Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

[Soki]

The 60 0.95 is definetely really impressing, but sadly hard to handle. Despite most coverglasses seem to be 0,15mm, the 60 0.95 works best at 0.175mm on most of my slides. Nonetheless the image is good at 0.17mm or even 0.165mm, too. But if you look very closely with camera zoom or high magn. eypieces, some pores cannot be counted anymore. The next problem is that not every specimen in the slide lays exactly in the same depth.
I always focus on the smallest visible details and zoom in with my camera (live view) and check out how things change when I move the collar. Sadly the focus point always changes. As far as I know there are some Leitz objectives with focus compensation, which is really awesome. This is mechanically pretty labourous and costly.

The colour correction amazes me as well, but I compared two different classes (Planapo vs Neofluar). The Zeiss Planapos have much lower CA than shown with the Neofluar.

But you are still right: an immersion objective is probably always better for these subjects, especially for the fine details. But in this case the difference is lower than expected. I post processed the images (contrast, lightning, sharpening,...). The image with the 40 1.0 has more information, which can be highlighted by adjusting some parameters. The image with the 60 0.95 lost some details through total reflection, so they are gone forever;)

1. picture: Nikon CF Planapo 40 1.0 Oil
2. picture: Nikon CFN Planapo 60 0.95

best,
Simon

[Macro_Cosmos]

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.

Interesting point, perhaps the lack of contrast is due to the translucency. I'll need to do some further tests on this specific sample. If this is true, this would mean the slide I have isn't suited for anything above a 40x objective with lower NA. I configured the scope for Köhler illumination in both instances.

The coverslip seems to be very thick, well beyond 0.2mm. This slide was made in 1800s (maybe 1880s).

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.

I shipped a bellows to Sweden, Lund too actually. It was sent out mid-November before Christmas, and arrived in late January.

[Soki]

Ah, ok. That’s really thick. In ~1945 the standard coverglass thickness was changed from 0.18mm to 0.17mm. In the 1800s there was no standard thickness, so 0.20mm is not a surprise. The problem may not only be the thickness of the coverglass. It’s the glass quality and the quality of the mounting media (as well as the condition of it after over a century). The next thing is the layer thickness.
That my be the reason why even high NA objectives with correction collars or the ones used with immersion oil can’t handle some of these old slides.
I will test my 60 0.95 on an old (1800s) slide soon.

best,
Simon

[viktor j nilsson]

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.

I shipped a bellows to Sweden, Land too actually. It was sent out mid-November before Christmas, and arrived in late January.

Oh lovely. 5 weeks after it arrived in Sweden, I was finally asked to pay customs today. So hopefully it'll arrive soon, just 8 weeks after I bought it...

[Lou Jost]

I'd be overjoyed to get my lenses and objectives in just eight weeks...

[seta666]

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.

If you could elaborate on how to do this I would be grateful, specially the CA´s part.

I am following this thread with interest, already found well priced CF 20/0.75 fluor and 40/1.0 Apo oil; would also like a 10 and a 60/100 either apo or Fluor

I would like to get a 10 first; there is the CF 10/0.4 apo, CF 10/0.5 Fluor and CFN 10/0.45 Apo, which one of those has the biggest usable image circle/field of view?

[viktor j nilsson]

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.

If you could elaborate on how to do this I would be grateful, specially the CA´s part.

I am following this thread with interest, already found well priced CFN 20/0.75 fluor and 40/1.0 Apo oil; would also like a 10 and a 60/100 either apo or Fluor

I would like to get a 10 first; there is the CF 10/0.4 apo, CFN 10/0.5 Fluor and CFN 10/0.45 Apo, which one of those has the biggest usable image circle/field of view?

Congrats! The 20x PA is great. Haven't tested the CF 40x 1.0, but since I don't think Nikon made a CFN version, that's a great one to have.

I think you should go for the CFN PlanApo 10x (there is a nice one on auction right now). While the CF objectives were great, and can sometimes be found at attractive prices, the CFN versions always improved upon their CF predecessors. Contrast is usually a little higher, and NA often a bit higher too (as in the 10x - 0.4 vs. 0.45). I would be very surprised if the later CFN version had a smaller usable image circle.

As much as I love my CF Fluor 10x, the image circle is not it's strength. It's not listed as plan, but performs extremely well almost to the edge of my CFW 10x/18 eyepieces, but they do lose some sharpness near the edge. The CFN PlanApo will beat it handily outside FN18.

[viktor j nilsson]

By the way, were you referring to the CF Fluor 10x:


Or the CFN plan fluor 10x?

Can't immediately find an image of the latter, but it has the same style as this 100x CFN Plan Fluor:

[seta666]

By the way, were you referring to the CF Fluor 10x:

Sorry, CF fluor. Also the one I got is the CF fluor 20/0.75 not the CFN Apo.
I get confused all the time because they share same brochure, at last the CF fluors do.

[viktor j nilsson]

By the way, were you referring to the CF Fluor 10x:

Sorry, CF fluor. Also the one I got is the CF fluor 20/0.75 not the CFN Apo.
I get confused all the time because they share same brochure, at last the CF fluors do.

Ah sorry, I now see that there was a 'fluor' there at the end, I missed that. How do you like that one? As I said I have both the CFN PlanApo 20x and CF Fluor 20x, and find them to be incredibly close in performance over a 18mm field. I think it's a real gem - affordable, easy to use, and exceptional performance.

I assume you mean the brochure on Charles Krebs' site. It's the only one I'm aware of. The change from CF to CFN wasn't instantaneous, different objective series were gradually updated over many years, and CF/CFN versions seem to have co-existed until the very end. The catalogue just gives a snapshot in time - most of the apo's had been updated, except the 40x 1.00, while the Fluors took several more years before they became the CFN plan fluors. Those only existed for a couple of years before Nikon went all in on infinity optics.

[viktor j nilsson]

If you find a CF Fluor 40x 1.30 for a good price I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's simply incredible.

[seta666]

Ah sorry, I now see that there was a 'fluor' there at the end, I missed that. How do you like that one?

I do not have it yet, waiting for it to arrive; I have just started to build my set up. For now I have been using some nikon 210/0 BD plans via adapters; I plan to use both biological and metallurgical lenses on the BHT. Also the Mitutoyos when I get what I need to adapt the tube lens

The I did get the CFN Achromats 4 10 20 40 and 100 (The 4, 10 and 40 just arrived), I have tried the 10 and 40 and although they are OK I have been spoilt by using the mitutoyo M Plan Apo objectives and their lack of CAs.

I will try the 20´s side by side but I guess the Fluor will win hands down; maybe will use the achromats for viewing and use the fluor/Apos when taking photographs. The less I touch the Apo/Fl the less likely I may damage them.

I have never worked with coverslips or Oil objectives before, so this is something I will need time with. Maybe I will use the Achromats as learning tools before completely switching to Apo/Fluors.

Is there any reason/situation to use the Achromats over the Fluor/Apos? Otherwise once I feel confident enough I will fully replace them

For now a good 10 is all I need, but will take your advice on the 40/1.30 fluor...what about the 60?

[viktor j nilsson]

Ah sorry, I now see that there was a 'fluor' there at the end, I missed that. How do you like that one?

I do not have it yet, waiting for it to arrive; I have just started to build my set up.

For now I have been using some nikon 210/0 BD plans via adapters; I did get the CFN Achromats 4 10 20 40 and 100 (The 4, 10 and 40 just arrived).
I have tried the 10 and 40 and although they are OK I have been spoilt by using the mitutoyo M Plan Apo objectives and their lack of CAs.

I will try the 20´s side by side but I guess the Fluor will win hands down; maybe will use the achromats for viewing and use the fluor/Apos when taking photographs. The less I touch the Apo/Fl the less likely I may damage them.

I have never worked with coverslips or Oil objectives before, so this is something I will need time with. Maybe I will use the Achromats as learning tools before completely switching to Apo/Fluors.

Is there any reason/situation to use the Achromats over the Fluor/Apos? Otherwise once I feel confident enough I will fully replace them

For now a good 10 is all I need, but will take your advice on the 40/1.30 fluor...what about the 60?

So you are using BD plan achromats with the wrong tube length? Regardless, the Fluors will blow them away. Mitutoyo M plan apos are great, but their biggest selling point is that they have long working distance and do not require a cover slip. When it comes to resolving small things under a cover slip, highly corrected microscope objectives (Fluor and PlanApo) are as good as it gets. You'll be hard pressed to see any CA with Nikon Fluor and Apochromats.

The Nikon CF/CFNs are extremely durable. I have rarely or never heard of one go misaligned. They are definitely a lot more tolerant to abuse than Mitutoyos. So I do not think that you need to be worried. They do have very short working distances, which you need to be careful with. The black paint around the front lens of the Fluors sometimes wear off, but that's pretty easy to fix with black paint (and has very little or no effect on image quality as it falls outside the exit pupil). I had my Fluors shipped to me from the US to Sweden rattling around inside some pill bottles with no protection. Some of the the paint flaked off, but they are optically perfect even when compared to meticulously kept PlanApo's. (I got a big partial refund so they ended up very cheap). That tells you something about their durability!

I don't see any real reason to use achromats if you have Fluors and Apochromats. At least up to 20x 0.75x, the Fluors aren't hard to use. At 40x 0.95, the high NA and short working distance means that Fluor and Apo's become more demanding in terms of sample prep and cover glass thickness. But to me that's not reason enough to keep any achromats on my nosepiece.

No experience with the 60x, sorry. But i would love a 60x 1.40 if someone gave it to me...

[seta666]

So you are using BD plan achromats with the wrong tube length? Regardless, the Fluors will blow them away. Mitutoyo M plan apos are great, but their biggest selling point is that they have long working distance and do not require a cover slip. When it comes to resolving small things under a cover slip, highly corrected microscope objectives (Fluor and PlanApo) are as good as it gets. You'll be hard pressed to see any CA with Nikon Fluor and Apochromats.

I am used to use the nikon BD plans on bellows changing the extension as needed, like any other bellows lens, and they worked OK to some point. On the microscope I add 50mm extension to the photo tube when using them (If I remember to do so), completely loses parfocality but for photography I do not really care, I use the camera connected to a TV. Still some lenses like the BD 40/0.64 or M plan 60/0.70 ELWD can cover APS-C pretty well even when pushed down

I plan to use M42 tubes between the trinocular head and the frame, via dovetail to M42 adapters. Both to use tube lenses with mitutoyos and extension tubes with the Nikon BD plans. Will be a 3-in-one system (160/0.17, 210/0 and infinity corrected)

To use the BD plans I bought a second M25 nose piece (do not have it yet), will fit 4 BD plans via M26-M25 adapters. On the 5 x RMS nosepiece I can not use two BD plans next to each other, there is no enough room. Mitutoyos and BD plans will be great for things like crystallisations under polarised light

[Soki]

Hey guys,

I‘ll do a short overview of the CF / CFN objectives I own (or owned):

Nikon M 5 0.1:
-> this is not the M Plan and is for a tube length of 160mm. Oldie but goldie! Zero CA. Probably a predecessor of the Nikon M Plan 5 0.1 210/0

-> it can be used with or without coverglass and is especially well for reflected light

Nikon M Plan 20 0.35 SLWD 210/0:
-> superb lens, can be used with transmitted an reflected light. A coverglass is no problem, too. Great for waterorganisms in a Petri dishes because of the WD of 19.9mm. Can be used with 160mm tube @15:1 without compromising quality (the 20 0.40 ELWD can not be used that way). Sadly a bit too much CA at the edges, but can easily be removed afterwards.

Nikon M Plan 40 0.50 ELWD 210/0:
->nice lens recommended only for reflected light. Sadly a bit too much CA at the edges, but can easily be removed afterwards. Should only be used @210mm tubes.

Nikon CFN Planapo 4 0.20 160/-:
->Amazing Planapo with crystal clear image and no visible CA. Will sadly only Cover a 4/3 Sensor (direct projection) without compromised quality, but if you centered somethings in the middle APS-C will be ok, too. Huge working distance of 15.5mm!

Nikon CFN Planapo 10 0.45 160/0.17:
-> Amazingly good Planapo, simply perfect. Will cover APS-C Sensor easily. Great, crash-free working distance of 2.75mm!!

Nikon CFN Planapo 20 0.75 160/0.17:
-> Probably the best Planapo I ever tested. Amazingly crisp, brilliant and supersharp. Also a crash free working distance of 0.64mm. My Zeiss Planapo 25 0.65 has only 0.14mm and is not nearly as good in terms of image quality (it‘s older and has less n.A. so not fair to compare them.

Nikon CF Planapo 40 1.0 160/0.17 Oil:
-> very good Planapo but lacks a bit in contrast compared tk the CFN Planapos. This can easily be adjusted in image post processing. The resolution and sharpness is very good.
No visible CA. It easily outperformed my Zeiss Planapo 40 1.0 Oil.
If a little CA is no problem for you, You should probably go with the newer CFN (Plan) Fluor 40 1.3. Only the non-Plan Version has an Iris (the Same with the Fluor 100)

Nikon CFN Plan 40 0.70 160/0.17:
-> not a fan of this one. Sold it shortly after I bought. It was in very good Optical condition, don’t think I got a bad one. Like mentioned before, my super old Carl Zeiss Jena (1940?, 33mm) achromat performed equally, maybe better. Was hard to tell...

Nikon CFN Planapo 60 0.95 160/0.11-0.23:
-> I can’t imagine a dry high NA objective to be better than this one. If the correction collar is adjusted precisely, it delivers a super high contrast picture with great resolution. It’s by far my most loved and used objective for Diatoms, Tardigrades / Rotifiers / Nematodes.
It’s of course not as sharp as the CFN 20 0.75 and has much lower working distance.

Nikon CFN Fluor 100 0.8-1.3 160/0.17 Oil:
-> A very good and bright objective. Visible CA, but not very much. Easy to handle and useful in darkfield, too. Only the non-Plan version has an Iris.


best,
Simon