Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
AntoniScott
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:54 pm

Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#1 Post by AntoniScott » Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:35 am

The reputation of microscope companies is usually based on the optical quality of their objectives (most important) and eyepieces (less important). Searching Ebay,or other sites,shows an overwhelming number of objectives available from unknown manufactureres. I've seen a set of four objectives (4x,10x,40x and 100xoil) from a fancy sounding company selling for $24 USD !!! and other name-brand (i.e. Olympus,Nikon, Leitz, etc) selling for ten times as much. In fact, there are numerous manufactureres (OMAX, AMSCOPE, etc) selling complete four objective binocular microscope for less than the cost of a single objective. Clearly, there are compromises in the less expensive microscopes. Why would someone spend $8000 for an Olympus when they can spend $170 for a microscope with the same specifications ? Yet with this obvious difference in price, there is no standardization or ability for a buyer to compare optical quaity.
The field is wide open for manufactureres to sell their inexpensive microscopes because the buyer has no idea what they are getting as far as optical quality is concerned, which in my opinion is the most important parameter to distinguish one microscope from another.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#2 Post by Scarodactyl » Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:56 pm

Objectives have specs beyond their magnification and numerical aperture. When you start getting into better color correction, wider field number or even just better planarity prices go up even on generic objectives.
On the low end many of these cheap third party ones are surprisingly good, especially at low magnifications, similar or better than some name brand ones. Others much less so.
In other cases expensive high end objectives might not match all their specs (like field coverage in this case). So even within specs there is some degree of ambiguity.

DonSchaeffer
Posts: 3275
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:06 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#3 Post by DonSchaeffer » Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:46 pm

To be honest, nearly all of us can get much better images with the equipment we now own than we do. I would keep using your current equipment and build on lighting and technique rather than spending big bucks and fancier optics.

Placozoa
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:41 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#4 Post by Placozoa » Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:10 am

I have some cheap objectives and the quality of the images are perfectly fine. I want a 20x objective with large working distance but a $24 lens just wont do it, I am going to have to look for a used big brand lens for that I think. It's tough to compare lenses fairly, but when someone that knows what they are doing does it then the results are surprising. Sure there are differences, but are they really worth $1,000? $8,000?
I personally think most of what the big brands offer is a system that is easy to upgrade, works well together, and idiot proof servicing. What they dont offer is vastly improved image quality or a reasonable price.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#5 Post by apochronaut » Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:23 pm

AntoniScott wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:35 am
The reputation of microscope companies is usually based on the optical quality of their objectives (most important) and eyepieces (less important). Searching Ebay,or other sites,shows an overwhelming number of objectives available from unknown manufactureres. I've seen a set of four objectives (4x,10x,40x and 100xoil) from a fancy sounding company selling for $24 USD !!! and other name-brand (i.e. Olympus,Nikon, Leitz, etc) selling for ten times as much. In fact, there are numerous manufactureres (OMAX, AMSCOPE, etc) selling complete four objective binocular microscope for less than the cost of a single objective. Clearly, there are compromises in the less expensive microscopes. Why would someone spend $8000 for an Olympus when they can spend $170 for a microscope with the same specifications ? Yet with this obvious difference in price, there is no standardization or ability for a buyer to compare optical quaity.
The field is wide open for manufactureres to sell their inexpensive microscopes because the buyer has no idea what they are getting as far as optical quality is concerned, which in my opinion is the most important parameter to distinguish one microscope from another.
The first sentence of your post is pretty vague and doesn't really represent reality. It sounds more like you are describing a telescope. It should read : the reputation of microscope companies is usually based on the ability of their instruments to achieve certain or desired performance specifications.
Scarodactyl pointed out that there are numerous specs. associated with the performance of objectives other than the magnification and numerical aperture. Microscope companies build SYSTEMS that are based on or may be dependent on a guarantee of those more ellusive specifications being accurate and in many cases other microscope optics that are not complete, i.e. have the basic magnification and N.A. required that match certain system requirements but lack other key specifications required for acceptable system performance, are just not good enough.

Comparing apples to apples; for instance a student grade 4 objective binocular lab microscope with a basic köhler illumination system, similar to what many less experienced members of the forum use, so one of those stencil models new and out of the box from India or China to a similar new instrument out of the box from one of the 5 notable companies with recognizable brand names ; you might not find that much difference in performance if you made an accurate comparison between models and compared them in the role of straightforward BF microscopy . The stencil brand could be as little as 1 /2 the cost of the name brand scope. Outside of their roles as BF scopes there could be a whole other story due to more elaborate accessorization by the major brands but in general in todays market, the basic scopes representing the major brands can be found as unbranded versions or versions so close as to be indistinguishable from one another, so you could easily end up comparing very similar microscopes ; one with a badge of dishonour and one with a badge of honour. The optics would be coming out of the same factory but those being supplied to the major companies would have received a higher level of q.c. for parfocality and parcentering for sure. It is not that the unbranded version would necessarily be out of spec. but be more likely to be, with less of an option for a warranty claim. So there is that factor at the more basic levels of performance ,
that name brands might not neccesarily translate to better but could.

When it comes to comparing a similar 4 objective student grade scope but an older used microscope in perfect operating condition, made in the brand's country of origin, to a new stencil scope of equivalent performance specifications, it is much more likely that the used microscope will be of superior strength of construction, superior precision of construction, superior precision of the optical train, superior optical performance and have a wider range of potential accessories than the stencil scope. It would most likely be cheaper to buy as well with no warranty options to full warranty options depending on it's source. If built after about 1980, maybe a little earlier, the optical quality could be expected to be superior to the stencil scope and likely more easily upgradeable at less cost. If built just prior to that stated era but after 1960, the stencil scope might have an edge in optical performance, more likely if infinity corrected and unlikely if of a fixed tube. Where there was an equivalence of upgradeable assessories, such as a full phase contrast system, the stencil scope's would be more readily available and possibly cheaper.

When it comes to more highly colour corrected optics that is a whole other thing. I'm used to not paying more than 175-200 for planfluor or planapo optics, sometimes considerably less, so at those prices there is no contest between what I have purchased and planf or planapo optics ftom the orient, which are typically much more expensive than that . If however, one is contemplating buying a major brand objective for over 300.00, it might be worthwhile checking into those that are compatible with your system out of the orient.

Generally, the cheaper a new optic is, the less likely it is that it or the system it has been built for will be precise enough to provide fine imaging.

AntoniScott
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:54 pm

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#6 Post by AntoniScott » Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:25 pm

To Apochronaut:
Well I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. After a long explanation (all correct) you finally state that "Generally, the cheaper a new optic is, the less likely it is that it or the system it has been built for will be precise enough to provide fine imaging." This was my point, exactly.

I don't consider myself as an expert and I don't have the measuring tools to objectively measure lens performance, but I do know a good image when I see one. I suppose I'm disillusioned with exaggertaed claims of lens manufactures. For sure, there are too many parameters that all sound good on paper but in reality fall flat. We all know that if you buy an objective lens from Leitz or Zeiss, it will be of exceptional optical quality. We all know that if we buy a lens from China, we have no idea how good the lens might be. This of course, makes sense. $1000 vs $4. Wan't to guess which one would give better optical quality ?
When I was looking for a second 60x objective for a back up microscope I was able to test some "unknown" len's on my microscope so that the lighting, condenser and light color was the same for all three lens tests. One was made in India and the other in China. Putting all three (Olympus, X from India and Y from China) I was able to instantly compare image quality by flipping back and forth and determine which was better optically. Although the X lens from India was "unbranded" it yielded an outstanding image better than Y from China.
Bottom line, we're all having fun. Regrettably, I'm an addict when it comes to microcopes. I'm hooked on the precision of these outstanding instruments and am in awe of the early manufactureres who were able to achieve amazing image quality without all the computer technology that is used today.

Seta
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:24 pm
Location: Castellón, Spain

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#7 Post by Seta » Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:48 pm

Good glass is expenssive, but second hand market is full of great opportunities. Objectives that were worth over a 1000$ can be had for 100$ or so. For viewing a good Plan Achromat is perfectly fine but when you do focus stacking you realize how important is to have a good lens to start with, an APO lens makes things way easier, specially with high contrast subjects.
I have the Amscope 17$ 4x and the nikon CFN 4/0.13; I much prefer the nikon but again I prefer the mitutoyo 5/0.14 over it. On the other hand I also have a JML 21/3.5 that I bought for 10$ and is superior to a Photar 25/2 which costs a few hundreds

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#8 Post by farnsy » Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:51 am

AntoniScott wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:25 pm
When I was looking for a second 60x objective for a back up microscope I was able to test some "unknown" len's on my microscope so that the lighting, condenser and light color was the same for all three lens tests. One was made in India and the other in China. Putting all three (Olympus, X from India and Y from China) I was able to instantly compare image quality by flipping back and forth and determine which was better optically. Although the X lens from India was "unbranded" it yielded an outstanding image better than Y from China.
This is not the first I'm I've seen someone talk about the quality generic optics out of India. What I would like to know is where these are found. From what I can tell, all stencil scopes I've seen are manufactured in China and the collections of objectives I see on ebay are also from there. The low end is flooded with them. On top of that, there's a plausible path for higher-end microscopes from China as the big four and other higher-end companies will often outsource production to China, and those factories can then use that tooling, skill, and knowledge to make high-quality clones. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any top brand outsourcing to India, so these Indian objectives are presumably developed in-house. Where does one source Indian optics and how does one distinguish between higher and lower quality optics from there?

The microscope market is low volume and there's not a ton of transparency. In that environment, (professional) consumers pay a tremendous premium for known quality from the top brands. Causal consumers mostly buy stencil 160mm objectives from China without knowing how far they are from top-shelf quality. Folks with sufficient knowledge can get top quality optics, without the brand, support, or warranty, from the factories where they are made. Obtaining that knowledge and confidence is not something universities, laboratories, and other researchers are in a good position to do, but hobbyists can be. I would like to be one of the latter, which is why I ask.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#9 Post by apochronaut » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:08 pm

Most of the cheaper DF oil condenser and 100X with iris sets for 160mm systems are Indian. They show up as add on kits from the jobbers, like Amscope.
The Indian manufacturers and Chinese manufacturers seem to work together some , moving parts back and forth as needed. In the past Omax sold a lot of Indian scopes. You see Indian objective sets on Chinese microscopes sometimes. There is nothing to stop manufacturers in either country contracting work out in the other, when it is more efficient to do so. One factory makes 30,000 units of 10X objectives and another factory 30,000 units of 40X objectives.


Radical Scientific has an extensive catalogue that mimics Chinese stuff a lot. I'm sure quite a bit of it is and visa versa. Website.


https://www.radicalindia.com/index.php

You may recognize a few features on the model below. Note the Made in India claim??
https://www.radicalindia.com/RXLr-5-MNX.php

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#10 Post by apochronaut » Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:27 pm

I did a little research and it appears that Radical is using Seiwa/Correct optics. That is why their array of optics is so extensive compared to essentially the Chinese version of the same microscope.

Seta
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:24 pm
Location: Castellón, Spain

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#11 Post by Seta » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:05 pm

I wonder how good their DIC/Plas DIC Kit is, could not find any references

DIC/ Plas DIC Kit RXR5RXDICKIT DIC kit including condensor/Objectives

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#12 Post by apochronaut » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:35 pm

Hard to say but somewhere they mention that the phase system is a Japanese Seiwa system. Probably the DIC is too because that is who makes their optics.
There is no reason to believe that there would be anything wrong with it. The same microscope platform from a Chinese source sells the DIC for around 6 k with planfluor objectives, which I believe they make. It would be very surprising if it isn't the same platform used for the E 200, for which I don't think Nikon will sell you DIC?

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#13 Post by farnsy » Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:34 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:08 pm
You may recognize a few features on the model below. Note the Made in India claim??
https://www.radicalindia.com/RXLr-5-MNX.php
Wow, that is surprising to see. In another place, apochronaut and I were discussing this same scope, Chinese, sold by AccuScope (EXC-500) among other sources. Made in China, apparently by Novel Optics in NanJing, China. The latter uses optics compatible with Nikon's systems, apparently made on the same factory lines in some cases. m25 threads, 60mm parfocal, 200mm focal length. When I first saw this "Indian" version, I figured it was a Chinese import, potentially with Indian made optics. But apparently it's using Japanese objectives. The website says they are 45mm parfocal, so they are definitely not the same--but which would be better? Was the rest of the microscope made in India and sold to the Chinese for a few last touches or vice versa, or are they both building a microscope that looks identical?

I guess this is really highlighting the lack of transparency among these generic scopes. One can't tell if two microscopes that are apparently identical are, in fact, the same or if that's just the aesthetic similarity and the two will have potentially large differences in quality.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#14 Post by Scarodactyl » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:56 pm

At least at one point, and maybe still, Meiji was listing the Chinese microscopes they were selling as "Made in Holland", presumably because they had partnered with Euromex to get them. I am quite certain no notable aprt of those scopes was made anywhere in Europe. From what I can tell they do seem to have removed this claim semi recently. (Edit: they removed it on some but it's live on others. Kind of disgraceful behavior for an otherwise reputable brand!)

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#15 Post by apochronaut » Sun May 02, 2021 2:34 pm

farnsy wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:34 pm
apochronaut wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:08 pm
You may recognize a few features on the model below. Note the Made in India claim??
https://www.radicalindia.com/RXLr-5-MNX.php
Wow, that is surprising to see. In another place, apochronaut and I were discussing this same scope, Chinese, sold by AccuScope (EXC-500) among other sources. Made in China, apparently by Novel Optics in NanJing, China. The latter uses optics compatible with Nikon's systems, apparently made on the same factory lines in some cases. m25 threads, 60mm parfocal, 200mm focal length. When I first saw this "Indian" version, I figured it was a Chinese import, potentially with Indian made optics. But apparently it's using Japanese objectives. The website says they are 45mm parfocal, so they are definitely not the same--but which would be better? Was the rest of the microscope made in India and sold to the Chinese for a few last touches or vice versa, or are they both building a microscope that looks identical?

I guess this is really highlighting the lack of transparency among these generic scopes. One can't tell if two microscopes that are apparently identical are, in fact, the same or if that's just the aesthetic similarity and the two will have potentially large differences in quality.
It says 60mm parfocal and there is a staggering array of objectives listed through Radical but they may not all be available. How do you know that Novel is the mfg.?

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#16 Post by farnsy » Sun May 02, 2021 7:26 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 2:34 pm
It says 60mm parfocal and there is a staggering array of objectives listed through Radical but they may not all be available.
So it does, but I am sure there was a different place where it said 45--I don't think I imagined that, but now I am not so sure. Well, I'm sure 60 is right, since that is what it is on the Chinese side. Makes more sense.

This makes me want to reach out to Seiwa and see what their lineup of Nikon-compatible objectives looks like and costs if you buy from them directly. Hopefully you don't have to buy 50 at a time or something.
apochronaut wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 2:34 pm
How do you know that Novel is the mfg.?
I am not actually certain of that. It has been said in a number of places that the EXC-500 (at least, significant parts of it) are made in the same factory that Nikon uses to build its Chinese-made scopes. This makes sense since the Nikon E100, E200, and TS100 were manufactured in Novel Optic's Jiangnan plant in NanJing. Apparently Novel makes parts for Nikon and Leica scopes. My supposition is that Novel continues to make at least some of the parts we are seeing, since this microscope is closely related to the E200. But of course, these clones could well be copies made in a different factory.

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#17 Post by farnsy » Wed May 05, 2021 7:28 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:56 pm
At least at one point, and maybe still, Meiji was listing the Chinese microscopes they were selling as "Made in Holland", presumably because they had partnered with Euromex to get them. I am quite certain no notable aprt of those scopes was made anywhere in Europe. From what I can tell they do seem to have removed this claim semi recently. (Edit: they removed it on some but it's live on others. Kind of disgraceful behavior for an otherwise reputable brand!)
Interestingly, this same microscopes (AccuScope EXC-500, BestScope 2081, Radical RXLr-5NX) is also sold by Euromex as the Delphi X Observer. I'm seeing a lot of places where it is implied to be made in Holland as well. Note that Euromex is the same company as AmScope and Omax. No Apo objectives, though.

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#18 Post by apochronaut » Wed May 05, 2021 8:25 pm

It has to do with the degree of lying a given government or overseeing international agency allows. Apparently we produce coffee and cocoa beans in Canada. I've looked amongst the apples and blueberries but the coffee bushes must really be shade grown because I have yet to find any.. You know what. They don't seem to show up in too many nursery offerings either. Fancy that.
Many governments will allow the nationalistic rah rah made at home badge if a certain amount of the labour to process or assemble something is local. Hence, if you roast some Guatemalan beans ; voila, product of Canada. If you screw in some objectives, stick the badge on and maybe even pop in a transformer or two; voila, made in Italy as Optika claims or Holland as Euromex claims. The fact that governments willfully allow their domestic businesses to pull the wool over their citizens eyes is a fearfull response to the absolute domination of China in world trade. Personally, I would rather just buy direct from China than subject someone to a job glueing on Made in Holland stickers. They should be hoeing tulips for goodness sakes.

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#19 Post by farnsy » Wed May 05, 2021 8:41 pm

I guess I don't care what country sellers say their microscope comes from, but I do want access to it, and for the best price available.

AmScope doesn't sell this microscope, from what I can tell, but EuroMex sells it and will apparently even sell it with DIC. The price in some European retailers I've seen looks pretty good. AccuScope sells it but they aren't being forthcoming about the price--they won't get back to my product inquiry. I contacted a retailer that sells AccuScope and they basically just told me "you can't afford it," which I thought was quite presumptuous. I contacted Radical to inquire about it, but they just sent me a link to their website, which doesn't answer the questions I asked. They didn't follow up when I responded again with more pointed questions.

I guess I just wish generic products were sold as generic products and competed with each other in terms of prices and features, with transparency about what they are, rather than playing this little obfuscation game.

Dubious
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 7:55 pm

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#20 Post by Dubious » Wed May 19, 2021 6:22 pm

It has become a strange business, for sure. I have two Amscope microscopes that I bought on Amazon from what seems to be the Amscope dealer there. One has the Amscope name on it, the other has no name anywhere at all, even though it is exactly the same scope shown in the Amazon photo with "Amscope" logo on it. Both work. I bought an "Amscope" ring light on Ebay significantly cheaper than the one advertised on Amazon. It appears to be a knockoff not from Amscope--bad grammar and misspelling of words on the stenciling, etc., but it works fine, so I guess I'll keep it.

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#21 Post by farnsy » Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:48 pm

microscopesindia wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:35 am
AmScope doesn't sell this microscope, from what I can tell, but EuroMex sells it and will apparently even sell it with DIC. It has become a strange business, for sure.
AmScope and EuroMex are the same company. I don't know why they treat their European (and apparently Indian) customers better.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Optical Quality of inexpensive objectives

#22 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:29 pm

It's weird to have a bot actually named after the company it's shilling. Kind of unsubtle when it's just copying text from other posts.

Post Reply