Talk:Non-achromatic objective

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Deletions[edit]

I have rm'ed the following to talk since in its current form it is non-encyclopedic advice (WP:NOTMANUAL):

A common beginner mistake in designing monochromatic objectives to be used with near-zero field of view, such as collimators, is to design only with zero field of view. The lens design program optimizer will only correct what it knows about any given lens. Such a lens will likely have sharp on-axis performance, but may have enormous coma, rendering it virtually un-manufacturable and unusable in practice. A zero-field lens should always be designed with a nonzero field of view so that its manufacturing tolerances and quality control are practical, and its alignment tolerance in the final system is reasonable.

75.197.145.65 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plano vs biconvex?[edit]

If one doesn't have access to achromatic lenses then which simple lens is better for telescope objective: plano-convex or biconvex?

47.29.65.204 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]