Читать книгу Optical Engineering Science - Stephen Rolt - Страница 81

We will now look at a simple special case to apply to a thin lens with the stop at the lens. This is the common situation where a lens is being used to focus an object located at the infinite conjugate, such as a telescope objective or a lens focusing a parallel laser beam. From Eq. (4.26), the conjugate parameter, t, is equal to −1. Substituting t = −1 into Eq. (4.31a) gives the spherical aberration as:

(4.34)

The important point to note about Eq. (4.34) is that the spherical aberration can never be equal to zero and that for a positive lens, K_SA is always negative. This means that the longitudinal aberration for a positive lens is also negative and that, for all single lenses, more marginal rays are brought to a focus closer to the lens. Whilst Eq. (4.34) asserts that the spherical aberration in this case can never be zero, its magnitude can be minimised for a specific lens shape. Inspection of Eq. (4.34) reveals that this condition is met where:

(4.35)

This optimum shape factor corresponds to the so-called ‘best form singlet’ and is generally available from optical component suppliers, particularly with regard to applications in the focusing of laser beams. For a refractive index of 1.5, the optimum shape factor is around 0.7. This is close in shape to a plano-convex lens. However, it is important to emphasise, that optimum focusing is obtained where the more steeply curved surface is facing the infinite conjugate. Generally, also, where a plano-convex lens is used to focus a collimated beam, the curved surface should face the infinite conjugate. This behaviour is shown in Figure 4.11, which emphasises the quadratic dependence of spherical aberration on lens shape factor.

Coma for the infinite conjugate also depends upon the shape factor. However, in this instance, the dependence is linear. Once more, substituting t = −1 into Eq. (4.31b), we get:

(4.36)

Unlike in the case for spherical aberration, there exists a shape factor for which the coma is zero. This is simply given by:

(4.37)

For a refractive index of 1.5, this minimum condition is met for a shape factor of 0.8. This is similar, but not quite the same as the optimum for spherical aberration. Again, the most curved surface should face the infinite conjugate. Overall behaviour is illustrated in Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.11 Spherical aberration vs. shape parameter for a thin lens.

Figure 4.12 Coma vs lens shape for various conjugate parameters.

Once again, this specifically applies to the situation where the stop is at the lens surface. Of course, as stated previously, neither astigmatism nor field curvature are affected by shape or conjugate parameter.

Although it is impossible to reduce spherical aberration for a thin lens to zero at the infinite conjugate, it is possible for other conjugate values. In fact, the magnitude of the conjugate parameter must be greater than a certain specific value for this condition to be fulfilled. This magnitude is always greater than one for reasonable values of the refractive index and so either object or image must be virtual. It is easy to see from Eq. (4.31a) that this threshold value should be:

(4.38)

For n = 1.5, this threshold value is 4.58. That is to say for there to be a shape factor where the spherical aberration is reduced to zero, the conjugate parameter must either be less than −4.58 or greater than 4.58. Another point to note is that since spherical aberration exhibits a quadratic dependence on shape factor, where this condition is met, there are two values of the shape factor at which the spherical aberration is zero. This behaviour is set out in Figure 4.13 which shows spherical aberration as a function of shape factor for a number of difference conjugate parameters.