All lens specifications include a statement of how many elements the lens contains, and in how many groups, for example:

  • Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300 mm 1:4,5-5,6G: 17 elements in 12 groups (two ED glass elements);
  • Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10,5 mm 1:2,8G ED: 10 elements in 7 groups
  • Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 G ED II (kit): 7 elements in 5 groups
  • Nikon AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 60mm/2.8G ED: 12 elements in 9 groups
  • etc.

What does this signify? How is this important for the lens? Does it make a difference in image quality? What is better: fewer or more elements/groups? Or does it not matter — in which case, why they are included in the specification?

  • \$\begingroup\$ You should compare the same level of the lens (same or nearly same max. Aperture value) like 50mm f/1.0 against f/0.95, f/1.0 or f/1.1 in term of element and group, otherwise the comparison is meaningless. \$\endgroup\$
    – Louis Chan
    Nov 10, 2020 at 8:30

4 Answers 4


I think manufacturers list the number of elements it just so you know how much effort they put into a lens!

There's no simple answer to whether more of fewer elements is preferable. More elements generally means greater correction for distortion, chromatic aberration etc. however this extra correction might be necessary due to the design or the performance characteristics of the lens, not a sign of better image quality. Elements are often paired up, so the number of groups gives you a better idea of the number of corrections.

However the more bits of glass the light travels through the more surfaces there are for reflections etc. so contrast and sharpness can be reduced. As an example, let's compare the Canon 50mm f/1.0L with the Canon 50mm f/1.8II

First the f/1.0 version:

11 elements in 9 groups

Now the f/1.8 version

6 elements in 5 groups

Now stop both down to f/8 and the II would almost certainly be sharper. But which is better? You can't really say, because the first version has an ultra wide max aperture. It's a high performance lens which necessitates a lot of optical correction.

Even comparing the degree of correction can be misleading. You'd think that a better corrected lens is preferable, but it can lead to other defects. Correcting for spherical aberration in particular often makes the bokeh worse (which is why some lenses leave it uncorrected). Lens design is all about compromise.

So in summary, the number of elements/groups can be informative, but it's very rarely an absolute measure of quality or a reason to prefer a specific lens. The more important factors are the inclusion of special types of glass, such as low dispersion, (extra low dispersion) or flourite elements, and aspherical elements which perform better but are harder to make.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Just out of curiosity, where do you get your wonderful lens construction diagrams? I love those. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Aug 4, 2011 at 23:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ They're from the Canon camera museum, which is a fantastic site for Canon enthusiasts: canon.com/camera-museum/camera \$\endgroup\$
    – Matt Grum
    Aug 4, 2011 at 23:23

There's no direct correlation between the number of lens elements or groups and the quality of a lens.

Lens designers do what they have to do to ensure the best performance for a lens, based on things like maximum aperture, size, and of course, cost.

Having the lens specification is part truth in advertising, part technobabble. Will a consumer choose a lens solely on the base of its internal construction? Doubtful. Will she or he choose it on the base of whether it has "ED glass elements"? Maybe.

In earlier times, before good multicoating on lenses, fewer elements in fewer groups meant less likelihood for flare (we're talking before the 1960s here). That's much less of an issue now.

An example: the forefather of the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 is the Nikkor-P 55mm f/3.5 from the late 60's. That lens has 5 elements. Yet if you'd compare them the newer lens is better in many respects, even though the number of elements is more than double.


It doesn't add value to the lens per se. It adds value to your comprehension of the the lens, given an appropriate interest/background in the physical details.

For instance, I am not strictly an expert in optics but I am interested in it and so appreciate to know as many details as possible.

Of course the issues relating to advertising or to adding to the perceived value evidenced in @Matt Grum's and @gerikson's answers continue to apply.


less glass means less chance of aberrations.. it's also more light to the sensor.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ And yet designers often add one or two achromat elements to eliminate chromatic aberrations. Newer, better design and manufacturing techniques, and better coatings, have given the designers options to add glass to improve their optical formula. \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb
    Oct 25, 2016 at 13:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.