4X Objective Lens Test Comparison - Part 1

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

harisA
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:31 am
Location: Greece

Post by harisA »

Many thanks for sharing the information with us. I have 2 questions.

1)Can you please be more specific about the painters tape? Are you using it after cleaning the wafers in ultrasonic bath?
2)What is the dimensions of your wafer test target?I 'm thinking of buying some 6'' wafer plates through ebay but their size requires a much bigger ultrasonic cleaner than I have.May its possible to cut them someway.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8560
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

A Magnum Opus indeed, even if magnum was only 4x :)

Well done Robert.
Chris R

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

harisA wrote:Many thanks for sharing the information with us. I have 2 questions.

1)Can you please be more specific about the painters tape? Are you using it after cleaning the wafers in ultrasonic bath?
2)What is the dimensions of your wafer test target?I 'm thinking of buying some 6'' wafer plates through ebay but their size requires a much bigger ultrasonic cleaner than I have.May its possible to cut them someway.
Glad to help!

I found best results using two steps.

1. Scratching the wafer was a concern so I used a super soft micro-fiber cloth with one misting of non-streak window cleaner to avoid leaving any streaks. This was to remove any film or anything sticky.

At that point you will still have lots of tiny white dots or particles that stick to the wafer, maybe due to a static charge? Brushing had no effect, it made it worse. Forced air wouldn't dislodge them.

2. This is the most important step. I use the painter's tape to stick and peel it back a few times in the same target area strip.

This results in a perfect clean like-new finish like nothing else I tried.

After trying so many methods I didn't think it was possible to get it as clean as when I received it, but the tape did it.

Hope you will see similar results.

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I've found that white specks of dirt are a useful addition to my test surfaces. That's where CA and astigmatism shows up best.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:I've found that white specks of dirt are a useful addition to my test surfaces. That's where CA and astigmatism shows up best.
The funny part is, at least in my office, I can get it perfectly clean, but by the time I set everything up and test fire a few, and shoot, there are specks again!

But you are right Lou, CAs really show up well on a white speck.

One seller on Ebay claimed he had factory new wafer so I bought a few, the seller is in France. They were 100% scratched, every square mm.

I complained. He denied it. I filed a claim a Ebay claim not as described. He credited me 100%.

Now those are my favorite wafers, the fine scratches really make is easy to judge sharpness. :?
Last edited by RobertOToole on Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ChrisR wrote:A Magnum Opus indeed, even if magnum was only 4x :)

Well done Robert.
Thank you for all the help and advice.

You are a true friend :D

Robert

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

A beautiful website nicely laid out and clean looking. Thanks for all the hard work.

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

I haven't tried Robert's painters tape idea yet, I might use a lint remover clothes roller for getting lint off cloths since I don't have any painter's tape. He has very good idea IMO especially if it doesn't damage or leave a residue on the wafer surface.

I've had some success with using a semisoft brush and blowing air while brushing, this still leaves some debris behind though.

Another thing I've found that keeping the wafer/chip covered at all times, and keeping the setup out of any direct air movement (such as AC vent blowing, or ceiling fans). Tiny micron level debris is everywhere, and this is why semiconductors are processed in "clean rooms" and the facilities go to great lengths and expense to remove any possible contaminates. A single sodium atom in the wrong place can cause a chip to fail (upsets the threshold voltage of sub micron FETs), so imagine what a micron size particle would do :(

Surfaces of the newer chip processes use a different surface passivation than the much older wafters like these 6" versions. These new wafer surfaces may have polyamide or BCB plastics which are soft and easily scratched, more so than the older wafer passivation.

Great work Robert, looks like those $17 AmScope 4X are a real bargain. :P

Best,

Mike

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

mawyatt wrote:...Another thing I've found that keeping the wafer/chip covered at all times, and keeping the setup out of any direct air movement (such as AC vent blowing, or ceiling fans). .....
Good advice.

I learned the hard way, an exposed wafer will attract dust like super-magnet.

Now I am careful to keep an index card over the top of my diffuser dome and over the wafer when its not in use.


Robert

Yawns
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Benavente, Portugal

Post by Yawns »

Thank you for your effort and for sharing ... I posted a link at the Extreme Macro Facebook group and people there are also quiet excited about your test ...

Just 2 remarks and forgive me in advance if I am wrong ...

1) In the "settings" you forgot to mention what lens you used as "tube" for the infinty corrected lenses .. or at least I read the post several times and couldn't find any mention to the tube lens...

you say:

2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?

Thank you
Antonio
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21028
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Yawns wrote:you say:

2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
f/4 for the Amscope is a correct value when comparing with the MP-E.

When used at 4X and NA 0.10, the Amscope objective is NA 0.025 = effective f/20 on the camera side.

To achieve effective f/20 at 4X, the MP-E would have to be set on f/4, following the classic rule of nominal Fnumber*(magnification+1), 4*(4+1)=20.

You're correct that on the subject side NA 0.10 = f/5. Again, that's the same as what the MP-E would do at 4X if you set to nominal f/4.

As often happens, the underlying issue is what the numbers mean. When used as intended, the Amscope objective gives effective f/5 on the subject side, but the lens itself would be rated as f/4 based on focal length and aperture diameter.

--Rik

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Yawns wrote:Thank you for your effort and for sharing ... I posted a link at the Extreme Macro Facebook group and people there are also quiet excited about your test ...
Thanks Antonio.
Yawns wrote:
Just 2 remarks and forgive me in advance if I am wrong ...

1) In the "settings" you forgot to mention what lens you used as "tube" for the infinty corrected lenses .. or at least I read the post several times and couldn't find any mention to the tube lens...
You know you might be right!

For infinity corrected optics, I used the Sigma diopter, instead of the Raynox or prime lens since its M52 so it fits my studio rig nicely. I find the CA correction on the Sigma best out of the Raynox or 200mm primes. I read someplace the Sigma diopter has UD glass but I don't know for sure.
Yawns wrote:
2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
Yup you are right, I read over that so many times! Good catch.

4x .1 = f20 effective - f5 Nominal
4x .13 = f15 - f3
4x .16 = 12.5 - 2.5
4x .20 = f10 - f2

Thanks for taking time to post this!

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Yawns wrote:you say:

2) "The Amscope objective is running at nominal aperture of f/4 (NA 0.10), compared to the MP-E at f/2.8" ...
I think it's f/5 isnt't it? ... 1/ 2Na ...?
f/4 for the Amscope is a correct value when comparing with the MP-E.

When used at 4X and NA 0.10, the Amscope objective is NA 0.025 = effective f/20 on the camera side.

To achieve effective f/20 at 4X, the MP-E would have to be set on f/4, following the classic rule of nominal Fnumber*(magnification+1), 4*(4+1)=20.

You're correct that on the subject side NA 0.10 = f/5. Again, that's the same as what the MP-E would do at 4X if you set to nominal f/4.

As often happens, the underlying issue is what the numbers mean. When used as intended, the Amscope objective gives effective f/5 on the subject side, but the lens itself would be rated as f/4 based on focal length and aperture diameter.

--Rik
Thanks for the excellent information, as always!

Robert

glmory
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:45 pm

LOMO on a Labophot

Post by glmory »

After reading this and the expensive objective review, it seems like the LOMO 3.7X or Amscope $17 objectives are the logical choice of the finite objectives.

Is there any reason these two objectives would not work properly on an Labophot microscope?

zzffnn
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Re: LOMO on a Labophot

Post by zzffnn »

glmory wrote: Is there any reason these two objectives would not work properly on an Labophot microscope?
The Amscope 4x work on Labophot for sure. And the 3.7x would likely work too.

Most other short LOMO objectives are too short to focus on Labophot (scope stage cannot go up high enough). But the 3.7x has a parfocal height that is a bit longer than the 33mm LOMO standard height.
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic