# Eyeware For Close Work On Very Small Objects?

P

#### (PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Being nearsighted, I've been able to slide along on close work until
now.

Just replaced the USB receptacle on my smart phone and was reduced to
using this huge magnifier mounted on a light.

Better than nothing, but clumsy and lacking in depth perception.

My dentist has these binocular-looking things that hang over his regular
glasses.

Anybody have something that works in this respect and which does not
cost an arm and a leg?

P

#### (PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per (PeteCresswell):
But it does not focus, right?

i.e. your vision needs to be already corrected to 20-20 before you use
it.

Quality is not such a big issue with me because they would only be for
occasional use - and not for that long a time each use.

M

#### mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've used the opti-visor type things for a while, and they work
for quick tasks that aren't real difficult. But, I do a lot of
microsurgery on electronic gear, soldering and inspecting stuff
down to 0.4mm lead pitch. The opti-visor just won't do for that
kind of stuff. I got a used Olympus stereo zoom microscope from
a guy who repairs and sells microscopes that I got hooked up with
by asking questions on eBay auctions. He sold me one that was
missing the mounting base. I made a simple base, then made a much
better one later from a scrapped lathe chuck and an arm made from
a MacPherson strut rod. I made a ring light from a bit of PC board
and 8 white LEDs. I use this every day, sometimes for hours, and
it is just great. (I've even done some actual surgery picking
splinters out of my own and family member's fingers.)

At work we have a $500 Chinese stereo zoom microscope with stand and ring light. The fluorescent ring light ate up too much of the valuable working distance, so I made another LED ring light. I was real skeptical of this unit on eBay, but was surprised by the quality. Both the general mechanical stuff as well as the optics work VERY well. So, if you need to do a lot of this inspection and rework stuff, I strongly recommend a stereo zoom microscope. There are constantly units on eBay to choose from. Jon I have several of the plastic headband ones. One thing to watch out for... Put it on your head and check the clearance between the headband and the hood with the lenses. They're designed to just swing up and out of the way. Problem with some is that there's interference between the headband and the hood that swings up. Takes two hands to move it out of the way. And you can't tell in the package, cause the band deforms when you tighten it on your head. I also have an optical stereo zoom microscope. Very handy for inspection, but it's very hard to work under. It's just too close. And mine has an accessory lens that extends that distance somewhat. Still hard to get tools under it. And I worry about the smoke from soldering messing up the lens. Second issue is lighting. Your hands are always in the way. I solved that problem with a fiber-optic light that surrounds the lens. TRY BEFORE YOU BUY! G #### gregz Jan 1, 1970 0 (PeteCresswell) said: Per Rich Webb: But it does not focus, right? i.e. your vision needs to be already corrected to 20-20 before you use it. ?? I often used regular cheap reading glasses along with the visor. I had to remove any glasses when using the microscope. Greg A #### amdx Jan 1, 1970 0 Per (PeteCresswell): I'm thinking about buying these: http://tinyurl.com/npbcgdx Quality is not such a big issue with me because they would only be for occasional use - and not for that long a time each use. The advertising verbiage is confusing, it says "Eye Jeweler Watch Repair" and "Required by fishing enthusiasts" and "to ensure a distance of 400-500 meters" I don't believe this item can focus at 16" and 300Ft/ Looking at the pictures, maybe there is enough adjustment on the lens to do that, but I'm a skeptic without enough knowledge to make up my mind. I'm hoping Jeff Lieberman sees this and gives his input. I don't know optics. I do know my optivisor is good at 8", but it's hard to work at 8". The price is "to good to be true"$29.99.

http://tinyurl.com/npbcgdx

Mikek

M

#### mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
The advertising verbiage is confusing, it says "Eye Jeweler Watch
Repair" and "Required by fishing enthusiasts" and "to ensure a distance
of 400-500 meters" I don't believe this item can focus at 16" and 300Ft/
Looking at the pictures, maybe there is enough adjustment on the lens
to do that, but I'm a skeptic without enough knowledge to make up my
mind. I'm hoping Jeff Lieberman sees this and gives his input. I don't
know optics. I do know my optivisor is good at 8", but it's hard to work
at 8".

The price is "to good to be true" $29.99. http://tinyurl.com/npbcgdx Mikek I'd recommend against that type. I have a similar pair. They work like binoculars. You have to adjust the width to exactly the distance between your eyes. Close-up vision requires that they be angled so they converge at the same place they focus. IFF you can get this done, the slightest movement in your head shifts the relationships, even if it doesn't move on your head...which it will. In actual use, I found them roughly equivalent to closing my eyes. I'd start with the visor type with the big single lenses. W #### William Sommerwerck Jan 1, 1970 0 "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message Cheap and simple optics usually result in some form of aberration. Chromatic (color) distortion, poor depth of field, wrong viewing distance, dim image, etc. You can't really tell the difference between quality and junk until you've made a side by side comparison. The Harbor Freight product is$4. I own it. I use it. It works. And it has
four magnifications, not just one.

The claim that glass lenses are inherently superior is not true for simple
one- or two-element optical systems. Plastic lenses can be aspheric, at low
cost. Whether the lenses in the Harbor Freight product /are/ aspheric, I don't
know.

B

#### Bill Gill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, I'm not sure what they are. Apparently it was written in
Chinese and translated by a not very skillful translator. About
the same as a lot of instruction manuals I have seen with cheap
Chinese products.

Bill

R

#### RobertMacy

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, I'm not sure what they are. Apparently it was written in
Chinese and translated by a not very skillful translator. About
the same as a lot of instruction manuals I have seen with cheap
Chinese products.

Bill

I sincerely don't mean this as an offensive statement, just an
observation. Sometimes it helps in translating the translation if one
thinks in terms of literal, backwards, and upsidedown. Go read the
sentences from back to front and see. I used to get a lot of poor
translations and the technique worked surprisingly well.

A

#### amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Those are binoculars suitable for distance viewing. You can get a
clue as to their effectiveness by comparing their size to that of a
real pair of 7x35 binoculars.

Cheap and simple optics usually result in some form of aberration.
Chromatic (color) distortion, poor depth of field, wrong viewing
distance, dim image, etc. You can't really tell the difference
between quality and junk until you've made a side by side comparison.

That makes sense if you realize that they're wearable distance
binoculars, no close up magnifiers.

Hay, spel my nayme correctlee.

Hey mann, I'm really sorry, do you give 1/2 credit for getting the ie
in the correct order? I only got that right because I checked.
Sorry.
I only know enough about optics to get myself in trouble. Please
double check whatever I claim.

This video gives some good advice on the Optivisor:
<
>
You have the wrong magnification and need to pick the distance at
which you plan to work first, which sets the magnification.

I have two optivisors, two different powers, plus an optiloupe on one.
Oh, and I where a 4.25 diopter contact lens and a 2.25 pair of reading
glasses.
Time for you drag yourself down to the drug store reading glasses
display. Bring a tape measure and some reading material. What you
want to do is pick a specific power of lens and measure the distances
where the image remains in focus (depth of field). High power glasses
will focus over a short distance and will need to have the reading
material fairly close to your eyes. Low power works over a larger
range of distances and farther away from your eyes. Make a chart and
nail it to the wall. Don't bother trying to find a "typical" chart on
the internet as the depth of field varies with your eyes. If you have
astigmatism, like me, it can be rather atypical. There are also
different definitions of diopters as well as "conventional" and
"maximum" magnification.

I buy my glasses ten at a time from the dollar store. (2.25D) I buy
them so I can sit in my computer chair and see the screen. I can't sit
back very much though or I can't focus, but I want 2.25D because I can
also read a book or paper.

I recently bought a set of binocular type glasses to watch Texas
Holdem Poker. I could not make out the percentages graphic on the
screen. With the lenses at 10ft/11ft I can see all the tv screen but
not much more, but I can easily read the percentage graphic. Any closer
than 10ft and it is difficult to focus. I popped $140.00 for them. The same company makes a pair that focuses at about 16 inches, I'll probably end up with a pair of those too. Mikek S #### Sergey Kubushyn Jan 1, 1970 0 Jon Elson said: mike wrote: The good ones have a "working distance" of 4 to 6 inches, or even more! This is a spec that SHOULD be listed, just check that any particular unit has enough. I made a ring of PCB material, cut a groove so there is an inner and an outer ring, and soldered 8 while LEDs to it, with series resistors. Works great, hugs real close to the SIDE of the microscope body, so you don't lose any of that precious working distance. Runs off a wall-warp power supply. I've made two of these now for different scopes, I really like them. If you have some money to spend go buy Madell SZM7045TR Trinocular Microscope with Double Bar Boom Stand. It is$590 right now and that is the
best tool for SMD work I ever invested in It is here:

My advice -- do NOT try to save \$70 or so by purchasing a SINGLE bar boom
stand. You'll regret it. Double bar is WAY better.

And if you want to use your soldering iron or whatever (I do all the time)
get an optional 0.5x lens from them. IT serves 2 purposes. First, it
protects the precious objectives from solder fumes so if anything went wrong
you will only have to replace a cheap lens, not expensive objectives.
Second, may be even more important, while reducing magnification (that is
still pretty adequate for even tiniest SMD components) it EXTENDS working
distance so you'll have your microscope healthy 6..8" from the work that
gives you all the room you need for soldering and do other jobs right under
the microscope.

BTW, their fluorescent ring light that comes with the microscope is pretty
fine out of the box, no need for anything else. I don't remember is a spare
tube was included or I bought it separately just to have a spare--it was
long ago--but I still have it in a sealed box.

S

#### Sergey Kubushyn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jon Elson said:
Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

Yup, this is the EXACT same microscope we have at work. We also
have the double bar stand, although it is much longer than the one
shown on the Madell site. But, we also had that same fluorescent
ring light. Worked great, but ate almost a whole INCH of working
distance, as it hooks to the END of the microscope body.
I made an LED ring that sits just under the white ring with the
thumbscrews that the scope sits on, so it is totally out of your way.

With 0.5x lens that inch is absolutely not an issue. And even if you remove
that ring light it will be too close to the work to solder under it so you
need that lens anyways It IS possible to work under it as-is, without
0.5x lens but it is not very easy and you still have possible objectives
contamination with solder fumes issues. Having that lens makes it a pleasure
to work with and you can use their out-of-the-box ring light

The double bar is quite long so it easily reaches across the entire depth of
my workbench.

S

#### Sergey Kubushyn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jon Elson said:
Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
No, I don't have the 0.5x objective lens, and I have PLENTY or
room to work under the scope, now that I've removed their ring
light. It was still usable, but just a little clumsy with their
light. I just measured my actual working distance, it is 4" (100mm).
That is enough for me to work on a board with X-acto knife, tweezers,
soldering iron, etc.

You should've tried that lens I thought I have sufficient working
distance too but I had to put a clear filter to protect objectives from
solder fumes (I do use solid rosin alot so there are always plums of smoke)
that would've destroyed them in no time. Everything changed when I had that
lens installed. NOW I do REALLY have room to work under the microscope

BTW, usual disclaimer here -- I don't have any affiliation with Madell, just
a happy user of one of their really good products (not everything they sell
is good; some is utmost crap

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
606
Replies
0
Views
664
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
6K