Are condensers for Olympus BH (finite 160mm system) and BX (infinity corrected) the same?
They look the same, and mounting dovetail is the same 47mm, so BH condenser fits into BX holder.
But are they optically identical - would a BH Achromat Aplanat 1.4 condenser perform the same as new BX U-AAC when mounted in BX scope?
Thank you!
Olympus condensers BH vs BX
-
enricosavazzi
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:50 am
Re: Olympus condensers BH vs BX
Without extensive testing both finite (BH) and infinity (BX) counterparts, which I have not done, I would not be able to state whether they are optically "identical". However, simple condensers that do not use phase rings, DIC prisms etc., like the condensers that only provide brightfield and darkfield illumination, are indeed optically very similar. For BF and DF illumination, there is conceptually no difference between infinity and finite systems, only the NA matters. Aside for this, as long as the condenser NA is compatible with the objectives', both BF and DF finite condensers will work with infinity objectives.
Phase and DIC inserts (especially the latter) must tightly match the objective design, so it is doubtful whether finite condensers with finite phase rings will work well with infinity objectives. UIS and UIS2 objectives are especially finicky about which of the many DIC prisms they work with, and I would recommend carefully sticking to the Olympus recommendations (which you can find in the U-UCD8 or U-UCD8-2 condenser user guide easily found on the Internet as PDF). The condenser DIC prisms must also match the type of DIC slider mounted above the objectives.
Phase and DIC inserts (especially the latter) must tightly match the objective design, so it is doubtful whether finite condensers with finite phase rings will work well with infinity objectives. UIS and UIS2 objectives are especially finicky about which of the many DIC prisms they work with, and I would recommend carefully sticking to the Olympus recommendations (which you can find in the U-UCD8 or U-UCD8-2 condenser user guide easily found on the Internet as PDF). The condenser DIC prisms must also match the type of DIC slider mounted above the objectives.
-
Phill Brown
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
- Location: Devon UK.
Re: Olympus condensers BH vs BX
If the part number is the same it's probably a safe enough bet.
Re: Olympus condensers BH vs BX
Enrico pretty much nailed it. The dovetails match and you can get Kohler illumination with a BH2 condenser on a BX and vice versa.
Some early BH condensers were meant to be clamped at the top and will not have a dovetail at the bottom. I've found they can still be used if you add your own dovetail - and this might make sense in the case of something like a pricey oblique, darkfield, a 1.4na achromatic aplanatic condenser, or a Vanox-era long barrel DIC condenser. Past Microbe Hunter threads have covered some of these cases.
The phase rings on BH2 and BX condensers are not a match. My vague recollection is that it is the Ph2 annulus that is way off. It's a shame because the BX annuli will fit a BH2 phase condenser, but at least one of the rings is way off. Someone willing to go to the effort of making their own phase annuli could use either condenser to house them.
DIC prisms are interesting. The top sliding prisms don't interchange. However, I've managed to acquire and test a wide range of BH2 and BX condenser prisms and there are several cases where this is a cross-over, with good DIC and an even background from something like an Olympus DPlanApo prism used on a BX.
Some early BH condensers were meant to be clamped at the top and will not have a dovetail at the bottom. I've found they can still be used if you add your own dovetail - and this might make sense in the case of something like a pricey oblique, darkfield, a 1.4na achromatic aplanatic condenser, or a Vanox-era long barrel DIC condenser. Past Microbe Hunter threads have covered some of these cases.
The phase rings on BH2 and BX condensers are not a match. My vague recollection is that it is the Ph2 annulus that is way off. It's a shame because the BX annuli will fit a BH2 phase condenser, but at least one of the rings is way off. Someone willing to go to the effort of making their own phase annuli could use either condenser to house them.
DIC prisms are interesting. The top sliding prisms don't interchange. However, I've managed to acquire and test a wide range of BH2 and BX condenser prisms and there are several cases where this is a cross-over, with good DIC and an even background from something like an Olympus DPlanApo prism used on a BX.
-
Macro_Cosmos
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:20 am
- Location: 192.0.0.1
- Contact:
Re: Olympus condensers BH vs BX
They are not the same.
BH2-SC has a convex optic while the u-sc3 appears to use a flat. I am pretty sure the BH2-SC and U-SC cannot illuminate a 2x objective properly.
Same applies to BH2-POC versus U-POC2.
BH2-AAC has some kind of yellow hue compared to U-AAC.
BH2-AAC and BH2-AAC has a cylindrical bottom while the BX versions have a conical bottom, making the former far easier to add a tray for Rheinberg etc.
BH2-UCD has no swappable top lens, the polariser cannot be swung out, there is no slot for waveplates. It is similar to the U-UCD.
Does any of this matter? Not really.
BH2-SC has a convex optic while the u-sc3 appears to use a flat. I am pretty sure the BH2-SC and U-SC cannot illuminate a 2x objective properly.
Same applies to BH2-POC versus U-POC2.
BH2-AAC has some kind of yellow hue compared to U-AAC.
BH2-AAC and BH2-AAC has a cylindrical bottom while the BX versions have a conical bottom, making the former far easier to add a tray for Rheinberg etc.
BH2-UCD has no swappable top lens, the polariser cannot be swung out, there is no slot for waveplates. It is similar to the U-UCD.
Does any of this matter? Not really.