In article
>1. Can someone out there tell me about the significance of the number of
>elements in a lens and the resultant quality? Or can one even make such
>an association?
>2. For example: I have the 24-90mm Nikon which has 9/9 (groups /
>elements) and I'm thinking of getting the 20-35mm which has 11/14. I was
>under the impression that the more elements a lens has, the greater
>chance of having flare via the glass / air surfaces. The thing is, that
>the 20-35mm is supposed to be a superior lens, not only in the fact that
>it's a fixed f-stop but also just based on the optical quality etc...
>3. Any thoughts out there?
Uh, yes...., don't approach the question this way, since you are trying to
compare unlike lenses. A very fine 50mm f4 can be built with 4 elements,
but a (likely inferior) 50mm f1.4 will take at least 7 elements to make, (unless one or more is an aspheric element). Or - if a manufacturer offers
a 28mm f2.8 with 5 elements (Nikon E and non-"D" AF), and another 28mm f2.8
with 8 elements (Nikon AIS)(and one is "floating" type for maintaining good correction over a wide focus range), you could (correctly, in this case) assume superior performance for the lens (same FL and speed) with more elements (and more elements do not necessarily cause greater flare/contrast problems with good design). It is hard to come to conclusions about lens
quality based on the number of elements/groups used in the design, unless there are obviously too few used (but, then, there is that very nice
Zeiss Hologon super-wide angle design with only three elements.......).
Hope This Helps