3D print and build a 164mm f/2.5 lens for less than $15

https://petapixel.com/2022/08/22/you-can-3d-print-and-build-this-164mm-f-2-5-lens-for-less-than-15/

by bookofjoe • 4 years ago

257 119 4 years ago

Looks like a lot of spherical aberration?

I noticed that too. If you measure the MTF, it'll probably drop off quickly. Two lenses doesn't seem enough to correct aberrations.

Still, pretty impressive for a DIY project. The lack of clarity might be taken positively as an interesting lens characteristics; might even attract some camera enthusiasts to use this.

austinkhale• 4 years ago

I really enjoy my 3D printer but the number of real use cases is fairly low in terms of day-to-day utility. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me excited about the future of the hobby.

RowanH• 4 years ago

Use cases may be low, but when you find "the one" it's just nothing short of epic. For me it was my Sim Rig... needed a 3d printer to make the carrier blocks for the actuators, which then triggered a whole rabbit hole of designing & building a (slightly over the top) simulator*

The amount of stuff I've printed with it, km's and km's of filament and the little beast still keeps squirting out molten plastic. Last time I looked at the stats, 91 days print time, 6355m of filament.

One of the best tool purchases in the shed ever. Really stoked with it.

* https://www.rowanhick.com/motion-simulator

t0mas88• 4 years ago

Nice! I have a few 3D printed components for my sim racing setup, but it's only a few brackets and a custom face part for my VR headset. I've always done the 3D printing by uploading the design and having it delivered. That uses to be easily in the $ 10 per part kind of price range but recently there are higher minimum order prices (50 or 75 or so) everywhere.

What kind of printer do you have and what did it cost?

spoonjim3• 4 years ago

Really? This camera lens is essentially a POS. I find tons of real world use cases of my 3D printer and this isn't even the ballpark.

2muchcoffeeman• 4 years ago

It's all relative. If you have a 3D printer and are just a hobby photographer, this is great. Super cheap. Mixes your hobbies.

But I agree that the real world uses of 3D printers are endless. Although often you need to know how to use CAD.

andybak3• 4 years ago

Isn't this intended to be a creative lens? "POS" is a bit harsh - I can imagine some gorgeous uses of this thing.

ge96• 4 years ago

It's great for robotics. Designing/printing parts of various shapes.

jnovek• 4 years ago

After 3D printing for years I started teaching myself how to use FreeCAD. It’s not the most newbie-friendly software but being able to design your own parts is incredibly powerful. I design and print parts for the most mundane tasks.

These days I find designing a part relaxing, similar to the feeling of writing code for a personal project.

Apparently Fusion 360 is also free for hobbyists, I’m guessing that it’s a bit easier to learn than FreeCAD.

(I realize that designing your own parts isn’t practical for most folks but I think HN is a good audience for this.)

dceddia• 4 years ago

Came here to say the same, except so far I’ve been using Blender with the CAD Transforms plugin (mainly for the Sketch-like snapping abilities). I watched a few videos on Blender for Precision Modeling (search youtube) and started playing around.

I’ve been meaning to learn FreeCAD or one of the others because the parametric modeling seems useful, but Blender has been good enough for my purposes so far - mostly adapters for tool vacuum ports, and other little things around the house and workshop.

dekhn8• 4 years ago

I moved from FreeCAD to Fusion360 (I pay for a pro license) and the difference was astounding. Once I grokked the fusion360 model (which is both easier and more complex than FreeCAD) I was able to make forward progress very quickly. There are a lot of subtle little touches in the Fusion360 UI that make design easy.

dekhn8• 4 years ago

I've had a lot of fun with my printer. Some days it runs almost 24/7 and then I don't use it for a while. Recently, I wanted to make a sliding barn door. Spent some time looking at the products online, then designed the same thing in Fusion 360, and after a few test prints, I had all the parts to make the door.

Similarly, all my shelf brackets are 3d printed now. THe thing that holds up my custom LED light is 3d printed. Some of the art I have around the house is printed...

michaelsalim• 4 years ago

This is the kinda stuff that makes me wish I own a 3D printer

Victerius• 4 years ago

So the price of professional photography equipment should come down... right?

I fear I already know the answer to that, and I fear I al$o know wh¥.

anonymousab• 4 years ago

I don't see why the ability for a hobbyist with hobbyist equipment to assemble a very particular lens with a ton of caveats should have any impact at all on the prices of a full consumer product with a vast amount of benefits and features.

Which is not to say that lenses are not overpriced, but the fact that you can theoretically 3d print your own... anything (gun? Car parts? Doorknobs?) doesn't imply anything can or should happen to the price of a much more functionally complete product.

sacrosancty• 4 years ago

Indeed, most of those things you listed don't make sense to 3D print because they're mass produced which is cheaper with injection molding. I'm sure you can also buy a cheap low quality mass produced camera lens too. 3D printing's advantage is in unique things.

vinaypai• 4 years ago

Did you actually look at the sample images? It might be a fun project to experiment with, but it's not it's not anything more than a curio.

_ph_2• 4 years ago

Actually it is the other way around. The sample pictures show you can build a cheap and bad lens easily. But to achieve the optical quality of professional lenses is an entirely different thing. That makes you quite appreciative of them and shows how well spent the money for them is.

You can buy a ton of ok lenses in the $100-300 range, as there are several vendors in that range from Asia. Some of them can be really a steal. But overall you get the quality you pay for. Look what the lenses of the big camera companies offer, both optically and from features like AF and IS, and you see why 3D printing won't just turn the market upside down.

As an enthusiast, I find the tinkering possibilities opened up by 3D printing highly interesting though.

lm284692• 4 years ago

You can glue a seat on top of your lawnmower, it won't make the prices of cars go down, for the same reason this won't make pro photography equipment cheaper.

We had better lenses than this in the early 1900s already

WaitWaitWha• 4 years ago

For a second I thought the entire lens, including the glass was printed on 3D.

Sadly . . .

The only parts of the lens that can’t be 3D printed are the glass optics

sudosysgen• 4 years ago

There are companies doing that, the 3D printers are however highly specialized and expensive.

alexbock4• 4 years ago

I do it using a $400 Prusa Mini and epoxy resin: https://alexbock.github.io/blog/3d-lenses/index.html

It's surprisingly easy to 3D print the shape of a lens and polish by hand. I made a working telescope this way with a 3D-printed body and two cast epoxy lenses. As an added bonus, you can easily make aspherical lenses this way.

If you coat the surface with silver you can also make mirrors, but the polishing requirements for this are a lot more difficult. My attempts at a 3D-printed telescope mirror have very bad image quality compared to the excellent results from the lenses.

GravitasFailure3• 4 years ago

Prusa did a whole article about 3D printing optics some time ago[0]. I've also had good luck coating transparent filaments with epoxy resin to get clear parts.

[0]https://blog.prusa3d.com/3d-printed-lens-and-other-transpare...

MauranKilom• 4 years ago

I've also had good luck coating transparent filaments with epoxy resin to get clear parts.

That might work if you only care about "clear", but unless you exactly match the optical properties of the resin and (printed) filament, it will be pretty useless as an optical device.

magicalhippo• 4 years ago

Was also a video[1] over on the Breaking Taps channel about casting clear epoxy resin to make your own lenses. Results were not perfect but good enough for some uses. Of course, that requires some actual lens elements to make the molds from, but it's something.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfAGivG9Koc

geokon2• 4 years ago

you may be able to 3d print a mirror telescope-style "lens". But you'd probably need to somehow "polish" down the plastic and coat it. Maybe a bit of acetone and then depositing silver on it?

alexbock4• 4 years ago

I made several attempts at acetone vapor smoothing on mirrors printed in ABS and ASA and the surfaces always came out very well polished at the micrometer scale but unacceptably warped, wrinkled, or patterned at the millimeter scale. The best finish I've gotten on a 3D-printed mirror was from sanding and polishing with a cotton ball soaked in cerium oxide slurry while the mirror blank spins on a pottery wheel.

Chemically depositing silver with the old-fashioned immersion setup is also very tricky as the reaction is quite temperamental. I recommend the two-part spray process if you want to try silvering a telescope mirror.

signaru• 4 years ago

I already expected that to be the case, so I had realistic hopes. The tech for 3d printing good lenses is still within the realm of futuristic companies/researchers: https://www.luxexcel.com/the-luxexcel-technology/

can16358p2• 4 years ago

Yup that's the only reason I opened the article to read. While obviously the most important thing in a lens is the optical element(s) it's a bit disappointment.

I think the title should read "print a housing for $15 glass to make a 164mm lens" or something like that to indicate that it's not the actual lens elements that they're printing, but of course it wouldn't be clickbait and many people including me wouldn't have clicked on it.

arriu• 4 years ago

I have a 3d printer and thoroughly enjoy this type of thing but this title is a bit misleading. It is likely you’ll spend more than $15 finding the right lenses plus the cost of filament.

nanoanderson• 4 years ago

The article seems to imply that the 3D printing part is roughly “free”. The lens elements cost $14.50 at the site the creator suggests using: https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/T1686.html

lostgame• 4 years ago

Very misleading title. They are not even talking about the glass.

f/2.5?!

Heh - this is a remarkable feat of intentional engineering; but it’s absolutely useless as a functional camera.

kamranjon• 4 years ago

What is shocking about the f/2.5 f-stop? That’s a pretty fast lens, especially for something diy.

coolandsmartrr2• 4 years ago

I second this. For this focal distance, vintage lens tend offer around f/3.5 - f/4. Compared to that, this is pretty impressive for DIY and just two lens elements. Might be more lightweight too, which makes it suitable for street photography.

schrijver• 4 years ago

This f2.5 lens is glued to my camera and I take plenty of pictures (not just macro)! https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef271.html

Now that might be a bit unusual choice of lens, but news photographers around the world rely on their zoom lenses that won’t open up more than f2.8.

And for a prime lens in this long focal length, f2.5 is still quite okay, Canon’s EF135mm opens up until 2 that’s only 2/3rd of a stop faster.

Really fast lenses get attention because they are the most expensive, and shallow depth-of-field has been in fashion… I think in part because it gave photographers a way to distinguish themselves from smartphone wielding amateurs. I predict this is on the way out now that portrait mode fakes this look! But a super fast lens is in no way necessary for taking great pictures.

I’m sure there’s plenty of valid criticisms for this project but this one does not convince me :) Personally I wonder more from an ecological point of view, i.e. why use all these resources when there’s plenty of unused lenses on the second hand market. But then again the Open Source aspect is commendable.

analog312• 4 years ago

The one thing I can't find is a description of the actual glass optics used. How many elements? What are their individual specs? Etc.

I do some optics design, albeit not photographic lenses. But a f/2.5 lens is not considered to be an easy design problem.

johnandrews9112• 4 years ago

I have to second this, id like to get some more details, this really isnt a trivial task, im curious about the specifics

namibj• 4 years ago

I assume it's just very narrow FOV and not achromatic.

dotancohen4• 4 years ago

From the fine article:

  > The only parts of the lens that can’t be 3D printed are the
  > glass optics, and for this Steele used Surplus Shed to
  > acquire achromatic (two-part) lenses.

azalemeth• 4 years ago

The sample images show significant vignetting and spherical aberration. The focal plane is curved and clearly not flat over the field of view of the image. There is indeed not obvious chromatic aberration, but I suspect that it is because other issues are significant – there is no mention of the lens's MTF/OTF or any significant tests.

One of the other commenters has highlighted that the lenses in question are part of this telescope kit – https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/T1686.html – which is indeed consistent with a reasonably good on-axis or paraxial design but with poor off-axis performance (like most telescopes). I presume these are two apochromatic doublets [1] but it's a bit hard to see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat

eternityforest• 4 years ago

I wonder how well software could fix that? Could one of the hack firmwares be modified to correct the lens in camera? Seems like software correction would open a lot of possibilities for DIY lenses.

hwsmythe2• 4 years ago

It's a 65mm diameter achromat. You can see the details in the article at pixelsandprisms.com

burlesona• 4 years ago

The only parts of the lens that can’t be 3D printed are the glass optics, and for this Steele used Surplus Shed to acquire achromatic (two-part) lenses. He says that eBay is another option, but to make this particular lens builders will need one with a diameter of about 65mm.

Link points to here: https://www.surplusshed.com, perhaps he bought a telescope lens?

rootw0rm• 4 years ago

pretty misleading title. the bokeh is kinda outta whack, that grass pic is pretty terrible...but a couple of the other example shots are appealing in my opinion. it's too bad the whole premise of the article is kind of dishonest.

ygra• 4 years ago

The results look a bit like a telephoto Lensbaby in the out of focus areas. I don't think it's that bad.

anta40• 4 years ago

Yeah a bit misleading, because it excludes the optical parts.

gorgoiler• 4 years ago

Very very cool. If the author or inventor come across this comment, it would have been great to see some photographs of faces. I try to only focus (!) on photographing people, these days.

The inventor, Steele, describes a cardboard jig for calibrating the parametric design. It sounds almost as important as the final lens casing itself.

This all makes me want to buy a 3D printer.

AYoung010• 4 years ago

If you have a Micro Center near you, they usually have the Ender 3 pro marked down quite frequently. Great printer to get started with.

dawnerd• 4 years ago

I got mine for 99 bucks and probably put another 100 in upgrades and it’s a very impressive printer for the price.

rich_sasha• 4 years ago

I believe there are lots of websites where you can upload your CAD files and get sent the finished product. You can choose colours, finish options, materials... Certainly very good to get started.

shetill• 4 years ago

but when can I 3D print a house?

rglullis3• 4 years ago

Matt from DIYPerks has recently built a f0.4 lens on an estimated total cost of $190: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cT0jXI7l4E

nicoburns2• 4 years ago

Impressive as that project is, for the most part they bought that lens rather than building it.

rglullis3• 4 years ago

So is this one here, no? Both projects seem to assume that the glass itself is a given.

lesuorac• 4 years ago

Not my area of expertise but you might be able to CNC the lens.

(Part 2: Goes into math) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADtw6cxEK28

(Part 1: Shows CNCing / usage) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2lj0KjyT8

OJFord3• 4 years ago

I'm not a photographer, is a '163mm f/2.5' lens supposed to be in focus only in the middle, or is that an artefact of it being a budget DIY model?

Also, I think the source link might be better: https://www.pixelsandprisms.com/3d-printed-lens/ (more photos, no ads to block, and not sure what OP adds).

nicoburns2• 4 years ago

is that an artefact of it being a budget DIY model

This one. I believe all lenses are blurry in the corners to some extent, but it's not usually that bad.

Laforet2• 4 years ago

Legend has it that some of the disposable cameras had curved film planes to, uh, take advantage of the abundant spherical aberration and astigmatism. I'm sure this lens need something like that too.

andybak3• 4 years ago

Isn't that the expected depth of field you'd get from f/2.5?

OJFord3• 4 years ago

That's what I'm asking, without even being certain if it's f/x or y mm that affects that.

SAI_Peregrinus• 4 years ago

No. The "depth of field" for a lens parallel to the sensor is a space between two planes, so you'd expect it to be clear all the way across the image but blur closer and further from the sensor (up and down the image). This blurs out to all the sides, it's due to spherical abberation from inappropriate glass (more suited to telescopes where only the center of the image circle matters).

jvanderbot2• 4 years ago

Dumb question. I've been wanting to get into IR optics for a while. Does every camera lens come with IR and IR filter, and would this one somehow not? It seems IR optics are insanely expensive for some reason.

analog312• 4 years ago

What wavelength range? Silicon detectors cut off at about 1000 nm, glass optics start cutting off around 2500 nm. Then you get into exotic materials that are expensive.

jvanderbot2• 4 years ago

That essentially answered my question. I'm in the "what can I do for less than $1000" stage and it sounds like < 1000nm is it.

immmmmm• 4 years ago

there are lenses optimized for near ir 700-1000nm. above 1000nm you'll need InGaAs sensors that are so expensive that the lens will be a secondary problem

nullc• 4 years ago

The author is now ready to film the next batman movie.

specialp• 4 years ago

3d printing is amazing but it is not extremely precise. At the end of the day you are extruding plastic from a stepper motor controlled head not much different than extruding glue from a glue gun (I know about other mechanisms but this was done with an extrusion printer) . You have many factors at play such as the acceleration rate of the heads, the extrusion rate and how it ramps off at the end, how true your axis are, mechanical play... it is endless how much you can tweak.

And at the end of all of that you are not going to make anything that has micron or even thousandths level precision. For something like a lens, machined metal and at a minimum injection moulding is needed. It would be as if I said I could produce a gauge block to measure 10mm for a fraction of the cost. But for that cost savings my precision will be unusable when my block is not flat and is 9.956 mm which in 3d printing would be very close but in machinist land is off by a mile. Lens casings and aliignment need similar precision.

PaulHoule• 4 years ago

when I was a kid I remember buying lenses from Edmund Scientific and making telescopes, microscopes and similar things by cementing lenses into cardboard tubes. The results weren't great but they were workable.

dekhn8• 4 years ago

nobody makes perfect lenses as part of the initial manufacturing method. Lenses are always smoothed/polished. In the 3d printer case (hobbyist) you would 3d print a solid object oversized, then sand/polish it down.

The automated microscopes I build are mostly 3d printed parts. The precision doesn't matter much- I always have to add additional hardware to adjust the precise positioning (typically screws going through 3d printed threads).

But you are right there are definitely other methods which work faster and cheaper and ten thou is a typical target for a good machinist.

rkagerer• 4 years ago

If by "lens" you mean the glass optics, that was not printed - they purchased it from Surplus Shed.

Here's a 3D printed camera with a lens that really was 3D printed and polished:

https://formlabs.com/blog/creating-camera-lenses-with-stereo...

GHPght• 4 years ago

on the https://www.pixelsandprisms.com/ site it also says roughly which lens it is too

3D print and build a 164mm f/2.5 lens for less than $15

Related Stories