Sorry, I'm a bit puzzled. What's the difference between -4.0 and -4? I'm from China and 400 degrees of myopia. Should I choose -4.0 or -4 or 4?
82129
I think -4.0 and -4 are the same. If you are near-sighted, you should choose negative.
478612
Noob question, but does anyone know what glasses will be compatible? I don't want to wait til July, but I also don't want to buy an adapter on the 18th wih no glasses. Thanks!
21264
Honestly there isn't a big deal between -3.50 and -3.00 and you can get either one and you will see grate. But if you are still not satisfied go for 2 pairs of one -3.00 and -3.50 and just switch lenses and this way you have to pairs with perfect match
1939952
The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly know what you will be shooting and see if you need it. The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly... » Read More The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly know what you will be shooting and see if you need it. « Show Less
1328291
I'm pretty sure there is not four 0's. FYI I bought two and neither are illuminating at night. I'm not sure if I will return them due to time/cost involved. You're welcome to have my zeros. I'm in the SF North East Bay Area.
1228149
I do not have this problem. Some say it works above 4, but it works on my lens, which goes all the way to 1.8. I don't know why some people experience this, though.
187070
I was not sure when I first looked, then I realized the different models had different temperature capabilities, and if I recall some of them had different focus ratio as well. Keeping this in mind, Read descriptions carefully, the differences will be more apparent!
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
187072
I was not sure when I first looked, then I realized the different models had different temperature capabilities, and if I recall some of them had different focus ratio as well.Keeping this in mind, Read descriptions carefully, the differences will be more apparent!
108097
This represents approximately 1/2 stop of light. That may not sound like much but in low light it can make a difference. Also, Nikon doesn't make a 24mm 1.8. the closest is a 28mm 1.8 which is obviously a different focal length. It is a very good lens however. If you don't need the 1.4 and 28mm is an acceptable focal length then go for that as it is much cheaper.
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
2136512
A fixed four will likely be cheaper and will work fine. With a 22 and its range, a 2x option would be good, but you will not need the magnification at 7x. If it were me, I would go for a fixed 4x for a 22. Hope this helps.
2121873
I did mine at least 4 months ago. I noticed the lenses started to have a haze/showing sign of yellow already. Understand, I live in Houston, Texas, where we got sunshine most of the time, including winter.
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
123475
Good question. The difference is better optics at 1.4f stop, or wide open. If you shoot wide open all the time, then you might want to consider that extra expense. On the other hand, if you shoot occasionally wide open, this lens (400) is great and I have liked shooting with it.
498047
Contact Splaqua. I have a smaller deviation in my correction , and in this situation it is suggested to go with the lower number. I know that Splaqua, and probably others, will help with getting the proper correction for each eye in circumstances that call for it.
1177291
Depends on what your prescription is. The camera has a built in -3.0 to +1.0 diopter adjustment. You want to buy the one that will allow you to match your prescription.E.g. If you wear +2 prescription, get the +2 and dial it down by 1. You would only need the - if you have to go further than the -3 that is built in. However, I have found that I do not use the diopter. When I have my glasses off, the images on the LCD are blurry. So I shoot with my glasses or contacts, so I can still view the images on the LCD.Hope this helps you decide.Chris