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. 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 ;-) > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- > L�hett�j�: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > P�iv�: 22. tammikuuta 2003 2:04 > Aihe: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:44 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > >> > <snip>Less elements for the same amount of > >correction means more contrast/resolution. The vivitar > >series 1 varifocal lenses were made that way for maximum image > >quality, not to save costs, they were MORE expensive than > >similar true zooms of the time they were made. > >JCO > > >
