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.
2166158
The 1.4 is the lowest aperture. This i not the place to right a full lesson on what aperture achieves (paragraphs my friend!), but there is plenty of that info available with minimal searching required.
2151079
3-9 and 4-12 refer to magnification rate.You have ability zoom in more with later scope.
910325
its 1.4X. not sure what you are expecting. that makes 200mm = 320mm which is nice increase. only 1 stop light loss and excellent optical performance... just used it with 50mm lens to get 80mm close up shot on job.
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
766794
Blue lenses are excellent for all types of light. We currently have the +2.5 in stock but not the +3. Hope that helps.
516756
I love the 3.5 it does a great job with just natural light. But if you're using plenty of flash light the 4.5-6 will work just fine. I don't own the 4.5 so I can not say if the quality of glass is as good as the 3.5 lens.
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
492745
No problems and glad I could help. I think you read the info incorrect though. "Optimum Eye Relief (in) 12-20 "
717780
Hello L., Unfortunately, these do only come in negative diopters. We do have -8 but not +8. Sincerely, Roy Lazarus Trivillage.com
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
2136512
A fixed four will likely be cheaper and will work fine. With a 22 and its range, a 2x option would be good, but you will not need the magnification at 7x. If it were me, I would go for a fixed 4x for a 22. Hope this helps.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.