🔬 Infinity vs 160mm optics

For low-cost microscopes, the 160mm standard is still the most popular one.
🎈 SUPPORT
Become a Patron: / microbehunter
🔬 MICROSCOPE RECOMMENDATION
I receive many questions on which microscope one should buy. I recommend the following models for amateur microscopy (Affiliate Links to Amazon):
Children’s/Introductory - Swift or National Optical SS110: amzn.to/2WdS4PX
For Amateurs - Swift SW380T (with phototube) or Swift SW380B: amzn.to/3fu7aIY
👜 AMAZON AFFILIATE SHOP
US/World: www.amazon.com/shop/microbehu...
Canada: www.amazon.ca/shop/microbehunter
Germany/Europe: www.amazon.de/shop/microbehunter
UK/Europe: www.amazon.co.uk/shop/microbe...
🎬 KZbin CHANNELS
Microbehunter: / microbehunter
Microscopic Mysteries - Guess the specimen: / @microscopicmysteries
Microbe Talk - Ask a microbiologist! / @allthingsmicrobes
💻 OTHER LINKS
Main Website - Tons of microscopy info: www.microbehunter.com
MicroWorldArchive - www.microworldarchive.org
Forum - Connect to other microscopists: www.microscopy-forum.com
Instagram - Cool pictures I made: / microbehunter
Facebook - Here I post videos: / microbehunter
✔ Check these Hashtags! #microbehunter #science #microscope

[@sonidophore9100]

Hope this channel grows.

[@israelramos7441]

Excellent video as always! Thanks a lot!

[@edward_grabczewski]

Great explanation. Many thanks again.

[@HarishSasikumar]

Very useful. Thank you.

[@vijaygangurde6092]

Hi! Oliver Kim. Can you please try to make a video on effect of different types of mounting medium on few common specimens. Example: 1. vegetable oil 2. eupral 3.clear nail paint 4. water based glue 5. Alcohol etc. Do it when you have time. Good bye!

[@nickjung7394]

Thank you

[@nickpaige8178]

thank you so much.

[@Humble452]

hey brother very informative video, I am trying to find a microscope for my family one that is trinocular with infinity objectives and 110v ( i am having a very hard time finding one with all these features, especially 110v) to use in a regular 110v system I only have 240v in wash room for dryer but dont want to use microscope in wash room lol , thanks for your help and for all your hard work on this channel, we appreciate you greatly brother! 👋

[@siv916]

I'm studying biology and I recently totally fell in love with the kingdom of protists. I've been observing water from ponds around my neighbourhood but I always seem to come across the same types of protists. Is there perhaps any technique that would allow me to observe more variety? (aside from using grass/hay and water in a jar)

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKPFo6aEqd1noNU

[@wjuanxp]

Hi Oliver, Thank you so much for having this channel and I've learned a lot from you about microscope. Recently, I got a chance to get a zeiss microscope and along with the microscope, it got three objectives, Zeiss EC Plan Neofluar 5X, 10X and 20X. I checked online for a higher magnification objectives with the similar kind and found these objectives are super expensive. Is there a way to use a cheaper objective lens from Zeiss? I noticed EC Plan is the latest version, can I use Plan Neofluar instead? Many thanks for your time and look forward to hear back from you.

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

Hello, The EC objectives are (if I researched correctly) infinity corrected objectives and the "regular" ones are not. So unfortunately it is NOT possible to use them on your infinity microscope. They might not fit, and even if they do the optics is different. The objectives are expensive, yes. These objectives are made for the research market (expensive), and Plan (crazy expensive) . But they do have also a high resale value. If you are not interested in photography so much, then non-plan versions should also be very fine. The good thing about Zeiss is that they (should) have good support. Ask if the objective that you have chosen is compatible (parfocal) with the other objectives that you have. Not only infinity, but parfocality ensures that you don't have to refocus. The cheapest high mag objectives are achromatic and non-plan ones. And they are very fine for routine work, even photography, and they are economical. Depends what you want to use them for...

[@My.channel253]

thank you ))what about quality example 10x amscope 160 achromat comparing with amscope 10 x infinity achromat ??!

[@andongospov5490]

I was surprised to find that Russian microscopes are almost always infinity corrected. Even the low cost ones

[@anandarunakumar6819]

I wish camera makers made standard mounts to adapt to any body like microscope threads. Camera manufacturers seem to have polluted the environment by modifying adapters widths yet very little differences in lenses.

[@geoffgeoff143]

Thanks.

[@DeniskaNYC]

Great videos. Thank you. I'm new to microscope can you explane diference berween DPan and SPan lenses for olimpus.

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

The degree of producing a flat field. DPlan produces a flat field up to a field number (FN) of 20 and SPlan up to 26.5. So SPlans produce more of a flat field to the edges. Here is a table: www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/microscope-objectives.html

[@chenqu773]

Very intuitive. Many thanks. I've got a question that puzzles me for some time. I've seen that some manufacture of the CCD for microscope (not manufacturers of the microscopes but of CCDs) that produces CCDs with miniature motors inside that justifies the sensor. By fixing the microscope stage and the objective lens, they can use the CCD to focus the specimen instead of using the focusing knob. It sounds like that one can use the eyepiece to focus the specimen instead of the stage. How could it be possible, and is there any theory behind it? Many thanks again !

[@mochalatte8129]

피사체와 렌즈 사이의 약간의 거리 변화는 렌즈 초점거리의 큰 변화로 나타납니다.그래서 아이피스로 초점을 조절하는 것은 타당하지 않습니다

[@mochalatte8129]

망원경의 경우 피사체가 멀리 떨어져 있기에 아이피스를 약간 움직여 쉽게 초점을 잡지만 현미경은 극단적으로 거리가 가깝기 때문에 초점거리에 변화가 큽니다

[@geoffgeoff143]

Perhaps something about long distance objectives.

[@edward_grabczewski]

Is there a video somewhere that tells us about the markings on a 160mm lens? Mine have the following: red band (is this a standard?) 4/0.10 160/0.17; yellow band 10/0.25 160/0.17; blue band S40/0.65 160/0.17.

[@lotharmayring6063]

a infinity system is much better than fixed tubus objectiv. The numerical aperture of infinity is higher if you by quality. Also a good infinity objectiv is normally plan apo or fluo. The price is higher but the image quality is much better and so ou make a real good upgrade. wonder if microbehunter sells this objectives

[@oni2ink]

Hi! When you have beam splitters, infinity space is better - quality-wise, because you don't have ghosting. This is something that seems important to me. Especially when using epi illumination.

[@lotharmayring6063]

you are absolutly right. Normally also NA on infinity is better and they are plan apo or fluo

[@oni2ink]

@@lotharmayring6063 Oh I was not aware of higher N.A. on infinity objectives. Sounds nice! Another interesting feature of infinity objectives: you can make thread adapters with an extension without any problem (except parfocality, of course). I just got a set of Jena GF Apochromat objectives for cheap, but they have a M25 thread. I printed an M25 to RMS adapter and voila!

[@lotharmayring6063]

@@oni2inkthe cheap china infinities from ALI they do not have higher NA as a fixed length achromat. But if you buy quality then the infinity have some 25 percent more NA and wider frontlense especial fluos. They cost more money but you can buy used infinity for affordable price. Infinity was the big advance int last years light-microscopy. You can upgrade the old scientific tubes to infinity and so you will have a real good microscope. Look in internet the fotos which were done using infinity. They are much better. EPI-translucenttube and EPI-Fluorescence can only done well using infinity. Also PH and DIC is so much better with infinity. With darkfield high NA is very imprtant and Nicon says that his EPI-DIC has a resolution up to 30 nm. That with light of wavelengt 500nm .....interference makes the difference, i guess.. Very good choice Jena GF Apochromat

[@gedask98t]

Hello, nice video explaining optical properties of those objectives. Im planing to buy biological microscope. Im looking to buy Delta Optical Biostage II microscope. It has some very nice features but price seems a little too small, its only 175€. Can ask your opinion about that microscope its almost seems to good to be true. Thank you for your hard work making those videos.

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

it has all the basic features, I can not say anything about the mechanical quality, but most certainly would work fine. The price is also OK.

[@dabigjokeoftheday]

So where does the camera go? 160 to sensor or???

[@lotharmayring6063]

a simple lens of an eyepice can be used as tube lense. Also with a camera adapter and good barlowlike optic a tubus lense is not nessesary.

[@vijaygangurde6092]

may god bless you again Oliver Kim! Thanks for choosing my question! Keep it up

[@PeterBrockie]

Interesting video. I now know I went about this all wrong. haha I bought a nice AmScope (~$1k USD) and figured I'd upgrade the objectives over time. I managed to end up with UPlanFL 4x/10x's from Olympus which are infinity corrected and have sexy fluorite elements and an old Zeiss 100x 160mm model. The funny thing is that even using the wrong infinity Olympus lenses produces a better image than the stock 160mm AmScope ones at least for my hobby level silicon IC viewing. :P I guess I'll keep my eye out for proper 160mm replacements.

[@mirinae4313]

How is that possible? The infinity corrected objective needs a built-in tube lens, as I have understood from this video.

[@mikb4372]

Hi What is the difference among achromatic, semi-plan, and plan objectives?

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

Here is a video that I made explaining it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2qufXymmqaml8U

[@BHFWaterloo]

So my question is do infinity corrected microscopes with plan objectives produce a better quality image than a microscope that is finite without plan objectives or a microscope that is finite with plan objectives but just not infinity corrected.

[@Dappernoodle]

Probably a little late, but from my understanding the quality of image at the center doesn’t change, but it extends the quality to almost the entire image. Standard 160mm only produces full quality in about 65% of the field, semi-plan produces full quality in about 80% and plan produces full quality in about 95%.

[@raufulmizan4685]

hello mr Kim, so the infinity and finity systems is only for optics (objective) ? or the combination of optics and their stage, I mean there are microscope that infinity systems and there are finity ??.

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

The systems are different. You can not put infinity optics on a finite system and vice-versa. The objectives might not fit and also infinity systems need a tube lens. So there are mechanical and also optical differences. Large manufacturers often have infinity systems. Lower cost microscopes often the finite. For amateur use I recommend the finite system because of the much lower cost. You can always buy something different later on.

[@raufulmizan4685]

@@MicrobehunterMicroscopy hoooo allright, then what kind of upgrade that Infinity systems can do ?

[@Humble452]

Can I buy a microscope with standard 160 objectives and then Buy Infinity objectives and swap them out, is this possible? thanks for your help

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

No, definitively not possible. They might not fit physically, and optically they certainly don't fit. For infinity, there must be an extra tube lens in the microscope.

[@ElGeologoModerno]

Hi, I own a AmScope T490B-DK microscope with 160mm optics. Recently, I bought an infinity 40x Plan Fluor objective but it doesn't work properly. The image you get is more or less like the one you get with 160mm objectives. Now I know the reason, thanks for your video. Is there any way to work around this problem? I mean, can I force my microscope to take adventage from infinity objectives? Thanks!

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

Not really. You need a tube lens in the microscope.

[@ElGeologoModerno]

@@MicrobehunterMicroscopy Thank you very much!

[@johnrobinson4445]

My Olympus Dplans are not parfocal among themselves, quite. No doubt they are closer than non-Olympus ones would be.

[@christiand6768]

My microscope is from 1923 and has variable tubelenght from 150 to 210 mm and when moving the tube to zoom out or in. So already in the 1920's they had infinity? My E.Reichert microscope must have been a very expensive microscope in it's time.

[@hovercast]

can i use objective of infinity/0.0 on a microscope that uses infinity/0.17?

[@marinefightre]

I would like to know that as well!

[@alexandrevaliquette3883]

You just can't@@marinefightre

[@chiranjitpaul7048]

Sir please make video plan lens and semi plan lens Love from India ❤️❤️❤️

[@glasslinger]

Well, so I still don't know if blowing the money on an infinity microscope gives me more magnification, sharper focus, etc.

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

Not more magnification, because the max is 1000x total about. Sharper image: not automatically, but because infinity microscopes are generally more expensive, the overall quality might be a bit better, but this is not because it is infinity per se. I would rather buy a scope with eg a phototube and a decent camera, because I can do more with it.

[@tubamaxima187]

I really enjoy your channel. Very informative. I am a retired scientist. I worked for 40 years in the pharmaceutical industry (Schering-Plough / Merck) before I retired in 2003. I have always been fascinated by everything to do with microscopes and slide making, and interest I have had since I was in school (1960). About five years ago I moved from Pennsylvania to Florida. I left all of my microscope stuff back in Pennsylvania and had to start over again. I would like to email you directly if you have a web site and a contact email Thankyou, Antoni Scott

[@powertube5671]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, I knew that the infinity corrected lenses put out a parallel projection, but could not understand exactly how it was used since my microscope is a 160 type. It was briefly described in a beginners book I am reading, but still ambiguous. Now that I know that an additional lens is used to bring back the focal point in longer tubes, I understand. Great explanation. By the way, I did manage to get an infinity corrected lens to work in my 160mm microscope, but it wasn't optimal.

[@esmahel20042005]

Just change the prism and enjoy

[@lotharmayring6063]

on this chanel you learn much from the mistakes and bugs microbehunter makes, in my eyes he really is a hobby microskoper

[@Ranveer_Singh_Kahani]

Thanks sir, i have learn a lot from this channel..it like microscope anatomy.. i have broken my eye...new a new glasses😂😂😂

[@Ranveer_Singh_Kahani]

100x objective 10 US dollar DIN 160mm

[@AdolfoCarloni]

The choice of an objective ( between DIN 160mm and infinite ) mainly depends on 1- the volume in which you want to confine you optical system, 2- what you have to observe, your target. 3- which grade of optical quality you need, what you want to Resolve, at which size. An example devoted to defend economy DIN objectives (versus expensive UIS2): If your aim is to read in b/w a micro QRcode you don't need infinity optics. On the other side if your aim is to watch cells, tissues, i suggest infinity optics

[@user-bp1hz5hj9y]

not 10 but 13 mm

[@alexandrevaliquette3883]

Old standard: you can swap objective with any microscope. New standard: you can not swap objective with other brands. It was possible and easy to do a new std with compatibility between brand. But brands prefer to avoid that to make more profits. Very sad.

[@oni2ink]

In practice you can swap infinity objectives between microscopes and different tube lens. But the tradeoff may be a reduced image quality - in some specific cases. In any case, I never really had any problems. Most of the time you don't even notice the "loss" of quality. There are so many factors to take into account that I think a single "standard" would not have been a good thing - for the diversity of microscopes.