spherical aberration as a function of conjugate ratio

Suppose I have a really good camera lens or microscope objective that
gives diffraction-limited performance if I use it at the conjugate
ratio that it's designed for. If I know the prescription for the lens,
I can use Zemax or Oslo to calculate the amount of spherical aberration
that I'll get if I use the lens at some other conjugate ratio. But
there's no way I can get the prescription from Nikon or Zeiss. If one
doesn't know the prescription, to calculate spherical aberration as a
function of conjugate ratio one needs to know whether the lens
satisfies Abbe's sine condition, Herschel's sine condition, Helmholtz's
tangent condition, or some other condition. (I personally can't
calculate spherical aberration even if I do know the equations of the
principal surfaces, but I know that some people can.)

I can model the lens as a "perfect lens" in Oslo (not as a "paraxial
lens" in Zemax) and presumably get accurate results IF the lens
satisfies Abbe's sign condition. Some people say, if it's a really
good lens of course it satisfies Abbe's sign condition, otherwise there
would be coma. How safe is this assumption? According to a paper that
I've seen (CJR Sheppard and Min Gu, "Imaging by a high aperture optical
system," J Modern Optics vol. 40, p. 1631-1651), "the experimental
results for microscope objectives seem to agree better with the
predictions of a system obeying the tangent condition rather than the
sine condition," but they don't provide any details. If the lens is
used at the "wrong" conjugate ratio, spherical aberration for a lens
that satisfies Abbe's sine condition has the opposite sign from
spherical aberration for a lens that satisfies Helmholtz's tangent
condition, so Sheppard and Gu's statement is alarming.

If I need to find a company or consultant who understands this sort of
thing and can measure the aberrations of the lens and develop an
accurate Zemax or Oslo model, is there anyone who you recommend?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: spherical aberration as a function of conjugate
    ... If I know the prescription for the lens, ... I can use Zemax or Oslo to calculate the amount of spherical aberration ... that I'll get if I use the lens at some other conjugate ratio. ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: spherical aberration as a function of conjugate ratio
    ... Without the lens prescription, ... Spherical aberration is ... BFL with pupil radius at each test conjugate. ... If I know the prescription for the lens, ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: Why 3:2 ?
    ... >> aspect ratio makes better use of the lens, i.e. uses more the (sharper) ... >> central part of the lens. ... >> I understand that film is standardised at 36x24mm, ... >ratio appears to take in more. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Why 3:2 ?
    ... > Just wondering why most DSLRs use the 3:2 aspect ratio, ... > aspect ratio makes better use of the lens, ... > central part of the lens. ... there is no real reason why all the Camera Makers should stick ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: spherical aberration as a function of conjugate ratio
    ... I can use Zemax or Oslo to calculate the amount of spherical aberration ... that I'll get if I use the lens at some other conjugate ratio. ...
    (sci.optics)