Two questions regarding water immersion

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Message
Author
User avatar
MasLovesMicrobes
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:42 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Two questions regarding water immersion

#1 Post by MasLovesMicrobes » Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:59 pm

Hello, I have been thinking about going for some water immersion objectives for my Olympus BX60. I am looking to do DIC of pond samples and the increased penetration depth that water immersion offers seems very appealing to me. Most of the good stuff is often on the bottom of a slide.

I know there are special water immersion microscopes Olympus offers like the BX51 WI and BX61WI, but I am not sure how exactly they differ fundamentally from my BX60. If anyone knows anything about using water immersion on a microscope not specifically for water immersion please let me know.

Also I was wondering if the condenser type is very important when doing water immersion. I know those objectives usually have a higher numerical aperature but will I be able to get away with just a dry and an oil condenser or will I see significant increase in image quality when using a water immersion condenser?

Then just a little bonus question I'm just generally interested in peoples experience with water immersion. Do you feel you are significantly benefitting from the increased penetration depth and NA? Or is it more of a convenience over oil kinda situation?

Very curious about your experiences. Let me know!
Beauty lies not in the eye of the beholder, it lies in the lens of a microscope.

User avatar
zzffnn
Posts: 3200
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#2 Post by zzffnn » Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:17 pm

Most condensers are designed to be used with air or oil, but not water (you would be introducing unnecessary optical distortion when using water).

I have used cheap condensers immersed in water for convenience and haven’t had issues, but I don’t recommend it if you are using expensive (hard to replace / repair ) condensers.

Water vs oil objectives: it is both, in general. But it depends on the specific objective design (if you are comparing apples to apples, but not apples to oranges). Also, if your water objective has a very short working distance (which is the case of LOMO 70x NA 1.23 water immersion objective), it may not be easy or convenient to use, compared to an ordinary NA 60x-70x 1.25 oil immersion objective with long working distance (even though water is easy to clean up).

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

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#3 Post by Scarodactyl » Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:50 pm

Check out the manuals, these scopes are very different and designed with 75mm parfocal water immersion objectives and electrophysiology in mind. They also have a version with a built in mag changer on their 75mm 20x/0.95 to go from 7x to 80x.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#4 Post by apochronaut » Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:12 pm

I have water immersion. objectives as well as numerous oil immersion objectives built by several manufacturers and have used them all and water in comparison to oil immersion objectives made for the same system. I have slso used glycerin immersion objectives in 2 systems.

The first thing is that modern dedicated W.I. microscopes like the BX61WI are made for applications where the use of dipping objectives is required. Dipping objectives are a whole other thing and are not really practical in conventional microscopy. The use of dipping objectives introduces vibration as an overwhelming factor during use, so dipping objective microscopes are designed around that problem, both ergonomically and structurally.
Using WI objectives in a BX60 would imply the use of cover slip corrected water immersion objectives, so the only change that you would be making would be that of installing the objective in the nosepiece and using water on the cover slip instead of oil. The condenser that you currently use would be adequate. One technical point is that with WI objectives with N.A.s of between 1 and 1.15, there would be somewhat of a lower incentive to worry about using an oil immersion condenser, since a dry .90 or .95 condenser would lower the N.A. of such an objective relatively less than it would for example a 1.25 N.A. objective. Unless you are looking at or attempting to photograph really fine details, a dry condenser should do. There really isn't any need for a WI condenser, the current widespread oil immersion phobia notwithstanding.

In use, I have not found water immersion to be that much more useful than oil immersion and part of that has to do with the limited N.A. that many of the higher magnification versions have. It is true that water immersion can provide superior resolution in depth than oil immersion but that advantage diminishes with the degree of detail given to sample preparation, where a thin sample with thin coverslips can often make up for the refractive index mismatch between oil and water, especially when the oil objective is 1.30 or higher and has an iris diaphragm. This is less possible when viewing larger specimens of course, where perhaps I can see water immersion more useful.
Additionally, not all objectives are created equal. Some seem less affected by spherical aberration than others, so looking down into the depths of an aqueous sample does not cause as much resolution loss, even with identical N.A.s. Some of the objectives I use have this quality, so I am less inclined to be over thinking around improving performance.

Eventually it comes down to cost and correction too. Oil immersion objectives can be had quite cheaply, even planapos if you keep looking. Highly corrected water objectives not so much. Ultimately, I see correction as a more important feature than immersion type. Water is a very convenient medium, although it dries annoyingly during longer sessions ( water soluble glycerin is better) but any objective whether water, glycerin or oil becomes immediately more interesting with distinctly better resolution if it is a fluorite or apo. If I was working with planachros and wanted to improve my imaging with aqueous samples, I would be thinking planfluor or planapo first and water immersion second. Both would seem to me to have a pretty big ticket attached.

One more point. Dry, high N.A. objectives can be awefully good. I have several apochromats at .95 with correction collars and even one without at .80. Resolution wise, they would just about knock anyone's socks off. Even a dry 80X .90. I honestly cannot see the point of water immersion objectives with an N.A. under 1.0., just more fuss ; unless as is the logical case with oil immersion, you are coupling it with a higher N.A. water immersion objective. Dry high N.A. objectives are often a really good bargain compared to a water objective.

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
Location: 192.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#5 Post by Macro_Cosmos » Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:02 pm

Those frames are for electrophysiology patch clamp systems, they are designed to minimise vibrations and intended to work with water dipping objectives. Usually, a high power one is coupled with a low power objective for finding the target. They offer a lot of height between the objective at the stage to enable larger subjects, like a rat with its dome cracked open.
Basically, if you do not know what it is for, you do not need it.

Condenser type is not important for water immersion objectives. A dry one is fine.
If you want benefits in presumably higher NA, you should look for oil immersion. Otherwise, water immersion's superior spatial resolution makes it highly suitable for thicker samples (DIC/BF/oblique) and they are exceptional for confocal microscopy. Cleaning up is easier too, if that is of concern.

User avatar
zzffnn
Posts: 3200
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#6 Post by zzffnn » Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:40 am

Indeed with BX50 / BX60, water immersion objectives are very expensive. I personally wouldn’t do it with my own toy money.

That is why I use cheap LOMO water objectives on 160mm tube length scopes.

A thin sample preparation will definitely help optical quality.

However, much interesting biology is found in thicker water samples. When I thin out thicker mounts (with cotton swap sucking out extra water under cover slips) , I often find that many interesting subjects, such as swimming ciliates, are removed with extra water as well. If your subjects stick to slide bottom and won’t be removed with water, then a thin mount is optimal.

It is difficult to get to that optimal point of compromise (between interesting but messy biology vs optical quality), for me at least.

And I often chase around fast swimming ciliates of different sizes, so I tend to switch between 20x, 40x and 60x on the fly, a lot. With oil immersion, switching back to dry 20x or dry 40x is not easy; with water, I simply suck out the immersion water with a cotton swap and swing back to dry objectives;

Those are the main reasons why I prefer to use water immersion objectives (and trade some optical quality with convenience). Just my humble 2 cents. Other users may have different preferences and priorities.

Phill Brown
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#7 Post by Phill Brown » Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:13 pm

Inverted microscope is worth considering.
Do away with some of the issues and introduce new ones.
Good excuse for buying another microscope if you don't have one.
Scanning larger samples for what lurks at the bottom is much quicker.
DF is more of a challenge but still possible.

ldflan
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 11:36 pm
Location: Morna Moruna

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#8 Post by ldflan » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:30 pm

"Inverted microscope is worth considering."

+1 to that suggestion; I think it's probably a better overall alternative to water immersion objectives, if I am understanding your wants correctly. With LWD objectives, an LWD condenser, and chamber slides made of coverslip glass, you have a whole lot of focus range to work with, micro-manipulation is much easier, etc.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#9 Post by apochronaut » Wed Dec 21, 2022 12:55 am

Limited resolution and no practical possibility of achieving high resolution too, unless you use coverglass bottom dishes. Then you are pretty much stuck with oil.

ldflan
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 11:36 pm
Location: Morna Moruna

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#10 Post by ldflan » Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:29 am

True, there are tradeoffs, but the results can be far better than you might guess, even with LWD objectives. The coverslip wellslides are a bit spendy but if tooling around a large volume of pondwater is your jam (and that seems to be what the original post was trying to accomplish) then an inverted scope makes good sense.

Reminds me. Somewhere I saw a picture of an Ultraphot mounted upside down (inverted) in a big steel frame in order take some film or video (can't recall how old this was) using the scope's DIC equipment. Pretty darned impressive!

User avatar
MasLovesMicrobes
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:42 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#11 Post by MasLovesMicrobes » Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:57 am

Ah wow! How wonderful to see so many well informed replies. I'm just getting to grips with this forum so I didn't realise people already responded.

Okay, so, so much to think about already!
Apochronaut, I can totally hear what you're saying considering these high quality, high NA dry objectives. When I upgraded to UplanFl my 10x and 20x absolutely blew me away. And they still do whenever I use the scope. Less satisfied with my 40x so I currently have an 40 UplanSapo 0.90 coming in, will see when it arrives how that performs. I'm thinking I'll hold off on those expensive water objectives right now and explore further what high dries and oils still have to offer. Though valuable to know that I could use my current condenser.

And zznnff, Yeah I have been tangling with that balance too. In the past I would always smack the biggest drops possible under my slide, and get some nice gunk in there as well, I'd always find the diversity and dynamics to be worth the kind of messy shots. But recently I have started photomicrography and now I care more about image quality. It's become clear to me just how much of a diminishing return thick specimens can have on image quality. Often times with the 40x I'll only be looking at the top of my sample, the rest is just too milky. So I have been making thinner slides and am really happy with the more manageable abberation and resolution.

Phill Brown I've never even considered an inverted microscope, probably unrightlfully so. I still have a long ways to go to get the most out of my current scope. Maybe in the far future I will have a more serious look into that.

Thanks for all the advise. Will stick with my current setup and try and dabble with some cheaper alternatives to get what I'm looking for.
Beauty lies not in the eye of the beholder, it lies in the lens of a microscope.

Phill Brown
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#12 Post by Phill Brown » Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:14 am

I picked up an excellent inverted microscope for £550.
PLPH 6v 30w.
Well slides work better than cavity type, easy to view the boundaries which isn't practical from the top without LWD.
Inverted objectives are 1.2mm compensated mostly anyway.
Main issue is sediment in the sample will settle Infront of the subjects.
A centrifuge is ideal to speed up separating anything in suspension and transfer as little contamination with the subject to a clean well.
It's good practice also.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#13 Post by apochronaut » Thu Dec 22, 2022 11:18 am

I have used objectives made for inverted microscopes on upright stands and substituted a slide for a cover with well slides.

ldflan
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 11:36 pm
Location: Morna Moruna

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#14 Post by ldflan » Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:30 pm

You can do that, but LWD objectives hung on an upright stand are a very poor substitute for the real thing for many reasons.

One is that settlement of detritus at the bottom of the well slide (at the same time as it is a "problem" for pond water gazers) is also a huge plus in an inverted scope for most pond-water folks. Most critters gravitate to the glass, which is why the pain-in-the-butt "hanging drop" system works. So with the inverted scope and a well slide, you have nearly 1875 square millimeters of coverslip territory to review, whereas with a hanging drop you have maybe 100 square millimeters at best.

On top of that with the LWD objectives you have several millimeters of working distance into that huge sample.

Plus, with an LWD condenser, you can easily get micromanipulators, microsyringes, etc. into the sample.

An upright scope simply cannot do these things, or can only do them very poorly.

The disadvantages of an inverted scope are rather minor in my opinion. You are stuck with thick immersion oil for high magnification work, but it is still possible to do it on an inverted scope. And honestly, most amateurs don't bother oiling up slides except on rare occasions, so there is no real reason to be very concerned about the marginal additional hassle of doing high magnification work on an inverted scope.

Another disadvantage of an inverted scope is that most condensers designed specifically for inverted scopes are low NA, long working distance. This is an advantage when using well slides or petri dishes, but is limiting when it comes to high magnification work. I have had to figure out how to kluge high NA condensers onto my Diaphots, but it's quite easy to do.

Here's my bottom line. I'm not a pond water guy, so bear that in mind. But like a lot of folks here, I have more microscopes than I can shake a stick at, including many that are considered highly desirable or even the "best" of the last half of the 20th century. If I had to keep just one scope out of all of them, there is no question that it would be the inverted Nikon Diaphot. Absolutely no question. The bottom line is that in terms of the breadth of its usefulness for biological investigations, a second generation (1980s on) inverted scope will run rings around a classic upright scope of the same vintage. People don't like to hear that, but it is true. That is one reason there are so many of them on the market.

Inverted scopes can also be astounding values in terms of usefulness for your money. Diaphots have recently been going up in price, but I purchased one with DIC and the low power 0.2NA condenser for $500 some years ago, then a second one also equipped with DIC and the .58 NA LWD condenser for $700. That one needed some work.

If you lower your sights just a little, the options are legion. There have recently been AO Biostar 1820s on eBay equipped with very high quality Leica LWD infinity-corrected phase contrast objectives with adjusting collars and matched condensers for $250, and in one case $150! The Biostar is not nearly as customizable as a Diaphot, not as pleasant to use, and has no DIC or fluorescence capabilities ... but for $150 for a scope designed to sift through muck, it's hard to complain.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#15 Post by apochronaut » Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:46 pm

Which "very high quality Leica LWD infinity phase contrast objectives with adjusting collars" would those be?

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#16 Post by wabutter » Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:20 am

The Biostar was never offered with Leica branded objectives, although it was infinity corrected so someone may have built a system with objective from an DM IRB. However, it would require RMS/M25 adapter rings to fit the objective into the nosepiece. Of course, it would have been possible to mount Leica branded objectives from the Microstar IV, but condenser annular rings limitation would rule out Phase contrast. If I remember correctly the Biostar also used the 34mm parfocal length rather than the 45mm parfocal length of the Leica branded objectives.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#17 Post by apochronaut » Sat Dec 24, 2022 4:18 pm

Doesn't make sense does it Wayne?
That was essentially the crux of my unanswered question. I wasn't sure if after the Wild-Cambridge merger, very late in production at some point they might have rebranded the 1217A, 1219A or 1223 phase objectives Leica , as they did with Balplan, Galen, ATC and Series 400 objectives. The Leica branded Balplan objectives are pretty rare but do exist. It amounts to a sticker placed over where the Bausch & Lomb logo used to reside. Remember how they de-engraved the AO logo on objectives after the Reichert rebranding? I've seen a lot of cat. # 1867 100X .90 objectives with the AO logo carved out in a little square black painted block.
It is interesting how certain mindsets are stimulated by branding. All of a sudden something the same becomes twice as noteworthy.
No doubt Trader Joe's Blanc de Blanc in a Dom Perignon bottle would taste 4 times as good.

Yes, those correction collar AO L.W. D. are 34mm R.M.S. Leica ; Wetzlar Leica, are 45mm-25mm. Add an adapting collar to that and the length will come out around at least 53mm, while trying to cram several fat objectives into a nosepiece designed for not so fat objectives. Then deal with the reference length mismatch and spatial phase ring synchronization. Interesting project.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#18 Post by wabutter » Sun Dec 25, 2022 1:31 am

Phil, I agree completely.

ldflan
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 11:36 pm
Location: Morna Moruna

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#19 Post by ldflan » Sun Dec 25, 2022 4:36 pm

wabutter wrote:
Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:20 am
The Biostar was never offered with Leica branded objectives, although it was infinity corrected so someone may have built a system with objective from an DM IRB.
On this point I am positive you are wrong, to the extent that it matters. I never bought an 1820 from the manufacturer, but you frequently find the Leica LWD 20x and 40x objectives fitted to the 1820.

As to who actually designed or manufactured those objectives, I do not know. Cross branding seems to have been rampant at that point among the AO/Reichert/Leica brands as the various business consolidated.

My comment about the quality of those objectives is based on actually using them, not the Leica brand name. In fact, the barrels are cheap, the paint usually worn away, etc. They may well be AO manufacture. But they provide phase contrast and work reasonably well with care.

Have either you or Apo ever used either the scope or the objectives in question?

Anyway, my point basically is that for the price of a dinner out and a bottle of wine you can lay hands on a scope designed to do exactly what the original poster is trying to accomplish, and it will do so quite well. For a bit more, you can get a pretty darn powerful machine that will accomplish the same goals with elan.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#20 Post by apochronaut » Sun Dec 25, 2022 5:49 pm

ldflan wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:30 pm
... AO Biostar 1820s on eBay equipped with very high quality Leica LWD infinity-corrected phase contrast objectives with adjusting collars and matched condensers.
I was just going by your high praise of the Leica objectives on those cheap Biostars. Now I see that the barrels are cheap and the paint wore away.

I owned a Biostar once but it had the lousy AO objectives in it. Where were those high quality Leica objectives when I needed them? I wish you had been around 5 years ago to point the way . I would have sent you a bottle of Dom Perignon as a thanks.
WA Butter is a former AO, Reichert, Leica authorized dealer and factory service provider.

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

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#21 Post by Scarodactyl » Sun Dec 25, 2022 5:53 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Sun Dec 25, 2022 5:49 pm
Now I see that the barrels are cheap and the paint wore away.
To be fair this applies to some pretty expensive and optically advanced objectives nowadays :x

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#22 Post by apochronaut » Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:14 pm

Laser marked or etched for the majors now, I would guess.
There never were many phase objectives for the 1820 and those were based on existing BF objectives. Some catalogues show only three : a 10X planachro D.P. ( dark phase), 20 X achro l.w.d. w./ correction collar D.P. and a 45 X achro l.w.d. w./ correction collar D.P. There was also a 20X achro D.P. with a fixed 1.0mm W.D. and there would be no reason that you also could not use slightly older #1224 achro Dark Phase or a #1234 achro Bright Phase objectives.

Those all were originally engraved info. on brushed chrome on brass barrels. Some persisted in production to the era of paint ( around 1985) but the barrels didn't change. I've had a couple of the L.W.D. objectives apart to clean the collar sleeve and relubricate them and there is nothing cheap or shoddy about them. Very fine machining, brass with some anodized aluminum if I recall correctly. The barrels didn't change when the paint went on.
The paint era was in theory practical : it seems everybody did it to save money but lasers have taken over.
When I receive a painted objective, I clean it immediately and carefully, then wrap a sized piece of matte cellophane tape over it to protect the remaining numbers and letters. Most barrels have fairly smooth broad sections where the data is painted.

PeteM
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#23 Post by PeteM » Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:47 pm

FWIW, clear heatshrink tubing is another option to preserve painted markings, especially if the barrel unscrews for heat shrinking.

Seems there's some diversity of opinion about A.O./Reichert's LWD objectives with correction collars for their inverted scopes (e.g. 1820), but I've found them to provide decent images.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#24 Post by apochronaut » Sun Dec 25, 2022 10:25 pm

I have used a satin latex varnish too. It tends to brighten the lettering not dull it.
The AO L.W.D. objectives work well. Plan isn't missed in thicker samples.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#25 Post by wabutter » Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:29 am

ldflan wrote:
Sun Dec 25, 2022 4:36 pm
wabutter wrote:
Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:20 am
The Biostar was never offered with Leica branded objectives, although it was infinity corrected so someone may have built a system with objective from an DM IRB.
On this point I am positive you are wrong, to the extent that it matters. I never bought an 1820 from the manufacturer, but you frequently find the Leica LWD 20x and 40x objectives fitted to the 1820.

As to who actually designed or manufactured those objectives, I do not know. Cross branding seems to have been rampant at that point among the AO/Reichert/Leica brands as the various business consolidated.

My comment about the quality of those objectives is based on actually using them, not the Leica brand name. In fact, the barrels are cheap, the paint usually worn away, etc. They may well be AO manufacture. But they provide phase contrast and work reasonably well with care.

Have either you or Apo ever used either the scope or the objectives in question?

Anyway, my point basically is that for the price of a dinner out and a bottle of wine you can lay hands on a scope designed to do exactly what the original poster is trying to accomplish, and it will do so quite well. For a bit more, you can get a pretty darn powerful machine that will accomplish the same goals with elan.
This might be a bit off topic, but, As a factory rep both in sales and marketing, I lived and worked through a number of M&A in the AO- Leica transition. To keep it simple, after 1986, the brand AO was used in reference to a Optical Safety products and eye glass manufacturing. The microscope business was sold to Cambridge Instruments and the branding for the microscopes transitioned to Reichert-Jung and Cambridge Instruments. After 1990, the Leica name was introduced after the merger between Cambridge Instruments and Wild-Leitz. Essentially the consolidation of AO, B&L Reichert, Wild Heerbrugg and Leitz made up the core of the Leica microscope business. Leica name was also used for the Camera company and the Surveying and Photogrammetry Company. The B&L acquisition was all about the Stereozoom microscopes and the BalPlan was phased out before the Leica merger. After 1990 you began to see the transition from Reichert and Cambridge to Leica. As anyone in the business can imagine, there was a great deal of product reconciliation that took place in those early years.
To the heart of my comments. I have seen many discussions in this forum about cross branding of AO/ Reichert and Leica brand names. I can assure you with three exceptions, that if a product was designed in Wetzlar, Germany, no matter where is was produced, it carried a Leica brand name or Leitz. If the product was designed in Buffalo NY, it would carry the AO or Reichert Brand, Exception 1. There were a series of Reichert Vienna designed and produced objectives for the Microstar IV that carried the Leica brand. These were not rebranded Reichert Polyvar objectives as the tube lens and max field of view requirements were completely different as was the market price on that platform. They were specifically designed for the Microstar/Diastar line and produced in Vienna. Long before the merger, AO rebranded the Reichert Polyvar in the USA only as the AO Ultrastar. It was still produced in Vienna. The third exception was as new products were introduced and further consolidation of product lines occurred the Brand transitioned to Leica no matter where it was made. That was not cross branding but the conscious move to build the new Leica brand.

The Biostar preceded the merger and was based on an inverted platform from the Series 110 and 120 designed in Buffalo NY. Viewing tubes, camera systems and optical design were all compatible with the Series 110.
The standard objective offering was as follows: I hope the table formating is retained.
Brightfield
Cat # T ype Mag NA Working Distance Coverglass Condenser
1017 Plan Achro 4x 0.12 7.2mm - 1823 1835 1840
3006 Achromat 6.5x 0.2 18.0mm - 1823 1835
1026 Achromat 10x 0.25 9.1mm - 1823 1835
1215 Achromat 20X 0.5 1.1mm 1.0mm 1835
1216A Achromat 20x 0.5 1.2-1.7mm 0.5-1.5mm 1835
1218A Achromat 45x 0.66 0.6-1.1mm 0.5-1.2mm 1835
1311 Plan Achro 100x 1.25 0.1mm 0.17mm 1201 1087
Phase Contrast
1211 Plan Achro 10x 0.25 9.1mm - 1835 1840
1217A Achromat 20x 0.5 1.2-1.7mm 0.5-1.5mm 1835 1840
1219A Achromat 45x 0.66 0.6-1.1mm 0.5-1.2mm 1835 1840

After the introduction of the Microstar IV, there was a version of the Biostar, still called the 1820 by the way that adapted the Microstar IV tube and camera systems. However, as best I can recall, the objectives offered were still the 34mm parfocal length objectives listed above. The Stand carried the Reichert brand name, and after the merger carried the Leica Reichert brand name. As a stop gap measure the Buffalo factory may have relabeled these objectives with the Leica brand. As noted this was a stop gap effort and the branding was painted on rather than etched into the objective barrel. Yes, the labelling would wear off. The product life cycle in this configuration was so short lived that we never had a demo unit in our office configured this way.

To your point ldflan, it doesn't really matter. However, if you lived it, you want people to know whole story.

User avatar
MasLovesMicrobes
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:42 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#26 Post by MasLovesMicrobes » Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:47 am

Wabutter, I think the point when we left the topic happened quite a bit earlier on in the conversation, so I wouldn't worry about it, hahaha. I can't say that I'm following you all totally but I love to see the entousiasm you all have for these things. And certainly interesting stuff to think about. I'll update this post once I get those higher NA dries or take on that challenge of water immersion. Though thanks to Phill I'm beginning to see the reasons for inverted as well.
For now I think if we decide to take the conversation further in the direction of these LWD and their companies, that it is a discussion worthy of it's own thread. I'm new here, though, so if this fluidity of thread is just kinda how the wheel spins here, I can get with that I guess.
Thanks for all the advise!
Beauty lies not in the eye of the beholder, it lies in the lens of a microscope.

wabutter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#27 Post by wabutter » Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:27 pm

Thanks for the comment and good luck with your investigations.

Phill Brown
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#28 Post by Phill Brown » Tue Dec 27, 2022 10:04 am

I have a PL ∞ LWD 3.2mm 100x .85
I'd say it's mostly not a good investment to go with.
Sometimes the resolution is better than expected but DOF and FOV feel like pressing your nose to a wall to get a better view of a house.
Just not what I find interesting on living subjects.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#29 Post by apochronaut » Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:19 pm

Do you mean becsuse it is 100X or becsuse it is only .85?

Phill Brown
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: Two questions regarding water immersion

#30 Post by Phill Brown » Wed Dec 28, 2022 2:27 pm

Because it's a dry LWD .85.
Intended for reflected/metallurgical, only misused with BF or DF for mounted diatoms and radiolarians.
Yes there are aberrations.
It's ok to have it but would probably be the first thing I'd sell,if I ever sell anything.

Post Reply