In photonics since 1999. Benelux technical support, answer within one working day.
Microbench or Nanobench: choosing a cage system
Both are cage systems built around a cube with four rod faces, so an optic can be swapped without realigning the train. Microbench works on a 30 mm pitch and takes 25 mm optics; Nanobench works on 16 mm and takes small mounted optics for fibre and diode work. Pick by the clear aperture you need, not by the size of the bench.
THE SHORT ANSWER
Both are cage systems built around a cube with four rod faces, so an optic can be swapped without realigning the train. Microbench works on a 30 mm pitch and takes 25 mm optics; Nanobench works on 16 mm and takes small mounted optics for fibre and diode work. Pick by the clear aperture you need, not by the size of the bench.
| Microbench rail pitch | 30 mm |
|---|---|
| Microbench insert size | 25 mm |
| Nanobench rail pitch | 16 mm |
| Nanobench typical use | Fibre and diode assemblies |
| Junction element | Cube with four rod faces |
| Finish | Black anodised |
A cage system solves a specific problem: keeping several optics on one axis while you are still changing your mind about them. The junction is a cube with four faces that accept rods, so a lens, a filter and a beamsplitter can each be pulled and replaced without touching the alignment of the others.
How the two systems differ
The Microbench system runs on a 30 mm pitch and takes 25 mm mounted optics. It is the general-purpose choice for laboratory work: imaging relays, beam delivery, anything where a 25 mm clear aperture is comfortable.
The Nanobench system runs on 16 mm. It exists because fibre launches, diode collimators and compact detector assemblies do not need 25 mm of aperture and do need to fit inside a housing. The optics are supplied mounted, which is what makes the small pitch practical.
Deciding between them
Work backwards from the beam. Establish the largest clear aperture in the train, add margin for the beam wander you expect, and choose the system that accommodates it. Choosing Nanobench because the assembly should be small and then discovering the collimated beam is 12 mm across is the common failure.
Where a cage system is the wrong answer
If the geometry is settled and the assembly will be produced repeatedly, a machined plate is cheaper, more rigid and smaller. Cage hardware buys you the ability to change things. Once you have stopped changing things, you are paying for flexibility you no longer use.
When to use it
- You expect to swap optics during development and cannot afford to realign each time
- The assembly has to be aligned on a bench and then moved into a machine
- A fibre launch, a collimator and a filter have to sit on one rigid axis
- You are prototyping and the geometry is not final
What to watch out for
- The 16 mm system will not take 25 mm optics: check the clear aperture before committing to Nanobench
- Cage rods set the beam height for the whole train, so decide it once at the start
- Cubes are rigid but not weightless; a long cantilevered train still needs a support post
- Mixing 16 and 30 mm hardware in one axis needs an adapter plate and costs you the pitch advantage
Still deciding?
Tell us the wavelength, the aperture and what you are measuring. We answer with a part number, a price and a lead time, usually the same working day.