Hello,
Only 1 letter differs between the 2 objectives - "S",
it stands for "Super", or better handling of chromatic aberration, in a broader light spectrum (above that, there is the "X" line, which stands for extended)
My aim here is to compare it vs. the "regular" Apo.
As you can see, it delivers :)
Besides subjective witnessing, you can see a vectroscope view that shows hue shifts in the regular Apo.
Also, the SApo provides slightly more contrast, and thats can be seen in the waveform.
Regarding resolution, both are excellent and reach the theoretical limit.
The sample is a Diatom strew slide, on an oiled 1.4 condenser.
Image is 4x cropped, FOV is 55µm (2x optical + 2x digital).
Hi Ariel,
stunning difference, hadn't thought that.
Best regards
Peter
mmhm, nice subject Ariel, but I would like to see it in BF, and ideally the same NA.
Can't explain the higher DOF of the 1.4 NA objective compared with the 1.35.
Did you use the DIC-HR version?
Best, René
Zitat von: Peter T. in September 17, 2025, 19:39:49 NACHMITTAGSHi Ariel,
stunning difference, hadn't thought that.
Best regards
Peter
Danke Peter!
Zitat von: Rene in September 17, 2025, 20:16:31 NACHMITTAGSmmhm, nice subject Ariel, but I would like to see it in BF, and ideally the same NA.
Can't explain the higher DOF of the 1.4 NA objective compared with the 1.35.
Did you use the DIC-HR version?
Best, René
Hi Rene,
Its the "normal" DIC version, wish I had the HR 😀
The regular APO and the SAPO differ in NA., true, but my goal here was to show CA difference.
There is a slight focus difference, I dont think the SAPO got more DOF.
Ive chosen DIC so to keep the condenser fully open, as closing it reduce CA.
But, you got a point in doing BF comparison, as less variables are on the way.
Ill repeat it with a micrometer slide.
Thanks!
Tricky stuff Ariel, hope to see more of your experiments. I have a SEM nowadays at my disposal, that made me less interested in the ultimate results with LM than I used to be ;)
So you just screwed a 1.4 toplens on the normal 0.9 DIC set? Does that make a difference in the DIC, ie the homogenity of the illumination?
Best, René
Zitat von: Rene in September 17, 2025, 21:07:00 NACHMITTAGSTricky stuff Ariel.....,
Indeed, lots of other variables play here, like objective age, probable defects, a drunk objective QA guy, etc :)
I just wanted to verify that tht the "S" line provides less CA.
One day Ill get into SEM...
The U-UCD8 condenser got 2 optional top lenses, 0.9 dry or 1.4 oil, so its of the shelf, not DIY.
Anyway, did a quick BF comparison, just to verify:
Martin Kreutz started a thread some time ago with the a comparison of the different DIC sets, just found it back here https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index.php?topic=37743.0 (https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index.php?topic=37743.0).
Prisms are getting increasingly specific, the DP prisms for the old UPLFL objectives for example are no longer available: the UPlanXApo and UPlanFLN nowadays make use of the same DIC prisms. But these don't work well with the older PlanFL series. Then there is this thing with the different back focal planes in the analyzer prism. So it can become quite tricky to find the right combinations.
When looking at your image of the micrometer, it seems your planapo has a tilted lens element somewhere. Luckily you've got yourself a better objective :-)
Best, René
Thanks Rene.
Yes, Im using the old DP prisms.
I was thinking the same about the shift, also noticable on the waveform.
Could also be a bad turret thread, Ill check that.
Zitat von: Ariel Qassis in September 17, 2025, 20:41:57 NACHMITTAGSZitat von: Rene in September 17, 2025, 20:16:31 NACHMITTAGSmmhm, nice subject Ariel, but I would like to see it in BF, and ideally the same NA.
Can't explain the higher DOF of the 1.4 NA objective compared with the 1.35.
Did you use the DIC-HR version?
Best, René
Hi Rene,
Its the "normal" DIC version, wish I had the HR 😀
The regular APO and the SAPO differ in NA., true, but my goal here was to show CA difference.
There is a slight focus difference, I dont think the SAPO got more DOF.
Ive chosen DIC so to keep the condenser fully open, as closing it reduce CA.
But, you got a point in doing BF comparison, as less variables are on the way.
Ill repeat it with a micrometer slide.
Thanks!
Dear Ariel,
the lateral chromatic aberration amount differs between the two objectives series UIS and UIS 2 is -if at all- in the UV and far Red. only. OLYMPUS never emphazized on the lateral chromatic aberration differences between UIS and UIS 2 generation of objectives.
But it was mainly the transmission that was optimized in those spectral ranges in the UIS 2- series.
In the visible spectrum, from approx. 430nm - 680 nm, OLYMPUS did not improve the correction of the lateral chromatic aberration in the UIS 2- series. There was no need for that, as both apochromatic series have a very good subpression of the lateral chromatic aberration here.
I compared an UIS PlanApo 60x/1,40 Oil with an UIS 2 PlanSApo 100x/1,40 Oil and both of these superb objectives have a similar lateral chromatic aberration (Abbe Testplatte mit schiefer Beleuchtung). The contrast of both objectives is very good. The difference in image quality for studying living protists and small invertebrates between UIS and UIS 2 is not there. I also like the UApo 340 nm series for life cell imaging a lot.
But the new X- line series of apochromatic
oil immersion objectives are optimized for high- end confocal microscopy and those objectives with their extreme N.A. values are very sensitive against spherical aberration and not very useful for the study of living organisms in an
aqeous medium. Just my findings.
All the best
Michael
Zitat von: Apochromat in September 21, 2025, 20:23:02 NACHMITTAGSZitat von: Ariel Qassis in September 17, 2025, 20:41:57 NACHMITTAGSZitat von: Rene in September 17, 2025, 20:16:31 NACHMITTAGSmmhm, nice subject Ariel, but I would like to see it in BF, and ideally the same NA.
Can't explain the higher DOF of the 1.4 NA objective compared with the 1.35.
Did you use the DIC-HR version?
Best, René
Hi Rene,
Its the "normal" DIC version, wish I had the HR 😀
The regular APO and the SAPO differ in NA., true, but my goal here was to show CA difference.
There is a slight focus difference, I dont think the SAPO got more DOF.
Ive chosen DIC so to keep the condenser fully open, as closing it reduce CA.
But, you got a point in doing BF comparison, as less variables are on the way.
Ill repeat it with a micrometer slide.
Thanks!
Dear Ariel,
the lateral chromatic aberration amount between the two objectives series UIS and UIS 2 is -if at all- in the UV and far Red. But it was mainly the transmission that was optimized in those spectral ranges in the UIS 2- series. In the visible spectrum, from approx. 430nm - 680 nm, OLYMPUS did not improve the correction of the lateral chromatic aberration in the UIS 2- series in the VIS- range. There was no need for that, as both apochromatic series have a very good subpression of the lateral chromatic aberration here.
I compared an UIS PlanApo 60x/1,40 Oil with an UIS 2 PlanSApo 100x/1,40 Oil and both of these superb objectives have a similar lateral chromatic aberration (Abbe Testplatte mit schiefer Beleuchtung). The contrast of both objectives is very good. The difference in image quality for studying living protists and small invertebrates between UIS and UIS 2 is not there. I also like the UApo 340 nm series for life cell imaging a lot.
But the new X- line series of apochromatic oil immersion objectives are optimized for high- end confocal microscopy and those objectives with their extreme N.A. values are very sensitive against spherical aberration and not very useful for the study of living organisms in an aqeous medium. Just my findings.
Thank you Michael for your detailed explanation.
Of course, my findings could be due to defect in the UIS1, although Ive also compared it with the PH version and got same CA results.
Perhaps DIC exaggerates it?
Thanks,
Ariel
All the best
Michael
What does Waveform and Vectorscope show in the diagrams above?
Regards,
Michael
Zitat von: mhaardt in September 22, 2025, 19:23:09 NACHMITTAGSWhat does Waveform and Vectorscope show in the diagrams above?
Regards,
Michael
Luminosity and coloour distribution along the frame.