Posted by
Kyle Michael Douglass on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/PSF-asymetry-tp7583681p7583695.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
Hi John and Christophe,
I have heard recent, albeit anecdotal, stories about the folks in deconvolution microscopy trying absurd numbers of high NA, 100x objectives to find ones that give clean, unaberrated axial PSF's. Since our lab has seen this aberration on multiple NA >= 1.45 objectives and Christophe and Michael have also seen it, I am wondering if the axial PSF is too difficult to tolerance at large NA's during manufacturing. This would lead to a large spread in performance.
I have also heard stories that some objective manufacturers will pull the very nice objectives from their production lines and sell them at a higher price under a different label, which also leads me to believe that the aberration we are discussing is actually quite common.
Everything I have said so far is admittedly conjecture. I know there are a lot of objective vendors on this list, so I'm hoping that one of them can offer their opinion on the matter.
Best,
Kyle
________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [
[hidden email]] on behalf of John Oreopoulos [
[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:50 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: PSF asymetry
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
I suppose it's possible, but highly unlikely that Christophe was given two defective objective lenses here. Christophe, is the angle of asymmetry the same for both objective lenses?
John Oreopoulos
On 2015-04-21, at 11:42 AM, Weis, Michael wrote:
> I recently had this same problem with one objective on a new confocal installation here. After acquiring a XYZ stack documenting the lateral shift of the PSF I rotated the objective 90 degrees and acquired another stack. The lateral shift rotates the same as the objective rotates therefore the defect is in the objective. The manufacturer is replacing the objective.
>
> Cheers, Michael
>
>
> Michael Weis
> Supervisor, Superviser,
> Microscopy Facility Installation de microscopie
> Science and Technology Branch Direction générale des sciences et de la technologie
> Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre Centre de recherches agroalimentaire du Pacifique
> P.O. Box 5000, 4200 Highway 97 Boîte postale 5000, 4200 Autoroute 97
> Summerland, BC, V0H 1Z0, Canada Summerland, CB, V0H 1Z0, Canada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christophe Leterrier
> Sent: April-21-15 1:10 AM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: PSF asymetry
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear microscopists,
>
> I am using a very nice TIRF microscope with a 100X, 1.49 NA objective. I had the impression that there was a slight lateral shift when defocusing up and down, so I checked the PSF with 100 nm beads on a HR #1.5 coverslip.
> What appears on the attached image (three planes taken at -1, 0 and +1 um) is that the PSF is not rotationnally symetric, i.e.more intense on the left-bottom side :
>
>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_JeGjE7nBHWWFViM0pwSy0xR3M/view>
> This asymetry is quite constant over the field of view (it is not radial relative to the center of the field). It does not depend on the illumination (it is the same under azimutal laser, TIRF laser, epifluorescence lamp). It does not depend on the filter cube used. Finally (and this is what surprises me the most), I got another brand new 100X,
> 1.49 objective for testing and it still shows up (the attached image is taken with the new objective).
>
> Do you have an idea if what could be wrong, and how to correct it? Could it be caused by an internal lens? By the sample used?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Christophe