Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="crycocyon" data-source="post: 144321" data-attributes="member: 13076">Sorry, but you are incorrect. I work professionally with representatives of Nikon and Zeiss on a regular basis and that just isn't the case. So I don't need Google. And your link just gives examples of ways of making aspherical elements, not a specific reference to a specific lens. Maybe you've read about bootleg lenses from China that use plastic elements, but it would be pretty obvious optically if there was such an element. It would certainly bear itself out in optical tests of resolution, coma, flare, etc. and so it would have been reported a long time ago. There is a reason glass is used, and the glass itself is cheap as a resource. Sure, they have their special glass formulas, but I would like you to show us a single lens from any manufacturer that states they use such an element. Since you brought it up, the burden of proof is on you, not us. Otherwise your claim has no grounding in reality. In fact, making a lens as reasonably good optically made of plastic would cost more than just doing it with a glass element <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> . Ever hear about something called an "optical formula"? One cannot include elements of different materials because that would throw refractive index calculations way off and make compensation for the non-glass element even more complicated than just putting a glass element there in the first place. And sorry to say, but to say that "I have my reasons" is just trolling.</blockquote>

Verification