A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
I finally got around to getting the 40x 1309 that's been waiting for me fo a few months and decided to compare it with some of the other objectives which I have that are similar in magnification. The three objectives are Cat 1023 40x plan achromat, the Cat 1116 achromat, and the Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat. I chose 3 different subjects to help highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of the objectives. I tried hard to get my stage fully flat and square, but there is a slight misalignment of about 0.25 micron across the field I couldn't quite manage to eliminate, which will be noticed by the change of focus left to right on all the subjects.
The Cat 1023 40x plan achromat with a working distance of about 0.5mm. It is a pretty common objective and performs well.
The Cat 1116 45x achromat with a working distance of 0.7mm making it an excellent choice where depth into the subject is needed. This objective is very common due to it's preferred use for haemocytometer due to the long WD.
The Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat with a working distance of 0.2mm, which is rather limited. It was designed to have better correction and contrast than the 1023.
All three objectives have an NA of 0.66, which makes comparing them handy.
The first subject is an inexpensive calibration slide. It should highlight the planarity of field and tends to make chromatic aberation more noticeable.
Cat 1023 40x plan achromat.
Cat 1116 45x achromat
Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat
The Cat 1023 40x plan achromat with a working distance of about 0.5mm. It is a pretty common objective and performs well.
The Cat 1116 45x achromat with a working distance of 0.7mm making it an excellent choice where depth into the subject is needed. This objective is very common due to it's preferred use for haemocytometer due to the long WD.
The Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat with a working distance of 0.2mm, which is rather limited. It was designed to have better correction and contrast than the 1023.
All three objectives have an NA of 0.66, which makes comparing them handy.
The first subject is an inexpensive calibration slide. It should highlight the planarity of field and tends to make chromatic aberation more noticeable.
Cat 1023 40x plan achromat.
Cat 1116 45x achromat
Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat
Last edited by dtsh on Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
The second subject I wanted to try is a botanical section of buttercup.
Cat 1023 40x plan achromat
Cat 1116 45x achromat
Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat
Cat 1023 40x plan achromat
Cat 1116 45x achromat
Cat 1309 40x advanced plan achromat
Last edited by dtsh on Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
Curious as to whether you used a cover slip on the calibration slide
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
I should have mentioned that, but yes, a clean, dry coverslip was in place.
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
It seems to me that the 1309 performs a bit better than the 1023, but at least in ths example, the difference is noticeable, but not amazing. The 1116, while not being plan, still performs well and it's significantly increased working distance over both of the other two definitely makes it still useful. Some attempts at stacking show that the 1116 needs finer spacing between the images than the plan objectives to get acceptable results.
-
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:44 am
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
Good comparison. I agree with you in that I like the 1309 image.
I see a yellow spot in the northwest quadrant of every image which indicates the possibility of a centering issue unrelated to the objectives, as it is the same in all images.
In so far as your comparison is concerned I had to look really hard to see the differences in the images.
Its a good work. Greg
I see a yellow spot in the northwest quadrant of every image which indicates the possibility of a centering issue unrelated to the objectives, as it is the same in all images.
In so far as your comparison is concerned I had to look really hard to see the differences in the images.
Its a good work. Greg
-
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
What did you use as a photo optic?
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
It's probably a little misalignment or some crud; limiting dust and such in my work area is extremely difficult and the phototube I'm using is not the best fit. I plan on either acquiring a better one or machining a replacement at some point.Greg Howald wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:51 pmGood comparison. I agree with you in that I like the 1309 image.
I see a yellow spot in the northwest quadrant of every image which indicates the possibility of a centering issue unrelated to the objectives, as it is the same in all images.
In so far as your comparison is concerned I had to look really hard to see the differences in the images.
Its a good work. Greg
I should spend some time seeing if I can isolate and remove it.
I have a 180 eyepiece at the top of the phototube with my usual raspberry pi hq camera and lens above that.
-
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: A quick comparison of 3 AO objectives (1023, 1116, 1309)
O.K. , so I've done quite a few of these types of comparisons over the years and minding the p's and q's assists those viewing to understand what they are seeing.
I was wondering about the curvature of field but since your photo optic is a 180, that explains it mostly.. The #1023 objective originated when full planarity over a 20mm field was an economic struggle to achieve , so it was really only designed to be marginally plan to 19mm, and colour correction is a stretch at that. There are some slight correction alterations over the years, so to do the #1023 justice, using a 176 eyepiece might be better for it and the 1116. The shift in the stage level doesn't help. Looks like the illumination has some hot spots but that should affect each objective equally.
I was wondering about the curvature of field but since your photo optic is a 180, that explains it mostly.. The #1023 objective originated when full planarity over a 20mm field was an economic struggle to achieve , so it was really only designed to be marginally plan to 19mm, and colour correction is a stretch at that. There are some slight correction alterations over the years, so to do the #1023 justice, using a 176 eyepiece might be better for it and the 1116. The shift in the stage level doesn't help. Looks like the illumination has some hot spots but that should affect each objective equally.