Which objectives for photography?

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Message
Author
LouiseScot
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#31 Post by LouiseScot » Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:50 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pm
karhukainen wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 am
How do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
That is a CF PlanApo, and thus also expect neutral eyepieces. Nikon updated the optical formula of many CF objectives over time, and the updated versions (CFN = CF new) had the familiar style with three knurled rings.

The older CF planapos should be excellent, but are supposed to have a little less contrast than the corresponding CFNs. Some have slightly smaller NAs.
I'm sure you're right, Viktor, :) but it doesn't quite match the one in my CF brochure which is a 10x / 0.45 but I'm not at all knowledgeable regarding CF objective history so I assumed it wasn't CF.
CF_ApoBrochure.JPG
CF_ApoBrochure.JPG (90.7 KiB) Viewed 6088 times



Cheers

Louise
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo

BramHuntingNematodes
Posts: 1538
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#32 Post by BramHuntingNematodes » Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:28 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:38 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pm
apochronaut wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:16 pm
Why would there be apochromats if a company made chrome free achromats?
It's 'chrome free' within the limits of the objective type. There are CF apos and fluors as well! It just means that no additional colour correction is needed to get the best out of the objective. I'm sure you know that!

Louise
I have always been curious what the actual value of that system is to a microscopist?
Maybe reducing the intermediate optics needed for photography, which is what this thread is all about anyway.

I did pick up an interesting device B&L made for the monozoom, the 42-12-63, which makes an eyepiece reduction lens out of any eyepiece you might want put into it. I wonder that there aren't more little gadgets like this.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#33 Post by apochronaut » Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:49 pm

I can see that would be beneficial for macrophotographers. Why would Nikon make photo relay lenses?

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#34 Post by apochronaut » Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:53 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:43 pm
I think we've chewed over that several times, there's no need to derail this thread over it.
I believe that took place in post #16.

BramHuntingNematodes
Posts: 1538
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#35 Post by BramHuntingNematodes » Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:11 pm

I don't even think it's ideal for the monozoom, it seems better for the amateur using a few different optics systems with an undersized camera sensor

So if Nikon wanted to standardize optics they could have adjusted the HK to be exactly the same degree of compensation as Zeiss, or Olympus for that matter. They didn't do that so I assume they were trying to differentiate their product. Intermediate levels of.comoensation may have been close enough to invite more crossover so why not do a dramatically lower degree? While you're at it, send that up to the ad wizards make an additional complication for consumers seem like a benefit.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#36 Post by Scarodactyl » Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:44 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:49 pm
I can see that would be beneficial for macrophotographers. Why would Nikon make photo relay lenses?
Frankly Apo, you (a real deal expert on microscopes) pretending not to understand this basic concept over and over again does not make for scintillating conversation, and it's more likely than not to confuse people looking for information. I'm still not sure if it's just because you don't like Nikon's (admittedly sketchy) terminology or what, but it's kind of tiresome.

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#37 Post by viktor j nilsson » Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:56 pm

LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:50 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pm
karhukainen wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 am
How do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
That is a CF PlanApo, and thus also expect neutral eyepieces. Nikon updated the optical formula of many CF objectives over time, and the updated versions (CFN = CF new) had the familiar style with three knurled rings.

The older CF planapos should be excellent, but are supposed to have a little less contrast than the corresponding CFNs. Some have slightly smaller NAs.
I'm sure you're right, Viktor, :) but it doesn't quite match the one in my CF brochure which is a 10x / 0.45 but I'm not at all knowledgeable regarding CF objective history so I assumed it wasn't CF.

CF_ApoBrochure.JPG


Cheers

Louise
That's the updated CFN PlanApo 10x in the catalogue. The CF 10x PlanApo is shown in the eBay link.

Plain-barrel CF and knurled-barrel CFN objectives were produced side-by-side right until the end of the CF era when Nikon abandoned finite optics and went all-in on infinity. That catalogue shows a snapshot in time. Many objectives had been updated from CF to CFN, some were updated later, and some never got updated. The 2x PlanApo in the photo is a plain-barrel CF design. The 40x 1.00 PlanApo never got updated, it's only available in CF style.

Both CF and CFN style objectives belong to the same CF (Chroma Free) system. I guess that's what's confusing, that the term CF is used to describe both the original style objectives, and the system as a whole (CF+CFN styles).

If you check the data table in the catalogue you'll see that objectives are described as either CF or CFN.

LouiseScot
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#38 Post by LouiseScot » Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:56 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:50 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pm


That is a CF PlanApo, and thus also expect neutral eyepieces. Nikon updated the optical formula of many CF objectives over time, and the updated versions (CFN = CF new) had the familiar style with three knurled rings.

The older CF planapos should be excellent, but are supposed to have a little less contrast than the corresponding CFNs. Some have slightly smaller NAs.
I'm sure you're right, Viktor, :) but it doesn't quite match the one in my CF brochure which is a 10x / 0.45 but I'm not at all knowledgeable regarding CF objective history so I assumed it wasn't CF.

CF_ApoBrochure.JPG


Cheers

Louise
That's the updated CFN PlanApo 10x in the catalogue. The CF 10x PlanApo is shown in the eBay link.

Plain-barrel CF and knurled-barrel CFN objectives were produced side-by-side right until the end of the CF era when Nikon abandoned finite optics and went all-in on infinity. That catalogue shows a snapshot in time. Many objectives had been updated from CF to CFN, some were updated later, and some never got updated. The 2x PlanApo in the photo is a plain-barrel CF design. The 40x 1.00 PlanApo never got updated, it's only available in CF style.

Both CF and CFN style objectives belong to the same CF (Chroma Free) system. I guess that's what's confusing, that the term CF is used to describe both the original style objectives, and the system as a whole (CF+CFN styles).

If you check the data table in the catalogue you'll see that objectives are described as either CF or CFN.
Ahh ok - thanks for the detailed explanation! I've learnt something there. Presumably, though, the CF 10x/0.40 apo is older than the CFN 10x/0.45?

Louise
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#39 Post by viktor j nilsson » Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:17 pm

LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:56 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:50 pm


I'm sure you're right, Viktor, :) but it doesn't quite match the one in my CF brochure which is a 10x / 0.45 but I'm not at all knowledgeable regarding CF objective history so I assumed it wasn't CF.

CF_ApoBrochure.JPG


Cheers

Louise
That's the updated CFN PlanApo 10x in the catalogue. The CF 10x PlanApo is shown in the eBay link.

Plain-barrel CF and knurled-barrel CFN objectives were produced side-by-side right until the end of the CF era when Nikon abandoned finite optics and went all-in on infinity. That catalogue shows a snapshot in time. Many objectives had been updated from CF to CFN, some were updated later, and some never got updated. The 2x PlanApo in the photo is a plain-barrel CF design. The 40x 1.00 PlanApo never got updated, it's only available in CF style.

Both CF and CFN style objectives belong to the same CF (Chroma Free) system. I guess that's what's confusing, that the term CF is used to describe both the original style objectives, and the system as a whole (CF+CFN styles).

If you check the data table in the catalogue you'll see that objectives are described as either CF or CFN.
Ahh ok - thanks for the detailed explanation! I've learnt something there. Presumably, though, the CF 10x/0.40 apo is older than the CFN 10x/0.45?

Louise
Correct, the N means New :D

LouiseScot
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#40 Post by LouiseScot » Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:22 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:17 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:56 pm


That's the updated CFN PlanApo 10x in the catalogue. The CF 10x PlanApo is shown in the eBay link.

Plain-barrel CF and knurled-barrel CFN objectives were produced side-by-side right until the end of the CF era when Nikon abandoned finite optics and went all-in on infinity. That catalogue shows a snapshot in time. Many objectives had been updated from CF to CFN, some were updated later, and some never got updated. The 2x PlanApo in the photo is a plain-barrel CF design. The 40x 1.00 PlanApo never got updated, it's only available in CF style.

Both CF and CFN style objectives belong to the same CF (Chroma Free) system. I guess that's what's confusing, that the term CF is used to describe both the original style objectives, and the system as a whole (CF+CFN styles).

If you check the data table in the catalogue you'll see that objectives are described as either CF or CFN.
Ahh ok - thanks for the detailed explanation! I've learnt something there. Presumably, though, the CF 10x/0.40 apo is older than the CFN 10x/0.45?

Louise
Correct, the N means New :D
:D
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#41 Post by apochronaut » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:39 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:44 pm
apochronaut wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:49 pm
I can see that would be beneficial for macrophotographers. Why would Nikon make photo relay lenses?
Frankly Apo, you (a real deal expert on microscopes) pretending not to understand this basic concept over and over again does not make for scintillating conversation, and it's more likely than not to confuse people looking for information. I'm still not sure if it's just because you don't like Nikon's (admittedly sketchy) terminology or what, but it's kind of tiresome.
Probably you should go elswhere with your beef because that certainly will confuse people looking for information. The whys and wherefores of optical design are often mysterious and easily misunderstood by many more knowledgeable than me and many others on this forum and it goes beyond the basic concept. One can speculate but apparently though, you have it all figured out. Just what did/does Nikon have in mind?

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#42 Post by PeteM » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm

Phil, it seemed to me (and perhaps Stephen) that Nikon and its competitors aimed to use compuer-aided optical design, better lens coatings, and low dispersion glasses to make better objectives. Unlike most of their competition at the time, however, Nikon chose to put chromatic corrections in the objectives, rather than use correcting eyepieces. They introduced "chrome free" objectives (at various price and optical quality levels) that fulfilled this mission as best they practically could.

Their competitors (Olympus, Leica, Zeiss etc.) were still sharing finite chromatic corrections between the objectives and their dedicated ("C", "K," etc.) eyepieces. Overall optical results weren't all that different - we can get great images from all the major microscope makers from this era.

However, today, many of us trying to adapt digital cameras to finite microscopes from the film camera are serendipitously grateful Nikon took their "chrome free" path because we're not stuck with either an often-cumbersome afocal method or a very restricted set of suitable photo relay lenses that have the requisite (Olympus, Zeiss, Leica, etc.) corrections built in.

This forum is filled with cases of users struggling to get good images out of an otherwise excellent older finite microscope -- typically if they don't have a pricey full frame sensor camera with a no-vibration mode and the full frame (film camera) OEM photo relay setup originally designed for their microscope.

The Reichert Microstar IV thread as just one example where it proved difficult to get rid of chromatic aberrations.

Olympus users with a smaller sensor camera searching for that elusive 1.67x photo relay lens to use with their $1000 APS-C camera are another example. That correcting relay lens will typically cost as much as a complete BH2 scope.

Similarly, Chinese USB camera users with their 2x photo relay lenses and mediocre results - often in part because their microscope's objectives want a correcting rather than neutral relay lens.

With Nikon's "chrome free" scopes from the Labophot/Optiphot era (and now with effectively "chrome free" optics in many infinite scopes) one can get decent results matching up sensor sizes and fields of view with a wide variety of neutral relay lenses, C-mount adapters, Nikon's own readily and cheaply available 2x and 2.5x relay lenses, and even teleconverters.

As one practical example, Rob Berdan did a thorough review of cameras and found a "Rising Cam" camera with a 1" Sony sensor provided a fairly affordable (around $500) solution with excellent results. Ditto, in my experience, with $100-$200 used mirrorless cameras like the Sony Nex 5 or the Nikon J1. Most any good generic C-mount adapter (say .7x) can be used to easily adapt these cameras to a "chrome free" system. Other scopes, if they're expecting significant chromatic corrections in the relay lens, will suffer.
Last edited by PeteM on Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#43 Post by PeteM » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:37 pm

Perhaps useful to remind others who end up at this side-tracked thread -- cell phone cameras used afocally can provide excellent results. They can be held steady in a simple holder -- and aren't nearly so cumbersome as perching a regular camera and its lens over a (correcting) eyepiece. The image quality from modern phone cameras is often excellent -- and their small camera lenses couple well with most eyepieces. With a spare phone, permanently aligned to a holder, they can even be swapped in and out of a binocular head with almost the ease of a USB camera.

This approach probably won't satisfy someone wondering "what objectives for photography" and expecting the best possible results -- but it's a very affordable way to deal with chromatic aberrations.

BramHuntingNematodes
Posts: 1538
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#44 Post by BramHuntingNematodes » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:11 am

Kind of why I m motioned the b&l thing. It's a convenient afocal setup for any finite scope. Maybe of limited importance here as we already are working with the chrome.free setup not too mention it's not a.very common accessory anyway.

This is maybe an important part of it as I get pretty good images with old non-plan achromat if everything else is set up correctly. The objective are probably about the second to last thing to be the bottleneck, with last.place going to the.camera.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#45 Post by Scarodactyl » Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:07 am

Edit: I think not worth running the thread further off the rails over. Instead I'm going to talk direct projection.

One frustrating issue with almost every (or maybe every) microscope maker is that they designed objectives which often have large or even huge image circles, but then designed their photo adapters to work on all their objectives by cropping the field down to the common minimum. As it happens ultrawide objectives are usually corrected to a 25-28ish mm field of view, which is about ideal for an aps-c sensor, but if your system requires specific photo eyepieces you will be forced to lose much of that usable area. If you have eg a BH2 era Olympus you might have objectives with an excellent image center to edge on 10x/26.5mm eyepieces, but there's no optimal way to put that image on a camera sensor. Nikon's system is exactly the same on paper, with their photo eyepieces cropping off the image, but if you're willing to go off script and have the right type of trinocular head you can just put the image directly on the camera sensor (known as direct projection). That way you get all the good image, a better magnification to resolution ratio and probably better image quality than you'd get with the official photo eyepiece.

So point is if I were taking photos on a Nikon system I'd go out of my way to get it set up for direct projection onto aps-c in addition to finding good objectives. That's how my own nikon systems are all set up, though admittedly they are infinity systems which makes it marginally easier to do.

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#46 Post by PeteM » Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:46 am

BramHuntingNematodes wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:11 am
Kind of why I m motioned the b&l thing. . .
Bram - would you happen to have a photo or link?

karhukainen
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#47 Post by karhukainen » Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 am

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:17 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:56 pm


That's the updated CFN PlanApo 10x in the catalogue. The CF 10x PlanApo is shown in the eBay link.

Plain-barrel CF and knurled-barrel CFN objectives were produced side-by-side right until the end of the CF era when Nikon abandoned finite optics and went all-in on infinity. That catalogue shows a snapshot in time. Many objectives had been updated from CF to CFN, some were updated later, and some never got updated. The 2x PlanApo in the photo is a plain-barrel CF design. The 40x 1.00 PlanApo never got updated, it's only available in CF style.

Both CF and CFN style objectives belong to the same CF (Chroma Free) system. I guess that's what's confusing, that the term CF is used to describe both the original style objectives, and the system as a whole (CF+CFN styles).

If you check the data table in the catalogue you'll see that objectives are described as either CF or CFN.
Ahh ok - thanks for the detailed explanation! I've learnt something there. Presumably, though, the CF 10x/0.40 apo is older than the CFN 10x/0.45?

Louise
Correct, the N means New :D
The brochure is pretty confusing in several ways. For example, it says in the beginning: "These advances have enabled the creation of new CF and CF N objective lenses --" Also, some of the example images have vague captions that don't tell the exact objective model used. And if not all objectives in the brochure are CF/CF N, then why are they even listed there, or if they are, why are some of the objectives named CF/CF N XXX while others aren't...
Nikon Labophot

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#48 Post by viktor j nilsson » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:08 am

karhukainen wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 am
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:17 pm
LouiseScot wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm


Ahh ok - thanks for the detailed explanation! I've learnt something there. Presumably, though, the CF 10x/0.40 apo is older than the CFN 10x/0.45?

Louise
Correct, the N means New :D
The brochure is pretty confusing in several ways. For example, it says in the beginning: "These advances have enabled the creation of new CF and CF N objective lenses --" Also, some of the example images have vague captions that don't tell the exact objective model used. And if not all objectives in the brochure are CF/CF N, then why are they even listed there, or if they are, why are some of the objectives named CF/CF N XXX while others aren't...
All the objectives in that brochure are CF. The Nikon ones that aren't CF are 1) earlier Nikon short-barrel 160mm objectives 2) Nikon SC student grade objectives that use some sort of corrective optics in the head; and 3) Nikon infinity objectives.

karhukainen
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#49 Post by karhukainen » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:14 am

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:08 am
karhukainen wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 am
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:17 pm


Correct, the N means New :D
The brochure is pretty confusing in several ways. For example, it says in the beginning: "These advances have enabled the creation of new CF and CF N objective lenses --" Also, some of the example images have vague captions that don't tell the exact objective model used. And if not all objectives in the brochure are CF/CF N, then why are they even listed there, or if they are, why are some of the objectives named CF/CF N XXX while others aren't...
All the objectives in that brochure are CF. The Nikon ones that aren't CF are 1) earlier Nikon short-barrel 160mm objectives 2) Nikon SC student grade objectives that use some sort of corrective optics in the head; and 3) Nikon infinity objectives.
What about the fluor objectives and plan correction? The ones in the CF N brochure don't mention anything about plan, but I've seen some plan fluors, like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/384341689166?h ... SwZhFhHojj
Nikon Labophot

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#50 Post by viktor j nilsson » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:31 am

karhukainen wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:14 am
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:08 am
karhukainen wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 am


The brochure is pretty confusing in several ways. For example, it says in the beginning: "These advances have enabled the creation of new CF and CF N objective lenses --" Also, some of the example images have vague captions that don't tell the exact objective model used. And if not all objectives in the brochure are CF/CF N, then why are they even listed there, or if they are, why are some of the objectives named CF/CF N XXX while others aren't...
All the objectives in that brochure are CF. The Nikon ones that aren't CF are 1) earlier Nikon short-barrel 160mm objectives 2) Nikon SC student grade objectives that use some sort of corrective optics in the head; and 3) Nikon infinity objectives.
What about the fluor objectives and plan correction? The ones in the CF N brochure don't mention anything about plan, but I've seen some plan fluors, like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/384341689166?h ... SwZhFhHojj
Most of the Fluors are of the original-style CF, i.e. they were developed quite early on in the CF system. The 40x 1.30 and 100x 1.30 Fluors were developed later, at the same time that Nikon started updating some models from CF to CFN, but since these two objectives didn't have any earlier equivalents, they weren't called CFN, but are called CF in the catalogue. But they have the knurled rings just like the updated CFNs introduced at the time. So I guess that's a bit confusing :)

The Plan Fluors were introduced later, very near the end of the CF era, just a couple of years before the introduction of Nikon's infinity objectives. That's why they aren't in the brochure.

I had an opportunity to buy a full set of the Plan Fluors once for a really good price, I kind of regret not buying them. They should be great, but I haven't tried them. Since they were only in production for a small number of years, there's not too many of them around.

karhukainen
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#51 Post by karhukainen » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:14 pm

Has anyone tested both the CF epi fluorescence phase contrast fluor and the CF/CF N phase contrast objectives? How's the former for fluorescence compared to the non phase contrast fluors?
Nikon Labophot

BramHuntingNematodes
Posts: 1538
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#52 Post by BramHuntingNematodes » Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:15 am

PeteM wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:46 am
BramHuntingNematodes wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:11 am
Kind of why I m motioned the b&l thing. . .
Bram - would you happen to have a photo or link?
Here is the thing. It basically has a c-mount on one end and a little screw-on holder. I have used it on the monozoom and the flat-field Dynazoom as well as a scope outfitted with finite CF Nikon lenses. My next experiment will be to see if it will do well on some Zeiss scopes and the Dynoptic with compens eyepieces.
Image
Image

I seem to have a little trouble with planarity in the monozoom between the 1x-2x. High magnifications seem ok. There's damn well near nothing about it on the Internet as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure if after taking it apart I reassembled it wrong, or if it was already poorly adjusted, or if there is some damage to it, or if the eyepiece amplifier is not attached correctly, or if it needs a different eyepiece, or if the vertical illuminator port being empty messes something up, or something else is wrong, or nothing is wrong and the design has issues with planarity at low magnification. On the other scopes the afocal device works perfectly, ironically enough.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#53 Post by PeteM » Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:43 pm

Thanks for posting it, Bram. Nikon and many others made microscope adapters that used an eyepiece and an image "sizing" lens - but if I understand correctly yours has a fairly wide zoom lens instead of a simple fixed lens?

I've seen (but never in person) Nikon and Leica C-mount adapters with zoom lenses. No idea if the images are well corrected.

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#54 Post by viktor j nilsson » Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:08 am

PeteM wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:56 am
Where the Nikon CF Fluor excel is with fluorescence. However, the field isn't very flat - for brightfield photography the Plan Fluor rectifies that problem. That said, the 40x Nikon Plan Fluor I have isn't all that much of a step beyond a 40x CFN plan achromat.

It might be because I'm typically using DIC with the CFN objectives, but they are the recommended objective for Nikon finite DIC and I find them nearly as good as Plan Apos for that purpose. I have complete sets of both, and spent a bit of time to compare. The one finite Nikon Plan Apo I heartily recommend is the 60x 1.4na oil objective.

With respect to the CFWN eyepieces, I wonder if there was a bad batch, Viktor? I've had more than a dozen pairs of these pass through on the way to kids and mentors and the only problems I've seen were outright abuse -- scratches on the lenses and coatings worn in the center from repeated rough cleaning. Most are still in great shape decades later and none with hazing. That said, the better generic Chinese 10x/20 and 10x/22 eyepieces also work very well with Nikon and are more affordable.
Seems like I will finally be able to test out a pair of CFWN eyepieces next week. I found some for a price I couldn't resist, that also happened to be attached to a Nikon Diaphot 300 with DIC, fluorescence, a Fluor 40x 1.30, and a 60x 1.40 PlanApo... for $500, all in. :D

LouiseScot
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#55 Post by LouiseScot » Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:17 am

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:08 am


Seems like I will finally be able to test out a pair of CFWN eyepieces next week. I found some for a price I couldn't resist, that also happened to be attached to a Nikon Diaphot 300 with DIC, fluorescence, a Fluor 40x 1.30, and a 60x 1.40 PlanApo... for $500, all in. :D
:D
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#56 Post by PeteM » Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:57 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:08 am
. . .
Seems like I will finally be able to test out a pair of CFWN eyepieces next week. I found some for a price I couldn't resist, that also happened to be attached to a Nikon Diaphot 300 with DIC, fluorescence, a Fluor 40x 1.30, and a 60x 1.40 PlanApo... for $500, all in. :D
Wow, Viktor. You bought a 60x Plan Apo and got a free Diaphot complete with DIC and fluorescence.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#57 Post by josmann » Tue Dec 14, 2021 7:21 pm

PeteM wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm
Olympus users with a smaller sensor camera searching for that elusive 1.67x photo relay lens to use with their $1000 APS-C camera are another example. That correcting relay lens will typically cost as much as a complete BH2 scope.
Is using an APS-C with a 2.5x really that deleterious? I use a zoom tube between my camera and the Olympus trinoc so I’m always flexing the image size considerably to get the framing how I want. You have to go pretty far away before you get poor results. Often I prefer something closer to the 3.3x for my full frame imaging anyway.

Also worth noting that solid full frame mirrorless/DSLR cameras can be had used for well below $1k these days. Sony is rolling out their A7IV series right now which should correspond to a drop in the pricing of used A7III bodies (what I use) which are pretty capable photo and video cameras.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

PeteM
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#58 Post by PeteM » Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:02 pm

Image quality is OK with a good (correcting if need be) 2.5x relay lens, but many people want what their camera sees and what they see through the eyepieces to be a decent match. As you say, people can work around it in composing an image, especially if they have live view, a good monitor, and perhaps a mag changer.

My vague recollection is that Charles Krebs did a test of pushing relay lenses out of their natural range - with not entirely satisfactory results. Might be worth a search - or perhaps someone else has a better recollection?

It's also sometimes not easy or cheap to find a proper correcting relay lens anywhere in the range from 1.6 to 2.5x for those infinity scopes that want one, with Reichert (see long Microstar IV thread) and Leica HC optics being examples.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#59 Post by josmann » Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:01 pm

PeteM wrote:
Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:02 pm
My vague recollection is that Charles Krebs did a test of pushing relay lenses out of their natural range - with not entirely satisfactory results. Might be worth a search - or perhaps someone else has a better recollection?
I believe what Krebs was doing was moving the eyepiece up and down rather than changing the tube length. Why that was his approach I’m not sure. I can’t say I’ve done a ton of thorough investigation into image quality, but all my diatom photos make extensive use of this zooming technique - I never check to make sure my sensor is at the exact height that the Olympus phototube would put it at.

I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people won’t mind or notice a little CA or field curvature at the edges of a photo or especially a video. I totally get it if you’re really trying to reach for the pinnacle of microphotographic quality but I’ve gotten darn good videos and images sticking an uncompensated camera adapter down a Chinese scope with high end Olympus objectives - certainly stuff that blows away what you’d get with lower end more neutral objectives. Maybe that’s a bit out of scope for this thread, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that, as we have these discussions, our internal bar is set MUCH higher than many folks who just want to take cool pics of neat critters :)
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

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

Re: Which objectives for photography?

#60 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:18 pm

In photomicrography we're almost always on or near the cutting edge of diffraction, and cropping a bunch of the image is not particularly helpful on that front. For some subjects it doesn't matter--diatoms and bacteria and such are the size they are and you're often going to be cropping anyway even with 100x mag. But just by the numbers if you have an objective with a wide 25mm fn, then slap on a 2.5x magnification factor on aps-c with a 27mm diagonal your effective field number ends up being more like 11mm. All your objectives are essentially acting like they have more than twice the magnification but the same NA on camera. With a 20x/0.75 that might still be pretty workable, but with a 40x/0.75 the picture is different.

If you're imaging singular subjects and only care about the center of the fov anyway that's really not a problem. But if a wider field helps it's a whole lot nicer be able to capture the field of a 20x objective with your higher resolution 20x objective rather than having to use your 10x. And just from a monetary point of view, a lot of what you pay for with many high end objectives is better performance over a wider field. If you crop it heavily you're losing a lot of that benefit.

That said I mostly work with gems and minerals, so there are lots of subjects and compositions across a wide magnification range. I also mostly use longer working distance objectives so diffraction is a particular concern if I push things too far.

Post Reply