The person runnjng that test was Macro Cosmos (Daniel Han). Not that I'd mind being confused for him, it's high praise.Milou wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:25 pmI was speaking about your comments on using two 4x plan infinite objectives, in this file:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=40640
experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
-
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
First Let me start by introducing myself, my name is Michael Greene and I live in Alabama in the United States. my dad and I have been selling Olympus Microscopes mainly to the Universities and Hospital markets. My wife has been the gardener in the family, but now in my retirement I have become interested in the science involved in farming at a amature level with higher level tools I now have available to grow plants and vegatables while learning the basics of Plant Pathology with my stereo microscope capable of darkfield illuimation, and more than likely many other things to learn maybe soil science and such.
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Thank you scarodactyl for correction about this fileScarodactyl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:43 pmThe person runnjng that test was Macro Cosmos (Daniel Han). Not that I'd mind being confused for him, it's high praise.Milou wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:25 pmI was speaking about your comments on using two 4x plan infinite objectives, in this file:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=40640
I was probably distracted
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
A couple of stacks using the cheapo x1 and a 60mm efs macro at ~1:1
...No special lighting ..just what came in through the window.
x1 lens:
Canon 60mm efs (at f8):
...No special lighting ..just what came in through the window.
x1 lens:
Canon 60mm efs (at f8):
-
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Thanks for sharing, the 1x looks horrible.
-
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:28 am
- Location: UK
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
But, to be fair...isn't the microscope objective corrected for transmitted light, and the macro for reflected, which is what this subject is ?
-
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Can't see how that would matter in this case. At such low NA, presence or absence of cover slip doesn't matter. Lots of low magnification (4x-10x) microscope objectives designed for transmitted illumination produce excellent to stellar results when used as reflected light macro objectives.photomicro wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:54 amBut, to be fair...isn't the microscope objective corrected for transmitted light, and the macro for reflected, which is what this subject is ?
-
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
No, that isn't a factor here. Objectives aren't corrected for transmitted or reflected light per se (though working distance and barrel design may encourage or discourage reflected light). They may be corrected for having a cover slip or not having a cover slip, but at low numerical apertures objectives do not care at all either way.photomicro wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:54 amBut, to be fair...isn't the microscope objective corrected for transmitted light, and the macro for reflected, which is what this subject is ?
Edit: beaten to the punch while composing.
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Thank you Chas for this interesting test
I will have next week an Olympus 1x Splan Fl 1 0.04/160 to test it........
I'll also try to compare with my macro lens 60mm (Olympus on a M4/3 camera) at 1:1 ratio
I will have next week an Olympus 1x Splan Fl 1 0.04/160 to test it........
I'll also try to compare with my macro lens 60mm (Olympus on a M4/3 camera) at 1:1 ratio
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
These two are not strictly comparable as I had to 'answer the illuminator' (mobile phone) in between ( the position and width of view are not well matched either).
I tried to focus on the centre with the x1 lens.
Just single unstacked photographs:
x1: 35mm efs macro: The slide was resting on a diffusing plastic which might be the worst possible lighting for the x1
A couple of crops out of the middle:
x1:
35mm efs:
I tried to focus on the centre with the x1 lens.
Just single unstacked photographs:
x1: 35mm efs macro: The slide was resting on a diffusing plastic which might be the worst possible lighting for the x1
A couple of crops out of the middle:
x1:
35mm efs:
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
I am not sure if this is useful, but I have just tried a single element 75mm microscope objective positioned roughly 160mm from the camera sensor, if my amateur maths are correct this should have given 1:1
'horseshoe style' stands seem to have an RMS-threaded mounting at the bottom of their draw tubes and this is where it is suggested that long focal length objectives are placed.. I guess so that the draw tube can be pulled out to get sufficient working distance.
On the draw tube of a Cooke Troughton Simms and direct projecting into the DSLR (so further away than the normal 160mm or should it be, in this case, 150mm? ): I was quite surprised that it wasnt so terrible ... maybe if you can achieve equal spacings either side of the objective lens.. a simpler lens might suffice (???)
'horseshoe style' stands seem to have an RMS-threaded mounting at the bottom of their draw tubes and this is where it is suggested that long focal length objectives are placed.. I guess so that the draw tube can be pulled out to get sufficient working distance.
On the draw tube of a Cooke Troughton Simms and direct projecting into the DSLR (so further away than the normal 160mm or should it be, in this case, 150mm? ): I was quite surprised that it wasnt so terrible ... maybe if you can achieve equal spacings either side of the objective lens.. a simpler lens might suffice (???)
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
In fact I get it today
I have tried it on my Leitz setup with tubes between a M4/3 camera and objectives (about 160 mm between objective and camera sensor) instead of a Leitz head
But perhaps this objective need correction through special eyepieces......
and impossible to focus correctly on the item under the cover slide!
It has an extremely small WD (more or less 1 mm) ........
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Milou,
Unfortunately the actual focus point is someway down inside the eyepiece so the distance from the RMS thread to your sensor needs to be less than 160mm.
I understand that this is generally around 10mm less (but, for example, Cooke Troughton Simms it was 20mm less)
It is often said that low magnification objectives are not very sensitive to changes in tube length.... but the field of view /working distance on my X1 is super sensitive !!
There is a discussion here about Leitz tube lengths and eyepiece types:
viewtopic.php?t=7229
The 160mm written on an objective is a bit misleading, for direct projection ..it is the "mechanical tube length" ; a measurement from the bottom of the RMS thread to the top of the tube where the eyepiece sits.about 160 mm between objective and camera sensor
Unfortunately the actual focus point is someway down inside the eyepiece so the distance from the RMS thread to your sensor needs to be less than 160mm.
I understand that this is generally around 10mm less (but, for example, Cooke Troughton Simms it was 20mm less)
It is often said that low magnification objectives are not very sensitive to changes in tube length.... but the field of view /working distance on my X1 is super sensitive !!
There is a discussion here about Leitz tube lengths and eyepiece types:
viewtopic.php?t=7229
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Thank's for comments Chas,
The distance between RMS thread bottom and camera sensor is 16.2 cm in my setup !
With other objectives, including a 2.5x Zeiss plan, this distance, can be changed without losting focus point!
But as you said, it is perhaps different with this Olympus 1x Splan......
Perhaps is it, contrary to the other ones, sensitive to tube length....
I'll try to modify tube length, in order to find (I hope so!) the focus point for this 1x objective....
This Olympus 1x Splan Fl 1 0.04/160 is very large and heavy, comparing to the other objectives:
-43 mm long (without RMS thread ;
-27 mm for front objective diameter and almost 25 mm for front lens!
The distance between RMS thread bottom and camera sensor is 16.2 cm in my setup !
With other objectives, including a 2.5x Zeiss plan, this distance, can be changed without losting focus point!
But as you said, it is perhaps different with this Olympus 1x Splan......
Perhaps is it, contrary to the other ones, sensitive to tube length....
I'll try to modify tube length, in order to find (I hope so!) the focus point for this 1x objective....
This Olympus 1x Splan Fl 1 0.04/160 is very large and heavy, comparing to the other objectives:
-43 mm long (without RMS thread ;
-27 mm for front objective diameter and almost 25 mm for front lens!
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
...The front lens element of this Chinese x1 is 5mm at most !and almost 25 mm for front lens!
-
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
There's at least one cool trick you can do with a 1x:
This is the Zeiss Plan 1x .04. I cheated a little bit as this image is about twice as big as spec thanks to some adjustable drawtube fiddling also I can never be totally sure how much compensation Zeiss lenses need this is using the B&L low ultraplane but might look better with the medium or even a real Zeiss eyepiece.
This is the Zeiss Plan 1x .04. I cheated a little bit as this image is about twice as big as spec thanks to some adjustable drawtube fiddling also I can never be totally sure how much compensation Zeiss lenses need this is using the B&L low ultraplane but might look better with the medium or even a real Zeiss eyepiece.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
I've modified tube length and reduced it to 15 cm.
Therefore I could find the focus point for this Olympus 1x objective
Just a picture to show how large is the field with this Olympus 1x (cover slide here is 20mm diameter!)....
Lighting is not good as I had to take off the condenser (in order to avoid just a central circle illuminated!) .......
I'll have to change the original lamp inside the Leitz stand up with a stronger LED
The WD is very small : 2.2 mm and that's impossible to add an episcopic lighting. Therefore the spines structure of lamina dorsalis an ventralis (dark pieces, above left) cannot be discerned!
But not enough time to adapt another lighting to my setup, as it is not strong enough here
This Olympus 1x objective, even with a good optical quality, is in fact not adapted for my use: field too large and WD too small
I will also make pictures of the same slide, with a 60mm macro on a M4/3 (and eventually adding a Raynox lens)
Olympus 1x plan, Zygaena purpuralis genitalia
If anybody is interested by this objective, PM me
Therefore I could find the focus point for this Olympus 1x objective
Just a picture to show how large is the field with this Olympus 1x (cover slide here is 20mm diameter!)....
Lighting is not good as I had to take off the condenser (in order to avoid just a central circle illuminated!) .......
I'll have to change the original lamp inside the Leitz stand up with a stronger LED
The WD is very small : 2.2 mm and that's impossible to add an episcopic lighting. Therefore the spines structure of lamina dorsalis an ventralis (dark pieces, above left) cannot be discerned!
But not enough time to adapt another lighting to my setup, as it is not strong enough here
This Olympus 1x objective, even with a good optical quality, is in fact not adapted for my use: field too large and WD too small
I will also make pictures of the same slide, with a 60mm macro on a M4/3 (and eventually adding a Raynox lens)
Olympus 1x plan, Zygaena purpuralis genitalia
If anybody is interested by this objective, PM me
Last edited by Milou on Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Somewhat counterintuitively, low NA low magnification objectives have a greater depth of field at the subject plane, but a shallower depth of focus at the image plane. High-NA objectives are the reverse, with razor thin depth of field at the subject, and a very great depth of focus at the image side.
In terms of optical aberrations, low-NA objectives are very tolerant to tube length errors, whereas high-NA objectives are highly sensitive to deviations in tube length.
So in short: with low mag/low NA objectives, small changes in tube length have a dramatic effect on working distance and focus at the sensor, but little effect on image quality. With high mag/high NA objectives, small changes in tube length have little effect on focus, but dramatic effects on image quality.
This is also why it's important to use a relatively low mag (10x) objective when adjusting parfocality.
In terms of optical aberrations, low-NA objectives are very tolerant to tube length errors, whereas high-NA objectives are highly sensitive to deviations in tube length.
So in short: with low mag/low NA objectives, small changes in tube length have a dramatic effect on working distance and focus at the sensor, but little effect on image quality. With high mag/high NA objectives, small changes in tube length have little effect on focus, but dramatic effects on image quality.
This is also why it's important to use a relatively low mag (10x) objective when adjusting parfocality.
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
That is a very nice arrangement on the tracing paper(?) screen ...it reminds me of the images/illustrations one used to see in old encyclopaedia'sThere's at least one cool trick you can do with a 1x:
The setup seems to be calling out for some wet photography ! ?
[I understand that film can be developed in old tea or coffee.. though I have not tried it] :
https://www.caffenol.org/
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Milou, thank you for posting that image... it seems that around 1:1 is a bit of a strange and difficult magnification.
I have just tried a full set of extension tubes (65mm in total) on the canon 60mm macro lens .. they work well when the lens is at it nearest focus setting.
However when I was tempted to get a wider field of view (ie back to nearly 1:1 ) by turning the len's focus ring to 'distant' the edges of the image became mushy.
The construction of your lens might be different.
But I think it might be worth having a go with some extension tubes.. just to see.
I guess that the lens does not resolve more detail but if the detail is less than the pixel pitch , then you get to to see it with the tubes (I could be wrong about this).
[Added a bit later]
Here are a couple of crops of the wing :
This is a crop of the 60mm, with no extension tubes (as in post #34):
This with 65mm of tubes and with the lens at closest focus:
(I have no idea whether using 65mm of extension tubes is the best length to use)
I have just tried a full set of extension tubes (65mm in total) on the canon 60mm macro lens .. they work well when the lens is at it nearest focus setting.
However when I was tempted to get a wider field of view (ie back to nearly 1:1 ) by turning the len's focus ring to 'distant' the edges of the image became mushy.
The construction of your lens might be different.
But I think it might be worth having a go with some extension tubes.. just to see.
I guess that the lens does not resolve more detail but if the detail is less than the pixel pitch , then you get to to see it with the tubes (I could be wrong about this).
[Added a bit later]
Here are a couple of crops of the wing :
This is a crop of the 60mm, with no extension tubes (as in post #34):
This with 65mm of tubes and with the lens at closest focus:
(I have no idea whether using 65mm of extension tubes is the best length to use)
Last edited by Chas on Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Chas, here is a crop of the above image taken with the Olympus plan 1x on my Leitz setup:
I've not yet tried to get such a slide picture with my camera, but soon I'll do that with my Olympus 60 mm macro and a M4/3 camera.
But I've to find a good lighting for that
Here are other pictures taken with this M4/3 camera and also a 150 Raynox lens screwed in front of the macro 60mm: Olympus 60mm macro on a M4/3 (GX80) also with a 150 Raynox. Aglaope infausta caterpillar preparing cocon and cocon (about 8-9 mm length)
I've not yet tried to get such a slide picture with my camera, but soon I'll do that with my Olympus 60 mm macro and a M4/3 camera.
But I've to find a good lighting for that
Here are other pictures taken with this M4/3 camera and also a 150 Raynox lens screwed in front of the macro 60mm: Olympus 60mm macro on a M4/3 (GX80) also with a 150 Raynox. Aglaope infausta caterpillar preparing cocon and cocon (about 8-9 mm length)
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Milou.. that crop looks pretty good .. I wonder if an image taken just of that part (with say an x10) after it had been shrunk down to the same pixel size of that crop would show a great deal more detail ?
I should have mentioned that the crop of the wing taken with the '60mm with no tubes' was orginally smaller than 800 wide. It was made larger by irfranview. It is perhaps not fair to compare a crop from from a 1:1 image to a crop from a 2:1 image
Here is the whole image from the 60mm with 65 tubes image:
I have a no-name 2x objective: And when the tube-length is reduced on this, it gives a reasonably wide field of view :
I should have mentioned that the crop of the wing taken with the '60mm with no tubes' was orginally smaller than 800 wide. It was made larger by irfranview. It is perhaps not fair to compare a crop from from a 1:1 image to a crop from a 2:1 image
Here is the whole image from the 60mm with 65 tubes image:
I have a no-name 2x objective: And when the tube-length is reduced on this, it gives a reasonably wide field of view :
Last edited by Chas on Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
As I recently picked up an Olympus short-barrel plan achromat 1.3x NA 0.03 objective, I thought it was interesting to take a couple of shots for comparison. It looks like this:
Images are taken on My Vanox AH using a Canon 5DmarkII Full frame camera and a matching FK 2.5x projection eyepiece (hence, most of the FOV is captured). Native magnification; no intermediate tube. Straight out of camera; no cropping, no sharpening. Illumination was by a single flash + ping pong ball diffuser.
Full frame:
Center crop:
Full frame:
Center crop:
Resolution isn't exactly overwhelming, but I was quite actually pleasantly surprised by how decently it performed. No doubt it would be outperformed by a scanner lens or even a macro lens, but still pretty neat to have.
Images are taken on My Vanox AH using a Canon 5DmarkII Full frame camera and a matching FK 2.5x projection eyepiece (hence, most of the FOV is captured). Native magnification; no intermediate tube. Straight out of camera; no cropping, no sharpening. Illumination was by a single flash + ping pong ball diffuser.
Full frame:
Center crop:
Full frame:
Center crop:
Resolution isn't exactly overwhelming, but I was quite actually pleasantly surprised by how decently it performed. No doubt it would be outperformed by a scanner lens or even a macro lens, but still pretty neat to have.
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Thank you Viktor for interesting pictures
This plan achromat 1.3x objective has a much larger WD than the one I've tried (Olympus plan 1x) ....
Therefore it allows place for episcopic light
Your ping pong ball diffuser is very efficient
This plan achromat 1.3x objective has a much larger WD than the one I've tried (Olympus plan 1x) ....
Therefore it allows place for episcopic light
Your ping pong ball diffuser is very efficient
-
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Glad you found it useful.
I raised it in the picture to show the labeling, but the WD is 19.92mm, so plenty of room. And ping pong balls are great for this!
-
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:44 am
Re: experience with a plan 1x compound microscope objective ?
Today I noticed a one x objective for sale on Amazon.