@Sasha.Brodsky,

This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, I think the short answer is no.

However, the long answer is as follows.

The difficulty is that most merit function operands can only target a single value. What you are proposing is to have an operand that, for example, selects the 1st and 2nd surface of a singlet, and then constrains those surfaces to match a catalog that defines acceptable combinations of the 1st and 2nd surfaces in both a forward or reverse orientation. Now that operand is trying to optimize to any number of possible solutions that have to represent minima or roots in the merit function space.

I wrote a paper a while ago that describes how you can do this, at least for shape factor, and implement it either with a ZPLM or with a script that writes the merit function for you (a much faster computational solution). Shape factor only represents a catalog of two as ±1 count as a single solution and 0 is the other option. Different shape factors like for meniscus lenses simply represent additional roots in the equation that defines the merit function space but the problem is that there is not a consistent value for meniscus or non-equi lenses.

Here is a link to my paper.

What flexibility is missing from the Stock Lens Matching tool? Also, what version of OpticStudio are you using? There was a good discussion about this a few years ago on the forum, which led to an improvement of the tool in version 2023 R2.01 (thanks @David.Nguyen and others!). Perhaps you have an older version and could benefit from the upgrade to the SLM tool?

@Michael.Young 

Thank you very much for the article. I printed it and will read. From the brief review you dealt with almost same task I do. In practice, list of catalogue standard parts is very limited if defined 1 inch and Fused Silica - same as in the article. I liked the idea of the f(x) = x(x-1)(x+1).

My feedback is to try last lens to be custom instead of aspherical.

@Sasha.Brodsky,

It is very reasonable to try and use a final custom lens in the design workflow that I presented. I think your idea is a good one. It is often the case that the amount of aberration that needs to be balanced/accommodated for naturally selects for a lens that lies between what is available from the catalog. I used that asphere in the example as that is a good way to make an objective where lens-splitting for high-NA is difficult with off-the-shelf lenses.

Best of luck!

Sincerely,

Michael