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.
994207
The 2 lenses are good, but the main difference is on how sensitive the lens is. In the one i bought, it's lowest f-stop is 4. you need more light for avoiding grain. The one you are referring to works better in a low light condition (f 2.8).
107885
Go higher! under water there is less visibility, so anything that gives you the edge, I would go for... Anyway there is some eye adjustment at any point and at that level half a Dioptric is almost negligible (my unprofessional opinion)
1939951
f 1.4. You can take photos in lower light than the 1.8. Just an FYI, if I had to do it again, I would have bought a 35 mm 1.4 instead of the 50 mm.
523655
I would say EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. You get greater bokeh at f/2.8. Although the weather sealing and better construction of the 24-105 is pretty sweet too.Edit: I forgot to mention that f/2.8 is better than f/4 in low light. But I think you know that already =)
1497574
Hi Sam, I owned the 58mm set of these filters and was not happy with them. They are listed as "Japan Optics" but are actually made in China. The warming filter is plastic, not glass. The CP has a minimal polarizing effect at best. And, from what I can tell compared to my Hoya filters, these are definitely not coated optics. I sent mine back yesterday. YMMV. Cheers, SB
1743
The 1.25, 1.50, 2.0, etc refers to the strength of the glasses----the "prescription strength". The higher the number, the stronger the prescription. Someone who only needs reading glasses might only require a 1.50. Someone who can't see well without glasses would require a higher number. I would suggest you go some where like a Dollar General store and try on several different strengths of their over the counter glasses so you will know what works best for you. As for the "size" of the glasses....they kind of telescope in and out in such a way that you can adjust their size by about 4" total. Doesn't sound like much, but that's enough to accommodate most people's head size. Hope this helps! The 1.25, 1.50, 2.0, etc refers to the strength of the glasses----the "prescription strength". The higher the number, the stronger the prescription. Someone who only needs reading glasses might only require a 1.50. Someone who can't see well without glasses would require a higher number. I would suggest you go some where like a Dollar General store and try on several different strengths of their over the counter glasses so you will know what works best for you. As for the "size" of the glasses....they kind of telescope in and out in such a way that you can adjust... » Read More The 1.25, 1.50, 2.0, etc refers to the strength of the glasses----the "prescription strength". The higher the number, the stronger the prescription. Someone who only needs reading glasses might only require a 1.50. Someone who can't see well without glasses would require a higher number. I would suggest you go some where like a Dollar General store and try on several different strengths of their over the counter glasses so you will know what works best for you. As for the "size" of the glasses....they kind of telescope in and out in such a way that you can adjust their size by about 4" total. Doesn't sound like much, but that's enough to accommodate most people's head size. Hope this helps! « Show Less
49300
You need to know your glasses prescription. If you're nearsighted, (need correction for distance sight your rx will be a negative number. The lenses come in 0.5 increments. For example I have a -3.75 correction. Since it is in between correction options I ordered a -3.50. (If your in between order the lesser strength). If you are far sighted the correction will be a +.(ie reading glasses). Hope that helps.
65715
I ordered the mask for my girlfriend who is near-sighted. She gave me a copy of her prescription. Under the "Dist" part of her prescription, sphere is -8.5 which is the number I used when I placed my mask order. I am assuming "DV" is distance, and "NV" is near. If so, I believe you would enter the "DV" number. The mask worked great for my girlfriend. She said she could see better out of the mask than her glasses. Hope that helps, Brian H.
2120275
I own both lenses, but the 12-40 (24-80 in 35mm terms) with its constant f2.8 aperture and 24mm viewing angle of 84º makes it more useful to me. Statistically and chart-wise, I'm certain the 12-40 would beat the 14-45, but I've found the latter to be quite competent when used. "Mind-blowing" would not be accurate. You'd be hard-pressed to see a visual difference (unless you're an extreme pixel-peeper).
40139
That's the method we used when buying my daughter's goggles. She ended up with -3.625 (R) and -4.25 (L) so we split the difference with a -4 prescription. She says they work well enough for her, and she has to be read a white board to get her workout during swim practice.
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
1192317
I really like the 18-140. I also have the 55-300. At the time I was researching to purchase a new lens the 18-140 appeared to be the better choice. I went to the Nikon site and did a comparison between the 18-140, 18-200, and 18-300. The 18-140 was new, with the newer technology, lighter, and cheaper. For me, 18-140 focus quickly and it has the range I use most. I usually keep the 55-300 with me, so I'm covered in most situations.
946561
Actually 4000K to 5000K is more natural than the ugly yellow cheap bulbs we all grew up with. Any eye doctor will always recommend to avoid these yellow color bulbs are they are not natural light colors for reading or anything but ambience, and over time damage your eyes, which may lead to wearing glasses. Go outside, it's not yellow. Even graphic artist will not nor ever use a yellow colored bulbs as they affect the natural true colors. It's hard to switch but once you do your eyes will thank you. If 5000K is too white, then 4000K is a next good compromise.
77652
Yes, somebody here said +.2 or something like that.It is minor but present; makes screen seem just a little bit bigger.You can get them as prescription lenses if you need more.
1755638
Would really like to help with your question but, unfortunately, I didn't save the box or the instruction sheet. I can tell you however that these binoc's are great. I've used them on trips to Alaska and to China. I find very little "shake" or distortion at higher magnification compared with others that I looked at from the "brick and mortar" stores. If you purchase them I hope you are as satisfied with the product as I am.
1357471
my old work has the 28-70 2.8... personally I took it out of my bag n use the old 35-70 2.8... that is much sharper then the 28-70 <-- might be the worst 2.8 ever... but they got it right with 24-70 sharp n wide... oh n weight less then the 28-70...