Paraxial Zoom Lens Design

ECEN 5616
Spring 2005
March 10th, 2005

Benjamin C. Ihas

Zoom Lens Specification

This zoom lens is intended for use with a consumer-market digital camera. In this
case, a large zoom is desired and will image to a 4 Megapixel camera chip. Due to
market demand, this lens system should be designed with size and weight constraints to
remain easily portable. Specific design criteria are as follows:

Lens System:
High power magnification 8x or above
Compact design appropriate for a pocket-sized camera, with capability to compress to
1-2
High resolution compatible with current, as well as future, small pixel-sized cameras
(several micron pixel pitch)
High throughput minimal loss for low-light conditions
High Image Quality Aberrations (spherical, chromic) must be minimized

Camera Chip:
4 Megapixel: 2000 x 2000 pixels
Pixel pitch = 10um
Chip width = 20mm

Possible Approaches and Design Selection

To better grasp the complexity of this problem, the design was first approached
with the simplest of system designs.

Paraxial ray trace diagrams were quickly

constructed for several general lens combinations. The main specification to satisfy at
this phase was the ability to adjust the magnification of an object at a fixed distance, or
zoom. Image location as well as the required travel for the lenses was also considered.
The first system considered was the simplest case, that of two positive lenses.
This system allows for magnification by adjusting the distance between the two lenses,
however is limited by the available object planes to which it can focus. Several general
cases were drawn and may be found in the following figure.

Figure 1: Two Positive Lenses

The next logical choice (for a new, inexperienced designer) was to combine a
negative with a positive lens. Both configurations, negative or positive lens first, were
briefly examined. In the case where the negative lens is first in the chain, magnification
is achieved but zoom is not obvious. These attempts are pictured below.

Figure 2: Negative and Positive Lens

When the lenses are reversed, however, the system begins to approach correct
functionality. This particular configuration is a simple telephoto lens system. This
system provides zoom, but creates a virtual image. It is clear that additional lenses must
be added.

Figure 3: Telephoto Lens

Next, a third lens was added to the telephoto system. A positive lens was chosen
to focus the diverging rays back towards the optical axis so that a real image would be
formed. This configuration is known as a Cooke triplet. Immediately, an interesting
property of this system was observed. For collimated input, such as light from distant
objects, this triplet system can produce collimated output.

By then adjusting the

distances between the lenses, the output may be expanded or reduced. This creates the
zoom action desired for the design. These schematics are all pictured below.

Figure 4: Cooke Triplet

Now that the correct zoom behavior is modeled, a real image must be formed. By adding
a forth (positive) lens to the output of the system, the rays will bend towards the optical
axis and a real image will be formed. This approach was chosen for the zoom lens
design.

Paraxial Design

For this design process, y-u ray tracing was used to learn about the system and to
place the lenses and decide prescriptions. A simple program was written that followed
several object rays, including the paraxial marginal ray (PMR) and chief ray (PPR),
through the system while the lens powers and locations were adjusted.
Several constraints were known from the previous paraxial test designs. The first
such constraint is that the total distance between lens 1 (L1) and L3 needed to be less
than the focal lengths of the lenses. Additionally, L1 and L3 are chosen to have the same
power to create a symmetry that seems desirable. Moreover, these prescriptions should
be strong as a shorter overall system length is desirable. Once these constraints were in
place, an object was chosen to further limit variables.
A 400mm high object was placed 1200mm in front of the system so that it was
close enough to provide significant incoming ray angles. This seemed a reasonable
approximation of a human head in a typical portrait scenario. This object choice also
facilitated zoom design as it could be magnified and imaged to meet the design
specifications. Additionally, maximum image size is limited to a total height/width of
20mm due to the size of the camera. Now that several variables are under constraint, the
design could begin.
The lens prescriptions and locations are the only adjustable variables remaining.
At this point, the Newport lens catalog was reviewed so that the design would be limited
to mass-produced lenses. Referencing the catalog forced a limitation of the lens powers

to increments in available focal length and diameter combinations. Once potential lens
specifications were known, the system was assembled.
With thin lenses in the system, some trends could be observed. First, in some
cases by shortening the distance between L1 and L3, the zoom reduced linearly.
Additionally, by adjusting the distance between L1 and L2 or L2 and L3, the
magnification increases and decreases respectively. Other effective means to alter the
magnification are to alter the power of L2 or the imaging lens, L4. With this knowledge,
the system could be separated in function and designed to reach the desired magnification
and zoom. This design requires each lens to move position to both acquire the desired
magnification and to image onto the camera. This motion is pictured in Figure 5 for the
case of collimated input.

Figure 5: Triplet Motion

The imaging lens, L4, is absent from the above diagram. In the case of collimated light,
this imaging lens can remain stationary with respect to the image plane. For the camera
lens, however, the incident light will never be perfectly collimated. Thus, the distance
between the Cooke triplet and L4, as well as L4 and the image plane will remain free
variables.
The maximum motion of the imaging lens was considered and an attempt to
minimize its motion was made. Initially, the design did not quite accommodate available
lenses. The distances between the lenses were not adequate once thick lenses with real
curvatures were inserted. This problem was corrected for the layouts found below. The
following schematics show the two end points (minimum and maximum zoom) of the
system.

Figure 6: Paraxial Thin Lens Layout for Minimum Zoom Condition

10

Figure 7: Paraxial Thin Lens Layout for Maximum Zoom Condition

11

Gaussian Design
For a mass produced consumable such as this zoom lens, cost is of great concern.
In order then to reduce the cost of this system, inexpensive, readily available lenses were
desired. To meet this need, BK 7 glass lenses in standard prescriptions were chosen from
the Newport Corporations catalog.

These lenses range in price, depending on the

desired coating, from $29-$104 a piece.

Considering the use, a broadband visible

antireflection coating (Newport #AR.14) is appropriate. This AR coating choice pushes

to total lens cost of the system to $297. This price would be greatly reduced if large
quantities were needed for production. The following table displays the necessary design
information for each lens.
Position

Model Diameter EFL

(Newport) (mm) (mm)

f#

BFL,FFL P1
P2
Te
R (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

L1

KBX142

50.8

50.2

0.9

44.13

6.06 -6.06 17.277 48.756

L2

KBC028

12.7

-12.5 -0.9

-13.29

0.79 -0.79

L3

KBX142

50.8

50.2

0.9

44.13

6.06 -6.06 17.277 48.756

L4

KBX154

50.8

100

1.9

96.83

3.16 -3.16 9.444

Figure 8: Bi-Convex Lens Schematic

5.07

-13.333

101.73

Figure 9: Bi-Concave Lens Schematic

The following diagrams expand the thin lens designs by including these real
lenses.

12

Figure 10: Paraxial Thick Lens Layout for Minimum Zoom Condition

13

Figure 11: Paraxial Thick Lens Layout for Maximum Zoom Condition

14

System Analysis and Conclusion

Finally, the system was analyzed at both extreme cases for performance.
Throughout the design process, an intermediate zoom condition was checked for
reasonable behavior. For simplicity of analysis, however, only the aforementioned zoom
end points were closely explored to better understand the limits of this design.
Power
The initial design criteria called for 8x or higher zoom capabilities. The minimum
and maximum zoom powers were thus calculated and compared. Using the expressions
for system power,
n ' u'
K =
h1

F=

1
K

(D)

(1)

(m)

(2)

Fmin is found to be 27.3mm while Fmax is 186.57mm. The ratio of these focal lengths
yields a camera lens power of 6.8x. While impressive in comparison to typical digital
cameras that advertise 3x zoom, this falls short of the desired specification.

This

discrepancy developed when the thin lens design was altered to accommodate thick
lenses. The original thin lens design allowed for closer spacing of the lenses, and slightly
higher powers resulted. Unfortunately, the lenses chosen are quite thick and the distances
between the lenses were forced higher.
Furthermore, when compared to typical commercial zoom lenses, these focal
lengths are larger by about a factor of three. This difference reflects the rather long

15

system package. This system does not meet the desired length specification. After
exploring the 4-lens system to great depths, it appears the only way to reduce the system
length is to increase its complexity by adding more elements. Increasing the number of
elements would also eliminate the need for such strong lenses (F/1 for L1-L3) and would
improve aberrations.

Principal Planes
The principal planes were not specified in the design plan, but should be known
for future design considerations. The equations for the principal planes from the last and
first lenses respectively are found below.

' =

h1 hk
, uk = 0
uk'

(m)

(3)

h1 hk '
, uk = 0
u'

(m)

(4)

min = -45.3 mm from P of lens 4

min = 39.5 mm from P of lens 1
max = 131.3 mm from P of lens 4
max = -169.4 mm from P of lens 1
Image
The imaging metrics are of utmost importance for a camera lens. The following
calculations explore some imaging parameters for the case of the object located at
1200mm.

16

Infinite Conjugate Condition: Minimum Zoom

Fsystem
F /# =
D AS
F /# =1.7
Finite Conjugate Condition: Maximum Zoom
1
1
)
f (1 ) Fsystem (1
M system
object
M
F /#
=
=
D
D AS

F /# object =14.9
f (1 M ) Fsystem (1 M system )
=
F /# image =
D
D AS
F /# image =3
This is a large range of F/#s. The aperture range measures how much light is let
into the camera when taking a photo. Low F/# settings are best for low light photography
while higher F/#s provide a greater depth of field. This is apparent from the following
calculations.
Depth of Focus at Image Plane

z = 2 F /#
zmin = 34 um
zmax = 60 um

This depth of focus was calculated for equal to the pixel pitch of 10um. These
field depths will require careful positioning of L4 to the camera. Additionally, the object
space field depth was briefly explored. In the case of the 400mm high head located
1.2m from the lens system, the object space depth of focus was found to be 140mm. This
seems reasonable, as a face would easily remain in focus. Stopping down the aperture

17

stop would help increase this depth, but additional light throughput and camera
sensitivity analysis would be necessary to find the limit.

Resolution
r0 = F /#
r0 min = 0.85 um
r0 min = 1.5 um
These resolutions remain more then adequate as the camera becomes the limiting
device. The camera has a maximum resolution of 10um, thus this lens system is at worst
a factor of seven times more resolved. The resolution specification is thus met as this
lens may accommodate higher resolution cameras for future products.
With analysis complete, several observations of the success of this design may be
formed. First, the lens system performs fairly well despite missing the magnification
specification. The lens still offers quite a large range of zoom, while creating resolvable
images of which a cleaver lens mounting system could maintain focus. However, a
glance at Figures 10 and 11 reveal the major flaw in the design: the lens is too large. This
lens system grows to over 200mm in length and maintains a 50mm girth before lens
mounts are included. This lens is simply too large for a practical consumer application.
Furthermore, designing with F/1 lenses minimized these dimensions. These lenses are so
strong that aberrations will dominate this system. For these reasons, one does not find
such a lens in consumer cameras. Typical zoom lenses include 11, and sometimes up to
40, elements to create a compact design with minimal chromic and spherical aberrations.
The principles, however, remain much the same. The concept behind this design is

18

reasonable, but paraxial lens design quickly breaks down limiting the quality of design of
such a system.

19