Which objectives for photography?
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm
Which objectives for photography?
I previously asked for opinions on buying a microscope for photography (viewtopic.php?f=25&t=12988&p=104735#p104735), and I've now bought a Nikon Labophot with a trinocular head. It currently has three phase contrast objectives (E Plan DL) and one 4x objective. I'm not very happy with any of the objectives. The 10x seems to be very dusty inside and the 40x maybe has had some damage to its lens coating because the image looks poor and the metal around the front lens is a bit damaged. So, I want to buy some replacements.
I mostly use the 4x and 10x objectives with dark field, but since the 4x is decent, I'd like to get the (non phase) 10x and 40x first. I'm thinking of adding fluorescence later on, as the microscope has the attachment (although the lamp housing was badly damaged during shipping and I need to get a new one). I have the Nikon "New CF Lenses" brochure but I've got to say buying old objectives can be a little confusing, especially as people often sell objectives in which the markings have worn off. Which objectives should I be looking for? My starting budget is only around 400 euros.
I bought this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/254254572022 camera attachment and the vignetting is pretty bad. It seems the tube isn't quite tall enough. So all in all, it seems I'm having several issues to solve, but at least this setup is an improvement compared to my old microscope.
I mostly use the 4x and 10x objectives with dark field, but since the 4x is decent, I'd like to get the (non phase) 10x and 40x first. I'm thinking of adding fluorescence later on, as the microscope has the attachment (although the lamp housing was badly damaged during shipping and I need to get a new one). I have the Nikon "New CF Lenses" brochure but I've got to say buying old objectives can be a little confusing, especially as people often sell objectives in which the markings have worn off. Which objectives should I be looking for? My starting budget is only around 400 euros.
I bought this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/254254572022 camera attachment and the vignetting is pretty bad. It seems the tube isn't quite tall enough. So all in all, it seems I'm having several issues to solve, but at least this setup is an improvement compared to my old microscope.
Nikon Labophot
-
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Which photo eyepiece are you using in the trinoc?
Here's a good one to look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Plan-Apo ... 632-2357-0 If it's anything like its infinity-corrected descendant it should be superb for photos, and the price is weirdly a bit depressed because of the high availability of cheap 20x infinity apos.
Here's a good one to look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Plan-Apo ... 632-2357-0 If it's anything like its infinity-corrected descendant it should be superb for photos, and the price is weirdly a bit depressed because of the high availability of cheap 20x infinity apos.
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Yeah, that CFN 20x PlanApo is an incredible objective, and that's an incredible deal. I haven't tried the cheap 20x infinity planapo, but I can't imagine that it's significantly better than the nearly perfect CFN 20x PlanApo. I recently sold one for $320 and even that I felt was pretty cheap for what it is. I think you're right that the cheap infinity apo's are pushing down the price.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhich photo eyepiece are you using in the trinoc?
Here's a good one to look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Plan-Apo ... 632-2357-0 If it's anything like its infinity-corrected descendant it should be superb for photos, and the price is weirdly a bit depressed because of the high availability of cheap 20x infinity apos.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
It's CF PL 2.5x.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhich photo eyepiece are you using in the trinoc?
Here's a good one to look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Plan-Apo ... 632-2357-0 If it's anything like its infinity-corrected descendant it should be superb for photos, and the price is weirdly a bit depressed because of the high availability of cheap 20x infinity apos.
I'm not sure if a 20x objective would be that useful for me. Many of the critters I usually find most interesting are almost too big even for 10x. Also, the seller might not agree to ship to Finland.
Supposing I can't necessarily afford CFN Plan APOs, what would be my second best choice?
Nikon Labophot
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I sold the Nikon CF PlanApo 20x because I felt that my Nikon CF Fluor 20x was 99% as good (within the 18mm field of the CFW eyepieces) and also worked for fluorescence. All the CF Fluor are really good, and you can sometimes find good deals on them. I'd say that that is your second best choice.karhukainen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:27 amIt's CF PL 2.5x.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhich photo eyepiece are you using in the trinoc?
Here's a good one to look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Plan-Apo ... 632-2357-0 If it's anything like its infinity-corrected descendant it should be superb for photos, and the price is weirdly a bit depressed because of the high availability of cheap 20x infinity apos.
I'm not sure if a 20x objective would be that useful for me. Many of the critters I usually find most interesting are almost too big even for 10x. Also, the seller might not agree to ship to Finland.
Supposing I can't necessarily afford CFN Plan APOs, what would be my second best choice?
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I have the 20x fluor CFN which is also really fine lens but doubt it will be much cheaper. Failing that, you could try the regular CFN line preferably in Plan, which are pretty nice. I don't know much about the E stuff except that E usually stands for either educational or economical which both are to say the less nice line.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Which objectives for photography?
The 2x CFN in achromat style people really go gaga over and it ends being pretty darn expensive. But the 4x is not a bad lens either often less than $100.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
Re: Which objectives for photography?
The CFN Plan Achromats are very good and more affordable than Plan Apochromats. These will have three knurled chrome knurls at the top of the barrel and numerical apertures a bit higher at every magnification than any of Nikon's other plan achromats (except at 100x). They used a low dispersion glass on these much like Plan Fluors. In Nikon's hierarchy of objective there are educational and regular achromats, then educational and regular plan achromats, and these wide field number, better corrected, and better resolving (higher N.A.) plan achromats.
Re: Which objectives for photography?
With respect to eyepieces, Nikon's 10x "CFWN" with a 20mm field number are a pretty noticeable step up from the older 10x "CFW" with an 18mm field number and a plastic housing that's often broken where the rubber eyecups are meant to be attached.
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Yeah, I have had a decent collection of Nikon CF optics
E Plan - kind of meh. Quite a lot of CA which I'm rather sensitive to. Probably pretty similar to new Chinese plan achromats. I wouldn't invest in them if I wanted to do photography, but totally fine for viewing.
CFN plan - sometimes described as semi-fluorite, and the somewhat higher NAs suggest that there are some low dispersion glass in them. Clearly superior to the E Plan but still with quite a bit of CA. My much older 1970s Olympus short-barrel fluorites have better color corrections. I just sold my two 20x CFN plan objectives for around $100.
CF Fluor - really excellent. Most have very good color correction, and extremely high NAs not bested by any other than the most premium modern objectives (10x 0.50!). Images compare favorably to many PlanApos. The 40x 0.85 is a little less impressive than the rest, but still a big step up from the CFN 40x 0.75, and much easier to use than a 40x 0.95 PlanApo.
CFN Plan Fluor - haven't tried them but should be great.
CFN planapo - I've just tried the 20x and 100x, but seen lots of comparisons. Better than Fluor, but the difference isn't huge.
E Plan - kind of meh. Quite a lot of CA which I'm rather sensitive to. Probably pretty similar to new Chinese plan achromats. I wouldn't invest in them if I wanted to do photography, but totally fine for viewing.
CFN plan - sometimes described as semi-fluorite, and the somewhat higher NAs suggest that there are some low dispersion glass in them. Clearly superior to the E Plan but still with quite a bit of CA. My much older 1970s Olympus short-barrel fluorites have better color corrections. I just sold my two 20x CFN plan objectives for around $100.
CF Fluor - really excellent. Most have very good color correction, and extremely high NAs not bested by any other than the most premium modern objectives (10x 0.50!). Images compare favorably to many PlanApos. The 40x 0.85 is a little less impressive than the rest, but still a big step up from the CFN 40x 0.75, and much easier to use than a 40x 0.95 PlanApo.
CFN Plan Fluor - haven't tried them but should be great.
CFN planapo - I've just tried the 20x and 100x, but seen lots of comparisons. Better than Fluor, but the difference isn't huge.
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I've avoided these as I've heard that it's one of the few Nikon optics from this era that's prone to hazing.
I think that the Chinese 10x/22 eyepieces would be a good upgrade, but I haven't gotten round to getting them.
Re: Which objectives for photography?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Oh definitely, the field isn't flat all the way to the edge of FN18, but they are very good up to pretty close to the edge. I think a lot of people would expect them to be less plan than they really are. I wouldn't want to use them with a UW head, but they cover the field produced by a CF PL 2.5x + Full frame camera really well. But for $199 I'd much rather buy a 20x CFN planapo than a 20x CF Fluor. But I've dedicated my Nikon optics to my fluorescence microscope, so it made more sense to me to focus on the fluors.
I think you using DIC may be a big factor. I've just tried an optiphot-1 with DIC for the first time, and even the pedestrian old-style CF plan achromats that came with the scope looked really good to my eye under DIC, even when compared with Leitz PL Fluotars and PL Apos (that also gave excellent DIC). My thinking is that it's a combination of the DIC relief effect making lateral CA less distracting, and that the slight reduction in the depth of field reduce the effect of longitudinal CA to some extent. I'm usually really sensitive to CA and NA in broghtfield, but I find that I'm much less picky with DIC, as long as the DIC effect is good. Or what do you think?
I think it was Azuma Kosall that reported about multiple hazed CFWNs, and that he avoided them because of this.. But it's good to hear that you've had better experience, sounds like the odds are pretty good then.
I think you using DIC may be a big factor. I've just tried an optiphot-1 with DIC for the first time, and even the pedestrian old-style CF plan achromats that came with the scope looked really good to my eye under DIC, even when compared with Leitz PL Fluotars and PL Apos (that also gave excellent DIC). My thinking is that it's a combination of the DIC relief effect making lateral CA less distracting, and that the slight reduction in the depth of field reduce the effect of longitudinal CA to some extent. I'm usually really sensitive to CA and NA in broghtfield, but I find that I'm much less picky with DIC, as long as the DIC effect is good. Or what do you think?
I think it was Azuma Kosall that reported about multiple hazed CFWNs, and that he avoided them because of this.. But it's good to hear that you've had better experience, sounds like the odds are pretty good then.
Re: Which objectives for photography?
The most important point to a good micro photograph is slide preparation. This is often overlooked by photographer turning towards microscopy.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Thank you all, great information.
What about the photo eyepiece? Are there better alternatives to the CF PL 2.5x I currently have? The guy who sold me the camera adapter said he doesn't really like this photo eyepiece.
What about the photo eyepiece? Are there better alternatives to the CF PL 2.5x I currently have? The guy who sold me the camera adapter said he doesn't really like this photo eyepiece.
Nikon Labophot
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Apologies to the OP for butting in... Viktor, was just wondering if the Optiphot DIC you have might happen to use the same nosepiece I recently bought ( viewtopic.php?p=112137#p112137 which I believe is meant for reflected light / metallurgical DIC but which I'm trying to convert to transmitted light? If so how are you using it?viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:15 amOh definitely, the field isn't flat all the way to the edge of FN18, but they are very good up to pretty close to the edge. I think a lot of people would expect them to be less plan than they really are. I wouldn't want to use them with a UW head, but they cover the field produced by a CF PL 2.5x + Full frame camera really well. But for $199 I'd much rather buy a 20x CFN planapo than a 20x CF Fluor. But I've dedicated my Nikon optics to my fluorescence microscope, so it made more sense to me to focus on the fluors.
I think you using DIC may be a big factor. I've just tried an optiphot-1 with DIC for the first time, and even the pedestrian old-style CF plan achromats that came with the scope looked really good to my eye under DIC, even when compared with Leitz PL Fluotars and PL Apos (that also gave excellent DIC). My thinking is that it's a combination of the DIC relief effect making lateral CA less distracting, and that the slight reduction in the depth of field reduce the effect of longitudinal CA to some extent. I'm usually really sensitive to CA and NA in broghtfield, but I find that I'm much less picky with DIC, as long as the DIC effect is good. Or what do you think?
I think it was Azuma Kosall that reported about multiple hazed CFWNs, and that he avoided them because of this.. But it's good to hear that you've had better experience, sounds like the odds are pretty good then.
Thanks
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
-
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
The cf pl 2.5x really isn't very good, from my own tests anyway. They probably introduced it jn the 70s, so there's a chance I was working with old copies and they made it better as they went into the 80s. The pl 2.5xa is newer and better, and the pli 2.5x is probably better yet, though you have to be careful to get the 23mm version and not the 30mm one. I haven't done a proper head to head, but the pl 2.5x adds a lot of CA, the 2.5xa I tried did much better, and the one pli 2x I tried gave a perfectly clean, ca free image.karhukainen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:15 pmThank you all, great information.
What about the photo eyepiece? Are there better alternatives to the CF PL 2.5x I currently have? The guy who sold me the camera adapter said he doesn't really like this photo eyepiece.
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
No it was the transmitted DIC system for the Optiphot-1 that has an intermediate tube with a single objective prism that goes in straight from the side. The later systems for the Optiphot-2 had an objective prism that went in at 45 degree angle.LouiseScot wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:14 pmApologies to the OP for butting in... Viktor, was just wondering if the Optiphot DIC you have might happen to use the same nosepiece I recently bought ( viewtopic.php?p=112137#p112137 which I believe is meant for reflected light / metallurgical DIC but which I'm trying to convert to transmitted light? If so how are you using it?viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:15 amOh definitely, the field isn't flat all the way to the edge of FN18, but they are very good up to pretty close to the edge. I think a lot of people would expect them to be less plan than they really are. I wouldn't want to use them with a UW head, but they cover the field produced by a CF PL 2.5x + Full frame camera really well. But for $199 I'd much rather buy a 20x CFN planapo than a 20x CF Fluor. But I've dedicated my Nikon optics to my fluorescence microscope, so it made more sense to me to focus on the fluors.
I think you using DIC may be a big factor. I've just tried an optiphot-1 with DIC for the first time, and even the pedestrian old-style CF plan achromats that came with the scope looked really good to my eye under DIC, even when compared with Leitz PL Fluotars and PL Apos (that also gave excellent DIC). My thinking is that it's a combination of the DIC relief effect making lateral CA less distracting, and that the slight reduction in the depth of field reduce the effect of longitudinal CA to some extent. I'm usually really sensitive to CA and NA in broghtfield, but I find that I'm much less picky with DIC, as long as the DIC effect is good. Or what do you think?
I think it was Azuma Kosall that reported about multiple hazed CFWNs, and that he avoided them because of this.. But it's good to hear that you've had better experience, sounds like the odds are pretty good then.
Thanks
Louise
I was using it as intended.
But as you know I also have the same epi-DIC nosepiece and prisms as you. This is how I'm currently using mine:
viewtopic.php?p=100020#p100020
(It actually seemed to work pretty well when using the extra 10x40x100x prism as objective prism with the original Vanox condenser prisms, it seems to be quite similar to the Vanox AH objective prism).
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Sorry - I'd lost track... Getting old.. Can I ask a rookie DIC question? Is the view of the condenser prism fringes meant to be the same as those of the corresponding objective prism fringes? I've been trying to set mine up but am unsure of some things. All the online references show the objective slider fringes according to magnification but don't mention the condenser. I've assumed they should correspond?viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:34 pmNo it was the transmitted DIC system for the Optiphot-1 that has an intermediate tube with a single objective prism that goes in straight from the side. The later systems for the Optiphot-2 had an objective prism that went in at 45 degree angle.LouiseScot wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:14 pmApologies to the OP for butting in... Viktor, was just wondering if the Optiphot DIC you have might happen to use the same nosepiece I recently bought ( viewtopic.php?p=112137#p112137 which I believe is meant for reflected light / metallurgical DIC but which I'm trying to convert to transmitted light? If so how are you using it?viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:15 amOh definitely, the field isn't flat all the way to the edge of FN18, but they are very good up to pretty close to the edge. I think a lot of people would expect them to be less plan than they really are. I wouldn't want to use them with a UW head, but they cover the field produced by a CF PL 2.5x + Full frame camera really well. But for $199 I'd much rather buy a 20x CFN planapo than a 20x CF Fluor. But I've dedicated my Nikon optics to my fluorescence microscope, so it made more sense to me to focus on the fluors.
I think you using DIC may be a big factor. I've just tried an optiphot-1 with DIC for the first time, and even the pedestrian old-style CF plan achromats that came with the scope looked really good to my eye under DIC, even when compared with Leitz PL Fluotars and PL Apos (that also gave excellent DIC). My thinking is that it's a combination of the DIC relief effect making lateral CA less distracting, and that the slight reduction in the depth of field reduce the effect of longitudinal CA to some extent. I'm usually really sensitive to CA and NA in broghtfield, but I find that I'm much less picky with DIC, as long as the DIC effect is good. Or what do you think?
I think it was Azuma Kosall that reported about multiple hazed CFWNs, and that he avoided them because of this.. But it's good to hear that you've had better experience, sounds like the odds are pretty good then.
Thanks
Louise
I was using it as intended.
But as you know I also have the same epi-DIC nosepiece and prisms as you. This is how I'm currently using mine:
viewtopic.php?p=100020#p100020
(It actually seemed to work pretty well when using the extra 10x40x100x prism as objective prism with the original Vanox condenser prisms, it seems to be quite similar to the Vanox AH objective prism).
Thanks so much
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
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Yes, when viewed at the BFP, they should look the same. But since one of them is projected through the condenser and objective, they usually can't be identical but need to be different in order to appear the same at the BFP.LouiseScot wrote:
Sorry - I'd lost track... Getting old.. Can I ask a rookie DIC question? Is the view of the condenser prism fringes meant to be the same as those of the corresponding objective prism fringes? I've been trying to set mine up but am unsure of some things. All the online references show the objective slider fringes according to magnification but don't mention the condenser. I've assumed they should correspond?
Thanks so much
Louise
And this is one good thing about having two identical prisms. If you use a microscope objective of the same magnification as condenser you've created a perfectly symmetrical system, which guarantees that the fringes will match.
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Ahh.. So the condenser prism fringes on their own should be a lot smaller? I was actually thinking about what you see with no objective. The condenser fringes must be a magnified-by-the- condenser lens view of what you see outside of the system but between crossed polarisers?viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:23 pmYes, when viewed at the BFP, they should look the same. But since one of them is projected through the condenser and objective, they usually can't be identical but need to be different in order to appear the same at the BFP.LouiseScot wrote:
Sorry - I'd lost track... Getting old.. Can I ask a rookie DIC question? Is the view of the condenser prism fringes meant to be the same as those of the corresponding objective prism fringes? I've been trying to set mine up but am unsure of some things. All the online references show the objective slider fringes according to magnification but don't mention the condenser. I've assumed they should correspond?
Thanks so much
Louise
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
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
How do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
Nikon Labophot
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I can't say myself but the advantage of the cf/cfn objectives is that they don't need any additional correction (CF = chrome Free) so can be used on 'unbranded' finite scopes as well as the Labophot/Optiphot range. I use CF and CF Fluor on my Swift and they are great I suspect older Nikon objectives expect extra optical correction though I'm not certain how that would manifest at low power. I think the low power objectives are often more the province of macro photographers so maybe also check out https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/karhukainen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 amHow do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
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
-
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Which objectives for photography?
Why would there be apochromats if a company made chrome free achromats?
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Which objectives for photography?
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!apochronaut wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:16 pmWhy would there be apochromats if a company made chrome free achromats?
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
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Which objectives for photography?
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.karhukainen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 amHow do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
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.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 3:44 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I see, I've misinterpreted the N. This makes more sense.viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pmThat 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.karhukainen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 amHow do the apparently older non-CF plan apos compare? https://www.ebay.com/itm/224458673262?h ... SwJ5hgmzlN
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.
Last edited by karhukainen on Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nikon Labophot
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Which objectives for photography?
The real old Nikon short barrel apos are decent but use the HK eyepieces that pretty heavily compensating, like up there with Zeiss levels. Also the parfocal difference is gigantic.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
-
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I have always been curious what the actual value of that system is to a microscopist?LouiseScot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:53 pmIt'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!apochronaut wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:16 pmWhy would there be apochromats if a company made chrome free achromats?
Louise
-
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Which objectives for photography?
I think we've chewed over that several times, there's no need to derail this thread over it.