>>2825434Jesus, you can't actually argue a point that's presented, can you? You have to twist it to something else entirely before you have a hope, but I think I figured out why:
You don't actually understand that we're talking about physics here, and not interior design. While they might call the process of creating a lens formula "designing" there is literally not one scintilla of "art" to it. This isn't like "ohh, this is a nice big room so we could put a settee over there or maybe have just a box with a bunch of pillows! My but this extra space opens up endless superior possibilities than are present in a broom closet!"
Yes, there is room for more elements in that particular area, but that doesn't mean, imply, or even suggest that it is a beneficial thing to put anything there. And I'm grown up enough to say yeah, there are likely cases where you can see benefit from elements in that space, but you cannot just see "ohhh, more space to stick shit, so that's automatically better".
Another point that you seem to be unaware of, is that any element that they put there has to increase performance of the lens by more than the presence of additional elements decreases performance. We still don't have that magical substance with perfect transmission and refraction properties. Every time you make a gain in one area, you're taking a loss somewhere else (which is a side-point you seem unaware of: lens performance isn't a single factor (nor can it be boiled down to a single factor) and literally everything about every lens made is a collection of compromises).
Another point to consider is that additional elements equate to additional manufacturing costs, so performance increases have to be such that they can be justified to the market at a price level people will buy.
