Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

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

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by viktor j nilsson »

Soki wrote:
Now thats comprehensible. There seem to be some Olympus Vanox with DIC for sale out there, because they were probably used often with DIC. This DIC looks really awesome, especially in combination with SPlanapos.
Congrats for the great deals! The prices for these lenses are really low. The standard Splanapos are much more expensive.

I choose the PZO Pluta DIC manly because of the comparable low price and it’s flexibility. The results with the Nikon CFN objectives are pretty good:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC8k7VLFX1rK40TCciz9DdHA

but the popular Systems (Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus, Leitz/Leica,..) outperform the Pluta. The possibility to use nearly every finite (maybe infinite as well?) objective out there is pretty unique, but of course will not deliver the same results as perfect matched prism designed for a specific objective.

I have the Nikon CF M Plan 20 SLWD and the 40 ELWD and they are great objectives, but they are far from being CA-free. I had the Nikon CF Plan 40 0,70 and was pretty disappointed. The image wasn’t satisfying. A very old (but really good and nearly CA-free) CZJ achromat (40 0.65) performed equally, even with direct projection. That’s the reason why I sold it.
My Nikon CF/CFN Planapos however are absolutely mindblowing. I didn’t think a high NA dry objective (60 0.95) can perform so well. I immediately sold my Zeiss Neofluar 60 0.90.
Learned quite a lot through this discussion here, glad this thread evolved this way:)

best regards,
Simon
You mean the Vanox AH-2, right? That huge, electronic monster of a scope from the 1980's? Yes, they do seem to come with DIC quite often. And the DIC with SplanApos looks incredible, especially in the hands of people such as Anne Gleich. Since they were so expensive, I guess the added expense of DIC was seen as marginal.

My scope, however, is the earlier, 1970's Vanox AH, from the BH era. It's shown here:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 00#p263700
I plan to provide an update on it soon, it has evolved quite a bit.

The DIC is very good at 40x and 100x, but less good at 10x in my experience. I could probably learn to dial it in slightly better - I regret to say that I've spent much more time buying and building things for it than actually using it. But I do think that the systems with a single objective prism makes it hard to get perfect DIC at all magnifications, as the interference fringe can't match the BFP of both high and low magnification objectives equally well. I kind of wish it was possible to shift the objective prism vertically, as in the PZO system. Your results with this system looks really good to me.

I'm curious to hear you like your CFN PlanApo 60x 0.95 so much. I have the earlier CF PlanApo 60x 0.90 and find it a little underwhelming. Resolution and sharpness is good, but the contrast is pretty low. Do you find the 60x 0.95 contrasty? Or do you just increase contrast in post?

I too like how this thread evolved, and learned a lot!

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

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by viktor j nilsson »

Duke wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:07 am
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:26 am

Interesting to hear about the Olympus/Lomo match! I've never seen any data on the LCA of Olympus SB objectives. Where did you find this information? Do you know how similar the SB and LB objectives are to each other? They say that FK and NFK eyepieces aren't interchangeable. But I've briefly tried some WHK10X eyepieces with the SB objectives, and they seemed to be fairly close.
The first thing I usually do for any microscope objective I buy is "test of the field", what i call taking a picture with the proper stage micrometer scale. Then, I use that picture to calibrate images, but also it's very convenient to assess aberrations for correction in post-processing during DN development, this where I "measure" CA and field curvature of the objectives. I store this corrections as profile (i.e. in darktable), so, then it is convenient to batch-develop DN photos from different objectives.
As I recall SPlan (DIN) had substantially more LCA (>1.5%) than older JIS, by that wasn't the main problem, rather the LCA inconsistency is what drove me off.
However, you can really see CA only on large fields (~25mm), and there's no conventional way to get FOV as large using olympus projectives. I don't think that relatively low negative residual chromatic aberration will be that obvious on small fields (~18mm), so you wouldn't probably notice it by the naked eye, but will be visible on the photos.
Interesting! But I'm a little confused. You take these photos with the matching projection eyepiece? Wouldn't you then expect to observe close to zero LCA? I would have guessed that you would use direct projection to measure each objective's LCA? Or do you use a nearly neutral eyepiece like the Nikon CF PL to do these tests?

I think you are correct that I perceived the differences to be small due to the small FOV and because our eyes are less sensitive than the camera. I tried the WHK10x's in the hope that they would be more comfortable than the older BiWF 10x eyepieces. They were, and I was totally fine with the image, but I couldn't get them to be perfectly parfocal with my camera setup, so I probably won't use them in the end.

Duke
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 10:06 am
Location: Leningrad, USSR
Contact:

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Duke »

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:19 am
Interesting! But I'm a little confused. You take these photos with the matching projection eyepiece? Wouldn't you then expect to observe close to zero LCA? I would have guessed that you would use direct projection to measure each objective's LCA? Or do you use a nearly neutral eyepiece like the Nikon CF PL to do these tests?
I never used any projectives, only direct projection from the start, only recently I was forced to buy Nikon CF set 1x/2.5x/4x for my SMZ-10. I have bare bone photo tubus made of T2 rings (of about 75mm) in to 42 dovetail. This was my first solution to microscope photography, and one I still use to this very day, even I've had nearly every trinocular head in existence. It's optimal because there's no optic involved and gives unconditional values delivered from the objective alone.
Infinity objectives is the different story, I use them with the Nikon LV-TI3 head.
“Thoroughly conscious ignorance is the prelude to every real advance in science.” - JCM

Online
Scarodactyl
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Scarodactyl »

No offense but it's kind of silly to use a compensating objective without compensating optics--definitely not optimal. Giving neo splans a bad rap because of CA with direct projection is a bit like complaining an infinity objective has low contrast without a tube lens.

Duke
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 10:06 am
Location: Leningrad, USSR
Contact:

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Duke »

Scarodactyl wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:21 am
No offense but it's kind of silly to use a compensating objective without compensating optics--definitely not optimal. Giving neo splans a bad rap because of CA with direct projection is a bit like complaining an objective doesn't focus after removing its back element.
I said there was no projective, but that doesn't mean there was no compensating optics for the objectives, that require one.
As I said, after I take a shot with direct projection, I would assess LCA, and with that data I would use the appropriate setup.
I had 2 trinocular lomo heads - MFN-11 and MBI-15, each has 3 positions / magnification levels of the optovar, each magnification position has it's own LCA compesation level. For MFN-11 it's 1.1x - 0.86%, 1.6x - 0.24%, 2.5x - 0.50%, for MBI-15 head its - 1.9%, -1.7%, -1.4%. So there was pretty good choice of compensation options, residual amount I would correct using software (now darktable, ufraw at the time).
Then, one day I've decided I'm done with this compensation nonsense, and sold most of that stuff to switch for CF optics.
“Thoroughly conscious ignorance is the prelude to every real advance in science.” - JCM

Online
Scarodactyl
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Scarodactyl »

That's fair, though accidental matches are partial at best since there are multiple aspects to the correction. So it's still not a great idea to judge these objectives based on their performance with unrelated, partially compatible hardware.
(Related fantastic link here with the only objective measurements of this I've seen, though it only covers one correction aspect).
My own testing has been limited, but my impression of my Oly pus neo splans is that they outperform the comparable Nikon BD plans when used with the correct hardware, though I like them both pretty well.
That said I absolutely understand moving away from compensating optics entirely. For widefield photography they are a huge pain at best, and it locks down compatibility in a way I don't enjoy. I've settled on almost the same setup as you (though with the optiphot predecessor to the lv-ti).

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

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by viktor j nilsson »

https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... #msg166292

Were you thinking about these measurements? It's the only quantitative measurements I've been able to find. Would love to see more data like it.

Online
Scarodactyl
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Scarodactyl »

Oh yeah, I forgot to actually paste the link. That's the one.

Soki
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 5:05 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Soki »

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:02 am

You mean the Vanox AH-2, right? That huge, electronic monster of a scope from the 1980's? Yes, they do seem to come with DIC quite often. And the DIC with SplanApos looks incredible, especially in the hands of people such as Anne Gleich. Since they were so expensive, I guess the added expense of DIC was seen as marginal.

My scope, however, is the earlier, 1970's Vanox AH, from the BH era. It's shown here:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 00#p263700
I plan to provide an update on it soon, it has evolved quite a bit.

The DIC is very good at 40x and 100x, but less good at 10x in my experience. I could probably learn to dial it in slightly better - I regret to say that I've spent much more time buying and building things for it than actually using it. But I do think that the systems with a single objective prism makes it hard to get perfect DIC at all magnifications, as the interference fringe can't match the BFP of both high and low magnification objectives equally well. I kind of wish it was possible to shift the objective prism vertically, as in the PZO system. Your results with this system looks really good to me.

I'm curious to hear you like your CFN PlanApo 60x 0.95 so much. I have the earlier CF PlanApo 60x 0.90 and find it a little underwhelming. Resolution and sharpness is good, but the contrast is pretty low. Do you find the 60x 0.95 contrasty? Or do you just increase contrast in post?

I too like how this thread evolved, and learned a lot!
Ah, sorry. Yes, I meant this electronic monster! I think you are right with the expense thing. I know Anne from the german forum and I like her photos very much. I also have some diatom slides from her, which I really like,too.
I like your old Vanox much better, I'm not a fan of electronic components in a microscope, especially when they are some decades old. I actually never really tested my Pluta DIC for objectives <25x, but I tested my Zeiss Planapo 4 0.16 160/0.17 with the 10x prism and without the condeser toplens. The DIC seems okay to me, I have no comparison to another system. So I think 10x objectives will definety work, too. Probably even better than 4x objectives.

I never really understood why other manufacturers haven't build in the vertical adjustment...

Regarding the contrast of the CFN 60 0.95: It has higher contrast compared to my CF 40 1.0 Oil. I always read, that dry high NA objectives often look not that crispy and lack of contrast. I can definetely sign that for my Zeiss Neofluar 63 0.90. I never liked this objective. I had three of them (1xbf / 2x PH3) and all of them werent really pleasing to me, especially when I used the Zeiss Neofluar 40 0.75 on the specimen before, the 40x is really sharp, contrasty and crisp. So I rather made compromises regarding the NA and used the Neofluar 40x instead. If I needed higher NA I used my Zeiss Planapo 40 1.0 Oil or my Zeiss Planapo 63 1.4, which are both really nice objectives.
Thtat's the reason why my expectations werent super high for the Nikon CFN 60 0.95. But when I used it the first time it was absoletely stunning! Crystal clear, very sharp and contrasty compared to the Neofluar. Besides that it is insanely good colour corrected, even better than all my Zeiss Planapos in combination with KPL eyepieces. I always increase the contrast of my published pics (unless stated otherwise). But I didnt think of it for a minute the CFN 60 0.95 lacking contrast. Long story short: here are two crops of a stauroneis. Only cropped, compressed and sharpened afterwards. No further adjustments.
If you are interested in a comparison of the CF 40 1.0 and the CFN 60 0.95 let me know. I can test both on another diatom.

Picture 1: Nikon CFN Planapo 60 0.95
Picture 2: Zeiss Neofluar 63 0.90
Attachments
nikon.jpg
zeissnfl.jpg
Last edited by Soki on Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ichthyophthirius
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Ichthyophthirius »

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:03 pm
It's the only quantitative measurements I've been able to find. Would love to see more data like it.
Here we go :wink: Charles linked these snippets on his website:

https://krebsmicro.com/forumpix/CDM5.jpg
https://krebsmicro.com/forumpix/CDM4.jpg

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Pau »

Soki,

please clarify the difference between the two Stauroneis frustule images you've posted: different objective I assume (and wich ones?) different focus point...
Pau

Soki
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 5:05 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Soki »

Hi Pau,

I edited my post and named the objectives. I tried to get the same focus point, but that’s very very hard, small differences are mostly present in such comparisons, but were not made on purpose by me.

I made another comparison on a coscinodiscus sp. The images are only adjusted in brightness and sharped after compressing.

1) Nikon CFN Planapo 60 0.95
2) Nikon CF Planapo 40 1.0 Oil
3) Zeiss Planapo 40 1.0 Oel

The 60 0.95 is amazingly good compared to the oil objectives. The Nikon 40 1.0 seems to deliver the best image with the most details. The Nikon 60 0.95 has incredible contrast but lacks some details. The Zeiss 40 1.0 has some CA and lacks a bit of contrast, but delivers a good, natural image.

best;
Simon
Attachments
nikon60 095cropkl.jpg
nikon 40 1.0cropkl.jpg
zeiss planapo 40cropkl.jpg

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Here's some of my observations to share.

High NA air objectives are very demanding on the coverslip. If the coverslip is inappropriate, the results will be horrendous.
2.jpg
1.jpg
20x on the top, 40x on the bottom. 20x has an NA of 0.75 while the 40x is at 0.95. Looks like my 40x is broken, it's orders worse than the 20x with enlargement. It's not. Below is a diatom featuring tiny pores, the 40x is more or less able to resolve that, yet struggled with that larger specimen.
app.jpg
Sample is a vintage Victorian spicula arrangement. The coverslip is very thick, but not thick enough to make the 40x unfocusable.
The same applies to water immersion objectives. They are very sensitive to coverslip thickness.

The diatom you used to examine the three objectives is very demanding. Those tiny pores will benefit greatly from immersion objectives. I don't even think NA is that important here, though typically immersion objectives do have higher NA.

From my experience, an air objective struggles, even with higher NA. I personally think it's because the details are so minute, the amount of light refraction now matters. Reducing that equals a cleaner image with more contrast. Typically with a high NA air objective, those tiny pores are rendered as little smeared black dots. It's worse with Phase Contrast, but the problem goes away once an immersion medium is introduced with the appropriate objective. The same phenomenon is seen in your comparison too, substantiating to my observations. 0.95 isn't that different to 1, but the use of immersion oil greatly improved the clarity.

I do have an oil immersion 40x as well, I'll put that to 0.5 NA and snap an exposure later. I misplaced my tiny bottle of immersion oil. #-o
I personally prefer water immersion objectives. I stopped using my 100x after getting one, I can live with the lower NA.

PS: Lovely instagram photos, just realised we follow each other too! :D

Soki
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 5:05 am

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by Soki »

Hey,

that’s funny:)
You’ve really nice images in your Feed!

Is there really such a huge difference in contrast? The specimen in the picture taken with the 40x almost looks translucent compared to the image with the 20x. Most antique slides have coverglasses of about 0,18mm, which is not that cool for e.g a 60 0.85 without correction collar, but my Nikon 60 0.95 can handle this without problems. Only thick layers make a problem.

Yes, the high NA dry objectives are very sensitive to coverglass thickness. The collar of the Nikon 60 0.95 must be set very precisely (Max. Deviation for perfect image: 0,005mm). I set this mostly with my camera zoom to see small details better.

Oil immersion is definitely better, especially for photomicrography. The oil prevents total reflection.
I sadly don’t have any water immersion objectives, because they are very expensive and rare:(

best,
Simon

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

Re: Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

Post by viktor j nilsson »

That Nikon 60x 0.95 is really impressive, Soki. I need to test my 60x 0.90 more carefully to see what I can get it can do. I never really expected it to produce such good images; I simply assumed that it would always be better to use immersion objectives for those kinds of subjects.

I tried to take some photos with my short-barrel Olympus 40x 0.95 today using the Stauroneis from Klaus Kemp's test slide. I was not able to get quite as clean and resolved images as your Nikon (which is kind of expected). It also showed a bit of loCA, but less than your Zeiss. The Nikon is so clean it almost looks like it's greyscale. I also think that I may need to perfect my correction collar technique. Visually I find it quite hard to find the sweet spot, the image looks similar to my eyes over a rather wide range, +-0.02 or so. Definitely can't nail it down to 0.005! I might try using live view next time.

I really hope to get my 40x 1.00 silicone objective soon. The swedish postal service has been sitting on it for almost three weeks now, and still haven't sent out a customs request. :evil:

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic