Reconciling the Thick Lens Model with P2P Optical Bench

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Garry2306 Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: just go with the thick lens model

Bernard Delley wrote:

bclaff wrote:

Bernard Delley wrote:

...

Below is a comparison of P2P data with my measurement using 0 and 27.5 mm extension ring.

I see two main differences compared to the P2P simulation based on patent data. The camera with this lens reports a less fast lens at 1:1. The measured internodal distance is quite a bit smaller. However it is plausible by guessing from the eyeballed pupil positions seen from front and back.

That example is the Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED

You stumbled onto a patent where I did not enter all of the pertinent information.
I have now done so and updated the files.
The new files will show a Specified value under NA for 1:2 and 1:1

F# values reported by the Optical Bench are now:

Infinity 2.88 (Scenario 1)
1:4 3.15 (using Focus slider)
1:2 3.55 (Scenario 2)
1:1 4.98 (Scenario 3)

These values are in agreement with the NA values stated in the patent.

Note patent species NA of 0.10 at 1:1 and the Optical Bench now agrees

Thanks a lot for fixing this !

This is indeed the correct full name of the lens that I measured.

I still read H = 22.17 H'=-37.75 in your example. I interpret this as i = h = 59.92mm . Am I misunderstanding H,H', or is there a remaining discrepancy between measured and simulated h ?

Bernard I got confused by looking at the measured and position lines.

I believe h is 48.96-22.17=26.79

It’s those pesky optical sign conventions that confuse things on the measured line.

It’s always best to use the positions data, but Bill will confirm, I’m sure.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow