Nikon CFN Fluor / Planapo 100 160/0.17

[seta666]

Thanks Soki, this helps.
I do not use the 4x much, own the 4/0.13 which I am really using more like a finder and bought an amscope 4/0.1; seems to perform very well for a 17$ lens.
Having just bought the CF 20/0.75 fluor the Apo can wait (still on my list), but will try to get the 10/0.45 Apo at a reasonable price. The older CF 10/0.40 Apo and the 10/0.50 are way more common, I wonder how they compare to the newer CFN Apo.
Also having the CF 40/1.0 oil the 40/1.30 fluor can wait, but would not mind a 40 or 60 dry, either fluor or Apo; that CFN 60/0.95 Apo sure does look interesting.

I share your thought about the 40/0.70, but also with the 10/0.30; they are OK but I do not really want to go back at dealing with CAs. Will thoroughly test the Achromats and sell the ones I find no use for.

[Soki]

I use the CFN Planapo 4 0.20 for overview as well. I also use it often on larger botanical and histological slides, where it shows his muscles-> very sharp and contrasty.
I would rather wait a bit longer and pay more for the CFN versions. If you need high NA I would rather choose the dry CFN Planapo 40 0.95 or 60 0.95 over the Fluors. The aperture between the 20 0.75 (which can be used with 16x eyepieces or a magn. changer) and the 40 0.85 is not really big, but the step to 0.95 is.
Next month my CFN Planapo 40 0.95 and a Plan Fluor 40 0.75 (for diatom dry test slides and slides with high layer thickness) will arrive. I’m really excited about their performance.

Hope you get some good deals, too;)

Simon

[viktor j nilsson]

I use the CFN Planapo 4 0.20 for overview as well. I also use it often on larger botanical and histological slides, where it shows his muscles-> very sharp and contrasty.
I would rather wait a bit longer and pay more for the CFN versions. If you need high NA I would rather choose the dry CFN Planapo 40 0.95 or 60 0.95 over the Fluors. The aperture between the 20 0.75 (which can be used with 16x eyepieces or a magn. changer) and the 40 0.85 is not really big, but the step to 0.95 is.
Next month my CFN Planapo 40 0.95 and a Plan Fluor 40 0.75 (for diatom dry test slides and slides with high layer thickness) will arrive. I’m really excited about their performance.

Hope you get some good deals, too;)

Simon

I agree completely about the 40x, the Fluor 40x 0.85 is good but not stellar. I would absolutely save my money for the 40x 0.95 planapo. Or just use oil when you need high resolution at 40x.

[Ichthyophthirius]

Hi,

I like the Fluor 40/0.85. It's meant for fluorescence applications, but it's very useful for pondlife and vintage slides because of the very long working distance of 0.37 mm. It's got a correction collar that the Plan Apo 20/0.75 doesn't have (WD 0.64 mm) but the working distance is longer than the Plan Apo 40/0.95 (WD max. 0.18 mm). It hits a sweet spot and is affordable.

[seta666]

Having bought already a CF 20/0.75 Fluor and a CF 40/1.0 Oil I just need a good 10X; CFN Apo 10/45 would be my choice but truth is even just an older CF 10/0.50 Fluor or CF 10/0.40 would be more than enough for now unless someone advices against them. The CFN 4/0.13 and CFN 100/0.25 Oil will have to do for the lower and higher magnification range.

I have to let go some lenses before investing more money; meanwhile I will start working with what I already have and think calmly in what needs to be upgraded, keeping an eye on the market for opportunities.

Thank you all for the advice

[Soki]

Hi,

I like the Fluor 40/0.85. It's meant for fluorescence applications, but it's very useful for pondlife and vintage slides because of the very long working distance of 0.37 mm. It's got a correction collar that the Plan Apo 20/0.75 doesn't have (WD 0.64 mm) but the working distance is longer than the Plan Apo 40/0.95 (WD max. 0.18 mm). It hits a sweet spot and is affordable.

The Fluor 40 0.85 has definitely its raison d'être, especially for the original purpose -> EPI Fluorescence. I faced the decision between the Planapo 40 0.95 and the Fluor 40 0.85. I have many vintage to antique slides and love to explore pond life, too. Especially for antique slides a correction collar is definitely a must have, because there was no standardized coverglass thickness. For pondlife I always try to create a very thin layer thickness. Not only because high NA and spherical aberrations, also to prevent the organisms to leave the focal plane.
I sadly can’t compare the Fluor 40 0.85 to the Planapo 40 0.95, but it would be pretty interesting.

best,
Simon

[viktor j nilsson]

Hi,

I like the Fluor 40/0.85. It's meant for fluorescence applications, but it's very useful for pondlife and vintage slides because of the very long working distance of 0.37 mm. It's got a correction collar that the Plan Apo 20/0.75 doesn't have (WD 0.64 mm) but the working distance is longer than the Plan Apo 40/0.95 (WD max. 0.18 mm). It hits a sweet spot and is affordable.

The Fluor 40 0.85 has definitely its raison d'être, especially for the original purpose -> EPI Fluorescence. I faced the decision between the Planapo 40 0.95 and the Fluor 40 0.85. I have many vintage to antique slides and love to explore pond life, too. Especially for antique slides a correction collar is definitely a must have, because there was no standardized coverglass thickness. For pondlife I always try to create a very thin layer thickness. Not only because high NA and spherical aberrations, also to prevent the organisms to leave the focal plane.
I sadly can’t compare the Fluor 40 0.85 to the Planapo 40 0.95, but it would be pretty interesting.

best,
Simon

I do not own nor have I tested the Planapo 40 0.95, but a friend once sent me some Diatom comparison photos between the CFN PlanApo 40x 0.95, CF Fluor 40x 0.85 and a CFN Pol 40/0.65 with DIC illumination on an Optiphot 2 set to both maximum exctinction and a mid gray for maximum detail. I would need to ask him if I can share them here, but the difference between the Planapo 0.95 and Fluor 0.85 was quite distinct. The planapo had a very clear advantage in both resolution and contrast. A bit more CA in the Fluor, especially axial, but it is generally rather well corrected for chromatic aberration.

That said, I do agree that the Fluor 40x is a very nice lens - it is a huge upgrade from a CFN 40x 0.70 Plan achromat, for example, and very nice to use.

[Ichthyophthirius]

CFN Apo 10/45 would be my choice but truth is even just an older CF 10/0.50 Fluor or CF 10/0.40 would be more than enough for now unless someone advices against them.

I have/had all three. The CFN Plan Apo 10/0.45 is amazing in brightfield use, you will be pleased. The CF Plan Apo 10x/0.40 is also great for brightfield and can be found for much lower prices; my copy has too much internal strain for it to ever work well for Pol. The CF Fluor 10/0.50 is amazingly sharp; however, I tried several copies and they all were full of dust (they were used on inverted microscopes but had an open construction, an error that seems to result in a lot of dust getting in). I stopped looking for the 10/0.50. Again, the Fluor series would really shine in fluorescence applications.

[seta666]

I have/had all three........................
[/quote]
Thanks, what about field coverage? I am using the nikon lenses via direct projection with an APS-C camera so the bigger the image circle the better. As I will use focus stacking planarity does not bother me as much as corner performance does.
An example are CFN 4/0.13 or 4/0.20 Apo; they perform well in the center but corner performance is rather poor; something common in most low magnification nikon lenses, even modern ones. Only the low NA 0.1 seem to perform well.

I would also like to add at least one lens with correction collar, seems like a must have in any system. I will have to decide which one but as I said no hurries

[Ichthyophthirius]

I can't tell the coverage in detail. My Optiphot 2 has a 1.25x intermediate tube so I never run into issues with my APS-C camera sensor because I only see the center of the image.

The CF and CFN Plan objectives are designed for FN 26.5 so you shouldn't run into problems with the 10:1 I would think.

[viktor j nilsson]

I will try to do a test with direct projection on a full frame camera during the weekend. I would find that interesting, too.

[seta666]

I can't tell the coverage in detail. My Optiphot 2 has a 1.25x intermediate tube so I .........................

Does that intermediate tube only add extension or has some kind of optics in it? I saw 1.25x intermediate tubes for BH-2 also but if it is just extra extension it would just need a simple modification

It looks like the CFN 4X do not comply with this FN26.5

I will try to do a test with direct projection on a full frame camera during the weekend. I would find that interesting, too.

Looking forward to see the results, thanks

[Ichthyophthirius]

Does that intermediate tube only add extension or has some kind of optics in it? I saw 1.25x intermediate tubes for BH-2 also but if it is just extra extension it would just need a simple modification

It contains a tube lens system that compensates for the additional length of the intermediate tube. It's essential, otherwise the extension would deteriorate the image quality severely.

Nikon and Olympus had simple 1.25x tube lenses for this. Zeiss, however, used an expensive Telan lens system which allowed them to have a 1.0x (or even 0.8x) tube factor.

[Soki]

I do not own nor have I tested the Planapo 40 0.95, but a friend once sent me some Diatom comparison photos between the CFN PlanApo 40x 0.95, CF Fluor 40x 0.85 and a CFN Pol 40/0.65 with DIC illumination on an Optiphot 2 set to both maximum exctinction and a mid gray for maximum detail. I would need to ask him if I can share them here, but the difference between the Planapo 0.95 and Fluor 0.85 was quite distinct. The planapo had a very clear advantage in both resolution and contrast. A bit more CA in the Fluor, especially axial, but it is generally rather well corrected for chromatic aberration....

Hey,
this would be very interesting to see. Would be nice, if you’re allowed to share this.

Thanks

[

I have/had all three. The CFN Plan Apo 10/0.45 is amazing in brightfield use, you will be pleased. The CF Plan Apo 10x/0.40 is also great for brightfield and can be found for much lower prices; my copy has too much internal strain for it to ever work well for Pol...

Hey,

my Nikon CFN apo 10 0.45 (don’t have a CF apo 10 0.40) works pretty well in pol, but I don’t use pol to determine or measure substances.
Same with the CFN Apo 20 0.75 and apo 60 0.95. haven’t tested the apo 4 0.20, apo 40 1.0 & Fluor 100 0.8-1.3 with polarized light.


The picture was made with fully crossed polfilters. The diatoms are mounted in TiO2 (cool look, but very low details because of an special treatment). (apo 10 & 60). Single shots.


best,
Simon

[viktor j nilsson]

I can't tell the coverage in detail. My Optiphot 2 has a 1.25x intermediate tube so I .........................

Does that intermediate tube only add extension or has some kind of optics in it? I saw 1.25x intermediate tubes for BH-2 also but if it is just extra extension it would just need a simple modification

It looks like the CFN 4X do not comply with this FN26.5

I will try to do a test with direct projection on a full frame camera during the weekend. I would find that interesting, too.

Looking forward to see the results, thanks

Another project came in between (see: https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... 20#p100020 ).

I was planning on shooting the direct projection tests on my old M20 microscope without the head, but I didn't find the dovetail adapter I used to use a couple of years ago. Instead, I started adapting my Vanox AH for direct projection - but wasn't able to finish it. I'll keep working on this.