RA> I'm not sure you got my point. Design of optics is not necessarily a
Perhaps not :-) I am sometimes not sure if I even understand my point... <g> Personally, I don't care much if the lenses are Fuji design or Hassy specified or Schneider or whatever... as long as they are good, which they are. I would be glad to own any Hasselblad :-) One example of good lens is the Cosina 4/25mm - it is small and has that Leica look in pictures, at a fraction of the price. RA> However, AL and ED designs are important to make more compact and RA> sometimes sharper optics, of course just the name is not worth anything RA> but with modern computer technology the mix of different lenses with RA> different refraction indexes make it much easier to make better and more I am no expert here. But definitely we lately saw many extreme lenses not done before, full frame 12-24 zooms, 12mm rectilinear rangefinder lenses, etc. Most probably because of the things you mentioned. Aspheric surface is said to count as two normal surfaces regarding the designers' freedom, IIRC. RA> compact optics with minimal input in the design. The best and sharpest RA> optics is however a combination of good design and minute exactness. RA> This last point is where the best glass is achieved from e.g. Pentax - RA> also quality control. I definitely agree. Even though I am no expert :) In the end, it comes to good lenses or bad lenses, no matter what designations they have. Frantisek
