Talk:Objective (optics)

160 mm

I thought this edit's comment was odd, given that it was MrFloatingIP who added the reference to 160 mm in a previous edit. Anyway, no it is not a specific model that is being described. If I recall correctly, there are two kinds of microscopes. Traditional scopes take objectives that focus the image at the same position within the microscope tube (I presume this is 160 mm, but haven't verified this with any sources.) This standardization allows any traditional objective lens to be used on any traditional microscope. (The objectives all use the same mounting thread as well—the Royal Microscope Society (RMS) 0.8"-36 thread.) Many modern microscopes use a different scheme: the microscope is "infinity-corrected". In these systems, the objective doesn't form an image at all (the image is at infinity). An auxiliary lens inside the microscope tube forms the image.--Srleffler (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Move?

WP:NCDAB indicates that natural disambiguation is prefereable to parenthetical, so an article title such as objective lens would seem prefereable to the current objective (optics). Also, I think "objective lens" is a generally more recognizable name for a general audience. ENeville (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Objectives are not always lenses. As indicated in the lede, in many optical systems the objective is a mirror.--Srleffler (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of mirrors acknowledged. I think it's a matter of how we apply "lens". We have magnetic lens, with "lens" meaning a tool for focusing, and "lens" in general use meaning something that filters our perception. I don't want to advocate for novel terminology. It just seems that "lens" is understood in function beyond only dioptrics, and we do want to foster technical accessibility. ENeville (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No. This is an optics article. In optics, a mirror is not a lens.--Srleffler (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)