Originally my stereos were used solely for diatom arranging, but I started using them for inspecting and cleaning insects too. Over time, I found I increasingly enjoyed just browsing "stuff" through the stereo. So much so, I'm considering investing in a really nice one to use as a general purpose stereo and "browsing machine".
After reading all I could find on forums and makers sites etc, I really like the idea of a good APO stereo. I will spend a lot of time using it, so I want the best flat, wide, sharp field I can get, with the extra NA delivered by an APO (albeit only at higher magnifications it seems). I'd want zoom with a reasonably wide range, providing this doesn't compromise image quality and resolution too much (compared to an equivalent achromat).
I'd prefer a brand name scope of research grade or thereabouts. This on the premise that it will be more comfortable to use for extended periods and resale value will be better should I ever decide it's overkill (or want to upgrade further). Trinoc is not important as I only want it for looking, not photography - but if it "comes with" then fine, I'll take it.
Am I dreaming that an APO stereo will give me an "oh wow" experience compared to viewing through my acromat zooms (Nikon SMZ 660 and an older Zeiss zoom)? Does the choice of APO bring compromises I haven't discovered yet (e.g. poor DoF)?
I've been looking at this scope...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/302172090441
...a Leica MZ12.5 APO with a huge zoom range and lots of extras. I don't really want the camera and PC, but the seller hasn't yet responded to my query about splitting the lot. I think it looks a bit expensive too, but have no real idea what the going rate would be for such an instrument. Anyone know? Budget is currently undefined, but this is approaching the limit of what I'd choose to spend (assuming that's an appropriate level for what I want).
Any comments, suggestions or warnings, and particularly info on where else I might look for a good, used, name-brand APO (in the UK) would be greatly appreciated.
Do I want an APO stereomicroscope?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Beatsy stereoscopes are perfect for "browsing" but they have many limitations for photography comparing with a microscope.The overall experience is also depended on the type of illumination used.I think fiber ring light is the best.If i had to spent so much money on a scope i would definitely asked to try it at least for one week to see if it is worth the money.I think in UK many dealers can give you this option.Judging from microscopes,the difference in "visual experience" between a cheapo chinese microscope with infinity lens and wide field eyepieces, and a midrange nikon is not so big.Of course photography is another story.
By saying "visual experience" i 'm reffering to what human eye perceives.
By saying "visual experience" i 'm reffering to what human eye perceives.
Thanks Haris. I should make it clear that I don't intend it for photography at all. I know low NA makes stereos a poor proposition for all but the simplest record shots. Browsing is my only goal - but I kinda want the best "browsing experience" I can get at a fair price - whatever that may be.
The scope linked above can be inspected at the sellers location (which I would do were I seriously considering its purchase), but I'm pretty sure an extended loan isn't on offer.
The scope linked above can be inspected at the sellers location (which I would do were I seriously considering its purchase), but I'm pretty sure an extended loan isn't on offer.
Beatsy,
I don't have direct experience. You may want to ask member g4lab, who is very experienced in that area.
Do note that DoF goes up VERY quickly when you reduce NA to much less than 0.25, which is the typical NA range of dissecting scopes. So you may want to know the NA of your apo objectives, if you want a global view with good DoF.
Also it depends on how sensitive you are with CA. CA won't be as obvious with reflected light at low NA, compared to high NA transmitted light.
Personally, I don't need apo dissecting objectives, as I am not too sensitive with CA (though I can see them almost everywhere). As a reference point, I am OK with corrected achromats in plain bright field, and do not feel the need for apos there. But, in highly oblique transmitted lights, such as darkfield or extreme oblique/COL, I have to use apo objectives (and I will always take a non-plan apo over a plan achromat in this case, even if the apo has slightly less NA), as CA can be very distracting there.
I do enjoy browsing with my cheap Bausch and Lomb StereoZoom 7, without ancillary objective, by the way. I did try a non-matching $15 Chinese 2x objective on it - the DoF reduction was not significant in that case, though I did notice flatness / CA issues at the edges (since it is not a well-corrected objective and not matching - I did not care, as I only want high magnification to pick up protists from petri dish).
I don't have direct experience. You may want to ask member g4lab, who is very experienced in that area.
Do note that DoF goes up VERY quickly when you reduce NA to much less than 0.25, which is the typical NA range of dissecting scopes. So you may want to know the NA of your apo objectives, if you want a global view with good DoF.
Also it depends on how sensitive you are with CA. CA won't be as obvious with reflected light at low NA, compared to high NA transmitted light.
Personally, I don't need apo dissecting objectives, as I am not too sensitive with CA (though I can see them almost everywhere). As a reference point, I am OK with corrected achromats in plain bright field, and do not feel the need for apos there. But, in highly oblique transmitted lights, such as darkfield or extreme oblique/COL, I have to use apo objectives (and I will always take a non-plan apo over a plan achromat in this case, even if the apo has slightly less NA), as CA can be very distracting there.
I do enjoy browsing with my cheap Bausch and Lomb StereoZoom 7, without ancillary objective, by the way. I did try a non-matching $15 Chinese 2x objective on it - the DoF reduction was not significant in that case, though I did notice flatness / CA issues at the edges (since it is not a well-corrected objective and not matching - I did not care, as I only want high magnification to pick up protists from petri dish).
Last edited by zzffnn on Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens
-
Ichthyophthirius
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am
Hi,
I don't know what your Zeiss zoom is like.
From personal experience, the large Olympus stereo microscopes, SZX9 and, as they are very similar, SZX12 and SZX7 definitely give you that "WOW" effect. http://cmic.sfsu.edu/downloads/311_bro_1.pdf I use it for microdissection and sample preparation.
In your case, you'd need a 1x PLAPO objective. There is an aperture intermediate tube to adjust DOF for the SZX9, the SZX12 has a built-in aperture. There is a transmitted light base for these stands that gives excellent oblique illumination.
As they are quite expensive, it would be advisable to test them in person and see if they're worth your money. All the stereos I had so far had transport damage; they are both, very heavy and very delicate, which is a problematic combination. Olympus was, however, able to repair a SZX9 just a few years ago (for £400).
The reputation of the Leicas is even better.
Regards, Ichty
I don't know what your Zeiss zoom is like.
From personal experience, the large Olympus stereo microscopes, SZX9 and, as they are very similar, SZX12 and SZX7 definitely give you that "WOW" effect. http://cmic.sfsu.edu/downloads/311_bro_1.pdf I use it for microdissection and sample preparation.
In your case, you'd need a 1x PLAPO objective. There is an aperture intermediate tube to adjust DOF for the SZX9, the SZX12 has a built-in aperture. There is a transmitted light base for these stands that gives excellent oblique illumination.
As they are quite expensive, it would be advisable to test them in person and see if they're worth your money. All the stereos I had so far had transport damage; they are both, very heavy and very delicate, which is a problematic combination. Olympus was, however, able to repair a SZX9 just a few years ago (for £400).
The reputation of the Leicas is even better.
Regards, Ichty
I have a Wild M5Apo (it's a M5A with 1X Apo objective) and I'm very satisfied with it but not to the point to recommend it to you: although plan in the sense of all flat field focused it has a dome effect very pronounced at low magnification and it isn't really apo, you can see some lateral chromatic aberration at least at the lower powers.
You would need to go for much more modern and expensive models
You would need to go for much more modern and expensive models
Pau
It is inconceivable to me that a Leica MZ 12.5 is worth 8100 pounds.
First off see here
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=596483EB
This was excerpted from Martin Microscopes (big old USA LONG TIME dealer) web page or facebook page. You can see it on my facebook page with their comments.
I also have developed the opinion that there is a such thing as too much zoom in a stereo and I think the Zeiss SV11 and the Wild M10 represents the practical upper limit.
We do have an Oly widefield fluorescence stereo at work based on their SZX 12 and it is pretty awesome. They also have a wonderful MVX monoscopic version which is what I would shoot for if I were buying something new. They have some very high na claims on the objectives for these scopes. I don't know whether the zoom optic limits the na as it does in the Leica mentioned below.
On the new Leica Z16(makroscope) the zoom element is the limiting aperture for na not the objective.
After I first used a Wild M400 (na 0.115 or 0.230 with a 2x auxiliary and slightly higher with the ApoZoom I really have never preferred a stereo and I do have an SV11(with Apo lens), various Wilds and many others too. But I always go to my big beautifull M400 with its bright contrasty sharp image. No stereo even comes close.
The M400 is theoretically monoscopic but its field is so wide I don't have much problem with percieving depth cues. If you are used to stereos you will notice a little less 3D.
jmo
First off see here
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=596483EB
A couple years ago a customer asked us to recommend a stereomicroscope that would provide the best resolution not at the highest magnification, but at 10x. Interesting question! We gathered up fifteen microscopes - old and new - and then three of us subjectively rated the image resolution at 10x. The Wild M420 Apozoom was clearly superior, so that got a score of 10 from each of us, and was used as a benchmark by which to judge the others. Then, we averaged the results for a final score for each scope. The Wild M5/M5A and Motic K400 copy all cheated a bit in that they do not have a 10x magnification position, so those were evaluated at 12x which gave them perhaps an unfair advantage. Not too many surprises here except that the very old Leitz TS came in 2nd, and the B&L SZ7 came in last. The SZ7 has very good resolution up to 70x, but the low end was surprisingly poor.
This was excerpted from Martin Microscopes (big old USA LONG TIME dealer) web page or facebook page. You can see it on my facebook page with their comments.
I also have developed the opinion that there is a such thing as too much zoom in a stereo and I think the Zeiss SV11 and the Wild M10 represents the practical upper limit.
We do have an Oly widefield fluorescence stereo at work based on their SZX 12 and it is pretty awesome. They also have a wonderful MVX monoscopic version which is what I would shoot for if I were buying something new. They have some very high na claims on the objectives for these scopes. I don't know whether the zoom optic limits the na as it does in the Leica mentioned below.
On the new Leica Z16(makroscope) the zoom element is the limiting aperture for na not the objective.
After I first used a Wild M400 (na 0.115 or 0.230 with a 2x auxiliary and slightly higher with the ApoZoom I really have never preferred a stereo and I do have an SV11(with Apo lens), various Wilds and many others too. But I always go to my big beautifull M400 with its bright contrasty sharp image. No stereo even comes close.
The M400 is theoretically monoscopic but its field is so wide I don't have much problem with percieving depth cues. If you are used to stereos you will notice a little less 3D.
jmo
g4lab,
Thank you for sharing!
I wonder how the resolution scores would change, if those scopes were rated at around 20x and 40x.
I also wonder if AO Cycloptic, being a CMO, has a significant dome effect.
I tried a Wild M3A or M1A (cannot remember which) at an auction and compared it to a Bausch & Lomb SZ4 nearby. I saw very pronounced dome effect and my peculiar eyes much prefer the SZ4, which did not seem to lose much (if any) in resolution. I only tested them briefly at around 20x-40x though.
Thank you for sharing!
I wonder how the resolution scores would change, if those scopes were rated at around 20x and 40x.
I also wonder if AO Cycloptic, being a CMO, has a significant dome effect.
I tried a Wild M3A or M1A (cannot remember which) at an auction and compared it to a Bausch & Lomb SZ4 nearby. I saw very pronounced dome effect and my peculiar eyes much prefer the SZ4, which did not seem to lose much (if any) in resolution. I only tested them briefly at around 20x-40x though.
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens
The AO Cycloptic was had a barrel mag changer and claimed to have an APO corrected objective though with initial mag of no more than six or seven X this does not really mean much. But it was one of my first favorite scopes and I always liked it better than the Bausch StereoZooms and even the AO StereoStars. Like the Wild M5 (also a step changer scope) it was bright and contrasty and sharp which I never found to be the case on the inexpensive zooms.
The M1 is a single magnification scope CMO stereoscopic as is the M3A M3B and M3C They are mag changers similar to the zoom M3Z they differ in details. One I forget which is very accurate in distortion and allows accurate measurements to be taken if mounted on an S type stande. I think the M3C.
The M1 is a single magnification scope CMO stereoscopic as is the M3A M3B and M3C They are mag changers similar to the zoom M3Z they differ in details. One I forget which is very accurate in distortion and allows accurate measurements to be taken if mounted on an S type stande. I think the M3C.
Thanks for the comments and suggestions all. Learned so far...
1. APO is "worth it" in the right scope
2. The Ebay Leitz is overpriced (as I thought).
3. "Macroscopes" are an interesting variation (lack of parallax between eyepieces would be useful for me in some instances). Wild M400 - hmmm.
4. There are a *lot* more places to buy 2nd hand from in the US
5. I'm going to be searching (and visiting to test) for quite a while...
If anyone could hazard a guess as to a more reasonable price for the Leitz shown, that would be useful.
Thanks again
1. APO is "worth it" in the right scope
2. The Ebay Leitz is overpriced (as I thought).
3. "Macroscopes" are an interesting variation (lack of parallax between eyepieces would be useful for me in some instances). Wild M400 - hmmm.
4. There are a *lot* more places to buy 2nd hand from in the US
5. I'm going to be searching (and visiting to test) for quite a while...
If anyone could hazard a guess as to a more reasonable price for the Leitz shown, that would be useful.
Thanks again
Would love to, but I'm in the UK and couldn't test it first. Import duty and taxes would amount to 25% extra too, and I've yet to have a stereo survive domestic shipping, never mind international.houstontx wrote:http://www.bostonind.com/laboratory/mic ... gQodocQEwQ
call them they might negotiate...
That's a beast of a scope though - thanks for pointing it out.
Cheers
Beats
-
LSRasmussen
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:21 am
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Beatsy,
I was in the same situation a few years ago. My stereo microscope at the time was a Wild M5 without a photo tube. The M5 is a very good stereo microscope but at low magnification there was quite a bit of "doming" and it has no Zoom facility only discrete magnification steps. I ended up replacing it with a Nikon SMZ1270. It has a 1x APO Objective and 12.7x Zoom. It also has a Nikon photo tube that will cover a full frame DSLR camera such as Nikon D750. The 1270 was not exactly cheap, so the question about the Wow factor is valid. Was it (that) much better than the Wild M5 ? Well, it's certainly better in all optical aspects. I'm happy with the performance for the tasks I use it for (Pond life behaviour studies, Foraminifera, Minerals, Coins etc. It's flat field, edge sharp and as far as I can see without any color faults. And this is across the complete Zoom range. I did a side by side comparison between the M5 and the 1270, and you could clearly see the difference. But I don't think I said the Wow word ;-)
I don't know if this was helpful at all, but here's a link to some test images I made with the 1270 :
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/111 ... xorch1QAl4
Cheers,
Lars
I was in the same situation a few years ago. My stereo microscope at the time was a Wild M5 without a photo tube. The M5 is a very good stereo microscope but at low magnification there was quite a bit of "doming" and it has no Zoom facility only discrete magnification steps. I ended up replacing it with a Nikon SMZ1270. It has a 1x APO Objective and 12.7x Zoom. It also has a Nikon photo tube that will cover a full frame DSLR camera such as Nikon D750. The 1270 was not exactly cheap, so the question about the Wow factor is valid. Was it (that) much better than the Wild M5 ? Well, it's certainly better in all optical aspects. I'm happy with the performance for the tasks I use it for (Pond life behaviour studies, Foraminifera, Minerals, Coins etc. It's flat field, edge sharp and as far as I can see without any color faults. And this is across the complete Zoom range. I did a side by side comparison between the M5 and the 1270, and you could clearly see the difference. But I don't think I said the Wow word ;-)
I don't know if this was helpful at all, but here's a link to some test images I made with the 1270 :
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/111 ... xorch1QAl4
Cheers,
Lars