2x Barlow lens yes/no ?

[Endeavor]

Yesterday I received my new toy, a "Swift" 7x - 45x zoom stereo microscope.

It opens a new world with things I wanted to see, and things I actually didn't want to see.

I can now clearly see if an escape-wheel teeth drops on the locking-face of a pallet-jewel and not just on the edge or just on the impulse-face. I can clearly see the pivots of a balance staff. But now I can also clearly see the grime, fibers and other residues

Question is; do I become more or less happy if I were to increase the magnification range with a 2x Barlow lens from 14x - 90x?

My reservations are that I may start to chase ghost, things which may look "horrible" under 90x magnification, but in the scheme of things aren't that important or worse, those things I can't do anything about anyhow but are just troubling my mind?

What are your experience with up to 45x magnification? What do I gain with higher magnification above 45x? When is enough = enough?

Edited March 21 by Endeavor

[HectorLooi]

I think most of us use a 0.5 barlow lens, giving a magnification of 3.5 - 22.5 X. The 0.5 barlow lens halves the magnification but doubles the working distance.

When I want higher magnification, I use a 20X eyepiece. This gives a magnification of 14 - 90 X, but at a more useful working distance.

The only time I wished I had higher magnification is when working on Accutron watches. The teeth on an Accutron index wheel are so small, that even at 90X magnification, they are still hardly visible.

But higher magnifications with optical microscopes become impractical because of the shorter working distance and shallow depth of field. I'm still trying to convince myself to get an industrial digital microscope with a magnification of 200X. 

[Endeavor]

25 minutes ago, HectorLooi said:

I think most of us use a 0.5 barlow lens, giving a magnification of 3.5 - 22.5 X. The 0.5 barlow lens halves the magnification but doubles the working distance.

The Swift I have (S7-BL) has a working height of (actual measured) 100mm at 45x magnification (It's a zoom). Of course the working height would 1/2 with a 2x Barlow lens. If I were to get a 0.5x Barlow lens, I need a small step-ladder in order to look through the scope

The 20x eyepieces are of course another option, any pro's & con's with that ?

Assuming that you are right in saying that the "most of us" are using a magnification range of 3.5x - 22.5x, than there would be no need for me increase beyond 45x .... Yes/No?

 

Edited March 21 by Endeavor

[HectorLooi]

Try it out for yourself. Do you find 22.5x sufficient to oil a pallet jewel? Is 3.5x wide enough to see the whole watch?

Like I said, the only time I need higher magnification is when working on Accutron watches.

Possible upgrades that you might want to consider are a led ringlight for shadowless lighting and a tiltable microscope mount, so that you won't need a step ladder. 

[mikepilk]

I have a 7-45x zoom scope, and use a 0.5x Barlow lens 99% of the time.

This gives me about 150mm working distance. I agree with @HectorLooi,  22.5x is all you need for most work, it's fine for oiling pallets, and 3.5x is great for an overall view of the watch when assembling.

The only time I take the 0.5x Barlow off (and I rarely do) is for close examination of balance pivots, jewels or sometimes to oil very small pallets. 

I don't  ever remember using the 2x Barlow lens

 

 

[spectre6000]

I have both 2X Barlow and 20X eyepieces, but I don't use either for watchmaking. Accutron movements seems like a good application for the eyepieces, and I'm sure there are occasions when you really want (though probably not strictly need) to get as deep on a mechanical movement, but that seems like a wait until the need arises sort of thing. That scope looks like it's from the same factory as the AmScope, et. al., so I wouldn't worry about inexpensive eyepieces getting hard to find any time soon.

[Endeavor]

It seems that my reservations regarding a 2x Barlow lens are getting confirmed.

1 hour ago, HectorLooi said:

tiltable microscope mount

What I like about this setup, with a seamless adjustable LED in the bottom of the stand, is the ability to check jewels, pallets etc. Yes, it adds somewhat to the height, but to me worth it.

1 hour ago, HectorLooi said:

a led ringlight

Yes, that's something I like to consider. I guess a 144 leds ring-light will suffice? I would be nice though, when the ring-light could be hooked up to the same adjustable power-supply currently used by the overhead light ... The base has two potentiometers, one to adjust the bottom-, the other for the top-light.

2 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

That scope looks like it's from the same factory as the AmScope

Yes, I guess there is only one factory, producing the same scopes for a 1000 different brands.....

[tomh207]

I got the cousinsuk microscope with the 0.5 Barlow and ring light, cheapest ring light I found at the time. It’s only 60 leds but does fine, maybe I’ll upgrade in the future. I am also thinking of getting this for illuminating jewels from below for inspection of damage/dirt.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0BKSLZ27K/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A3UR61Y1YXNUGU&psc=1

 

Tom

 

[mikepilk]

39 minutes ago, Endeavor said:

Yes, that's something I like to consider. I guess a 144 leds ring-light will suffice? I would be nice though, when the ring-light could be hooked up to the same adjustable power-supply currently used by the overhead light ... The base has two potentiometers, one to adjust the bottom-, the other for the top-light.

I think a light ring is pretty essential. I have 144 led one with brightness control.

[Endeavor]

53 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

I am also thinking of getting this for illuminating jewels from below for inspection of damage/dirt.

To me that was an essential feature for my new scope, like these days in Europe an air-condition in the car.

 

38 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

I have 144 led one with brightness control.

I've to check if the ring-light is compatible with the scopes build-in (switching) power supply, but I would assume it does. One cable of the mains (240V) to the scope is enough for me.

Conclusion; NO barlow lens, but a ring-light instead ! Suits me fine !

Thank all for your contribution

 

Edited March 21 by Endeavor

[GuyMontag]

I have a ring light and also a gooseneck LED. The two separate lights on the gooseneck allow for pointing one under the movement when oiling to illuminate from below.

 

[tomh207]

2 hours ago, Endeavor said:

To me that was an essential feature for my new scope, like these days in Europe an air-condition in the car.

 

I've to check if the ring-light is compatible with the scopes build-in (switching) power supply, but I would assume it does. One cable of the mains (240V) to the scope is enough for me.

Conclusion; NO barlow lens, but a ring-light instead ! Suits me fine !

Thank all for your contribution

 

I would really consider getting a 0.5 Barlow, makes a huge difference 

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

7 hours ago, Endeavor said:

My reservations are that I may start to chase ghost, things which may look "horrible" under 90x magnification, but in the scheme of things aren't that important or worse, those things I can't do anything about anyhow but are just troubling my mind?

One of the problems with enhancing vision is as you're noticing you're seeing things all kinds of things but are they things that are really evil or bad? If you can't see the elephant in the room because you're looking at the dust somewhere then the magnification is an issue. Somewhere in all of this you still have to Be able to see the big picture of is it okay.

[Endeavor]

14 hours ago, mikepilk said:

I think a light ring is pretty essential. I have 144 led one with brightness control.

The Swift microscope I have has a "lens" outer-diameter of 54mm. Looking for microscope ring lights, there are the "general-fit" ring lights with an ID between 9.5 - 10cm, but for only a few Euro's more I found (and ordered) a ring light with an ID of 61mm. Seems to me a neater fit.

My scope's seems to have a 5V PWM power-supply. The ring-light seems to require 12V. I desperately try to avoid additional cables running across my desk ....... so, within a few days after arrival of my new scope, chances are that I've to void the warranty already  

11 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

If you can't see the elephant in the room because you're looking at the dust somewhere then the magnification is an issue.

Through the years I've been listening to you

11 hours ago, tomh207 said:

I would really consider getting a 0.5 Barlow, makes a huge difference

Yes, I may. But the scope has already a 100mm working height. Doubling that to 20cm and I may have to apply for a neck extension

 

Edited March 22 by Endeavor

[VWatchie]

21 hours ago, Endeavor said:

Question is; do I become more or less happy if I were to increase the magnification range with a 2x Barlow lens from 14x - 90x?

I have two magnifications on my scope, 20X and 40X. I have never missed a higher magnification, but now and then I wished I could go down to 5X or 10X magnification. There are always exceptions, but generally, I would believe that if things look good at 40X magnification it's more than good enough.

[Endeavor]

1 hour ago, VWatchie said:

I have two magnifications on my scope, 20X and 40X

You were perhaps looking for another scope, the one I have may be a very good option?

Swift S7-BL €313 with a discount voucher, Amazon.de

Oh yes, you were right and I do have one regret ! Not buying one earlier

 

[mikepilk]

4 hours ago, Endeavor said:

My scope's seems to have a 5V PWM power-supply. The ring-light seems to require 12V. I desperately try to avoid additional cables running across my desk ....... so, within a few days after arrival of my new scope, chances are that I've to void the warranty already  

My light has a separate power supply. The two cables are a nuisance, but if you tie-wrap it to the other cable and stand, it's not a problem.

4 hours ago, Endeavor said:

The Swift microscope I have has a "lens" outer-diameter of 54mm. Looking for microscope ring lights, there are the "general-fit" ring lights with an ID between 9.5 - 10cm, but for only a few Euro's more I found (and ordered) a ring light with an ID of 61mm. Seems to me a neater fit.

Yes, I may. But the scope has already a 100mm working height. Doubling that to 20cm and I may have to apply for a neck extension

The head-piece on my Amscope microscope looks like yours. The working depth I gave (~150mm) is from the desk to the bottom of the Barlow lens + light ring adaptor, at maximum zoom 22.5, (10x eyepieces).  At min zoom, working depth is about 180mm.

In this config, the eyepieces measure 40-43cm above the desk. I'm not tall, and on a high seat, I find this ideal.

A movement on a holder is about  20mm from the bench. Screwdrivers about 90mm, tweezers 120mm. So to work under the microscope with screwdrivers you need 110mm + some working depth, say at least 30mm. With the 0.5x Barlow this is fine. For general work, I generally use near min zoom, only using max for oiling pallets etc.

I just removed the 0.5mm Barlow, and on min zoom, the working depth is about 110mm, i.e. you cannot use a vertical screwdriver, and I find it too much mag for general work.  Also the eyepieces are a bit higher.

When I was looking for a microscope I was worried about getting enough magnification. I find in practice I'm generally using 3.5x to 10x 90% of the time.

Edited March 22 by mikepilk

[Endeavor]

For years, up till now, sitting on a normal height desk and working with eye-loupes, I had my adjustable chair in the lowest (child ) position. Whatever I was working on was well away from the desk edge. I order to look through the microscope, I've to raise my chair and I feel that the "object" is much closer to the edge of the table. Grabbing an eye-loupe, I've to really bent over.

It seems to me that, position wise, that one has to choose; either sitting high, working continuously under the scope (than a 0.5x Barlow would make sense), or sit low and use eye-loupes. Going backwards and forwards in sitting height would drive me (even more) nuts

 

[mikepilk]

I'm so used to using the microscope I never use loupes any more - why would you when you see everything more clearly and brighter in stereo vision? I never liked loupes - scrunched up over the desk, trying to get your face close enough whilst getting enough light and tools in as well - madness !

About the only thing I don't do under the microscope is fitting the balance.

I think that after working under the 'scope for a while, you will wonder how you managed before.

Edited March 22 by mikepilk

[Endeavor]

23 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

My light has a separate power supply. The two cables are a nuisance, but if you tie-wrap it to the other cable and stand, it's not a problem.

Two cables, two "plugs" in the wall-socket; I think there is room for improvement. The original cable to the scope is 240V~, so inside the scope there is already 240V~. All what is required is to get from 240V ~ to 12VDC. The ring light has its own regulator.

2 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

I'm so used to using the microscope I never use loupes any more

I get that creepy feeling that I've to totally "re-adjust" / "re-invent" my working procedures, because you are right in saying that one sees everything more clearly and brighter in stereo vision. It didn't say that in add or in the microscope owners manual !

[mikepilk]

1 hour ago, Endeavor said:

Two cables, two "plugs" in the wall-socket; I think there is room for improvement. The original cable to the scope is 240V~, so inside the scope there is already 240V~. All what is required is to get from 240V ~ to 12VDC. The ring light has its own regulator.

I have my computer on my desk, with printer, amp, timegrapher, microscope, camera, phone chargers etc etc 

So lots of cables. I screwed a couple of 4 gang extension leads to the back face of the desk. Run the cables over the back, wrapped together = nice and tidy (unless you pull the desk from the wall and look at the back 

[kd8tzc]

I have to laugh as I would love to have a microscope, but the cost is a prohibiting factor for me, but also, I have a hard enough time keeping my hands steady, under a microscope, I can only imagine it would be magnified. 

 

[mikepilk]

13 minutes ago, kd8tzc said:

I have to laugh as I would love to have a microscope, but the cost is a prohibiting factor for me, but also, I have a hard enough time keeping my hands steady, under a microscope, I can only imagine it would be magnified. 

 

I find that hand shake is actually less of a problem under the microscope, as you can see what you are doing so clearly. It's just a question of bracing your working hand properly.

I've seen second hand microscopes quite cheap on ebay. Might be worth a search? 

[kd8tzc]

Well, I am so new to the hobby, I think it might be better to learn how to do it with the loupe or other devices first before investing like that.

[JohnR725]

2 hours ago, kd8tzc said:

but also, I have a hard enough time keeping my hands steady, under a microscope, I can only imagine it would be magnified.

Even though we think of microscopes as greatly magnifying if you're paying attention to the discussion basically people using the microscopes as a loop. In other words much lower power and the just using it as a stereo loop. This would mean you would not see your hands shake anymore than you normally would.

2 hours ago, mikepilk said:

I've seen second hand microscopes quite cheap on ebay

The problem with microscope selection is it has to be the right microscope. It should have a wide enough field of view and a great enough depth of field that basically can take the place of a loop. Often times the microscopes end up with limited depth of field or very shallow working distances and then you really can't work under them or you really can't see What you need to see.

Alternatives the microscope would be optical visors that people where. I've seen that with a lot clock repair people so you would be seeing in stereo is don't know how well it worked for watch repair.

The most interesting I ever saw was something that a dentist I knew had. She had these little magnifying devices bonded to her glasses so she would see in stereo and obviously when you're working on somebody's mouth at a nice depth of field except price was an objection they were like $1000. But I know they were good because one day the hygienist had a pair she was very happy the dentist had bought them for her. So other than the cost kinda like a portable microscope you'd see in stereo sounded like the field of view and working depth was outstanding it's just that thousand dollars and modification of glasses that were already expensive anyway.

Then of course the microscope does have the option of increasing your magnification for those times were you really need the magnification.