http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Condenser-lens-choice-for-a-given-objective-tp7584901p7584934.html
makes it more coherent. There is no simple formula for that. There was a
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> My understanding is that in brightfield mode with axial light (condenser NA
> = 0), resolution d=lambda/NA
>
> With strictly oblique illumination where the angle of illumination equals
> the
> acceptance angle of the objective (0th order light travels through one edge
> of the lens, while the 1st order light travels through the opposite edge),
> the
> resolution is doubled: d=0.5*lambda/NA.
>
> With Kohler illumination, i.e. illuminating with a solid cone of light at a
> variety of angles, where the condenser NA = objective NA, the resolution is
> somewhere in between:
> 0.5*lambda /NA < d < lambda/NA
> So for this setup, the Rayleigh formula (0.61*lambda/NA) is actually closer
> to reality than the Abbe formula (0.5*lambda/NA), in my opinion.
>
> For a standard brightfield setup, lateral resolution depends on the total
> NA
> of the system, i.e. the average of the objective NA and the condenser NA,
> where the effective condenser NA is equal or less than the objective NA.
>
> This is what Guy was indicating in his earlier post, I think.
>
> Since the effective NA of illumination is only as large as the NA of the
> objective, increasing the condenser NA beyond the NA of the objective
> (e.g., using a 20x/0.5 objective, condenser aperture opened to NA=0.9) is
> not going to increase resolution.
>
> Source:
> R. Wayne: Light and Video Microscopy. Academic Press, New York, 2009.
> ISBN 978-0-12-374234-6
>
>
>
> Stan Vitha
> Texas A&M University
> Microscopy and Imaging Center
>
>