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.
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
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
1588420
To J.D. who asked: "why not just buy the 2x since they are the same price?"There is at least two reasons: 1). 2x will degrade the sharpness significantly more then the 1.4x. So if 1.4 is enough, then it is better. 2). It will make the minimum appeature go down by 2 stops. So if you start with a 180mm F3.5 macro, you will end up with 360mm, F7.1. Many cameras can not focus beyond F5.6, so only manual focus at that point. It also becomes a much "darker" lens. Where as the 1.4x will only bring it down by 1 stop to about 260mm, F5.0.Good luck.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
1498256
There are a lot of variables, the most important being the ISO you set and the lens you use. I've gotten shots at out to about 50 feet at a high ISO and with an F2.8 lens (on the FT1). With standard optics it's probably about 40 feet. I don't think you should use flash distance as the major deciding factor, though. To me the big advantage of the V1 is the 2.7x focal multiplier. A 30-110 lens is almost 300mm in 35mm equivalent terms. To get that on a D3200 you'd need a 200mm lens, which is big and heavy. Put a 18-200 zoom on the V1 with the FT1 adapter and it zooms out to over 500mm in 35mm terms, which is more than a 300mm lens on the D3200. There are a lot of variables, the most important being the ISO you set and the lens you use. I've gotten shots at out to about 50 feet at a high ISO and with an F2.8 lens (on the FT1). With standard optics it's probably about 40 feet. I don't think you should use flash distance as the major deciding factor, though. To me the big advantage of the V1 is the 2.7x focal multiplier. A 30-110 lens is almost 300mm in 35mm equivalent terms. To get that on a D3200 you'd need a 200mm lens, which is big and heavy. Put a 18-200 zoom on the V1 with the FT1 adapter and it zooms out to over 500mm in 35mm... » Read More There are a lot of variables, the most important being the ISO you set and the lens you use. I've gotten shots at out to about 50 feet at a high ISO and with an F2.8 lens (on the FT1). With standard optics it's probably about 40 feet. I don't think you should use flash distance as the major deciding factor, though. To me the big advantage of the V1 is the 2.7x focal multiplier. A 30-110 lens is almost 300mm in 35mm equivalent terms. To get that on a D3200 you'd need a 200mm lens, which is big and heavy. Put a 18-200 zoom on the V1 with the FT1 adapter and it zooms out to over 500mm in 35mm terms, which is more than a 300mm lens on the D3200. « Show Less
1503374
The 25 and 36 refer to the size of the lens opposite the eyepiece in mm. The larger the lens the more light it gathers. This of course makes for a heavier monocular and a larger one. I have a 10x25 and it is fine. You have to have a steady hand though in using the devise.
1140833
4.04 is from a specific vendor that I assume has worked something out with Amazon to be the default vendor for these glasses. If you look a little lower down you'll see where it says "New at $1.69" click on that link and other distributors will come up at a lot lower price. BTW if you want to buy some click on Aretex's link and order from me and I'll throw in a free pair of Radians Crossfire safety/sun glasses.
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.
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
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!
1747
These numbers refer to the strength (magnification) of the lenses. Higher numbers magnify more.
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.
1984672
both .12 and .2 ! if u want farther reach use the .12 but if u want accuracy then u use .2.,, i prefer using .2's
1939950
The 1.4 has a wider aperture to allow in more light. The 1.4 allows you to take indoor photos with no flash in many instances where the 1.8 would not. A wider aperture also has implications for depth of field, making it easier to blur the background on portraits but also making it easier to have one or more of your subjects out of focus when taking shots of multiple people/items. For more information I recommend the digital photography review site www.dpreview.com.
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".