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.
21263
i would get the -3 that way you don't cause disorientation, because water as is does have refraction, so i would go with the lowest diopter.
1660679
As others have stated there is no magnification. The 1-4 I believe refers to the MOA size of the dot. 1 MOA for more precise aiming 4 MOA for faster sight aquisition. You probably already know this but 1 MOA is roughly equal to 1 inch at 100 yards, 4 MOA roughly 4 inches so the bigger the dot the more of your target is covered and the less precise your aiming. This is a very generalized explanation. Hope it is helpful.
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.
1420442
I use the 1.4X as well as the 2.0X between my Nikon D-200 and the 80-400 f4.5 Nikor D lens. The optical quality is very good for the price. Plan on using a tripod more often because you will loose a stop and end up shooting with a slower shutter speed. Happy Shooting!
557872
If you wear reading glasses...the kind you purchase at the drug store, get the same magnification. If you don't need reading glasses get the 0.0.
1908501
I've never used that system but have been perfectly happy with mine. Zero has been consistent. I've never shot targets over 100 meters as these sites are for close quarters mainly. They are a back up for my reflex site and in low light conditions. The hardest part was zeroing them and making adjustments. being the sites are at 45 degrees you cant use straight traditional movements to adjust for shot placement. the way i got around this was buy taping the target on at a 45 degree angle to match the sites. I really like the sight over all and its a great backup for your scope or reflex sight. Hope this helps... I've never used that system but have been perfectly happy with mine. Zero has been consistent. I've never shot targets over 100 meters as these sites are for close quarters mainly. They are a back up for my reflex site and in low light conditions. The hardest part was zeroing them and making adjustments. being the sites are at 45 degrees you cant use straight traditional movements to adjust for shot placement. the way i got around this was buy taping the target on at a 45 degree angle to match the sites. I really like the sight over all and its a great backup for your scope or reflex sight.... » Read More I've never used that system but have been perfectly happy with mine. Zero has been consistent. I've never shot targets over 100 meters as these sites are for close quarters mainly. They are a back up for my reflex site and in low light conditions. The hardest part was zeroing them and making adjustments. being the sites are at 45 degrees you cant use straight traditional movements to adjust for shot placement. the way i got around this was buy taping the target on at a 45 degree angle to match the sites. I really like the sight over all and its a great backup for your scope or reflex sight. Hope this helps... « Show Less
336773
Hi, I said I would check the use of the MaxTV glasses with my 4.25 Diopter contact lenses removed.I did, the focus adjustment did NOT go quite far enough to give a sharp focus. It was very close,but not quite there. If you used a two diopter, I don't think you would have a problem, even a 3 diopter would probably work. So for what it's worth. Ang, again, they work as I wanted them to.
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!
2041777
First, size. The 1.2 is huge! And the reason is also the second thing, optics. Unless you have a huge need, budget or ego, don't go 1.2. The 1.4 is amazing but the price may make you feel insecure, like it's not "good enough".
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.
2240584
I have the 17-40 and the 17-55 IS. I thought I would sell the 17-40 once I got the 17-55 but I can't. I have decided to keep both. The color saturation and clarity is excellent on both. For now I'm holding on to both of them. They are that good.
107802
That equation is correct... it is called spherical equivalent. With a -3.00 sphere and -3.25 cylinder, your spherical equivalent is -4.50. Keep in mind this will give you pretty decent vision - good enough to see at a reasonable distance, but this will not be equal to a full spectacle prescription. I am an optometrist.
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
108095
If there is a f/1.8 option by Nikon (there isn't as I type this) then it'll most definitely be lighter in weight and maybe 7 aperture blades vs. 9 on the f/1.4G. It won't have weather sealing like the f/1.4G version. Might be sharper than the f/1.4G though and most likely will be better corrected since it's a newer version. The difference in speed, though, might be big as it's the difference between shooting at 1/30 and 1/60. If we're talking a different manufacturer then all bets are off as they might have different specs.
15899
The lenses in these are not as sophisticated as the ones you would get from an optometrist. Consider the price! As a rule, I normally go down rather than up, so in your case I would get -3 (rather than -3.5)
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