This is probably the problem: "We did not prepare the leaf; we just put a small piece of it between two slides.".
I suppose you mean you put a leaf fragment between two regular microscope slides, those measuring 26mm * 76mm (1in. * 3in.)?
That won't work. Long story short: microscope optics/objectives are designed with a specific working distance in mind, which is not an entiraly free choice, but dictated by the laws of physics/optics. An average achromat 40/0.65 has a working distance of about 0.6 mm. An average achromat 100/1.25 has a working distance of about 0.2 mm. An average microscope slide has a thickness of about 1 - 1.2 mm...
In the... well... regular microtechnique, a specimen is put on a slide and covered with a very thin coverslip, having a thickness of around 0.15 - 0.17 mm.
Also, as others mentioned, using a 25x eyepiece in combination with a 40/0.65 or a 100/1.25 is kind of overkill. With that combination, you enter the realm of "empty magnification". In short: structures appear larger, but no new structures are revealed and the image becomes more and more fuzzy.
And yes: you need to use immersion oil with the 100x objective, but keep in mind this is a very demanding objective to be used, on the part of the microscopist as well as on the part of the slide preparer.
Using a microscope is not all that simple for novices, but there's an easy way to find out -if no image can be produced-, if it's a microscope problem or an inexperienced user problem: take as a specimen an as thin as possible large object, such as a leaf of cigarette paper, and try to focus on it, using low power and gradually use stronger objectives up to 40/0.65. If an image can be produced, even if it's rather blurred at 40/0.65, the microscope is okay.