• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Astigmatism as an Aberration in Optics (1 Viewer)

John Russell

Well-known member
There is often confusion between astigmatism of the eye and astigmatism as an aberration in an optical instrument, so I thought I would attempt an explanation. It has even been suggested that one could cancel out the other but this is not the case. I stand open to correction for the following.

Astigmatism of the eye is caused by a difference in the radius of curvature of the cornea or lens in different planes. The planes of maximum and minimum radii of curvature would be spaced at around 90° and would result in point sources being focussed on the retina as short lines. Astigmatism of the eye can be corrected with cylindrical lenses.

Astigmatism as an optical aberration is somewhat more complicated. If we consider an objective lens that has been perfectly corrected for spherical aberration then any "rays" from a point source on the optical axis will be focussed to a point behind the lens on the optical axis. If however the point source is near the field edge an astigmatic objective would be unable to focus all rays in a flat (or curved) plane.

Considering a point source at the right hand edge of the field, alll rays in the tangential (right to left) plane will be focussed to a point and all rays in the sagittal plane (top to bottom from the same right hand source) will be focussed to a point, but the tangential and sagittal focal points will not be coincident.

Astigmatism in a binocular or scope can be seen if one tries to focus on a grid pattern at the field edge. It will be possible to achieve acceptable sharpness of either the vertical or horizontal lines, but not both simultaneously.

One could consider astigmatism as a type of field curvature. It's just that the tangential and sagittal focal planes have different radii and there are theoretically four possibilities. Both could have positive curvature, both negative, or one could be negative and the other positive.

John
 
Good topic, John, and thanks for that.

Having a noticeably astigmatic left eye and using binoculars with an ever changing variety of eye-wear (glasses, photochromic glasses, contacts, contact in one eye only, contacts with sunglasses, polarised sunglasses & shooting glasses, prescription sunglasses, prescription polarised sunglasses and prescription shooting glasses) depending on the activity, season and weather, I often find myself in the position of being able to 'induce an aberration' (for want of a better term) in one or other of the binoculars I use, glare being the most obvious. In practical terms this is just boils down to eye relief and not a glare issue with the particular model I'm using.

Here I am typing this without glasses and screwing up my eyes trying to focus on a hawk gaining height outside, where are the table bins ?
 
Thank you, John. Well explained. I have copied it and placed in my binocular files under Optics-Edge Sharpness
 
I thought astigmatism in binoculars is when having multiple areas of focus and unfocus; like appearing in ripples.

A good (over simplified, perhaps) example of astigmatism may be seen at night in your car's windshield.

The lights in on-coming cars may streak parallel to the road, yet when they reach a certain proximity to your car, the line instantly becomes perpendicular to the road. This is like astigmatism outside and inside of focus.

Just a thought.

Bill
 
Last edited:
I thought astigmatism in binoculars is when having multiple areas of focus and unfocus; like appearing in ripples.

Along with field curvature (not to be confused with distortion) it's the cause of a progressive sharpness loss towards the field edge. Unlike field curvature it cannot be corrected by refocussing.

It's described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism as third-order astigmatism and on page 29 of "Telescope Optics" (Rutten & van Venrooij).

John
 
"Along with field curvature (not to be confused with distortion) . . ."

Yeah, John, I wanna see you pull THAT one off!

Actually, you probably can! I need to watch what I say 'til everybody knows my sick humor as well as you do. The folks over here on BF seem a cut above the average guy over on Brand X. Over there, I can't even kick Kenny's Butt or call Marco a college puke, without getting into trouble! It doesn't seem to matter that both are great friends. I've been told I might be a bad influence on newbies or non-English speakers. Considering who they allow to lie and puff his way to exaltation on the back of the truth, that seems a twisted logic.

Bill :bounce:
 
Last edited:
John, Bill,

Thanks for the clarification !
It seems I somehow confused astigmatism with the Chebyshev equal ripple effect (mentioned a little while back in another thread)
 
Actually its closer to the Metzler-Beyel defect, although Foligno probably characterised it in a more lucid way.

Lee
 
Were they pulling my leg then ?
What do you call it when the focus is slightly (and I mean slightly) off in rings around the center.

For example in this photo I was able to capture some of it having the center slightly off focus while there is a ring around it that is in-focus. It can be refocused in the opposite way too... and I detected this effect in various models (I initially thought there was something wrong with my glass). It is only visible if pushed to the limit of resolution with extremely small print and ever so slight eye movement.
 

Attachments

  • P1010245.JPG
    P1010245.JPG
    91.3 KB · Views: 90
I never heard the urban myth that the astigmatism in optics could cancel out the astigmatism in your eyes. The eye is part of the optical train, think of them as the 25th and 26th elements in an oversized HT. If one element is "bad," the final image is "bad."

There is a simpler but not simplistic way to describe astigmatism in optics: the outer edges of a Zeiss FL. B :)

<B>
 
I never heard the urban myth that the astigmatism in optics could cancel out the astigmatism in your eyes. The eye is part of the optical train, think of them as the 25th and 26th elements in an oversized HT. If one element is "bad," the final image is "bad."

There is a simpler but not simplistic way to describe astigmatism in optics: the outer edges of a Zeiss FL. B :)

<B>

Brock,

I think "bad" is a little strong, undesirable would be better.
All bins probably have some astigmatism to a greater or lesser extent, though I can't see any in my 10x42 SV, and that's good enough for me. I wouldn't know how to boost the edge of a 60° AFoV anyway.

I think we can safely assume that MagpieCorvidae's photo above was not taken through a Zeiss FL. If anywhere close to a full field, there's just field curvature and enough pincussion to eliminate the dreaded rolling ball.

John
 
That is a good description of off axis astigmatism in a properly built binocular. In such a case, astigmatism can be considered a "design flaw", or compromise that the designer accepted in optimizing the image as a whole.

But occasionally, there will be a binocular that is constructed improperly, and its image will show astigmatism not only off axis, but in the center as well. In such a case, I believe the central astigmatism in that virtual image (which is just like an object for this purpose) could be removed with a cylindrical lens between the eyepiece and the eye, similar to eyeglasses. If that lens was built into the eyepiece, you could then say the binocular corrected itself. Of course, such a "correction" would affect the off axis astigmatism too, asymmetrizing it a little bit.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Brock,

I think "bad" is a little strong, undesirable would be better.
All bins probably have some astigmatism to a greater or lesser extent, though I can't see any in my 10x42 SV, and that's good enough for me. I wouldn't know how to boost the edge of a 60° AFoV anyway.

I think we can safely assume that MagpieCorvidae's photo above was not taken through a Zeiss FL. If anywhere close to a full field, there's just field curvature and enough pincussion to eliminate the dreaded rolling ball.

John

John,

I chose the FL as an example because there's been a longtime controversy over whether or not they have astigmatism at the edges. According to Stephen Ingraham, Henry and Frank, there is astigmatism at the edges. Frank estimated that the outer 25% of his 7x42 FL could not be refocused. That's a big loss of sharp image. Bob will tell you that his 7x42 FL's edges can be refocused, so it's puzzling.

I can understand why reports of field curvature can vary, because people's eyes vary in terms of their ability to accommodate, but nobody's eyes can focus astigmatism.

Stephen Ingraham's explanation for the edge astigmatism in the FLs was that it was part of the design, which was optimized for center sharpness (or as he put it, "zone of critical sharpness"). That is, in the inner 60%, the image is sharp as they can make it. The trade-off is that you lose the edge sharpness.

Then Nikon came along with the EDG and Swaro with the SV EL, which seem to blow away that premise.

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top