Choosing a book on photocraphic optics (engineering point of veiw)

[Alexz]

I'm in the process of choosing a book on optical lenses and systems design (photographic in particular), applied optics and theoretical aspects. There are several offering can be found from well known online books sources, such as Applied Photographic Optics (third edition) by Sidney Ray, Modern Optical Engineering by Warren Smith and few others. Most of them have pretty hefty price tag, so I have to think carefully prior to making up my mind.
I'll be happy to gather educated opinions of our fellows here.

What I'm after is full and comprehensive material that would provide more then general information, but rather actual math approaches to calculations, going as deeply as can be grasped by a reader with engineering (EE, for instance) math and physician background.

So, what would be your opinion ? (at elast about the two mentioned above)

Thanks in advance, Alex

 

[Ole]

Start with the evaluation version of OSLO, a lens calculation program. The (included) manual is a wealth of information! The program itself is exellent - even the evaluation version. The full version is - complete.

 

[PhotoPete]

I am a big fan of the Sidney Ray book, although I fond myself in a little over my head at times. If you have a strong math/science backround, you should do very well with it. You might want to try getting each from a library and spending some time with it before committing to one...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Alex, out of curiosity, not to quarrel, what do you hope to accomplish?

And to address your question, there's a free downloadable version of a US Army optical design text. Written in the late 1940s, IIRC. I don't have the URL here at home, might have it on my office machine. More tomorrow.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Alexz]

Thank you Dan, will appreciate you forwarding me the link. I'm now at my forth year (last one hopefully) of my B.Sc.EE degree, intend to take few optical systems/lens design courses next semester to grasp in-depth understanding of physical optics and photographic optics in particular. That may not necessarily make me better photographer , but I like gaining solid background and understanding of the things I'm interested in, including any scienetific comprehention as much as I can "swallow" given the knowledge I'm gaining during my EE study.
PhotoPete: thank you, that scores favorably towards Sidney's book.
Ole: you advise is appreciated as well. I'm aware about OSLO, and even managed to take a look to the evaluation version once, however at that time (3-4 years ago) I didn't have the necessary background to make myself comfortable with it, neither had the formal math base necessary to grasp optical design approaches. I certainly planned to get into it (and some of the optical desgn courses I intend to take deal with OSLO), but first gaining theoretical understanding will not hurt...

 

[MichaelBriggs]

Applied Photographic Optics is more aimed at photographers and not at training lens designers. It does use mathematics, but not to the same degree. It covers a broader ranges of topics. Unless your goal is to learn how to design lenses, it would probably be a better choice.

Another one to consider: Lens Design Fundamentals by Kingslake. This is at the opposite end, learning how to design lenses -- definitely not light reading.

Do you have Kingslakes' book "A History of the Photographic Lens"? This is the easiest read and least mathematical of the books that I have mentioned.

Perhaps you could look at some of the books in your school's library?

 

[wildbill]

Here's one i read a few years ago. It's geared toward motion picture optics and focus but interesting.

"Optics and focus for camera assistants, art, science and zen" by Fritz hershey

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...92433-0813717?_encoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you Dan, will appreciate you forwarding me the link. I'm now at my forth year (last one hopefully) of my B.Sc.EE degree, intend to take few optical systems/lens design courses next semester to grasp in-depth understanding of physical optics and photographic optics in particular. That may not necessarily make me better photographer , but I like gaining solid background and understanding of the things I'm interested in, including any scienetific comprehention as much as I can "swallow" given the knowledge I'm gaining during my EE study.
PhotoPete: thank you, that scores favorably towards Sidney's book.
Ole: you advise is appreciated as well. I'm aware about OSLO, and even managed to take a look to the evaluation version once, however at that time (3-4 years ago) I didn't have the necessary background to make myself comfortable with it, neither had the formal math base necessary to grasp optical design approaches. I certainly planned to get into it (and some of the optical desgn courses I intend to take deal with OSLO), but first gaining theoretical understanding will not hurt...

Alex, visit http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ot/opti502/ Then download MIL-HDBK-141

 

[Alexz]

Many thanks Dan, downloaded one. Will print it out and apparently may serve as an excellent learning book. At the first glance, at least the topics I brielfy checked are well and clearly elaborated.

 

[Ole]

OSLO crippled the evaluation version, I think during a 'hands change'. I think, could be wrong, that it is now limited to 6 surfaces. Not much of a problem for us telescope makers, but that would limit you to three lenses.

I think the new version is the one which is less crippled than the old one - I have the "six-surface" version, I have heard that the newer ones have more.

I can do a triplet, or half a Dagor, but not a Tessar.

Anyway the manual on the CD is worth getting, even without the software!

 

[Ole]

I double-checked: The current version of OSLO EDU (the free version) is limited to 10 surfaces. Enough for Plasmats...

 

[acroell]

I double-checked: The current version of OSLO EDU (the free version) is limited to 10 surfaces. Enough for Plasmats...

Unfortunately it doesn't work for Plasmats (or regular Planars) - they count the object plane as one surface and you need another one for the aperture, so it is 8 real lens surfaces - you can get by with 9 if the aperture location is close to a lens surface by combining those, but that is not always the case.