Lens selection goes wrong when it starts from the focal length instead of from the requirement. Two numbers decide whether a lens can do the job: the field of view that has to be covered, which sets the magnification once the sensor is known (FOV = sensor size / M), and the smallest feature that has to be measured, which sets the object-side pixel (sensor pixel / M). Everything else — image circle, mount, working distance, aperture, lens MTF — is a check against those two.
Divide the tolerance by the number of pixels you want inside it, then divide the sensor pixel pitch by the result. A 0.05 mm tolerance with five pixels inside it needs a 0.01 mm object-side pixel, which with a 3.45 µm sensor pixel is about 0.35×. Check the consequences immediately: the field at 0.35× on a 1.1 inch sensor (14.1 × 10.4 mm, 17.6 mm diagonal) is about 40 × 30 mm, and the depth of field is now a fraction of a millimetre per unit of f-number. If either fails the requirement, the answer is a different architecture rather than a different lens.
Four paper checks — image circle against sensor diagonal, lens MTF at Nyquist and at the intended aperture, working distance against the mechanical envelope, and mount plus flange distance (C-mount is 17.526 mm with an image circle that rarely exceeds a 1 inch format) — then one bench test with a resolution and scale target that measures the field, corner sharpness, distortion, uniformity and the object-side pixel actually achieved. Thirty minutes at the bench prevents most commissioning surprises.
Related reading: telecentric lens selection: FOV, WD, DOF, telecentric versus FA lens, and the lens range. The detailed selection questions are answered below — send the sensor, the field and the tolerance and we will narrow it down.
Simply enter your email to receive the latest news and insights from Pomeas. Stay connected with Pomeas and be the first to discover new innovations in optical excellence.