Olympus LB versus SB objectives

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Scoper
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:06 pm

Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#1 Post by Scoper » Wed May 24, 2023 12:26 am

When one compares Olympus Long Barrel objectives to their Short Barrel counterparts, how do the compare optically?

User avatar
woyjwjl
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:55 pm
Location: Wuhan, China

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#2 Post by woyjwjl » Wed May 24, 2023 1:20 am

From my perspective as an amateur player, the more significant difference is FOV.
Micrographers from China, thanks to the forum for providing a platform for exchange

Scoper
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:06 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#3 Post by Scoper » Wed May 24, 2023 4:33 pm

Any documentation out there that covers both types of objectives?

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#4 Post by viktor j nilsson » Wed May 24, 2023 5:10 pm

If you go to:
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/downloads.html
Then the "Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf is a comprehensive overview of the SB optics, and the "Olympus LB Objectives" and "Olympus LB Objective Series for Biological Use" pdfs are the same for the LB ones.

I own all of the Olympus SB fluorites and planapos. I don't own any Olympus LB objectives, but I do own a lot of Nikon CF/CFN Fluor, Plan Fluor and PlanApo objectives that should be very similar to Olympus SB fluorites and PlanApos. The Olympus SBs hold up quite well in direct comparison, when used with correct eyepieces.

The Olympus SB PlanApos are actually corrected for a huge field number of 29mm according to the literature! That's even greater than modern Olympus infinity systems with 26.5mm FN. Unfortunately I don't own a SW head so I haven't ben able to test that. So I use them with 18mm BiWF eyepieces, that are indeed a bit limited in FOV. Very well corrected with those eyepieces, though.

To me, the biggest difference is a tiny bit more CA, and a bit less contrast. And there are some gaps in the lineup, no 60x 1.40 for example.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#5 Post by Scarodactyl » Wed May 24, 2023 11:53 pm

I remember the crazy field number. Did they ever make any accessory that could actually take advantage of it?

Scoper
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:06 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#6 Post by Scoper » Wed May 24, 2023 11:55 pm

I cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.

Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.

The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#7 Post by apochronaut » Thu May 25, 2023 1:22 am

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 5:10 pm
If you go to:
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/downloads.html
Then the "Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf is a comprehensive overview of the SB optics, and the "Olympus LB Objectives" and "Olympus LB Objective Series for Biological Use" pdfs are the same for the LB ones.

I own all of the Olympus SB fluorites and planapos. I don't own any Olympus LB objectives, but I do own a lot of Nikon CF/CFN Fluor, Plan Fluor and PlanApo objectives that should be very similar to Olympus SB fluorites and PlanApos. The Olympus SBs hold up quite well in direct comparison, when used with correct eyepieces.

The Olympus SB PlanApos are actually corrected for a huge field number of 29mm according to the literature! That's even greater than modern Olympus infinity systems with 26.5mm FN. Unfortunately I don't own a SW head so I haven't ben able to test that. So I use them with 18mm BiWF eyepieces, that are indeed a bit limited in FOV. Very well corrected with those eyepieces, though.

To me, the biggest difference is a tiny bit more CA, and a bit less contrast. And there are some gaps in the lineup, no 60x 1.40 for example.
Something I did quite a few years ago, which opened my eyes a bit regarding corrections and image circles was to use a teaching head as a photo tube. Instead of setting up a photo tube photo relay lens on the teaching head I had some adapters made by Raf camera that had a 2" (50.4mm) male dovetail on one side and 52mm as well as 46mm on the other. The metric thread is designed to thread into the filter thread of a camera lens. I mounted a 200mm Nikkor Q ( cheap but really well corrcted lens) on the teaching head coupled to my APS-C camera.
The results were really interesting. The images covered at least a 28mm field. I never really measured it accurately but the field capture was thereabouts, maybe even more. Peripheral ca crept in towards the periphery to not a huge degree but it was easy to see that corrective eyepieces could be used to rectify that. The objective was an AO/Reichert 40X .70 planfluor, which is listed in it's patents as a 24mm f.o.v. , so that is likely the fully corrected image circle of the design. Virtually all AO objectives going way back are 24mm. That seems to have been the defacto engineering target and is likely the reason that Univars and Polyvars are 24mm.
It shows how such large potential fields are possible, especially if the design incorporates peripheral corrections outside the objective, which I believe wss an Olympus practice.
That idea was given to me by Curt Sleve.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#8 Post by viktor j nilsson » Thu May 25, 2023 4:25 am

Scoper wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:55 pm
I cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.

Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.

The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
Click on the BH section, it's the second to last item.

Your statement about the lack of Olympus info is baffling. Thanks to Alan Wood and Carl Hunsinger there's an enormous about of easily accessible info online.

I very much doubt that mixing LB and SB phase components would work. And that's not something that you'll read in any literature. They were completely different optical systems, and not intended to be mixed in any way. The stands are much more compatible though, with some parts (like the photomicro adapter L) being compatible all the way from BH to BX.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#9 Post by viktor j nilsson » Thu May 25, 2023 4:31 am

Scarodactyl wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:53 pm
I remember the crazy field number. Did they ever make any accessory that could actually take advantage of it?
Yep, the BiSW 7x eyepieces have a FN of 29mm! The 10x are 26.5mm.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#10 Post by Scarodactyl » Thu May 25, 2023 6:57 am

Cool! Too bad it's a 7x so your apparent fov is more like 21, but hey that's still remarkable. Something to keep sn eye out for.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#11 Post by Hobbyst46 » Thu May 25, 2023 8:20 am

Just for fun, I fitted my short barrel Olympus objectives (achromat, planapo) on the Zeiss stage. With Olympus WF10X eyepieces. Raised the slide on a small metal riser, to compensate for the 45mm vs 37mm parfocality distance. The condenser cannot reach the slide in such arrangement, so it was raised as much as possible.
Some quick brightfield looks at diatoms show a beautiful planar image (the Zeiss FN is 18mm).

But the biggest disadvantage of the SB Olympus objectives, IMHO, is the too short working distance . This feature has been mentioned on the Olympus brochure.
Indeed, the front lens of even the 10X0.32 planapo SB objective is very close to the coverslip. That of the 20X0.65 planapo is dangerously close.
These are dry objectives ! although both are spring-loaded, I find that a limitation, much more than the other disadvantages (relative to the LB objectives) claimed by Olympus.

By contrast, SPlans are a joy to use, in combination with the proper eyepieces.

Scoper
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:06 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#12 Post by Scoper » Thu May 25, 2023 5:26 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:25 am
Scoper wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:55 pm
I cannot seem to find the “Olympus High Quality Optics catalogue" pdf for the SB objectives at the link you provided.

Also I am trying to figure out the SB phase objectives…especially if they work the LB phase condenser..there are indications that they do not.

The lack of readily available Olympus info is maddening.
Click on the BH section, it's the second to last item.

Your statement about the lack of Olympus info is baffling. Thanks to Alan Wood and Carl Hunsinger there's an enormous about of easily accessible info online.

I very much doubt that mixing LB and SB phase components would work. And that's not something that you'll read in any literature. They were completely different optical systems, and not intended to be mixed in any way. The stands are much more compatible though, with some parts (like the photomicro adapter L) being compatible all the way from BH to BX.
Thanks for the clarification.

I would agree that the Wood/Hunsinger documentation trove is impressive and a welcomed change to the usual next to nothing on other brands. The problem I am facing is that there is almost nothing about the SB/LB interchangeability..or lack of..especially as to how it pertains to phase.

When a company introduces a new product line, there is always questions from the user community concerning compatibility with existing equipment…the users want full compatibility to leverage current investments while the company wants partial to nil so to introduce new tech and sell products..and the design team in the middle is tasked to implement it.

Mechanically it would seem the BH and BH2 lines are somewhat compatible while optically they are less so.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#13 Post by Hobbyst46 » Thu May 25, 2023 8:12 pm

Scoper wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:26 pm
When a company introduces a new product line, there is always questions from the user community concerning compatibility with existing equipment…the users want full compatibility to leverage current investments while the company wants partial to nil so to introduce new tech and sell products..and the design team in the middle is tasked to implement it.
IMHO, this is not the case for Olympus and other big microscope makers. Their chief purpose is to sell microscopes to professionals: Research institutes, Clinics, applied science firms etc, they are the user communities, rather than the individual hobbyist. In contrast to the individual amateur, who would like to protect his initial investment as you say, professionals value innovative and cutting edge features of the hardware much more than backwards compatibility. Thus, they will the whole system, microscope and all its accessories, if necessary, and the intention to do so is part of their planned annual budget.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#14 Post by Scarodactyl » Fri May 26, 2023 12:53 am

Scoper wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:26 pm
The problem I am facing is that there is almost nothing about the SB/LB interchangeability..or lack of..especially as to how it pertains to phase.
As hobbyist said this is not something you would expect to find in their documentation. Either way I think you've already had actual users tell you they are not compatible, which is going to be the best source of info. They might not mention them being compatible even if they were but hands on knowledge is the gold standard.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#15 Post by viktor j nilsson » Fri May 26, 2023 12:02 pm

Hobbyst46 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 8:20 am

But the biggest disadvantage of the SB Olympus objectives, IMHO, is the too short working distance . This feature has been mentioned on the Olympus brochure.
Indeed, the front lens of even the 10X0.32 planapo SB objective is very close to the coverslip. That of the 20X0.65 planapo is dangerously close.
These are dry objectives ! although both are spring-loaded, I find that a limitation, much more than the other disadvantages (relative to the LB objectives) claimed by Olympus.

By contrast, SPlans are a joy to use, in combination with the proper eyepieces.
This is a very good point.
This is the working distance of Olympus SB, LB and Nikon Planapos:

Line: SB LB Nikon CFN
10x 0.16 2.03 2.75
20x 0.14 0.55 0.64
40x 0.10 0.13 0.08-0.18

So definately a big difference there. The tight WD of the 20x has costed me a Klaus Kemp test slide...

Scoper
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:06 pm

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#16 Post by Scoper » Fri May 26, 2023 4:42 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 12:53 am
Scoper wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 5:26 pm
The problem I am facing is that there is almost nothing about the SB/LB interchangeability..or lack of..especially as to how it pertains to phase.
As hobbyist said this is not something you would expect to find in their documentation. Either way I think you've already had actual users tell you they are not compatible, which is going to be the best source of info. They might not mention them being compatible even if they were but hands on knowledge is the gold standard.
I agree that this topic is not one the company would want to highlight..limiting upward compatibility of an existing product line..but discussing this with several individuals who were actively using Olympus products during the SB to LB transition assured me it was a hot topic with the user base versus suppliers.

One retired professor pointed out that you only have to look at the BH (plain/sparse) versus BH2 (colorful/detail rich) sales documentation of the time to see that Olympus was upping their game to aggressively gain market share at this time.

In summary, thanks to everyone for the SB/LB phase lack of compatibility info, it has saved us considerable time and money knowing about this.

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

Re: Olympus LB versus SB objectives

#17 Post by Scarodactyl » Fri May 26, 2023 5:17 pm

Yup, Olympus was in the process of transitioning from a minor concern to a major player (much as Japan in general transitioned from an outsourcing center to an industrial powerhouse). It wasn't much earlier that bausch and lomb was rebadging olympus scopes, and soon the bh2 would be an all-time bestseller.

Post Reply