Olympus Splan Apo 100x 1.4NA +coverslip +iris - The Objective that Doesn't Exist?

[mneium]

I was recently reviewing some of the incarnations of Splan Apo 100X that exist. There are as far as I can tell 5 or 6 total variations of this objective, having different NAs (sometimes 1.3, sometimes 1.35, sometimes 1.4) and different coverslip designations, as well as having or lacking an iris.

In Olympus' objectives catalog I found mention of one I have never seen so far: an Splan Apo 100X 1.4na set for a coverslip with an iris. It's on page 19 here: http://www.alanwood.net/downloads/olymp ... ctives.pdf



The "NC" (no coverslip) version of the +iris 1.4NA Splan Apo 100x appears to be relatively widespread, as does the +coverslip +iris 1.35NA Splan Apo 100x, but I've never seen what the catalog seems to indicate. Has anyone ever seen this objective?

[c-krebs]

This objective was the S Plan Apo 100X in the Olympus biological BH series objectives. I won't say it was very common but it certainly was readily available. Generally there are always a few on Ebay.
I don't use it as much after I obtained a 60/1.40, but the diaphragm can occasionally be useful for very high magnification darkfield. The first two images in this post are made with that objective in darkfield (with Zeiss oiled darkfield condenser).

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3374&p=30211

[mneium]

...

I see. This was my intention as well, to use it mainly for high magnification darkfield (could you imagine if the 60x had an iris?)
Thanks - it's encouraging to hear that this objective does indeed exist in 1.40NA +coverslip +iris flavor. It gets confusing because none of the different versions of the Splan Apo 100x are labeled/named differently, other than the "no coverslip" version which is called NCSplan Apo 100x.

[apochronaut]

That follows normal nomenclature for objectives. I don't see Olympus as doing anything any different than other manufacturers have done. The further qualification that is required to set it apart from it's class mates, is the N.A. and that is indicated on the barrel. The thing about 1.40 N.A. objectives is that, they have always been rarer. There isn't the same degree of general working latitude as a 1.30 for instance, so one really has to need one. One really should have a condenser that doesn't drag it down, they more likely than not will have less working distance and they are more expensive, not to mention cost of the condenser, if you don't just happen to have a 1.4 already.

[mneium]

That follows normal nomenclature for objectives. I don't see Olympus as doing anything any different than other manufacturers have done.

I dunno. Olympus doesn't even seem consistent with themselves.
For example, in the 1.35NA version of this objective, its NA is labeled on the barrel as: "1.35 - 0.80 oil"
Yet in the 1.40NA version of the same objective (still with an iris, apparently) it's just labeled as "1.40 oil". The same is true of the NCSplan Apo 100x.

I read that the 1.35 and 1.30 versions are older, so maybe their labeling scheme changed at some point to omit the iris range.

[synnus]

I happen to have one.
This is what it looks like.

[KurtM]

The first two images in this post are made with that objective in darkfield (with Zeiss oiled darkfield condenser).

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3374&p=30211

Those two images are still right at the top of my all time favorite diatom pix.

[Hobbyst46]

The first two images in this post are made with that objective in darkfield (with Zeiss oiled darkfield condenser).

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3374&p=30211

Those two images are still right at the top of my all time favorite diatom pix.

Yes, they are fantastic.

[carlh6902]

Old thread, I know. Here are the LB objectives I'm aware of.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/191X1Kx ... p=drivesdk

Carl