- #1
Adeimantus
- 113
- 1
Assuming ray optics model is valid, what lens profile focuses light to a point? It must not be spherical, otherwise there would not be the term 'spherical abberation'.
Andy Resnick said:The problem with your reasoning is that that ray optics model has a limited application. There is a "best form" to a biconvex lens, but the spherical aberration is not zero. Use of aspherics can reduce aberrations, but a singlet will only have zero spherical aberration for an extremely limited set of illumination conditions. For example, parabolic reflectors have zero aberration, but only for on-axis points.
In fact, simply reversing the orientation of a planoconvex lens will result in radically different amounts of spherical aberration.
I was wondering if it was a conic section. I tried to work this out when I was in high school but gave up after a while.lzkelley said:segment of an ellipse
Adeimantus said:Yes that's a good point. In practice the ray model is not good enough, and you can't realize the zero aberration ideal. I guess I'm asking more of a mathematical question then, but it is optics-related so I posted it here. I was thinking that the specific term 'spherical aberration' was included in the theory of ray optics, so that's why I reasoned that the ideal lens shape in the ray model must not be spherical. I am imagining a plano-convex lens with light coming from infinity, being focused to a point on the axis of the lens.
Andy Resnick said:The way aberrations are discussed in ray optics is very artifical, IMO. Ray tracing involves linear and higher-order approximations to the sine function- linear optics has no aberrations, but there are 5 aberrations in 3rd order optics (7 actually, but 2 of them- piston and tilt- do not affect the PSF) and more for 5th order optics with strange names you have not heard of, etc. etc.
So, you can see how aberrations form in optics- as the linear approximation to a sine function breaks down (say the numerical aperture of a lens increases), higher order terms are required for accuracy, and aberrations come along for the ride as a result.
Adeimantus said:That sounds like cool stuff you do. Thank you for the telescope links. I've only read a little so far, but I can tell I will find them interesting.
The ideal lens shape for perfect focus is a convex lens. This type of lens curves outward and is thicker in the middle, allowing it to converge light rays and bring them to a single point of focus.
No, not all lens shapes can produce perfect focus. Only lenses with a curved surface, such as convex and concave lenses, have the ability to bend and focus light rays. Flat lenses, on the other hand, cannot bend light and therefore cannot achieve perfect focus.
The shape of a lens directly affects its ability to focus by determining how it bends and refracts light. Lenses with a curved shape are able to bend light rays, while flat lenses cannot. Additionally, the curvature of the lens determines the amount of bending and therefore the degree of focus.
There is no one specific formula for calculating the perfect lens shape for focus. The ideal shape can vary depending on factors such as the distance of the object being viewed, the type of light being used, and the desired level of focus. In general, convex lenses have a greater ability to focus light compared to concave lenses.
Yes, there are other factors that can affect focus besides lens shape. Some of these include the distance between the lens and the object being viewed, the type and quality of the light source, and any imperfections in the lens material. These factors can all impact the clarity and precision of the final image produced by the lens.