What lens shape gives perfect focus?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adeimantus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Focus Lens Shape
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of what lens shape can achieve perfect focus, particularly in the context of ray optics. Participants explore various lens profiles, including biconvex and aspheric lenses, and consider the implications of spherical aberration and other optical aberrations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a lens profile must not be spherical to avoid spherical aberration, while others argue that even the best forms of biconvex lenses still exhibit some level of spherical aberration.
  • There is mention of aspheric lenses as a means to reduce aberrations, but it is noted that a singlet lens will only achieve zero spherical aberration under very specific illumination conditions.
  • One participant proposes that a segment of an ellipse could be a suitable lens shape.
  • Another participant discusses the mathematical implications of lens shapes, suggesting that a hyperbola might be the answer to the question posed.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of the ray optics model, with some participants expressing that it does not adequately account for the complexities of optical aberrations.
  • Participants reference various optical designs, such as the Ritchey-Chretien and Maksutov-Cassegrain, noting their characteristics in relation to spherical aberration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the ideal lens shape for perfect focus, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate regarding the implications of spherical aberration and the limitations of the ray optics model.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the artificial nature of discussing aberrations within the ray optics framework, noting that higher-order approximations are necessary for accuracy as numerical aperture increases. There is also mention of the complexity and specialized terminology associated with optical design and aberration correction.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in optics, lens design, and the mathematical aspects of light focusing may find this discussion relevant.

Adeimantus
Messages
112
Reaction score
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'.
 
Science news on Phys.org
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.
 
segment of an ellipse
 
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.

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.

lzkelley said:
segment of an ellipse
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.
 
It wouldn't be easy, but it should be doable to show that any incident line would reflect to the foci of an ellipse by finding the incident angle relative to the slope of the surface etc etc.
 
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.

Yes, the term 'spherical aberration' was introduced by recognizing that spherical refracting surfaces all have a particular aberration- as the height of a ray (travelling parallel to the optic axis) increases, the distance between the lens and the location where the ray crosses the optical axis changes. That is, focus changes with aperture.

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.
 
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.

Yes, I looked up 'spherical aberration' on wikipedia and was immediately struck by how arcane all the terminology was for treating aberrations as tack-ons to the the ray model. I couldn't really follow it. Too much of "To find the correction for this particular effect, use third order so-and-so's equation" or something similar. But I guess when you need to actually design a lens system, and are not just interested in mathematical curiosities, those things would be useful.

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. Do you do research in an optics-related field?


I'm tempted to say the answer to my mathematical question is a hyperbola. I did a google search for 'hyperbolic lens' and found http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosl6/l6-03.htm which purports to be a spherical lens (left) compared to a hyperbolic lens (right). Of course, it might just be a picture of a crappy spherical lens next to a picture of a good spherical lens for all I know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My graduate school training emphasized optics and fluid mechanics; I've since used optics in my research- microscopy, spectroscopy, laser tweezers, sensor systems, light scattering, etc.

There are several optical designs out there you may be interested in- the Ritchey-Chretien has two hyperboloids but only corrects coma off-axis, IIRC

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Ratledge/tm9.htm

Another is the Maksutov-Cassegrain design, which has no spherical aberration but has a restricted field of view and low f/#:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksutov_telescope

Here's a site showing how a decent optical designer thinks:

http://members.cox.net/rmscott/lh_scope/lh_design_article/lh_design.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
  • #10
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.

Glad to be of help! You may also like this website:

http://bhs.broo.k12.wv.us/homepage/alumni/dstevick/weird.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Undergrad Lens Calculations to Focus Light
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Undergrad Focusing UV light from a 275nm LED down to a small spot
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Undergrad Ray Diagram for an Experimental Lens Systems
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Graduate How to model converging illumination through object plane (in ZEMAX)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate What are the key considerations for imaging with a condenser fresnel lens?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
Undergrad What Lens to Put In Front of an Complex Lens to Push Focal Plane Back?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Prism Spectrometer Objective: Optics Question
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad Condenser lens retrofit for a lighting application
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Undergrad Anamorphic and Spherical Lens Focusing
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Undergrad What Happens When an Object Is Placed at the Focus Point of a Lens?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K