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.
1625587
Most reviews I have seen give the 11-16 a bit of an advantage in image quality, especially at f/4. The range of 12-24 would be an advantage to me.
2041779
There is at least one good comparison of the two lenses on youtube. Check out the videos and determine for yourself which lens fits your needs better. The f/1.4 is my first non-L lens; the add'l cost and weight made the f/1.2 less of a good fit for me.
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
770501
Some have different colors like azure(blue) on the inside frame and black outside so it has to do with the color and also GR004 gives you the option to include magnification on the lenses if you want or need that. You can look at the description of each to see if its the one you want. You can choose no magnification on the ones that offer it and the only difference would be the color.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
8516
Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages' advice I found here paid off.Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences with me. Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages'... » Read More Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages' advice I found here paid off.Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences with me. « Show Less
1770041
I am not sure if you are asking how low can you go as in is there lower then 1.8, BUT aperture can go as low as 1.2 which is EXPENSIVE. 1.8 is just fine if you are thinking cost effectiveness.
754198
Hey so the diagonal angle of view for this lens is 79.5 degrees compared to 107 degrees at 10mm. If you'd like to see what that equates to visually Lonely Spec has a great article on picking on a lens for Milky Way photography that visually shows the difference for ASP-C and full frame lenses.
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
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
2075035
You can choose between 60, 90 and 120 deg angles in the menu. Even the 120 isn't really fish eyed where as normal fish eye lenses distort around the edges. Hope this helps.
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.
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).
2166157
The 1.4 on the lens refers to how low the aperture goes. Aperture is how large or small the opening in the lens is and you can change it to control depth of field. This lens goes down to a 1.4 which is a really low number meaning a really LARGE opening in the lens allowing for a super shallow depth of field which can create those dreamy "blurry" backgrounds that people love.
1562405
Hi Keith, The light loss is throughout the whole range. So the 70-200 f2.8 becomes a 98-280 f4.0 but it is still good :)