The discussion revolves around the lack of problem sets in the Born and Wolf optics textbook and the search for supplementary resources that provide exercises suitable for learning optics. Participants explore various textbooks and resources, sharing their experiences and preferences.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the best supplementary resources for optics. There are multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness of various textbooks and the suitability of Born and Wolf as a primary text.
Participants express varying levels of dissatisfaction with existing optics textbooks, highlighting personal preferences and experiences that may influence their recommendations. There is uncertainty regarding the quality and appropriateness of suggested resources.
Something which offers good exercises which fit well with the flow of the book.Baluncore said:What type of supplementary resource are you considering ?
Come on, it's not THAT old!dextercioby said:May I ask you what led you consider this old, normally dated treatise as a source of learning optics? Why didn't you go for newer texts?
I have that book from my uni and it is one of my least favorite physics books ever lol. It is the exact opposite of what I look for in a book. I am also looking for something slightly more advanced.onatirec said:Hecht - Optics is often suggested
AndreasC said:Come on, it's not THAT old!
Honestly I haven't found one that I liked very much that is also at a similar level (actually I haven't really loved any of the books at any level, Hecht in particular which is supposed to be standard was a nightmare). Which ones do you have in mind?
I was put off because that book has few and seemingly pretty bad reviews. Seems to be a theme with books on optics for some reason. Does everyone just use the same horrible Hecht book?dextercioby said:How about you get hold of Guenther, R. - Modern Optics (Wiley, 1990)? It has exercises. IF you find a chapter treated too lightly, then you can try B&W as a substitute for that chapter.
I don't know who's biased and who's not, I didn't look that deep into it... The main thing was few reviews and ratings. It was few enough that it's probably just a fluke that they were bad but usually I don't look at books which haven't received many ratings unless someone specifically recommends them.dextercioby said:Can you link to some unbiased bad reviews?
Well it sure does make a better text than Hecht however. Although that's kind of a low bar.Dr Transport said:I wouldn't call B&W a text, it is more a reference.
Then ask your own questions and use B&W to solve them. I am not aware of anyone using B&W as a text. I've seen Jenkins and White and Contemporary Optics for Engineers by Nussbaum and Phillips used. I had Hecht and Zajac 30+ years ago. I have a Masters in Optics, we didn't use B&W in school.AndreasC said:Well it sure does make a better text than Hecht however. Although that's kind of a low bar.
Jenkins does look interesting.Dr Transport said:Then ask your own questions and use B&W to solve them. I am not aware of anyone using B&W as a text. I've seen Jenkins and White and Contemporary Optics for Engineers by Nussbaum and Phillips used. I had Hecht and Zajac 30+ years ago. I have a Masters in Optics, we didn't use B&W in school.