Nikon small world

https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2022-photomicrography-competition/ant-camponotus

Can I capture this with a z MC105?!

Nahh…

Still scary…

Joel Klein wrote:

Still scary…

Very!

Joel Klein wrote:

https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2022-photomicrography-competition/ant-camponotus

Can I capture this with a z MC105?!

Nahh…

Exactly.

You need three things.

1. A microscope objective or a high power macro lens. A tolerable objective can be had for around $100. High power macro lenses like an old Canon EP-65 (which you can use on non-Canon cameras with an adapter) or a new Laowa 2.5-5x (which you can get for most mounts) will set you back at least $400. I'd go with the objective, because it's cheaper, yet better, if you already have some other stuff you need to use with it).
2. A really big ant. The notes say that image was at 5x magnification. If it was shot on FF, the ant's head would be about 4mm, which means you're dealing with a truly enormous ant, maybe 15-20 mm long. For a smaller ant, you can go with a 10x objective. You're on you own for that.
3. Some way of positioning the ant and camera, and lighting the scene. Generally, this is at some sort of bench setup with a stable base that holds your subject and camera in relation to each other. Lights can be LED reading lights, small "macro flashes, or whatever flash you have handy. A "focusing rail" lets you focus by moving the camera closer to or farther from the subject.

The notes say that particular shot was captured with a 5x microscope objective. There are two kinds of objectives: finite and infinite. Finite objectives capture light from the subject and focus it directly on the sensor, like a regular macro lens, but way more powerful. To use one of those, you just need the right stack of tubes between the objective and your camera.

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy. They capture light from the subject, and send it through the tube as parallel rays that don't focus anywhere (they're said to "focus at infinity"). A second lens, called the "tube lens" then "grabs" that parallel light and focuses it on your sensor. This lens needs to be around 200mm, because the objectives are only designed to produce their rated magnification and their full image size (which is sometimes closer to APS than FF). The tube lens may be a small, cylindrical "optical capsule" that you mount in a tube. The ITL200 (made by Nikon for Thor Labs) is probably the most popular and people use them with many different brands of objectives: Mitutoyo, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, etc.

My usual setup is a finite objective with a Nikon EVIL (aka "mirrorless") and an older Nikon PB-4 bellows. I'm doing some work lately with infinite objectives, using my Nikon 200mm f/4.0 as a "tube lens". It's not ideal in that it's heavy and bulky, but I already have it. Macro is often about using the stuff you already have, creatively.

Still scary…

Absolutely. That's a camponotus ant, aka a "carpenter ant", probably camponotus ligniperda since the photographer is Greek. They won't hurt you directly, but they can wreck your house. That ghastly mouth is built to chew it's way through wood fibers, and the eyes are only used occasionally, since there's no light at all inside a burrow chewed into a dead tree.

Good morning. 
Thanks you for the information. This is a treasure packed that I will bookmark. I never used any microscopic tools, all though I always had a a dream to look into the unseen world, but I’m afraid I’m going to put my finger in there and see all bacteria and I won’t use my fingers to eat anymore…

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy.

I don't know if they offer any advantages for ordinary macro photography, though.  They are designed for special microscopic techniques such as polarized light microscopy and differential interference contrast.  They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses.

3D Gunner wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Joel Klein wrote:

https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2022-photomicrography-competition/ant-camponotus

Can I capture this with a z MC105?!

Nahh…

1. A really big ant. The notes say that image was at 5x magnification. If it was shot on FF, the ant's head would be about 4mm, which means you're dealing with a truly enormous ant, maybe 15-20 mm long. For a smaller ant, you can go with a 10x objective. You're on you own for that.

Still scary…

Absolutely. That's a camponotus ant, aka a "carpenter ant", probably camponotus ligniperda since the photographer is Greek. They won't hurt you directly, but they can wreck your house. That ghastly mouth is built to chew it's way through wood fibers, and the eyes are only used occasionally, since there's no light at all inside a burrow chewed into a dead tree.

Just for fun I have adapted an image of an ant head for the topic at hand.🙂

In my case, the ant species is one of the smaller ones, less than 5mm long, so the head size is probably less than 2mm.
The optical magnification was >5x, the camera APS-C and finally I applied a crop.

With a microscope lens the details would have been finer.

Wow!!! Look at the eyes!!! Very interesting array of? I’m not sure…

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy.

I don't know if they offer any advantages for ordinary macro photography, though.

• They couple well to cheap, easily obtainable things.
• You can change your magnification, within reason.

Anything that can do a reasonable 200mm equivalent and can be manually focused to infinity can work well with an infinity objective, including my phone (Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra). I've also used them with a Nikon 200mm f/4, and with an old 70-210mm f/4-5.6. You can get an RMS to 52mm or 62mm adapter for around $15. It's going to take more to couple to a finite objective.

I'm great at doing things cheap, but the cheapest one can get away with mounting a 210mm finite objective to a typical DSLR or EVIL is $63. That's $15 for an adapter from your camera to M42, $33 for three M42 extension tube sets (Acouto 3 piece set, 61mm total), and $15 for an M42 to RMS adapter. You probably want a tube clamp with an Arca foot, too.

As far as magnification, most modern infinity objectives have enough resolution to drive a 300mm or even a 400mm telephoto. Some won't vignette on a 135mm on FF, or a 100mm on APS. If you try running a 210mm tube-length finite objective down to 100mm or up to 300mm or 400mm it's going to get a bit squiffy. Been there, done that.

But wait, there's more!

They are designed for special microscopic techniques such as polarized light microscopy and differential interference contrast. They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses.

The biggest advantage infinity objectives offer is what my optical engineering prof back at Oakland called "the three-year rule".

More optical design calculations have been performed in the last three years than in the preceding 200 years of optical design.

This is thanks to advances in computers, optical design software, and the growing demands of industry. Optical manufacturing also continues to improve: more glasses of various capabilities are available, more advanced grinding techniques led to simple parabolic aspherical lenses, complex formula aspherical lenses, double sided aspherical lenses, and the abilities to grind aspherical lenses with ever-increasing deviations from the norm.

Infinity kinda' came along for the ride, or the three-year rule enabled it. But whichever side you take in that "the chicken and the egg" discussion, the results are pure win.

At the same time, three other trends converged.

Scope manufacturers increased their parfocal lengths (the length from the base of the objective to the subject) allowing for more complex, faster, higher resolution, and better corrected objectives, as well as increased working distances. I have some old Zeiss objectives with a 35mm parfocal length. Most of my flock of CF and CFI Nikons have a 45mm parfocal length, which is how the 40x ELWD has 33mm for optics and still pulls off a 12mm working distance.

• The latest Nikon objectives are their CFI60 series, named after the 60mm parfocal length. I have a CFI60 biological objective, and like most biological objectives it has a very short working distance. In this case, 1mm. That leaves 59mm for a heavy, unusually wide objective just packed solid with lens elements.
• The Mitutoyo 5x that's the darling of the macro field these days has a 95mm parfocal distance, which lets it have an insane 34mm working distance and still leave you 61mm for lens elements.

Scope manufacturers placed nearly all the aberration correction in the objectives. My old CF Nikons had to be matched to Nikon CF eyepieces or a CF "projection eyepiece" for photography. Directly projecting on a camera sensor showed off the high field curvature and chromatic aberrations. (Nikon says CF stands for "color free", but that's only when the objective is matched to a Nikon eyepiece). Now, it's 2022 and focus stacking fixes curvature of field, while software chromatic aberration correction is routine, but still...

The CFI objectives are better corrected on a generic 200mm telephoto than the old finite CF objectives were with matching projection eyepieces.

The fields just keep getting wider. Last week, Allan Walls and I were discussing objectives and their field sizes, and he politely cast doubt on my outdated ideas of field sizes. I tested what he claimed, and yes, the Nikon CF objectives cover a 43mm FF field surprisingly well.

They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses

There's a lot to be said for that ability. I'm about to publish my open-source BD/epi illuminator.

Joel Klein wrote:

Good morning.
Thanks you for the information.

You're quite welcome. I've always believed knowledge is meant to be shared.

This is a treasure packed that I will bookmark. I never used any microscopic tools, all though I always had a a dream to look into the unseen world, but I’m afraid I’m going to put my finger in there and see all bacteria and I won’t use my fingers to eat anymore…

Bacteria, and mites...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy.

I don't know if they offer any advantages for ordinary macro photography, though.

• They couple well to cheap, easily obtainable things.
• You can change your magnification, within reason.

Interesting.  Yes, I see.  A finite objective would require too much extension to change the magnification by much.

Anything that can do a reasonable 200mm equivalent and can be manually focused to infinity can work well with an infinity objective, including my phone (Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra). I've also used them with a Nikon 200mm f/4, and with an old 70-210mm f/4-5.6. You can get an RMS to 52mm or 62mm adapter for around $15. It's going to take more to couple to a finite objective.

I'm great at doing things cheap, but the cheapest one can get away with mounting a 210mm finite objective to a typical DSLR or EVIL is $63. That's $15 for an adapter from your camera to M42, $33 for three M42 extension tube sets (Acouto 3 piece set, 61mm total), and $15 for an M42 to RMS adapter. You probably want a tube clamp with an Arca foot, too.

As far as magnification, most modern infinity objectives have enough resolution to drive a 300mm or even a 400mm telephoto. Some won't vignette on a 135mm on FF, or a 100mm on APS. If you try running a 210mm tube-length finite objective down to 100mm or up to 300mm or 400mm it's going to get a bit squiffy. Been there, done that.

But wait, there's more!

They are designed for special microscopic techniques such as polarized light microscopy and differential interference contrast. They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses.

The biggest advantage infinity objectives offer is what my optical engineering prof back at Oakland called "the three-year rule".

More optical design calculations have been performed in the last three years than in the preceding 200 years of optical design.

Very interesting.

This is thanks to advances in computers, optical design software, and the growing demands of industry. Optical manufacturing also continues to improve: more glasses of various capabilities are available, more advanced grinding techniques led to simple parabolic aspherical lenses, complex formula aspherical lenses, double sided aspherical lenses, and the abilities to grind aspherical lenses with ever-increasing deviations from the norm.

Infinity kinda' came along for the ride, or the three-year rule enabled it. But whichever side you take in that "the chicken and the egg" discussion, the results are pure win.

At the same time, three other trends converged.

Scope manufacturers increased their parfocal lengths (the length from the base of the objective to the subject) allowing for more complex, faster, higher resolution, and better corrected objectives, as well as increased working distances. I have some old Zeiss objectives with a 35mm parfocal length. Most of my flock of CF and CFI Nikons have a 45mm parfocal length, which is how the 40x ELWD has 33mm for optics and still pulls off a 12mm working distance.

I assume those long working distances come at the expense of NA as before?

• The latest Nikon objectives are their CFI60 series, named after the 60mm parfocal length. I have a CFI60 biological objective, and like most biological objectives it has a very short working distance. In this case, 1mm. That leaves 59mm for a heavy, unusually wide objective just packed solid with lens elements.
• The Mitutoyo 5x that's the darling of the macro field these days has a 95mm parfocal distance, which lets it have an insane 34mm working distance and still leave you 61mm for lens elements.

Scope manufacturers placed nearly all the aberration correction in the objectives. My old CF Nikons had to be matched to Nikon CF eyepieces or a CF "projection eyepiece" for photography. Directly projecting on a camera sensor showed off the high field curvature and chromatic aberrations. (Nikon says CF stands for "color free", but that's only when the objective is matched to a Nikon eyepiece). Now, it's 2022 and focus stacking fixes curvature of field, while software chromatic aberration correction is routine, but still...

The CFI objectives are better corrected on a generic 200mm telephoto than the old finite CF objectives were with matching projection eyepieces.

The fields just keep getting wider. Last week, Allan Walls and I were discussing objectives and their field sizes, and he politely cast doubt on my outdated ideas of field sizes. I tested what he claimed, and yes, the Nikon CF objectives cover a 43mm FF field surprisingly well.

They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses

There's a lot to be said for that ability. I'm about to publish my open-source BD/epi illuminator.

Thanks for all that information.  I have not shopped for microscope equipment for quite a long time.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy.

I don't know if they offer any advantages for ordinary macro photography, though.

• They couple well to cheap, easily obtainable things.
• You can change your magnification, within reason.

Interesting. Yes, I see. A finite objective would require too much extension to change the magnification by much.

Technically, they were simply optimized for one magnification. It's hard to make a lens perform well at multiple focusing distances/magnifications. You can optimize a design for multiple focusing distances, at the expense of overall resolution.

For camera lenses, this was addressed with "floating elements", like the system that let a Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor be bitingly sharp all the way from infinity to 1:2.

But for microscope objectives, there's not much reason to make it adjustable. It would help those of us who repurpose them as macro lenses, but it wouldn't have helped the microscope users they were created for. (I have a "zoom head" for my Nikon Optiphot 88 scope. It's a contraption that replaces the standard head of a high-end modular microscope and lets you crank the magnification up by and additional 2x. You can also change the eyepieces themselves).

So you end up with an objective that has one tube length where it's optimized for the highest resolution, the lowest distortion, curvature of field, etc. That's especially important in scopes like mine that was originally built for IC wafer inspection. And thus scope objectives get "mushy" when you try to use them at other tube lengths. I've cataloged which of mine work well for changing tube lengths, because it's used for a focus stacking technique called "bellows draw focusing".

The classic RMS thread macro lenses like Leitz Photars, Zeiss Luminars, and Nikon Macro Nikkors have wider "tuning", generally being pretty consistent over a 4:1 range.

Enlarger lenses (typically M39 thread) are generally optimized over a 10:1 range.

The biggest advantage infinity objectives offer is what my optical engineering prof back at Oakland called "the three-year rule".

More optical design calculations have been performed in the last three years than in the preceding 200 years of optical design.

Very interesting.

I always thought it was. It's why modern lenses are so amazing.

This is thanks to advances in computers, optical design software, and the growing demands of industry. Optical manufacturing also continues to improve: more glasses of various capabilities are available, more advanced grinding techniques led to simple parabolic aspherical lenses, complex formula aspherical lenses, double sided aspherical lenses, and the abilities to grind aspherical lenses with ever-increasing deviations from the norm.

Infinity kinda' came along for the ride, or the three-year rule enabled it. But whichever side you take in that "the chicken and the egg" discussion, the results are pure win.

At the same time, three other trends converged.

Scope manufacturers increased their parfocal lengths (the length from the base of the objective to the subject) allowing for more complex, faster, higher resolution, and better corrected objectives, as well as increased working distances. I have some old Zeiss objectives with a 35mm parfocal length. Most of my flock of CF and CFI Nikons have a 45mm parfocal length, which is how the 40x ELWD has 33mm for optics and still pulls off a 12mm working distance.

I assume those long working distances come at the expense of NA as before?

Sometimes, but sometimes the optical engineers surprise you.

The bulk of my objective collection is Nikon CF objectives introduced for the Optiphot 66 and 88 series scopes. I have about twenty-five of that series, most of which are mounted on four turrets.

• 4 objective BD loaded with a 5, 10, 20, 40x series with the 20 and 40 being ELWD. I have an ELD 100x that can get swapped into one position when I want more magnification. Technique at 100x is basically standard microscopy. For that matter, 40x is more like microscopy than "macro". I also have a 150x standard distance CF PLAN APO (fractional mm,
• 4 objective BD DIC head loaded with a 5, 10, 20, 40x series of DIC objectives. Nikon DIC objectives are only standard types, no LWD/ELDW.
• 5 objective brightfield head loaded with a 2.5, 5 DIC, 10 D(C, 20 ELWX, 40x ELWD series. This can also mount on my bellows. I don't have a way of mounting BD turrets.
• 4 objective BD head loaded with whatever redundant objectives I'm OK to loan out.

Back to ELWD vs NA

• 20x BD "standard" has a WD of 2.5mm and an NA 0.4
• 20x BD ELWD has a WD of 8.5mm but that same NA 0.4
• 40x BD "standard" has a WD 1mm, NA 0.65
• 40x BD ELWD has a WD 9.8mm, NA 0.50

I find the 20x ELWD to be a generally superior objective to the standard working distance. However, I have to have standard working distance 20x and 40x DIC (strain-free glass and adhesives for use with polarized light) in the DIC head, because Nikon didn't make DIC ELWD objectives in the CF or CFI series. Not sure about CFI60.

Oh, two other changes that came with infinity.

The CFI scopes like Optiphot 100 and 200 have 5 objectives in their BD turrets, 6 in their brightfield turrets.

I believe they pushed that to an insane 6 and 7 for CFI60. With 7 of those massive objectives, the turret looks like an alien cow.

I only have 3 CFI objectives:

• 5x BD
• 10x BD DIC
• 20x brightfield ELWD

And one CFI60

• 20x brightfield PLAN APO. The working distance is a miniscule 1mm, but the NA is 0.75.

• The latest Nikon objectives are their CFI60 series, named after the 60mm parfocal length. I have a CFI60 biological objective, and like most biological objectives it has a very short working distance. In this case, 1mm. That leaves 59mm for a heavy, unusually wide objective just packed solid with lens elements.
• The Mitutoyo 5x that's the darling of the macro field these days has a 95mm parfocal distance, which lets it have an insane 34mm working distance and still leave you 61mm for lens elements.

Scope manufacturers placed nearly all the aberration correction in the objectives. My old CF Nikons had to be matched to Nikon CF eyepieces or a CF "projection eyepiece" for photography. Directly projecting on a camera sensor showed off the high field curvature and chromatic aberrations. (Nikon says CF stands for "color free", but that's only when the objective is matched to a Nikon eyepiece). Now, it's 2022 and focus stacking fixes curvature of field, while software chromatic aberration correction is routine, but still...

The CFI objectives are better corrected on a generic 200mm telephoto than the old finite CF objectives were with matching projection eyepieces.

The fields just keep getting wider. Last week, Allan Walls and I were discussing objectives and their field sizes, and he politely cast doubt on my outdated ideas of field sizes. I tested what he claimed, and yes, the Nikon CF objectives cover a 43mm FF field surprisingly well.

They are designed so special optical components can be introduced into the optical pathway without additional compensating lenses

There's a lot to be said for that ability. I'm about to publish my open-source BD/epi illuminator.

Thanks for all that information. I have not shopped for microscope equipment for quite a long time.

It's pretty complex when you get up to high end biological, metallurgical, or inspection scopes. Heck, the fact that we now have "inspection" as a separate category from "metallurgical" is a big deal. That, and Nikon still has 45mm and 60mm parfocal instruments in their catalog.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Infinity objectives are the "new darlings" of microscopy.

I don't know if they offer any advantages for ordinary macro photography, though.

• They couple well to cheap, easily obtainable things.
• You can change your magnification, within reason.

Interesting. Yes, I see. A finite objective would require too much extension to change the magnification by much.

Technically, they were simply optimized for one magnification. It's hard to make a lens perform well at multiple focusing distances/magnifications. You can optimize a design for multiple focusing distances, at the expense of overall resolution.

That's also true of infinity-corrected objectives, of course.  But you said you could change the magnification.  I assume you did it with a zoom lens?

...And thus scope objectives get "mushy" when you try to use them at other tube lengths. I've cataloged which of mine work well for changing tube lengths, because it's used for a focus stacking technique called "bellows draw focusing".

Presumably you mean subject and objective in fixed positions.

...The bulk of my objective collection is Nikon CF objectives introduced for the Optiphot 66 and 88 series scopes. I have about twenty-five of that series, most of which are mounted on four turrets.

• 4 objective BD loaded with a 5, 10, 20, 40x series with the 20 and 40 being ELWD. I have an ELD 100x that can get swapped into one position when I want more magnification. Technique at 100x is basically standard microscopy. For that matter, 40x is more like microscopy than "macro". I also have a 150x standard distance CF PLAN APO (fractional mm,
• 4 objective BD DIC head loaded with a 5, 10, 20, 40x series of DIC objectives. Nikon DIC objectives are only standard types, no LWD/ELDW.
• 5 objective brightfield head loaded with a 2.5, 5 DIC, 10 D(C, 20 ELWX, 40x ELWD series. This can also mount on my bellows. I don't have a way of mounting BD turrets.
• 4 objective BD head loaded with whatever redundant objectives I'm OK to loan out.

Holy smokes!  That's a lot of equipment.  I also had the plan CF objectives with an Optiphot.  I had it equipped for polarized light, phase contrast, and polarized epi-illumination.  I notice all this stuff is pretty cheap now used (but toward the high end by photography standards).