In my opinion it heavily depends on the usecase: For pond life observations non-plan objectives are more than enough as the organisms are usually pretty small and will be placed in the center for the frame for observation anyway. It's a different story for tissue sections where you want to observe the whole field that is available to you. Working with non-plan objective can be pretty frustrating then.
Good advice! I go with the PLAN objectives as I like to make photographic mosaics with the views - and the flatter the field of view the better for stitching the images together.
First. Also, I want to thank you for your channel. I bought a Nikon Model S last year, about May and just finished restoring it yesterday (around school and other responsibilities). I got it for less than $100 USD in very dirty condition and have cleaned and regreased it as well as I can and it is SO much better than the cheap ones I have used before. Anyway, thank you for your inspiration and help through videos!
I have 3 of these, an L-ke, S-kt and S-ke. I replaced the fine focus gears with brass ones and they work like new. I found you can use objectives from other makers like Zeiss an Olympus. On the L-ke, I have 5 Zeiss phase contrast objectives and a Nikon phase condenser turret for excellent phase contrast. The original Nikon objectives have pretty long working length so good for well slides of pond samples. I bought the add on led lighting for the L-kt from ebay. It works well. The other two have original lighting . The ke 3 position lighting is really excellent.
I've called three microscope companies recently and never got a call back. I think they only want to sell to universities that are going to buy a hundred at a time. Finally, there's a lack of technical information, which is why I like Alan Woods website for the old Olympus. BTW, Motic got back to me quickly with the parfocal distance of an objective.
The word "might" is important here. My Motic BA310E takes Olympus PlanApo lenses nicely (although I have had to shave a tiny bit off the shoulders to fit them adjacently on the nose piece) They are as parfocal as the Motic lenses
I have just purchased two Nikon Plan Objectives (at a very good price, £104. 80 for both), used ones, from a reputable company, the price of one was lowered considerable only because some of the stencilled markings on the side of the barrel had worn away, caused by hand cream. One is a 10x and the other is 40x. I now have a 10x plan (Nikon), a 20x plan (Brunel) and a 40x plan (Nikon), and a 100x non plan oil imm (Brunel) on my turret. I have no problems with parfocality. There is little focusing needing adjusted when I switch from one objective to the other, but a safety precaution would be to lower the stage slightly before engaging the next highest mag objective. There is not a problem with the two lower mag obj's as they are quite short in physical length and have a relatively large working distance, but from x20 to x40, I always lower my stage first before engaging the 40x, (this is good practice, I would say) and the same with the 100x, I lower the stage first before engaging it, and very slowly with the coarse focus knob I bring it back up again until I get close to focus, then I engage the fine focus knob to bring the focus to full on sharp. From the x20 to x40, even though the x40 does not hit the cover glass when I swing it in without lowering the stage first, I find I have to lower the stage to bring it in to focus, only slightly, though. The main point that be is gentle gentle, small movements with the coarse knob. That said, I know my microscope like I know the back of my hand, and I never do anything rashly without thinking carefully about what I am doing before doing it. It's important to keep the brain always focused on the task at hand. I would prefer to have the best quality lenses on my scope even if they are not parfocal. By the way, my two Nikon plan objectives out perform the 10x and 40x non plan ones that came with the scope, and that is not to say that the non plan ones that came with the scope are in any way of poor quality.
Is this an issue for modern 160mm scopes? I have yet to find one being sold which does not adhere to the DIN standard (45mm parfocality) and would be surprised to find a new 160mm plan objective sold which doesn’t also follow this (frankly I’m not convinced there’s more than one 160mm scope manufacturer in China, haha!). I know there are important differences for infinity optics, though. And I’m very glad you’re talking about the poor customer support of modern scope companies. The amateur is always hung out to dry with these people and I think it holds the hobby back from how popular it ought to be (I’m one of those “A microscope in every home!” kinda folks)
9:50: Your "side" recommendation of a 20X objective for viewing water samples was information I was seeking. Thank you for mentioning it. And thank you for posting your knowledge of microscopes. I wish I had access to your information when I was in college.
hi! :))), could you make a video explaining what to take into account to replace parts of a microscope, such as changing a monocular head for a trinocular to take videos more comfortably, or changing the condenser for a better one. And especially in standard 160mm microscopes. I love your videos. And also if it is worth creating a Frankenstein 160mm Standard microscope or if it is only worth doing it with microscopes of big and well-known brands
I was very fortunate that I found a wonderful company for repair and maintain my microscope. They are willing to repair older model microscopes and advise you on adaptations for the kind of work you are doing. They are expensive, but if you have a complex or expensive instrument, it is well worth it. They will advise you on the less expensive means of doing things. The technicians will come to your home (or site) to clean and repair it. They are located outside of Boston, MA in the US, so if you are in this area they may be if help. They do repair other scientific and medical equipment as well, but the wonderful thing is they will take extra effort to repair older models no longer in production They are named Copia Scientific.
Oliver is correct. I was in that position, got the PLAN, and its a nuisance. It hits the slide often when turning it in, squishing my critters, and its working distance is teeny. That teeny working distance makes it tough to avoid squishing the slide no matter what. It might be fine for properly prepared thin specimens, but for wild critters in a thick sample it just doesnt work very good. To be fair my 60X non-PLAN with more working distance is not great either. A ELWD might be better but its expen$ive so I dont have one yet. I would say microscope companies either have zero support or they are wildly overpriced to pay staff to make decisions and build/maintain scopes for thier customers. The industry is in trouble, and its a shame. Microscopes belong at home looking at interesting stuff, not just at work or school looking at stuff nobody really cares about.
Thank you! For the readers of this comment: ELWD stands for Extra Long Working Distance. These objectives are further away from the cover glass. Not all companies make these.
My Plan Objectives do not crash into the cover glass when I swing them in to engage them. However, as a precautionary measure I always lower the stage before engaging them and raise it again slowly and carefully to bring the specimen into focus. It's second nature for me to do that. Parfocality isn't necessary if you know your scope and know how to handle it. If you can't see how close your objective is to the cover glass, try sliding a strip of fine paper between it and the cover glass to practice. The fine paper you find in your box of slides is ideal. Practice makes perfect and remember gentle gentle is the way when raising your stage with the coarse focus knob.
i am from Philippine and i am your big fan, i watch every all of your video, i am trying to do something on that field. i will continues my research even financially am not that good but i will try.... 💓
Recently I changed thr 100oe on my Swift SW350 for a 20x. Giving my 4x, 10x, 20x and 40x. I find this much better for looking at microbes. It is a different series, but I don’t it at all inconvenient changing the focus a little..
Yes, this is a requirement for all objectives, as long as the objectives are of the same series. You should not mix objectives as you might lose this parfocality.
Not only parfocality is the problem with objectives of different series. Many objectives is needed of properly corrected aberration by special oculars, developed only for this objectives.
Hi I have a Nikon DSLR 5600 camera. I want to use it, for taking microscopic images. How can I do it ? I heard there is some reverse adapter for it, can you guide me, what to buy?
Much depends on the field of view. If the camera only captures a small central region, then you might be fine with non-plan. Also if the video changes focus often, non-plan might be less noticable.
Hi Microbehunter. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I have full series of Hi Plan objectives on my microscopy. I am planning to add a version of x63 Dry Hi plan instead of version using oil and I realize that Its Numeric Aperture will be lower relatively. You had brought up a good point. about using the same series. Would other series of x63 with similar working distance as the x63 Hi Plan series work since it could imply that the x63 from other series might have a similar conjugate focal plane that no significant adjustment will be required after swinging from x40 to -x63? Since the objective with BF, DF, and PH are quite costly per my finding. Between the combination of BF-DF and BF-PH objectives(Lower cost relatively), which one would you consider to have? Thanks in advance and take care. HB
i orderd a Swift Stellar1-B DIN version and i nocticed the objectives are listed as four SA DIN Achromat objectives, what does the SA mean ? i have not been able to find any lens with these same markings even though the microscope is listed as Achromatic objectives, is this the same thing ? i noticed the objectives that come on the swift SW380 do not have this printed on them and look completly differant then the ones that come on the Stellar 1 DIN, i want a 60x that will work with this microscope
ich versteh dich einfach nicht,...Ein Planobjektiv hat ein groessere scharfes Blickfeld uns so sieht man einfach mehr und soviel teurer sind die auch nicht mehr.. Planobjective haben einfach bessere Optik in jeder Hinsicht
In my opinion it heavily depends on the usecase: For pond life observations non-plan objectives are more than enough as the organisms are usually pretty small and will be placed in the center for the frame for observation anyway. It's a different story for tissue sections where you want to observe the whole field that is available to you. Working with non-plan objective can be pretty frustrating then.
Good advice! I go with the PLAN objectives as I like to make photographic mosaics with the views - and the flatter the field of view the better for stitching the images together.
First.
Also, I want to thank you for your channel. I bought a Nikon Model S last year, about May and just finished restoring it yesterday (around school and other responsibilities). I got it for less than $100 USD in very dirty condition and have cleaned and regreased it as well as I can and it is SO much better than the cheap ones I have used before.
Anyway, thank you for your inspiration and help through videos!
I have 3 of these, an L-ke, S-kt and S-ke. I replaced the fine focus gears with brass ones and they work like new. I found you can use objectives from other makers like Zeiss an Olympus. On the L-ke, I have 5 Zeiss phase contrast objectives and a Nikon phase condenser turret for excellent phase contrast. The original Nikon objectives have pretty long working length so good for well slides of pond samples. I bought the add on led lighting for the L-kt from ebay. It works well. The other two have original lighting . The ke 3 position lighting is really excellent.
I've called three microscope companies recently and never got a call back. I think they only want to sell to universities that are going to buy a hundred at a time. Finally, there's a lack of technical information, which is why I like Alan Woods website for the old Olympus. BTW, Motic got back to me quickly with the parfocal distance of an objective.
The word "might" is important here. My Motic BA310E takes Olympus PlanApo lenses nicely (although I have had to shave a tiny bit off the shoulders to fit them adjacently on the nose piece) They are as parfocal as the Motic lenses
I have just purchased two Nikon Plan Objectives (at a very good price, £104. 80 for both), used ones, from a reputable company, the price of one was lowered considerable only because some of the stencilled markings on the side of the barrel had worn away, caused by hand cream. One is a 10x and the other is 40x. I now have a 10x plan (Nikon), a 20x plan (Brunel) and a 40x plan (Nikon), and a 100x non plan oil imm (Brunel) on my turret. I have no problems with parfocality. There is little focusing needing adjusted when I switch from one objective to the other, but a safety precaution would be to lower the stage slightly before engaging the next highest mag objective. There is not a problem with the two lower mag obj's as they are quite short in physical length and have a relatively large working distance, but from x20 to x40, I always lower my stage first before engaging the 40x, (this is good practice, I would say) and the same with the 100x, I lower the stage first before engaging it, and very slowly with the coarse focus knob I bring it back up again until I get close to focus, then I engage the fine focus knob to bring the focus to full on sharp. From the x20 to x40, even though the x40 does not hit the cover glass when I swing it in without lowering the stage first, I find I have to lower the stage to bring it in to focus, only slightly, though. The main point that be is gentle gentle, small movements with the coarse knob. That said, I know my microscope like I know the back of my hand, and I never do anything rashly without thinking carefully about what I am doing before doing it. It's important to keep the brain always focused on the task at hand. I would prefer to have the best quality lenses on my scope even if they are not parfocal.
By the way, my two Nikon plan objectives out perform the 10x and 40x non plan ones that came with the scope, and that is not to say that the non plan ones that came with the scope are in any way of poor quality.
You explained it very well, very useful information, thank you very much.
Is this an issue for modern 160mm scopes? I have yet to find one being sold which does not adhere to the DIN standard (45mm parfocality) and would be surprised to find a new 160mm plan objective sold which doesn’t also follow this (frankly I’m not convinced there’s more than one 160mm scope manufacturer in China, haha!). I know there are important differences for infinity optics, though.
And I’m very glad you’re talking about the poor customer support of modern scope companies. The amateur is always hung out to dry with these people and I think it holds the hobby back from how popular it ought to be (I’m one of those “A microscope in every home!” kinda folks)
9:50: Your "side" recommendation of a 20X objective for viewing water samples was information I was seeking. Thank you for mentioning it. And thank you for posting your knowledge of microscopes. I wish I had access to your information when I was in college.
hi! :))), could you make a video explaining what to take into account to replace parts of a microscope, such as changing a monocular head for a trinocular to take videos more comfortably, or changing the condenser for a better one. And especially in standard 160mm microscopes.
I love your videos.
And also if it is worth creating a Frankenstein 160mm Standard microscope or if it is only worth doing it with microscopes of big and well-known brands
Hi, can you explain about the suitable DSLR camera attachments and the trinocular microscopes of various makes?
I was very fortunate that I found a wonderful company for repair and maintain my microscope. They are willing to repair older model microscopes and advise you on adaptations for the kind of work you are doing. They are expensive, but if you have a complex or expensive instrument, it is well worth it. They will advise you on the less expensive means of doing things. The technicians will come to your home (or site) to clean and repair it. They are located outside of Boston, MA in the US, so if you are in this area they may be if help. They do repair other scientific and medical equipment as well, but the wonderful thing is they will take extra effort to repair older models no longer in production They are named Copia Scientific.
Oliver is correct. I was in that position, got the PLAN, and its a nuisance. It hits the slide often when turning it in, squishing my critters, and its working distance is teeny. That teeny working distance makes it tough to avoid squishing the slide no matter what. It might be fine for properly prepared thin specimens, but for wild critters in a thick sample it just doesnt work very good. To be fair my 60X non-PLAN with more working distance is not great either. A ELWD might be better but its expen$ive so I dont have one yet.
I would say microscope companies either have zero support or they are wildly overpriced to pay staff to make decisions and build/maintain scopes for thier customers. The industry is in trouble, and its a shame. Microscopes belong at home looking at interesting stuff, not just at work or school looking at stuff nobody really cares about.
Thank you! For the readers of this comment: ELWD stands for Extra Long Working Distance. These objectives are further away from the cover glass. Not all companies make these.
My Plan Objectives do not crash into the cover glass when I swing them in to engage them. However, as a precautionary measure I always lower the stage before engaging them and raise it again slowly and carefully to bring the specimen into focus. It's second nature for me to do that. Parfocality isn't necessary if you know your scope and know how to handle it. If you can't see how close your objective is to the cover glass, try sliding a strip of fine paper between it and the cover glass to practice. The fine paper you find in your box of slides is ideal. Practice makes perfect and remember gentle gentle is the way when raising your stage with the coarse focus knob.
i am from Philippine and i am your big fan, i watch every all of your video, i am trying to do something on that field. i will continues my research even financially am not that good but i will try.... 💓
Live online!!!
Recently I changed thr 100oe on my Swift SW350 for a 20x. Giving my 4x, 10x, 20x and 40x. I find this much better for looking at microbes. It is a different series, but I don’t it at all inconvenient changing the focus a little..
20x reco - I agree. I use that quite a lot.
If you have infinity plan objectives, will it remain in focus when switching objectives?
Yes, this is a requirement for all objectives, as long as the objectives are of the same series. You should not mix objectives as you might lose this parfocality.
Not only parfocality is the problem with objectives of different series. Many objectives is needed of properly corrected aberration by special oculars, developed only for this objectives.
Yes. These are "compensating eyepieces". Especially the more expensive microscope brands have these.
feel like that video was made for me and my Nachet microscope :D (which have a growing thread on the forum)
Hello I love your channel
Hi
I have a Nikon DSLR 5600 camera. I want to use it, for taking microscopic images. How can I do it ? I heard there is some reverse adapter for it, can you guide me, what to buy?
Are Plan better for video? You mention photography, but I have not heard your opinion on video?
Much depends on the field of view. If the camera only captures a small central region, then you might be fine with non-plan. Also if the video changes focus often, non-plan might be less noticable.
Hi Microbehunter. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I have full series of Hi Plan objectives on my microscopy. I am planning to add a version of x63 Dry Hi plan instead of version using oil and I realize that Its Numeric Aperture will be lower relatively. You had brought up a good point. about using the same series. Would other series of x63 with similar working distance as the x63 Hi Plan series work since it could imply that the x63 from other series might have a similar conjugate focal plane that no significant adjustment will be required after swinging from x40 to -x63? Since the objective with BF, DF, and PH are quite costly per my finding. Between the combination of BF-DF and BF-PH objectives(Lower cost relatively), which one would you consider to have? Thanks in advance and take care. HB
i orderd a Swift Stellar1-B DIN version and i nocticed the objectives are listed as four SA DIN Achromat objectives, what does the SA mean ? i have not been able to find any lens with these same markings even though the microscope is listed as Achromatic objectives, is this the same thing ? i noticed the objectives that come on the swift SW380 do not have this printed on them and look completly differant then the ones that come on the Stellar 1 DIN, i want a 60x that will work with this microscope
SA is Semi-Achromat. Or Swift-Achromat.
Wish you done classes online!!!!
I do have a weekly online livestream every Saturday at 19:30 UTC. It is in my other channel: czcams.com/channels/h24qFXqJdEUZeMG_Ib6aeA.html
and it's reeeaaallllllyyy cool!
Plan means flat.
So I wouldn't be buying from companies that don't answer the phone.....
ich versteh dich einfach nicht,...Ein Planobjektiv hat ein groessere scharfes Blickfeld uns so sieht man einfach mehr und soviel teurer sind die auch nicht mehr.. Planobjective haben einfach bessere Optik in jeder Hinsicht
...if you want better service, the microscopes will cost more to pay for it...