Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- From: Kevin Cunningham <smskjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:43:25 -0700
On Aug 18, 8:47 am, "Y" <a...@xxx> wrote:
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187354236.054245.84100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Aug 16, 2:02 pm, selwyn.stle...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[snip]
The only non-parfocal objective was the very low power 1X one, the
rest were parfocal and parcentric.
Parcentricity is not only an objective caracteristic. It depends more on the
nosepiece than on the objective.
Now aus Jena objectives and microscopes were crap. Just not very
good, they didn't have the money or the talent to make good anything.
Are we talking facts or religious dogmas here? A more balanced view would be
wise.
You should never use another manufacturers optics on a microscope,
they don't work. Each manufacturer corrects for the many optical
problems that occur in their own way, Nikon is a good example of this
with their Chrome Free (CF) system of correction.
Depends on the specifics of the microscope and the objective in question.
When you put it that absolutely, it's simply not true.
Nice post! However an objective can be non-parcentric all by its
self. Its quite possible. To put it bluntly the aus Jena objectives
were crap. They were poorly built and not thought out at all.
Look, Olympus had at one time four super computers built by Hitachi
and they shared one with Nikon. Nikon had their own computing group.
These were use almost exclusively to re-compute objectives. Now they
use very new IBM's I think. Zeiss and Leitz had their own
computational group, Jena didn't.
When Jena was purchased from the remnants for the east German
government Zeiss found that they produced a third of what Zeiss
produced with three times the production staff. They didn't have the
science, they didn't have the trained personel and their western sales
staff was full of East German security folks.
As for objectives one manufacturers objectives will not work well with
another manufacturers frame and eyepieces. You should never swap
stuff unless there is no other way. In the past the dealership I
worked for sold Nikon oil 50X on Olympus BHTU's, Olympus didn't make
an oil 50X back then. They worked better than nothing but they worked
a whole lot better on a Nikon. I know, I did the testing. The reason
is as I stated, the manufacturer has to correct for a bunch of
problems, one does it one way, another in another way. Now with
infinity correction and different thread sizes there is no similarity.
Frequently I use the term "crap" to indicate an area that would take
to much time to describe. Most aus Jena 'scopes were crap. Now some
were cleverly designed but rarely cleverly built. The construction
looked like one hammer, one pile of beer cans and one bent screw
driver. I've run a repair company since 1990 and I don't work on aus
Jena, when their broke, thats it.
Again, thanks for the interesting post.
Kevin Cunningham
SMS
.
- References:
- Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- From: selwyn . stleger
- Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- From: Kevin Cunningham
- Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- From: Y
- Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- Prev by Date: Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- Next by Date: Wild Stereoscope Models
- Previous by thread: Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- Next by thread: Re: Query about Zeiss long working distance objectives
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
