Leica ATC 2000 - any good?

[spongepuppy]

Hello all,

I'm looking at obtaining an entry-level binocular scope - mostly for the purposes of learning some microscopy basics, not so much to do serious photographic work.

Is the Leica ATC 2000 a capable scope? There seem to be a few available on the used market at the moment, and I'd like to make a swift decision.

[g4lab]

Leica's entry level scopes are probably as good as or better than anyones.
We just received a large quantity of student educational grade scopes and they spent a little extra money on the focusing mechanism which is made of metal and has flywheel weights to give it a good feel.

There is probably very little difference in optical quality at that price level if the example is in good shape. All the companies bring these things in from the far east and all of them also have ocassional QC issues too. It is important if you buy it on ebay to buy from a seller who will give you a chance to shake it down and try it and take it back if it is unsatisfactory.
This is part of what the local dealer gets his sales commission for dealing with. When you buy used on ebay more caution is required because some sellers don't have any incentive to make sure the item is functional. They usually don't know.

[Gary W Brown]

Hello,

I've had a lot of experience (professional) with this model and would only give it one star. There are many scopes at this level that are quite a bit better. Of course, if it's the only scope available one could argue that it's better to have any microscope than no microscope.

Gary

[Chris S.]

Matt, a warning--I'm not a microscopist, but a macro photographer who repurposes a fair number of microscope parts to other tasks, and occasionally blunders around with a factory-standard microscope. I do, however, have a Leica ATC 2000 microscope, for those occasions when I want to look at something in a more standard way. I don't hate it this scope, but also have no particular love for it, and have considered selling it and getting something better. But having seen the low prices these instruments command on eBay ($276 for a decent-looking unit comes to mind), I have not been willing to part with it for such a price.

What do I dislike about it? For one thing, the focus movement lacks the buttery smooth, effortless action of the Zeiss, Olympus, and Nikon focus blocks I've used. It takes a bit more twisting pressure, and feels slightly clunky. The x/y stage is poorly damped, and if the microscope is not placed on a perfectly level surface, the subject slides out of the field of view--quite rapidly, at higher magnifications.

The lenses on my copy appear to be entry level, and are OK. But for high-magnification photomacrography on my home-built rig, I prefer apochromatic microscope objectives. Probably, apo objectives for the ATC 2000 could be purchased. But spending big money to put expensive glass on a cheap stand seems a bit wrong; I'd prefer a stand of a brand whose objectives will also work on my macro rig, or that I already have (which means brands that do not rely on eyepiece correction for chromatic aberration, such as Nikon, Mitutoyo, some newer Olympus--not Leica); and sooner or later, I'm going to want to take pictures through a microscope, which means I'll want a trinocular head--something I haven't found for the ATC 2000.

It is perhaps telling that I got this microscope from a good friend--an accomplished microscopist--who didn't like it. His beloved Zeiss instrument had developed problems, and a salesman convinced him to purchase a Leica ATC 2000 instead of repairing the Zeiss. Once the Leica was in hand, my friend found it unsatisfactory and got his Zeiss repaired. Though fully informed about my friend's dissatisfaction with the Leica, I knew it was better than anything I had at the time, and I wasn't prepared to shell out the cash for something like my friend's Zeiss. So the Leica made its way to my hands.

Given that your stated purpose is to acquire an entry-level scope, this instrument might suit--though I'd recommend looking instead for an entry-level instrument good enough to justify upgrading if your needs increase.

If you do decide to purchase a Leica ATC 2000, you might shoot me a PM; if the scope you are looking at is similar to mine, and the price you are looking at is something I could beat, selling my scope to you might be my catalyst to trade up into something better. While I don't love the scope, I can vouch for the fact that it has had little use and good care.

Cheers,

--Chris

[spongepuppy]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Appreciate the offer Chris, but I've already pushed the button.

Gary - hopefully it's better than nothing, because I just dropped $250 on it! Surely you can't be suggesting that the company that sells cameras with the red dot can produce anything other than technical perfection

The example I've purchased seems to be in good cosmetic (and ostensibly working) condition. For that price, I'm not really too concerned about getting super quality, and if it's not what I'm looking for I can always sell it on at a small loss - just or donate it to my nephew

I had hoped to get hold of an nikon labophot, but they're mostly either sold broken into parts on ebay or way out of my price range at this point. Maybe next year!

[Pau]

...Surely you can't be suggesting that the company that sells cameras with the red dot can produce anything other than technical perfection

In fact they aren't the same company, originally it was (Leitz Wetzlar), but after decades of merging and dividing companies now it's something quite different.

Leica microsystems still makes great research grade microscopes but their entry level models are chinese made cheap stuff. You can't expect the legendary quality of the classic Leitz models

In any case for this price I think you've got a good and useful instrument. Just one used plan apo objective can cost as much (or more) as your whole microscope.

[spongepuppy]

Cheers Pau - I wasn't aware that Leica was split up like that.

I figured that I'd probably need to add a zero to get hold of something that's a "serious" microscope (and that's probably being optimistic). I'm hopeful that a Leica branded chinese microscope is at least going to be better than the mystery-brand units sold on ebay.

It is possible, of course, that the 'Leica' sticker is the only actual difference

When I have an opportunity to have a go of it I'll report my experiences for the benefit of other newbies

[Chris S.]

Matt,

For the price you paid and your stated goals, I think you did fine. This model of microscope isn't horrible; it does its job, and will probably perform decently the functions you listed. On the other hand, if your needs change (as they do for many of us) and you find you need higher efficiency, convenience, upgradability, optical quality, or better ergonomics, and if you are willing to spend, as you said, ten times or more money, I think you're right that you can sell this scope a little or no loss. Or, even better, give your nephew a nudge onto our slippery (but deeply satisfying) slope.

Part of my resistance to this model is that I keep thinking of upgrades: adding a trinoc head, apo objectives, better condenser, axial lighting, higher-grade x/y stage, fluorescence and DIC capability, etc. If I do any of these things, I ought to augment a research-grade microscope, not gild a student model.

But you paid a small price for a level of performance that you will, I think, find quite acceptable in return. Good job!

And, of course, good luck!

--Chris

[Ichthyophthirius]

I wasn't aware that Leica was split up like that.

Actually, the company is an amalgamation of a number of older optics companies, as Wild bought (over a number of intermediate stages): Leitz, Reichert-Jung, American Optical, Bausch & Lomb Instruments, and Cambridge Instruments (see link here: http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... istory.htm ) and branded the whole operation "Leica" (originally Leitz Camera). The Leica research class microscopes are a continuation of Leitz; the research stereo microscopes are a continuation of Wild.

The "Leica" ATC 2000 is a successor of the Microstar microscopes, originally from AO, then re-branded as Reichert, finally re-branded as Leica. That's the origin of its Infinity-corrected optics. See here where the Leica branch was located (last page): Buffalo, NY: http://www.reichertms.com/Manuals/ATC20 ... Manual.pdf

It's as good or bad a microscope as AO microscopes have always been. But it's not a Leitz.

[spongepuppy]

It's as good or bad a microscope as AO microscopes have always been. But it's not a Leitz.

That's great - they should print something like that on the box:

Congratulations on your purchase of a "Leica" ATC 2000. Sorry to hear that you purchased a "Leica" ATC 2000.

The actual scope design seems a bit odd - in particular, the fixed stage/moving nosepiece design seems a bit limiting.

It will be interesting to see if I can stick the Nikon CFI BE 10x onto it and get a usable result (because the 10x non-plan achromat that it will come with has a fairly dismal 0.66mm of working distance).

[billporter1456]

Matt, a warning--I'm not a microscopist, but a macro photographer who repurposes a fair number of microscope parts to other tasks, and occasionally blunders around with a factory-standard microscope. I do, however, have a Leica ATC 2000 microscope, for those occasions when I want to look at something in a more standard way. I don't hate it this scope, but also have no particular love for it, and have considered selling it and getting something better. But having seen the low prices these instruments command on eBay ($276 for a decent-looking unit comes to mind), I have not been willing to part with it for such a price.

What do I dislike about it? For one thing, the focus movement lacks the buttery smooth, effortless action of the Zeiss, Olympus, and Nikon focus blocks I've used. It takes a bit more twisting pressure, and feels slightly clunky. The x/y stage is poorly damped, and if the microscope is not placed on a perfectly level surface, the subject slides out of the field of view--quite rapidly, at higher magnifications.

The lenses on my copy appear to be entry level, and are OK. But for high-magnification photomacrography on my home-built rig, I prefer apochromatic microscope objectives. Probably, apo objectives for the ATC 2000 could be purchased. But spending big money to put expensive glass on a cheap stand seems a bit wrong; I'd prefer a stand of a brand whose objectives will also work on my macro rig, or that I already have (which means brands that do not rely on eyepiece correction for chromatic aberration, such as Nikon, Mitutoyo, some newer Olympus--not Leica); and sooner or later, I'm going to want to take pictures through a microscope, which means I'll want a trinocular head--something I haven't found for the ATC 2000.

It is perhaps telling that I got this microscope from a good friend--an accomplished microscopist--who didn't like it. His beloved Zeiss instrument had developed problems, and a salesman convinced him to purchase a Leica ATC 2000 instead of repairing the Zeiss. Once the Leica was in hand, my friend found it unsatisfactory and got his Zeiss repaired. Though fully informed about my friend's dissatisfaction with the Leica, I knew it was better than anything I had at the time, and I wasn't prepared to shell out the cash for something like my friend's Zeiss. So the Leica made its way to my hands.

Given that your stated purpose is to acquire an entry-level scope, this instrument might suit--though I'd recommend looking instead for an entry-level instrument good enough to justify upgrading if your needs increase.

If you do decide to purchase a Leica ATC 2000, you might shoot me a PM; if the scope you are looking at is similar to mine, and the price you are looking at is something I could beat, selling my scope to you might be my catalyst to trade up into something better. While I don't love the scope, I can vouch for the fact that it has had little use and good care.

Cheers,

--Chris

I was browsing eBay and ran across this model (there are several on eBay at this time). A Google search took me to this thread. I was impressed with your comprehensive and nicely worded description of this scope. It's great that forum members such as yourself take the time and make the effort to give great information to those who ask for it.

[Chris S.]

Bill, welcome to the forum!

Glad you found that post useful. No question, the community here at PMN does an amazing job at bringing together great information. I'm grateful to be a part of it.

Cheers,

--Chris

[spongepuppy]

I haven't had a really good opportunity to put my scope through its paces, but my limited testing has been favourable. Although I don't expect to win any international photomicrography awards with it, I am quite satisfied with the price/performance of the ATC 2000 as a starter scope.

Given that my unit appears to have had some fairly heavy use, and bearing in mind that I am not an experienced microscope user, I can say that:

• It's very solid, and appears to be reasonably well put together. Certainly at least to a $250 standard, anyway.
• The mechanical stage works well; mine has had some heavy grease applied to it at some point in its life, so I don't experience the issue Chris S has with the stage drifting, and movement is smooth.
• There is only about 1 or 2mm of fine-focus travel, which is limiting in some circumstances, but it is smooth and pleasant to use. The coarse focus is a bit sloppy, but certainly usable.
• The condenser doesn't seem to be terribly good, but that could be because I have no idea what I am doing. Centering is a bit fiddly, but by no means difficult.
• The "10x WF" eyepieces are very sensitive to correct interpupillary distance, and tend to black out if you aren't exactly positioned in the right place. This may be par for the course, but it's annoying. The right prism on my binocular viewing head has been slightly damaged by a botched cleaning attempt, but not to the extent that it is problematic at low magnifications.
• The "infinity achromat" objectives that the scope came with are a mixed bag:
  • 4x/0.1 is sharp and contrasty, with minimal lateral CA and a reasonably flat field.
  • 10x/0.25 is OK, but has a tiny 0.6mm working distance and curvier field. It is currently replaced with my Nikon CFI BE 10x, which is amazing in comparison. It's nearly parfocal with the 4x and 40x, but is obviously designed for a slightly longer FL tube lens.
  • 40x/0.66 is crappy. Poor contrast, and fair sharpness - and I can't tell how bad the field curvature is. The front element is odd, in that it's a comparatively big piece of frosty glass with a small clear 'dimple' in the middle that I assume is the optical front lens.
  • 100x/0.95(oil) is untested, but looks to have oil residue on the front element. Since I have no immersion oil, I haven't bothered to clean and test it.

I have taken delivery of a 49.5mm -> m42 dovetail adapter (affordably custom-made by Raf Camera). By initial testing shows that you can in fact get a workable image out of 4x and 10x infinity-corrected objectives without much trouble. I am planning to use a Marumi DHG 200 achromat as a tube lens for photography purposes - will post my results once it arrives from the far east.

[phil m]

I'm a newbie here but have been around microscopes for all but 12 of the past 63 years. I was cruising the posts and pictures and came across this post. ....thought I would jump in with some info. and history about this "Leica".
C.Reichert and American Optical had been in a sort of working partnership,since about 1962. AO had developed their very forward thinking infinity systems, Reichert wanted to and each had things the other needed. Reichert catalogues in the early 70's featured AO illuminators ,transformers and the Neovar II was fitted with AO infinity corrected planachros. On the other side of the pond AO series 100 scopes could be had with Austrian made #1024 objectives and for a short time Austrian made planapos. Reichert was chasing the research microscope market and AO had given it up in favour of the lab market, so the Univar and Polyvar were born with full infinity corrected optics and the new series 400 AO scopes were upsized from the previous 35mm optics to 45mm D.I.N. Cambridge instruments bought and amalgamated the 2 companies,adding B&L,along the way, under the most marketable name, Reichert Jung and later formed a merger with Leitz-Wild , to create Leica microsystems,an even more marketable name. Leica Microsystems is divorced from E.Leitz, entirely and is owned by Washington D.C. based Danaher corporation. For a short time AO,Reichert,B&L,Leitz,Cambridge and Wild equipment could all be found in the market with the name "Leica" on it.
The Leica ATC 2000 was a student grade microscope, made in Buffalo,in the AO plant. The stand was basically a new cheap design ,carrying the basic 35 year old achromats or plan achromat AO objectives, slightly tweaked into 45mm barrels. It probably ended up made in China,later on.The optics are potentially excellent, if clean but the microscope is not capable of too much extension beyond the basic.
The earlier AO 10/20, 100/120 and 400/420 spanning the years 1965 or so to about 2000 and built with care and skill,in an old world hands on way,were fitted with the same optics at a minimum, with the 400 series scopes capable of taking on Univar and Polyvar planfluorite and planapo objectives. There are also a full range of accessories: phase contrast,darkfield,pol,d.i.c. Epi for them all and they usually can be had as cheap or cheaper than an ATC 2000 with the promise of building an advanced usable system over time. For someone looking to buy a microscope on a shoestring,that has the potential to grow, it is hard to find any better than the infinity corrected AO or Reichert/AO, stands.

[spongepuppy]

Cheers Phil!

An update on my own efforts:

I recently converted the illuminator in my unit to a CREE LED lamp (intended as a drop-in replacement for a flashlight bulb), which has dramatically increased the scope's usefulness for video. Between the lamp's high light output and no longer needing a blue filter, I am enjoying a roughly 16-fold increase in brightness. It is now powered by USB, too.

The internal electrics are pretty basic, and the construction very workmanlike - which makes me feel much better about my own somewhat pedestrian soldering skills.

I've managed to get some serviceable results in bright- and dark-field, COL and polarized light with some kitchen-grade (as opposed to research-grade) additions, so I am largely satisfied overall.