The case of the self-soiling eyepiece

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

The case of the self-soiling eyepiece

Post by jfiresto »

I recently bought a pair of used, Zeiss W-PL 10X/23 adjustable eyepieces, one with a reticule, to use in a Wild stereo microscope. The seller described them as being in good condition, and to a large degree, dust free and without scratches. None of his pictures showed any dust or scratches.

Optically the eyepieces seemed o.k., but something about the diopter mechanics just didn't seem quite right. Both eyepieces rattled, if I gently shook them from side to side, but went silent if I also pushed or pulled the inner lens capsules.

The worse rattler had 0.1mm (0.004") play, side to side, at certain diopter settings.

Here are pictures of the fully-extended eyepieces, after I removed their lower plastic tubes that hold a reticule:

ImageImage

This is the microscope's view looking upward through the eyepieces at the observer's eyeballs. The pictures shows the black, inner lens capsules and the silvery threads the capsules screw up and into. Both show something so obviously, inconceivably wrong that both the seller and the buyer overlooked it. Only by chance, did this buyer eventually recognize the problem (and his obliviousness).

Looking more closely into the second eyepiece, you can see the threads along the left and the nearest lens surface to the right:

Image

The blue and white dots are reflections from an LED ring light. Note the yellow and brown matter in the threads around the upper left corner, and the white smudges, among the large blue dots at the right. The lens surface was originally clean, but after I held up the eyepiece and played with the diopter adjustment a few times, there were now these smudges.

Zooming in a little, and turning and tilting the lighting to reflect off the breadth of the surface, I saw there were now a good many, greasy-looking smudges:

Image

Curious. It looked like thin strips of something had repeatedly bounced across the lens and left a trail. Hang on. Were the streaks left by debris that had fallen out of the threads, while I was playing with the eyepiece?

Then it hit me: Where is the damping grease?

The threads are worth a closer look:

Image

Here you can see three spots of what appears to be pink grease, a few lines of clean, yellow paste and a brown, gritty residue beneath both. The pink appears viscous and the yellow has the consistency of a light, all purpose grease.

My interpretation, perhaps from a mispspent youth among story-loving geologist, is that the brown is the original damping grease, or at least something quite old, the pink is what remains of a subsequent, heavy and thorough re-greasing, and the yellow is a recent dabbing with light lithium(?) grease.

The other eyepiece is in a cleaner but similar state.

I assume all of that junk must come off: otherwise, it will slowly and awkwardly come off on its own. And then I will need to coat the threads, from end to end, with a heavy damping grease. Screwing in the well-greased lens capsules looks like it could be a pain: I can't find much purchase for a clamp.

I have some questions for those who know eyepieces, especially Zeiss eyepieces and these ones.

Does the above interpretation seem plausible?

How hard will it be to overhaul the diopter adjustments?

Will the one eyepiece's 0.1mm side-to-side play make it less useful as an eyepiece micrometer?

Thank you in advance for any and all thoughts!

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Post by Scarodactyl »

If at all possible, it would probably make sense to just return them and get another set. Unless you got them for peanuts there are many eyepieces in the sea. I know that is not the fun answer though. Your interpretation of events seems.plausible, though I'm not sure it would be typical for an eyepiece to need so much greasing, so it may represent multiple attempts to fix a different problem?

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6071
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Aside the grease and mechanical issues what disturbs me are the residues at the eyepiece optical limit, the irregular black stuff at the periphery of the lens, likely difficult to remove.
The greasy-looking smudges can't be just grease dropped from the screws, someone has touched the glass...and the fine round ones could be scratches

It's crazy what sellers or former users can do with delicate equipment...time ago I bought a pair of Wild eyepieces and one of them had the lower lens inundated with grease although I was able to clean it and to remove the big excess applied to the threads :?

I have a question for you: how well these Zeiss eyepieces work with your Wild stereo?. My current 10/21 Wild eyepieces are not high eyepoint and Wild/Leica 10/21B are usually very expensive if in good condition.
Pau

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

Post by jfiresto »

Scarodactyl wrote:If at all possible, it would probably make sense to just return them and get another set. Unless you got them for peanuts there are many eyepieces in the sea. I know that is not the fun answer though.
I think they are going back. The seller listed a few conditions on his ebay sale that he is not allowed to make, which I nevertheless tried to respect. He didn't like the alternative they left me, to have him refund part of the selling price, and has now asked me to return the eyepieces for a refund, at my expense, outside the ebay system. He had already asked me to return them, at my expense, for his inspection.
Your interpretation of events seems.plausible, though I'm not sure it would be typical for an eyepiece to need so much greasing, so it may represent multiple attempts to fix a different problem?
That is just one of several things about this purchase I can not figure out. I was formally trained as a scientist, however, so I am used to being somewhat puzzled. :)

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

Post by jfiresto »

Pau wrote:Aside the grease and mechanical issues what disturbs me are the residues at the eyepiece optical limit, the irregular black stuff at the periphery of the lens, likely difficult to remove.
That gunk is on the front of the eyepiece. I should have opened the aperture a bit more, to blur the other side of the lens. These are my first pictures with a newly refurbished Wild M7S and Motic photo adapter. I am still learning the aperture vs. depth of field and resolution relationships.

The junk may very well come off with a bit of cleaning. Despite the build up, the borders made by the eyepiece diaphragms look sharp and smooth. I suspect Zeiss made allowances for somewhat lazy microscopists.
The greasy-looking smudges can't be just grease dropped from the screws, someone has touched the glass...and the fine round ones could be scratches.
The fine ones were there when I received the lens, and look to me like cleaning scratches. The smudges appeared after I had extended and retracted the lens a number of times. I can't find anything that might touch and drag across the lens, nor anything that suggests a fingerprint. The surface is reasonably recessed and I don't remember touching it. If I did, that may be a sign of my early senescence.
I have a question for you: how well these Zeiss eyepieces work with your Wild stereo?. My current 10/21 Wild eyepieces are not high eyepoint and Wild/Leica 10/21B are usually very expensive if in good condition.
I have a pair of those eyepieces and the low eyepoint, Wild 20/13. The Zeiss W-PL 10X/23 eyepieces looked good and were just parafocal when set at their negative diopter limits. I didn't get a chance to estimate their flatness and sharpness across the field of view – before I discovered the present pair were shedding. I would be happy to get another that was in better shape.

Wild stereo microscopes put the intermediate image plane quite deep into the eyepiece tube. Every non-Wild eyepiece I have tried, defaults to something shallower.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6071
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Thanks for answering. I also own a pair of 20/13 in perfect condition that came with my M5 Apo, although I find them uncomfortable (too low eyepoint) and of reduced utility as you lose wide field low magnification and at top magnification you don't get better resolution, just empty magnification
Pau

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

Post by jfiresto »

Pau wrote:... I also own a pair of 20/13 ... at top magnification you ... just empty magnification
It is the same with the original M3. A 20/13 eyepiece, however, gives its full, effective magnification in the M7 models as they top out at 3.1 x 20 = 62X magnification.

I will see if I can my measure the numerical aperture of my microscope. I bought the cheapest laser pointer I could find to use as a nearly collimated light source, thinking it might diverge quickly enough to cast a 14+ mm spot inside my flat, but the designers did too good a job. I will try using the sun.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Post by Scarodactyl »

I recently got a second pair of Nikon cfuw (ultra wide) eyepieces. I tried them on my Wild m400 but in spite of their obviously larger size they didn't actually yield a larger image circle. A bit disappointing, I guess an inherent limit to the system. They did provide a pretty nice improvement for the olympus szh they ended up on though.

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Post by viktor j nilsson »

I have a pair of Nikon CFUW 10x (26.5mm FN if I remember correctly, I think there were a couple of different versions). I've tried them in my Wild M5, and they vignetted pretty bad at the lowest magnification. I think a FN of 23mm or so would be the maximum. I now use a pair of Leica 10x/21B, which I think is a very good and extremely comfortable eyepiece. Bigger field number isn't always better.

lothman
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: The case of the self-soiling eyepiece

Post by lothman »

jfiresto wrote: Will the one eyepiece's 0.1mm side-to-side play make it less useful as an eyepiece micrometer?
IMO yes, in case you touch the eyepiece with you eyes your scale/rectile will also shift but not the picture of your scope.

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

Post by jfiresto »

viktor j nilsson wrote:I have a pair of Nikon CFUW 10x (26.5mm FN if I remember correctly, I think there were a couple of different versions). I've tried them in my Wild M5, and they vignetted pretty bad at the lowest magnification....
By any chance was the vignetting just along the left side of the left eyepiece and the right side of the right eyepiece?

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Post by viktor j nilsson »

jfiresto wrote:
viktor j nilsson wrote:I have a pair of Nikon CFUW 10x (26.5mm FN if I remember correctly, I think there were a couple of different versions). I've tried them in my Wild M5, and they vignetted pretty bad at the lowest magnification....
By any chance was the vignetting just along the left side of the left eyepiece and the right side of the right eyepiece?
Nope, from what I remember it was completely symmetrical. The edge was not sharp, so it was quite annoying.

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Post by viktor j nilsson »

Pau wrote: It's crazy what sellers or former users can do with delicate equipment...time ago I bought a pair of Wild eyepieces and one of them had the lower lens inundated with grease although I was able to clean it and to remove the big excess applied to the threads :?
Reminds me of when I bought my Stereozoom 7 many years ago, my first stereo microscope. I was taken aback by the poor image and crazy field curvature, until I realized that the top lens of the eyepieces had been flipped upside down by a previous tinkerer.

jfiresto
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:54 am
Location: Northern Germany

Re: The case of the self-soiling eyepiece

Post by jfiresto »

lothman wrote:
jfiresto wrote: Will the one eyepiece's 0.1mm side-to-side play make it less useful as an eyepiece micrometer?
IMO yes, in case you touch the eyepiece with you eyes your scale/rectile will also shift but not the picture of your scope.
That is something I am wondering about, and that I could program a later shift while adjusting the microscope or moving it on its stand.

I have read that with a bit of practice, you can measure lengths to within 1% using an eyepiece reticule. That would be 0.1mm or 1 tick mark on a typical, 10 mm/100 tick scale. Conceivably, the 0.1mm play could add a one tick error and halve the measurement accuracy.

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: The case of the self-soiling eyepiece

Post by viktor j nilsson »

jfiresto wrote: have read that with a bit of practice, you can measure lengths to within 1% using an eyepiece reticule. That would be 0.1mm or 1 tick mark on a typical, 10 mm/100 tick scale. Conceivably, the 0.1mm play could add a one tick error and halve the measurement accuracy.
Well, alhough I am not sure where you got it from, that 1% figure seems to indicate the precision of this measurement method, meaning width of the measurement error around the true value. This measurement error is generally expected to be unbiased and thus randomly distributed around the true mean value - you will get estimate a value that is higher than the true value as often as you will estimate a value that is lower than the true value.

The neat thing about random measurement error is that you can increase your precision by measuring many times - with more and more samples, your estimated mean will asymptotically approach the true mean.

However, the error you introducte when you have 0.1mm play will not be unbiased and random. It will sometimes be on, and sometimes it will be off, depending on when you accidentally touch your eyepiece and get it out of alignment. So for a while you will repeatedly collect measurements that are x% higher than the true value, and sometimes later you will collect measurements that are x% lower than the true value. This type of error is very hard to deal with statistically - you simply do not know, for example, if two cells that you measure on different occations really differ in size, or if you just happended to measure one with the eyepiece in one position, and the other in the different positions.

That said, if you are only interested in knowing the approximate size of an object to within a couple % or so, it'll probably be fine.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic