So what can you do with $5 ?

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:03 pm

An old American Optical Spencer 10/0.25 (160mm finite).

Not too shabby, really!

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:20 am

Very nice indeed.
What was in front, behind and around this objective, was it mounted on a microscope or on bellows?

ChrisRaper · Post by **ChrisRaper** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:11 am

Stunning ... where can I get one from?

I have a strong suspicion that the excellent results might be due to a hefty amount of talent too ... not just the lens

Cactusdave · Post by **Cactusdave** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:38 am

I think you might have a point there Chris

The superb lighting doesn't exactly detract from the image does it? Should bring the price of Nikon X10 CFs down a bit.

Mind you, I think Charles could extract something wonderful from two bits of bottle glass and a toilet roll!

Planapo · Post by **Planapo** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:22 am

I'm sure Charles posted a great image, so that I'd agree with the others. But thing is, instead of a photo I just see such a broken thumbnail pictogram ...

--Betty

Couple minutes later edit: Ah, now it's there. Yeah, I sure agree!

Confirms my long-time assumption, that those older microscope objectives that could be used with so called 'Huygens oculars', oculars which AFAIK have no colour correction, should be not too bad performers on bellows.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:12 pm

Fred,
150mm of extension (objective mount to sensor).

Dave,
It is true... I really splurged on the lighting...one $9.99 Ikea Janslo

Chris,

I put in the bid of $5 just to "mark" the auction. I won it and also an 'infinity" version of the 10X from the same seller. (BTW... the "infinity" version looks terrible with simple extension and no tube lens. When I find out what tube lens focal length AO used, I may give it a another try).

Betty,

Confirms my long-time assumption, that those older microscope objectives that could be used with so called 'Huygens oculars', oculars which AFAIK have no colour correction, should be not too bad performers on bellows.

A very astute observation. I suppose the problem is determining which ones might perform well. With the exception of Nikon prominently promoting their "CF" series starting in the mid-70's, you need to dig through the literature to look for answers, and sometimes the details are hard to find.

I believe at one time the manufacturers made corrective eyepieces that were really intended to be used only with their "apo" objectives where it was too hard to accomplish all of the desired chromatic corrections in the objective alone. The achromats were corrected to the desired degree in the objective, and simpler eyepieces were used for them. It was not exactly convenient to regularly change eyepieces to match the objectives, so in some cases the entire objective line-up was designed to use the same corrective eyepieces with all objectives. (At least this is my understanding...I could be way off).

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:30 pm

One more shot with the AO 10X and Ikea Janslo.

Tibia, front leg of Eupholus magnificus. 83 image stack (8 micron interval).
(Overview of insect seen here: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=12335 )

naturephoto1 · Post by **naturephoto1** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:59 am

Charlie,

Congratulations on the purchase of such and inexpensive, superb performing lens; also outstanding photography. You should be quite pleased. I will be on the lookout for just such a lens.

Rich

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:17 am

Does anyone know the story for things like this:

Set of 4 Achromatic Objective Lens 4X-10X-40X-100X for Compound Microscope New
They're 160/0/.17, DIN standard ( what does that mean?) no maker's name.
Only the 4x and 10x would be useful because the Working Distance of the others would be too short, but here the full set for not much money ($75, if the listing has gone - there are many similar, even for less) appears to be evidence that they're still being made.
NB they aren't PLAN (flat field), but how much that matters if you're stacking, I don't know.

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:01 am

ChrisR wrote:Does anyone know the story for things like this:
.....

No specific info, but usually these are chinese or indian objectives and are intended to be used with corrective eyepieces like most last DIN models form the big makers except Nikon (perhaps copies of low end Olympus models from the 80s) .
Makers usually do not provide that info and the only way is testing them.

DIN is an standard that implies 45mm parfocal distance, 160mm tube lengh and RMS thread, but the optical correction isn't standardized

Saul · Post by **Saul** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:08 am

Which one AO 10x ? There are a lot different ones on Ebay

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:33 pm

CHarles is it declared to be "plan"?
I'm wondering whether stacking simply compensates for it.

naturephoto1 · Post by **naturephoto1** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:40 pm

ChrisR wrote:CHarles is it declared to be "plan"?
I'm wondering whether stacking simply compensates for it.

Chris,

I'd like to know which AO Spencer optic Charlie has and recommends/uses as well. Several of us may be fighting over the same lens (es).

Rich

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:09 pm

Don't worry about me, Rich, I've got enough Niks and Mits to play with (and produce crappy pictures quite easily) to keep me amused.

I do also have some bits and pieces of old Olympus, Leitz, Unitron, Reichert etc which all "work" and I don't remember noticing curvature of field being a problem. Some show CA but if it's at the edge and you have photoshop you can often make it go away - depends on the subject.
Butterfly wings are very pretty but not soo captivating after the first few (dozen).
As you're a pro I'd suggest you go for a Nikon (or Edmunds ) though. the 0.25 is very good, the 0.3 just a little better, and the 0.45 a tad moreso, but significantly harder to use (WD, and flaring from highlights is a pain).

I daresay one of the lenses thrown up by an ebay search on say
Bausch 10x would be OK too - perhaps the "flat" ones? Fine if you like playing with lenses!

naturephoto1 · Post by **naturephoto1** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:15 pm

ChrisR wrote:Don't worry about me, Rich, I've got enough Niks and Mits to play with (and produce crappy pictures quite easily) to keep me amused.

I do also have some bits and pieces of old Olympus, Leitz, Unitron, Reichert etc which all "work" and I don't remember noticing curvature of field being a problem. Some show CA but if it's at the edge and you have photoshop you can often make it go away - depends on the subject.
Butterfly wings are very pretty but not soo captivating after the first few (dozen).
As you're a pro I'd suggest you go for a Nikon (or Edmunds ) though. the 0.25 is very good, the 0.3 just a little better, and the 0.45 a tad moreso, but significantly harder to use (WD, and flaring from highlights is a pain).

I daresay one of the lenses thrown up by an ebay search on say
Bausch 10x would be OK too - perhaps the "flat" ones? Fine if you like playing with lenses!

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the information. I have thus far not gotten into such high magnification photography, but something in the 10X range might be of interest. From what you are indicating, it appear that possibly a lens with a NA of 0.3 might be a good compromise to avoid the issues you noted with the 0.45 NA lenses.

I may ask you or Charlie some guidance on such a purchase.

Rich