• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Combining aberrations — defocus

Combining aberrations — defocus

July 22, 2025 JimK Leave a Comment

In my last post, I showed how individual optical aberrations affect image quality by presenting simulated point spread functions and Siemens star renderings with one aberration at a time. This approach makes it easy to isolate and understand the signature of each aberration. But lenses rarely suffer from a single imperfection. More often, multiple aberrations act together, and their interactions can produce effects that are not just the sum of their parts.

In this post, I’ll explore what happens when you combine aberrations, starting with the most familiar one: defocus. That raises a natural question. Is defocus really an aberration? From the perspective of optical engineering, it certainly is. It alters the phase of the wavefront in a way that degrades the image, just like spherical aberration or astigmatism. Of course, in practice, defocus is under the control of the photographer and is usually not a flaw in the lens itself. But when we simulate its effects and combine it with other aberrations, we gain a better understanding of how focus errors interact with more intrinsic imperfections in an optical system.

In the simulations that follow, I’ll show what happens when varying degrees of defocus are applied in combination with other aberrations. The results can help reveal subtle interactions and shed light on the importance of precise focusing, even with otherwise well-corrected optics.

First, the point spread functions, in the lower right corner of our three image grid. The zero-defocus images are marked with red outlines.

Compare the top and the second row. Notice that spherical aberration (SA) shifts the point of best focus. I will do some analysis of that in the next post. Also note that the PSF shape varies asymmetrically with defocus in the presence of SA, astigmatism, and LoCA. Another thing to notice is that you can identify astigmatism more easily when the image is slightly defocused.

Next, with a synthetic Siemens star. I’ve dialed the aberrations back so you can see the effect on the images better.

And finally, with a classic image engineering test image and the same aberration set as the Siemens star.

The Last Word

← Visualizing lens aberrations, one at a time, revisited The relationship of defous and spherical aberration →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

December 2025
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Nov    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Family photography with the X2D/XCD90V and the GFX 100 II/GF110
  • Jonathan on Family photography with the X2D/XCD90V and the GFX 100 II/GF110
  • Thomas on GFX 100 II pixel shift
  • JimK on Why wide-angle lenses stretch the edges of the frame
  • Pieter Kers on Why wide-angle lenses stretch the edges of the frame
  • Stefan Feaux de Lacroix on Fujifilm GFX 100RF inclusive review
  • Lou Jost on Leica 280/4 Apo-Telyt R on GFX 50R in infrared
  • JimK on Why wide-angle lenses stretch the edges of the frame
  • JimK on Why wide-angle lenses stretch the edges of the frame
  • Craig Stocks on Why wide-angle lenses stretch the edges of the frame

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.