ( cheap but really well corrcted lens) on the teaching head coupled to my APS-C camera.viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 5:10 pmIf you go to:
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/downloads.html
Then the "Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf is a comprehensive overview of the SB optics, and the "Olympus LB Objectives" and "Olympus LB Objective Series for Biological Use" pdfs are the same for the LB ones.
I own all of the Olympus SB fluorites and planapos. I don't own any Olympus LB objectives, but I do own a lot of Nikon CF/CFN Fluor, Plan Fluor and PlanApo objectives that should be very similar to Olympus SB fluorites and PlanApos. The Olympus SBs hold up quite well in direct comparison, when used with correct eyepieces.
The Olympus SB PlanApos are actually corrected for a huge field number of 29mm according to the literature! That's even greater than modern Olympus infinity systems with 26.5mm FN. Unfortunately I don't own a SW head so I haven't ben able to test that. So I use them with 18mm BiWF eyepieces, that are indeed a bit limited in FOV. Very well corrected with those eyepieces, though.
To me, the biggest difference is a tiny bit more CA, and a bit less contrast. And there are some gaps in the lineup, no 60x 1.40 for example.
The results were really interesting. The images covered at least a 28mm field. I never really measured it accurately but the field capture was thereabouts, maybe even more. Peripheral ca crept in towards the periphery to not a huge degree but it was easy to see that corrective eyepieces could be used to rectify that. The objective was an AO/Reichert 40X .70 planfluor, which is listed in it's patents as a 24mm f.o.v. , so that is likely the fully corrected image circle of the design. Virtually all AO objectives going way back are 24mm. That seems to have been the defacto engineering target and is likely the reason that Univars and Polyvars are 24mm.
It shows how such large potential fields are possible, especially if the design incorporates peripheral corrections outside the objective, which I believe wss an Olympus practice.
That idea was given to me by Curt Sleve.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Click on the BH section, it's the second to last item.Scoper wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 11:55 pmI cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.
Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.
The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
Your statement about the lack of Olympus info is baffling. Thanks to Alan Wood and Carl Hunsinger there's an enormous about of easily accessible info online.
I very much doubt that mixing LB and SB phase components would work. And that's not something that you'll read in any literature. They were completely different optical systems, and not intended to be mixed in any way. The stands are much more compatible though, with some parts (like the photomicro adapter L) being compatible all the way from BH to BX.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Yep, the BiSW 7x eyepieces have a FN of 29mm! The 10x are 26.5mm.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 11:53 pmI remember the crazy field number. Did they ever make any accessory that could actually take advantage of it?
-
- Posts: 2810
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Cool! Too bad it's a 7x so your apparent fov is more like 21, but hey that's still remarkable. Something to keep sn eye out for.
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Just for fun, I fitted my short barrel Olympus objectives (achromat, planapo) on the Zeiss stage. With Olympus WF10X eyepieces. Raised the slide on a small metal riser, to compensate for the 45mm vs 37mm parfocality distance. The condenser cannot reach the slide in such arrangement, so it was raised as much as possible.
Some quick brightfield looks at diatoms show a beautiful planar image (the Zeiss FN is 18mm).
But the biggest disadvantage of the SB Olympus objectives, IMHO, is the too short working distance . This feature has been mentioned on the Olympus brochure.
Indeed, the front lens of even the 10X0.32 planapo SB objective is very close to the coverslip. That of the 20X0.65 planapo is dangerously close.
These are dry objectives ! although both are spring-loaded, I find that a limitation, much more than the other disadvantages (relative to the LB objectives) claimed by Olympus.
By contrast, SPlans are a joy to use, in combination with the proper eyepieces.
Some quick brightfield looks at diatoms show a beautiful planar image (the Zeiss FN is 18mm).
But the biggest disadvantage of the SB Olympus objectives, IMHO, is the too short working distance . This feature has been mentioned on the Olympus brochure.
Indeed, the front lens of even the 10X0.32 planapo SB objective is very close to the coverslip. That of the 20X0.65 planapo is dangerously close.
These are dry objectives ! although both are spring-loaded, I find that a limitation, much more than the other disadvantages (relative to the LB objectives) claimed by Olympus.
By contrast, SPlans are a joy to use, in combination with the proper eyepieces.
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Thanks for the clarification.viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 4:25 amClick on the BH section, it's the second to last item.Scoper wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 11:55 pmI cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.
Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.
The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
Your statement about the lack of Olympus info is baffling. Thanks to Alan Wood and Carl Hunsinger there's an enormous about of easily accessible info online.
I very much doubt that mixing LB and SB phase components would work. And that's not something that you'll read in any literature. They were completely different optical systems, and not intended to be mixed in any way. The stands are much more compatible though, with some parts (like the photomicro adapter L) being compatible all the way from BH to BX.
I would agree that the Wood/Hunsinger documentation trove is impressive and a welcomed change to the usual next to nothing on other brands. The problem I am facing is that there is almost nothing about the SB/LB interchangeability..or lack of..especially as to how it pertains to phase.
When a company introduces a new product line, there is always questions from the user community concerning compatibility with existing equipment…the users want full compatibility to leverage current investments while the company wants partial to nil so to introduce new tech and sell products..and the design team in the middle is tasked to implement it.
Mechanically it would seem the BH and BH2 lines are somewhat compatible while optically they are less so.
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
IMHO, this is not the case for Olympus and other big microscope makers. Their chief purpose is to sell microscopes to professionals: Research institutes, Clinics, applied science firms etc, they are the user communities, rather than the individual hobbyist. In contrast to the individual amateur, who would like to protect his initial investment as you say, professionals value innovative and cutting edge features of the hardware much more than backwards compatibility. Thus, they will the whole system, microscope and all its accessories, if necessary, and the intention to do so is part of their planned annual budget.Scoper wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:26 pmWhen a company introduces a new product line, there is always questions from the user community concerning compatibility with existing equipment…the users want full compatibility to leverage current investments while the company wants partial to nil so to introduce new tech and sell products..and the design team in the middle is tasked to implement it.
-
- Posts: 2810
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
As hobbyist said this is not something you would expect to find in their documentation. Either way I think you've already had actual users tell you they are not compatible, which is going to be the best source of info. They might not mention them being compatible even if they were but hands on knowledge is the gold standard.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
This is a very good point.Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:20 am
But the biggest disadvantage of the SB Olympus objectives, IMHO, is the too short working distance . This feature has been mentioned on the Olympus brochure.
Indeed, the front lens of even the 10X0.32 planapo SB objective is very close to the coverslip. That of the 20X0.65 planapo is dangerously close.
These are dry objectives ! although both are spring-loaded, I find that a limitation, much more than the other disadvantages (relative to the LB objectives) claimed by Olympus.
By contrast, SPlans are a joy to use, in combination with the proper eyepieces.
This is the working distance of Olympus SB, LB and Nikon Planapos:
Line: SB LB Nikon CFN
10x 0.16 2.03 2.75
20x 0.14 0.55 0.64
40x 0.10 0.13 0.08-0.18
So definately a big difference there. The tight WD of the 20x has costed me a Klaus Kemp test slide...
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
I agree that this topic is not one the company would want to highlight..limiting upward compatibility of an existing product line..but discussing this with several individuals who were actively using Olympus products during the SB to LB transition assured me it was a hot topic with the user base versus suppliers.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:53 amAs hobbyist said this is not something you would expect to find in their documentation. Either way I think you've already had actual users tell you they are not compatible, which is going to be the best source of info. They might not mention them being compatible even if they were but hands on knowledge is the gold standard.
One retired professor pointed out that you only have to look at the BH (plain/sparse) versus BH2 (colorful/detail rich) sales documentation of the time to see that Olympus was upping their game to aggressively gain market share at this time.
In summary, thanks to everyone for the SB/LB phase lack of compatibility info, it has saved us considerable time and money knowing about this.
-
- Posts: 2810
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives
Yup, Olympus was in the process of transitioning from a minor concern to a major player (much as Japan in general transitioned from an outsourcing center to an industrial powerhouse). It wasn't much earlier that bausch and lomb was rebadging olympus scopes, and soon the bh2 would be an all-time bestseller.