Sounds interesting Rik. So, what would count as a limiting aperture? Does it have to be smaller than any other constriction in the optical set-up? A too-big iris won't do anything.
Haven't read the chapter yet, will get on it now....
Rear-standard focusing with infinity objectives?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
It has to be small enough to restrict the cone of light that gets through the whole setup, for every point in the field of view. For a microscope objective, that can still be a pretty big hole -- a sizable fraction of the front element.Lou Jost wrote: So, what would count as a limiting aperture?
--Rik
Does it imply paying a significant diffraction penalty?
I suppose we can afford to pay that price when using the objective with a lower-power tube lens. That is when the perspective issue is most important anyway. When used at low m, the microscope objective far out-resolves my APS-C sensor, so a slight increase in diffraction will not be observable.
I suppose we can afford to pay that price when using the objective with a lower-power tube lens. That is when the perspective issue is most important anyway. When used at low m, the microscope objective far out-resolves my APS-C sensor, so a slight increase in diffraction will not be observable.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The diffraction penalty depends entirely on how far you have to stop down, in order to make the added aperture be the limiting aperture for all points in the field. That's determined in part by where you place the iris. Offhand I imagine that it's best to put it as close as possible to the front lens element. That's why I initially wrote "positioning a non-moving iris just in front of the lens when the lens is at its farthest forward."
--Rik
--Rik