Hi Oliver. I congratulate you for your channel and for your great informative work. It is very frustrating (and annoying) that most microscopes have low-quality eyepieces, even the upper-mid-range ones. In this sense, microscopy should learn from astronomy and many microscopists and manufacturers have poor knowledge of eyepieces. The designs Ramsden, Huygens ... in astronomy, have remained in the field of antiques or relics. Any simple and inexpensive astronomical plossl eyepiece is better than most microscope eyepieces. I adapt plossl astronomical eyepieces to the microscope and the improvement in quality is impressive.
There are some extremely good and expensive eyepieces from high-end manufacturers around, but they are designed to work with their own microscopes optics. When looking at the eyepieces of "affordable" microscopes, then one can see that most of them are similar. It seems that only a handful of manufacturers seems to produce them and deliver them for the different microscope brands. One also has to say, however, that amateur astronomy seems to be significantly more popular than microscopy and the amateur market seems to be bigger. Maybe this also resulted in the production of affordable quality optics. A prardox, becasue microscopes generally are more easily accessible in schools and many doctor's offices have them standing around.
I agree with you, astronomy is more widespread among the general public and there is the astronomy versus microscopy school paradox. True, I have seen through Olympus and Zeiss microscopes with quality eyepieces, but this is not the norm. I have also observed through premium brands and the eyepieces were very basic, microscopy manufacturers seem to neglect the subject of eyepieces. Regarding astronomical eyepieces, I am not talking about exotic eyepieces like the TeleVue Nagler, Delos or PentaxXW ... as you already know, brands like TeleVue, Vixen, Explore Scientific, Meade ... make excellent plossl or orthoscopic eyepieces at very affordable prices . Even lower-end astronomy brands offer better eyepieces than mid-range microscopes. Regards.
Hi, is a 16× eyepiece as bad as a 25× eyepiece? Because I'm thinking of getting a microscope but I'm not sure what to get, the one with 16× is monocular and the one with 25× is binocular, so which is the better option? They both come with 10× eyepiece and they both have the same objective lenses, 4×, 10× and 40× I'd appreciate an answer and thanks
When obtaining an additional eyepiece for exclusive use in conjunction with a camera adapter on a trinocular scope, is there a preference for a Ramsden or a Huygens design, what is an ideal field number for this application and do either of these factors vary depending on whether the camera is an APSC coupled to a magnifying adapter such as your Olympus configuration or possibly a mobile phone attachment please?
Thanks sir..now i understand. 16mm vs 18mm...16mm more focusing on small area and u can focus more on the single object...18mm look wider..its easier to find object on the specimen if you looking many objects around the specimen slide..u are a genius.
I got an older used Bresser Biolux NV which has eyepieces with a 20mm barrel size. I guess they are comparable with the cheap / bad 0.96“ astronomy eyepieces. Commenting as you did not mention this size in your overview.
Hello! I have an urgent question: can eye pieces of different FN be exchanged? I have a straight tube microscope, those designed in the 50s, and they have standard 23.3mm width but a pathetic FN of 14. Can i change it to another eye piece with FN of 20?
Can you have a look again at your film, when you open WF10/16? Before it flips, it is clearly situated "barrel down", and you put it it back with "barrel up". Have you dismantled it before this video and put together incorrectly?
Hi Oliver, Im coming for some clarification with a stupid question. I want to buy a trino microscope so I can use it with the camera at the same time. I am wondering about one eyepiece thing. If an eyepiece is 10x for example and I take it out to put the camera in, does that mean I will loose the 10x magnification and only have the objective magnification on the camera image? Love your videos friend, keep doing the amazing work!
I have a Kellner style lens system Binocular microscope with 10X eyepieces. Unfortunately, the doublet style lenses on the right eyepiece have separated and the internal lense was found clinking around loosely inside the housing. How do I cement them back together?
I would first suggest getting a replacement eyepiece if possible. If replacements are no longer available I would suggest trying to find someone who already knows how to do this. If those two options fail then you can try to tackle the problem yourself. I'm sure a professional would have their own method of dealing with this issue, but here is what I would consider doing. If the separation appears so perfect that I don't see any residue from the existing cement on both lenses, I would clean the two surfaces, then use optical cement to recement the lenses back together. You can go to Edmond Optics web site, sear h for optical cement, then order what seems appropriate for your project. I would also do a web search to see if there are other comparable products along with comparing prices. If there appears to be old cement attached to either lens along with a few pieces missing, then the repair job just got harder. If I really wanted to continue with this project, I'd consider first attempting to remove any of the existing cement. I would try various solvents to dissolve the existing cement. This would involve some trial and error. Acetone might be a good starting point. There are some solvent mixtures available like various laquar removers used for electronic components. The difficulty with these solvents is that they must be used in a well ventilated area which is a big safety issue. The solvents can require being kept at a higher temperature in a sealed container for possibly weeks. Beside safety, there is a further possible risk that the glass itself, or at least any coatings could be damaged by the chemicals. I remember reading about a company that actually did this procedure to repair enlarger lenses. It was so many years ago, I just don't remember their name. I suppose you can do some internet searching if you still want to pursue this. So my conclusion is that the probability of success depends on many factors and is probably low. I think I would first try just putting the two lenses back and try to see if the uncremented lenses work well enough. Alternatively, I think I would try using a temporary fix, like using a tiny drop of mineral oil between the elements and retesting. This of course can be messy, but might be something to try. I hope this helps. Good luck.
🖂 E-MAIL NEWSLETTER - Keep yourself updated: www.microbehunter.com/newsletter-signup/
Hi Oliver. I congratulate you for your channel and for your great informative work.
It is very frustrating (and annoying) that most microscopes have low-quality eyepieces, even the upper-mid-range ones. In this sense, microscopy should learn from astronomy and many microscopists and manufacturers have poor knowledge of eyepieces.
The designs Ramsden, Huygens ... in astronomy, have remained in the field of antiques or relics. Any simple and inexpensive astronomical plossl eyepiece is better than most microscope eyepieces.
I adapt plossl astronomical eyepieces to the microscope and the improvement in quality is impressive.
There are some extremely good and expensive eyepieces from high-end manufacturers around, but they are designed to work with their own microscopes optics. When looking at the eyepieces of "affordable" microscopes, then one can see that most of them are similar. It seems that only a handful of manufacturers seems to produce them and deliver them for the different microscope brands. One also has to say, however, that amateur astronomy seems to be significantly more popular than microscopy and the amateur market seems to be bigger. Maybe this also resulted in the production of affordable quality optics. A prardox, becasue microscopes generally are more easily accessible in schools and many doctor's offices have them standing around.
I agree with you, astronomy is more widespread among the general public and there is the astronomy versus microscopy school paradox.
True, I have seen through Olympus and Zeiss microscopes with quality eyepieces, but this is not the norm. I have also observed through premium brands and the eyepieces were very basic, microscopy manufacturers seem to neglect the subject of eyepieces.
Regarding astronomical eyepieces, I am not talking about exotic eyepieces like the TeleVue Nagler, Delos or PentaxXW ... as you already know, brands like TeleVue, Vixen, Explore Scientific, Meade ... make excellent plossl or orthoscopic eyepieces at very affordable prices . Even lower-end astronomy brands offer better eyepieces than mid-range microscopes. Regards.
Fantastic, thank you for the details .
Very informative and useful.
Great video's. Thanks so much.
Hi, is a 16× eyepiece as bad as a 25× eyepiece? Because I'm thinking of getting a microscope but I'm not sure what to get, the one with 16× is monocular and the one with 25× is binocular, so which is the better option? They both come with 10× eyepiece and they both have the same objective lenses, 4×, 10× and 40× I'd appreciate an answer and thanks
When obtaining an additional eyepiece for exclusive use in conjunction with a camera adapter on a trinocular scope, is there a preference for a Ramsden or a Huygens design, what is an ideal field number for this application and do either of these factors vary depending on whether the camera is an APSC coupled to a magnifying adapter such as your Olympus configuration or possibly a mobile phone attachment please?
Thanks sir..now i understand. 16mm vs 18mm...16mm more focusing on small area and u can focus more on the single object...18mm look wider..its easier to find object on the specimen if you looking many objects around the specimen slide..u are a genius.
I got an older used Bresser Biolux NV which has eyepieces with a 20mm barrel size. I guess they are comparable with the cheap / bad 0.96“ astronomy eyepieces. Commenting as you did not mention this size in your overview.
Hello! I have an urgent question: can eye pieces of different FN be exchanged? I have a straight tube microscope, those designed in the 50s, and they have standard 23.3mm width but a pathetic FN of 14. Can i change it to another eye piece with FN of 20?
Yes. The FN is the diameter of the inside lens. FN 20 is quite much, more is not possible, because the total diameter is 23.3.
Instructions unclear. Microscope is now a telescope
Can you have a look again at your film, when you open WF10/16?
Before it flips, it is clearly situated "barrel down", and you put it it back with "barrel up". Have you dismantled it before this video and put together incorrectly?
Hi Oliver, Im coming for some clarification with a stupid question. I want to buy a trino microscope so I can use it with the camera at the same time. I am wondering about one eyepiece thing.
If an eyepiece is 10x for example and I take it out to put the camera in, does that mean I will loose the 10x magnification and only have the objective magnification on the camera image?
Love your videos friend, keep doing the amazing work!
so what the different function of the both design?
A more likely scenario is mold growth on internal lens surfaces particularly in older vintage scopes.
Can you please review falcon achromatic semi planer objective lens
I have a Kellner style lens system Binocular microscope with 10X eyepieces. Unfortunately, the doublet style lenses on the right eyepiece have separated and the internal lense was found clinking around loosely inside the housing. How do I cement them back together?
I would first suggest getting a replacement eyepiece if possible. If replacements are no longer available I would suggest trying to find someone who already knows how to do this. If those two options fail then you can try to tackle the problem yourself. I'm sure a professional would have their own method of dealing with this issue, but here is what I would consider doing.
If the separation appears so perfect that I don't see any residue from the existing cement on both lenses, I would clean the two surfaces, then use optical cement to recement the lenses back together. You can go to Edmond Optics web site, sear h for optical cement, then order what seems appropriate for your project. I would also do a web search to see if there are other comparable products along with comparing prices.
If there appears to be old cement attached to either lens along with a few pieces missing, then the repair job just got harder. If I really wanted to continue with this project, I'd consider first attempting to remove any of the existing cement. I would try various solvents to dissolve the existing cement. This would involve some trial and error. Acetone might be a good starting point. There are some solvent mixtures available like various laquar removers used for electronic components. The difficulty with these solvents is that they must be used in a well ventilated area which is a big safety issue. The solvents can require being kept at a higher temperature in a sealed container for possibly weeks. Beside safety, there is a further possible risk that the glass itself, or at least any coatings could be damaged by the chemicals.
I remember reading about a company that actually did this procedure to repair enlarger lenses. It was so many years ago, I just don't remember their name. I suppose you can do some internet searching if you still want to pursue this.
So my conclusion is that the probability of success depends on many factors and is probably low. I think I would first try just putting the two lenses back and try to see if the uncremented lenses work well enough. Alternatively, I think I would try using a temporary fix, like using a tiny drop of mineral oil between the elements and retesting. This of course can be messy, but might be something to try. I hope this helps. Good luck.
its a good idea to dilute the alcohol with some water when cleaning the lens
Don’t use measuring tools for generating torque…it’s a great way to ruin them!
🇳🇱🤪🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍👍