Originally posted by lytrytyr the zoom has 8
oh oh, only 8 groups having 9 elements? that's very mean for a zoom, given that even the kit's 18-55 has two more (11 elements). Further, the 20-30 doesn't seem to have even a single asperical element? specs only talk about ED.
On one hand, this makes production costs very cheap (much cheaper than the 18-55 kit) (assuming that lens elements esp. asphericals are the primary cost drivers), but on the other hand, having too few lens elements in a zoom usually introduces optical quirks.
E.g. the 18-135 also has too few lens elements in relation to its zoom range as well, and consequently it is flawed (its edges are blurred at all apertures through half of its zoom range).
I'm afraid of the 20-30 may well have similar or other flaws, as well? A lack of asphericals may weaken the short end, possibly. A decent test (e.g. photozone) will be inevitable.
Thanks 'Gray' that you shared someone's comparison shot, which impressively reveals the superiority of SMC over SD, which doesn't help SD exitement neither really. Not talking about stars (they are a matter of personal preferences), but SMC's highlights are so much cleaner and better defined, where SD's look somewhat dirty and less appealing. The violett ghosting flares are identical, maybe SMC is slightly better here, as well?
If Ricoh had decided to release the compact 18-55 in a Limited quality edition (slim metal housing, tight tolerances, and not only with a choice between black vs silver, but also SMC vs SD), I would have been a lucky man!