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.
492745
No problems and glad I could help. I think you read the info incorrect though. "Optimum Eye Relief (in) 12-20 "
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".
1939951
f 1.4. You can take photos in lower light than the 1.8. Just an FYI, if I had to do it again, I would have bought a 35 mm 1.4 instead of the 50 mm.
1652323
Her is two thoughts, 1st you can use a minus 1 and that may give you the rsange you want but I took the 2nd way which I purchased a -2, that way I can use the plus adjustment to get the proper adjust. Don't to purchase an eye cup for the corrective lens.
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.
1939952
The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly know what you will be shooting and see if you need it. The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly... » Read More The number denotes the aperture. F1.4 will allow for more light to enter the lens. Which means better low light, but also a smaller depth of field. (Area/field that is in focus) this can be good or bad depends on how you use it. You could go for the 1.4 and leave the camera on auto until you grow accustom. However, I would recommend saving the $150-200 and go for the 1.8 it wouldn't be that significant of a jump for the 1.4 that it would be worth the money at this point. If you have the money 1.4 is more professional but it could end up being more of a hindrance at the beginning. Mainly know what you will be shooting and see if you need it. « Show Less
1357471
my old work has the 28-70 2.8... personally I took it out of my bag n use the old 35-70 2.8... that is much sharper then the 28-70 <-- might be the worst 2.8 ever... but they got it right with 24-70 sharp n wide... oh n weight less then the 28-70...
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.
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.
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
40105
The 1.4 is going to give you better bokeh (that beautiful blurry light) and a shallower depth of field. It also lets more light in. Hope that helps!
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.
108097
This represents approximately 1/2 stop of light. That may not sound like much but in low light it can make a difference. Also, Nikon doesn't make a 24mm 1.8. the closest is a 28mm 1.8 which is obviously a different focal length. It is a very good lens however. If you don't need the 1.4 and 28mm is an acceptable focal length then go for that as it is much cheaper.
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.
1228149
I do not have this problem. Some say it works above 4, but it works on my lens, which goes all the way to 1.8. I don't know why some people experience this, though.
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)