Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Which Zeiss oil (new or old) are you using Russell?
In a microscopy list serve letter (below) Ralph Common states that
the use of the Zeiss Immersion oil is detrimental to Nikon
objectives. Can anyone verify this? Was this just the old oil? Which
lenses were affected? The old Nikon standard thread or the new
infinity objectives? ... Jerry Calvin
*********************************
listed 3-3-04
... Also be aware that different types of immersion oil should never
be allowed to mix, and that some types of oil can damage the mounting
cement of some brands of lenses. Using Zeiss immersion oil with some
Nikon lenses, for example, can be disastrous.
Ralph Common
Electron Microscopist
Michigan State University
Division of Human Pathology
A608 East Fee Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-355-7558; fax 517-432-1053
[log in to unmask]
>I heard that Zeiss now makes the immersion oil for Leica. Leica oil is
>not made due to some environmental problems with one of the components.
>In the past Zeiss had problems with their oil( solids at room temp)
>that has been discussed on the confocal network. I believe the problem
>has been fixed.
>I have both oils in my lab currently and will do the test shortly
>Bob
>
>
>Robert M. Zucker, PhD
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>Office of Research and Development
>National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
>Reproductive Toxicology Division, MD 72
>Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
>Tel: 919-541-1585; fax 919-541-4017
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>|---------+------------------------------->
>| | Russell McConnell |
>| | <russell.mcconnell@T|
>| | UFTS.EDU> |
>| | Sent by: Confocal |
>| | Microscopy List |
>| | <[log in to unmask]
>| | UFFALO.EDU> |
>| | |
>| | |
>| | 03/12/2004 12:11 PM |
>| | Please respond to |
>| | Confocal Microscopy |
>| | List |
>| | |
>|---------+------------------------------->
>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |
>|
> | To: [log in to unmask]
>|
> | cc:
>|
> | Subject: Re: axial resolution- summary
>|
>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>I can speak to number 3 from experience. The oil can make a huge
>difference. We recently upgraded our Leica with the AOBS, and when we
>reinstalled it a few weeks ago, the axial resolution was coming out at
>around 700nm; Leica specs it at <350nm. The service guy and I beat our
>heads for two days over this, both of us fearing that we would have to
>ship the whole thing back to Germany. Finally we borrowed some Zeiss
>oil from a friendly lab, and voila...325nm z resolution. The RI of the
>oils were supposedly the same, both non-fluorescent, etc. etc. But they
>were different in some way. We had been using sub-par oil for almost 4
>months, with the concommitant decrease in resolution. Images looked
>fine, and there was no way to tell without actually testing the
>systems. Bob is definitely right on this count: we should test our
>systems regularly!!! I know I will.
>
>-Russell McConnell
>
>
>
>Robert Zucker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Axial update-summary Over 50 people who have asked for the PDF file and
>>a few scientists who have confirmed our observations in their
>respective
>>labs and offered additional insight. Below is the summary of some of
>the
>>comments that I received.
>>
>>1. We use 488 excitation. Other wavelengths can also be used but the
>>longer the wavelength the greater the axial resolution
>>2. We zoom now at 10 x. Lower zooms will decrease the accuracy. Higher
>>zooms may influence the tests due to scanning instability.
>>3. Other factors to consider in the interpretation of the tests are
>>immersion oil and temperature. These are considered minor but have not
>>been tested. Does anyone have data?
>>4. If the setting of the offset value (background) is too high it will
>>introduce between 7-9 nm decreases in the axial resolution.
>>5. The Axial Resolution pattern is very important and the FWHM should
>be
>>replaced by a value 2/3 down from the peak maximum and not at the ˆ
>>point.
>>6. Both Alignment and dirty objectives can influence the axial
>>resolution test.
> >7) The part can be both from Biorad # TL2MRC339610 or Spherotech.
>>(Mirror slide)
>>
>>Conclusions-this test measures following: 1) lens manufacturing
>quality
>>2) system alignment 3) dirty lenses. Do it!!!
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>Robert M. Zucker, PhD
>>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>>Office of Research and Development
>>National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
>>Reproductive Toxicology Division, MD 72
>>Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
>>Tel: 919-541-1585; fax 919-541-4017
>>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>--
>Russell McConnell
>Manager, Tufts-NEMC Imaging Facility
>Department of Neuroscience
>http://www.neurosci.tufts.edu/Imaging
--
****************************
Jerry G. Calvin
CWA Steward
Box 0731 Biology Department
Vassar College
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0731
(845) 437-7423 - Office
(845) 437-7424 - Confocal Room
FAX: (845) 437-7315 - Biology Office
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
|
