4X Objective Lens Test Comparison - Part 1
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Many thanks for sharing the information with us. I have 2 questions.
1)Can you please be more specific about the painters tape? Are you using it after cleaning the wafers in ultrasonic bath?
2)What is the dimensions of your wafer test target?I 'm thinking of buying some 6'' wafer plates through ebay but their size requires a much bigger ultrasonic cleaner than I have.May its possible to cut them someway.
1)Can you please be more specific about the painters tape? Are you using it after cleaning the wafers in ultrasonic bath?
2)What is the dimensions of your wafer test target?I 'm thinking of buying some 6'' wafer plates through ebay but their size requires a much bigger ultrasonic cleaner than I have.May its possible to cut them someway.
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Glad to help!harisA wrote:Many thanks for sharing the information with us. I have 2 questions.
1)Can you please be more specific about the painters tape? Are you using it after cleaning the wafers in ultrasonic bath?
2)What is the dimensions of your wafer test target?I 'm thinking of buying some 6'' wafer plates through ebay but their size requires a much bigger ultrasonic cleaner than I have.May its possible to cut them someway.
I found best results using two steps.
1. Scratching the wafer was a concern so I used a super soft micro-fiber cloth with one misting of non-streak window cleaner to avoid leaving any streaks. This was to remove any film or anything sticky.
At that point you will still have lots of tiny white dots or particles that stick to the wafer, maybe due to a static charge? Brushing had no effect, it made it worse. Forced air wouldn't dislodge them.
2. This is the most important step. I use the painter's tape to stick and peel it back a few times in the same target area strip.
This results in a perfect clean like-new finish like nothing else I tried.
After trying so many methods I didn't think it was possible to get it as clean as when I received it, but the tape did it.
Hope you will see similar results.
Robert
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
The funny part is, at least in my office, I can get it perfectly clean, but by the time I set everything up and test fire a few, and shoot, there are specks again!Lou Jost wrote:I've found that white specks of dirt are a useful addition to my test surfaces. That's where CA and astigmatism shows up best.
But you are right Lou, CAs really show up well on a white speck.
One seller on Ebay claimed he had factory new wafer so I bought a few, the seller is in France. They were 100% scratched, every square mm.
I complained. He denied it. I filed a claim a Ebay claim not as described. He credited me 100%.
Now those are my favorite wafers, the fine scratches really make is easy to judge sharpness.
Last edited by RobertOToole on Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Bigfork, Montana
- Contact:
I haven't tried Robert's painters tape idea yet, I might use a lint remover clothes roller for getting lint off cloths since I don't have any painter's tape. He has very good idea IMO especially if it doesn't damage or leave a residue on the wafer surface.
I've had some success with using a semisoft brush and blowing air while brushing, this still leaves some debris behind though.
Another thing I've found that keeping the wafer/chip covered at all times, and keeping the setup out of any direct air movement (such as AC vent blowing, or ceiling fans). Tiny micron level debris is everywhere, and this is why semiconductors are processed in "clean rooms" and the facilities go to great lengths and expense to remove any possible contaminates. A single sodium atom in the wrong place can cause a chip to fail (upsets the threshold voltage of sub micron FETs), so imagine what a micron size particle would do
Surfaces of the newer chip processes use a different surface passivation than the much older wafters like these 6" versions. These new wafer surfaces may have polyamide or BCB plastics which are soft and easily scratched, more so than the older wafer passivation.
Great work Robert, looks like those $17 AmScope 4X are a real bargain.
Best,
Mike
I've had some success with using a semisoft brush and blowing air while brushing, this still leaves some debris behind though.
Another thing I've found that keeping the wafer/chip covered at all times, and keeping the setup out of any direct air movement (such as AC vent blowing, or ceiling fans). Tiny micron level debris is everywhere, and this is why semiconductors are processed in "clean rooms" and the facilities go to great lengths and expense to remove any possible contaminates. A single sodium atom in the wrong place can cause a chip to fail (upsets the threshold voltage of sub micron FETs), so imagine what a micron size particle would do
Surfaces of the newer chip processes use a different surface passivation than the much older wafters like these 6" versions. These new wafer surfaces may have polyamide or BCB plastics which are soft and easily scratched, more so than the older wafer passivation.
Great work Robert, looks like those $17 AmScope 4X are a real bargain.
Best,
Mike
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Good advice.mawyatt wrote:...Another thing I've found that keeping the wafer/chip covered at all times, and keeping the setup out of any direct air movement (such as AC vent blowing, or ceiling fans). .....
I learned the hard way, an exposed wafer will attract dust like super-magnet.
Now I am careful to keep an index card over the top of my diffuser dome and over the wafer when its not in use.
Robert
Thank you for your effort and for sharing ... I posted a link at the Extreme Macro Facebook group and people there are also quiet excited about your test ...
Just 2 remarks and forgive me in advance if I am wrong ...
1) In the "settings" you forgot to mention what lens you used as "tube" for the infinty corrected lenses .. or at least I read the post several times and couldn't find any mention to the tube lens...
you say:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
Thank you
Antonio
Just 2 remarks and forgive me in advance if I am wrong ...
1) In the "settings" you forgot to mention what lens you used as "tube" for the infinty corrected lenses .. or at least I read the post several times and couldn't find any mention to the tube lens...
you say:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
Thank you
Antonio
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
f/4 for the Amscope is a correct value when comparing with the MP-E.Yawns wrote:you say:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
When used at 4X and NA 0.10, the Amscope objective is NA 0.025 = effective f/20 on the camera side.
To achieve effective f/20 at 4X, the MP-E would have to be set on f/4, following the classic rule of nominal Fnumber*(magnification+1), 4*(4+1)=20.
You're correct that on the subject side NA 0.10 = f/5. Again, that's the same as what the MP-E would do at 4X if you set to nominal f/4.
As often happens, the underlying issue is what the numbers mean. When used as intended, the Amscope objective gives effective f/5 on the subject side, but the lens itself would be rated as f/4 based on focal length and aperture diameter.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Thanks Antonio.Yawns wrote:Thank you for your effort and for sharing ... I posted a link at the Extreme Macro Facebook group and people there are also quiet excited about your test ...
You know you might be right!Yawns wrote:
Just 2 remarks and forgive me in advance if I am wrong ...
1) In the "settings" you forgot to mention what lens you used as "tube" for the infinty corrected lenses .. or at least I read the post several times and couldn't find any mention to the tube lens...
For infinity corrected optics, I used the Sigma diopter, instead of the Raynox or prime lens since its M52 so it fits my studio rig nicely. I find the CA correction on the Sigma best out of the Raynox or 200mm primes. I read someplace the Sigma diopter has UD glass but I don't know for sure.
Yup you are right, I read over that so many times! Good catch.Yawns wrote:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
4x .1 = f20 effective - f5 Nominal
4x .13 = f15 - f3
4x .16 = 12.5 - 2.5
4x .20 = f10 - f2
Thanks for taking time to post this!
Robert
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Thanks for the excellent information, as always!rjlittlefield wrote:f/4 for the Amscope is a correct value when comparing with the MP-E.Yawns wrote:you say:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
When used at 4X and NA 0.10, the Amscope objective is NA 0.025 = effective f/20 on the camera side.
To achieve effective f/20 at 4X, the MP-E would have to be set on f/4, following the classic rule of nominal Fnumber*(magnification+1), 4*(4+1)=20.
You're correct that on the subject side NA 0.10 = f/5. Again, that's the same as what the MP-E would do at 4X if you set to nominal f/4.
As often happens, the underlying issue is what the numbers mean. When used as intended, the Amscope objective gives effective f/5 on the subject side, but the lens itself would be rated as f/4 based on focal length and aperture diameter.
--Rik
Robert
LOMO on a Labophot
After reading this and the expensive objective review, it seems like the LOMO 3.7X or Amscope $17 objectives are the logical choice of the finite objectives.
Is there any reason these two objectives would not work properly on an Labophot microscope?
Is there any reason these two objectives would not work properly on an Labophot microscope?
Re: LOMO on a Labophot
The Amscope 4x work on Labophot for sure. And the 3.7x would likely work too.glmory wrote: Is there any reason these two objectives would not work properly on an Labophot microscope?
Most other short LOMO objectives are too short to focus on Labophot (scope stage cannot go up high enough). But the 3.7x has a parfocal height that is a bit longer than the 33mm LOMO standard height.
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens