A 3D printing technique for manufacturing air-clad coherent fiber optic faceplates is presented. The custom G-code programming is implemented on a fused deposition modeling (FDM) desktop printer to additively draw optical fibers using high-transparency thermoplastic filaments. The 3D printed faceplate consists of 20000 fibers and achieves spatial resolution 1.78 LP/mm. Transmission loss and crosstalk are characterized and compared among the faceplates printed from four kinds of transparent filaments as well as different faceplate thicknesses. The printing temperature is verified by testing the transmission of the faceplates printed under different temperatures. Compared with the conventional stack-and-draw fabrication, the FDM 3D printing technique simplifies the fabrication procedure. The ability to draw fibers with arbitrary organization, structure and overall shape provides additional degree of freedom to opto-mechanical design. Our results indicate a promising capability of 3D printing as the manufacturing technology for fiber optical devices.

We present an analysis of the shape, surface quality, and imaging capabilities of custom 3D printed lenses. 3D printing technology enables lens prototypes to be fabricated without restrictions on surface geometry. Thus, spherical, aspherical and rotationally non-symmetric lenses can be manufactured in an integrated production process. This technique serves as a noteworthy alternative to multistage, labor-intensive, abrasive processes such as grinding, polishing and diamond turning. Here, we evaluate the quality of lenses fabricated by Luxexcel using patented Printoptical© technology that is based on an inkjet printing technique by comparing them to lenses made with traditional glass processing technologies (grinding, polishing etc.). The surface geometry and roughness of the lenses were evaluated using white-light and Fizeau interferometers. We have compared peak-to-valley wavefront deviation, root-mean-squared wavefront error, radii of curvature and the arithmetic average of the roughness profile (Ra) of plastic and glass lenses. Additionally, the imaging performance of selected pairs of lenses was tested using 1951 USAF resolution target. The results indicate performance of 3D printed optics that could be manufactured with surface roughness comparable to that of injection molded lenses (Ra < 20 nm). The RMS wavefront error of 3D printed prototypes was at a minimum 18.8 times larger than equivalent glass prototypes for a lens with a 12.7 mm clear aperture, but when measured within 63% of its clear aperture, 3D printed components’ RMS wavefront error was comparable to glass lenses.

The ambition of this review is to provide an up-to-date synopsis of the state of 3D printing technology for optical and photonic components, to gauge technological advances, and to discuss future opportunities. While a range of approaches have been developed and some have been commercialized, no single approach can yet simultaneously achieve small detail and low roughness at large print volumes and speed using multiple materials. Instead, each approach occupies a niche where the components/structures that can be created fit within a relatively narrow range of geometries with limited material choices. For instance, the common Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) approach is capable of large print volumes at relatively high speeds but lacks the resolution needed for small detail ( > 100 µ m ) with low roughness ( > 9 µ m ). At the other end of the spectrum, two-photon polymerization can achieve roughness ( <2019