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.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
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!
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.
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
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.
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
1796673
I'd put it in the 1.4 group... I love this lens. Tact sharp and can focus up close to your subject.
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.
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.
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 =)
47633
So you have the option to have a different strength for each eye? I did not when getting swim goggles and went with something in the middle, so in your case, either 2 or 2.5. I have one eye too strong, one not enough, but that does not seem to be a problem.