You're absolutely right, J.C. Each added element adds two more medium interfaces (air-to-glass, etc.) and each have their own abberations, no matter how small, to the whole. The more elements a lens assembly has, the more perfect each and every lens in the whole assembly has to be, to the point where to be the 'best,' each element has to be hand-figured to match or compensate for all the others. To work together well, as it were.
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > It's still true today, all else being equal, a lens design with > less elements will be sharper and more contrasty than one with more. > For a given focal length and speed, there is an "ideal" number > of elements to optimize the design. I was unaware of that. Is there a list or chart somewhere, or a discussion about this I could read? Thanks for pointing that out. > More does NOT always equal better when it comes to lens elements. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Raimo Korhonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:26 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Vs: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > > > > It used to be so before World War II because of un-coated lenses > > - but not anymore, even less with multicoating. Not many > > single-element designs around ;-) > > > > Raimo [...]
