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.
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".
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.
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.
1796673
I'd put it in the 1.4 group... I love this lens. Tact sharp and can focus up close to your subject.
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
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
1216096
I have different sizes for different areas. I have been using the 1.0 for my face, 0.5 for around the eyes and 2.0 for body areas. I hope this helps. I actually did my face last night.
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.
960178
I'm having difficulty recalling as I use mine only at 0 deg. --- but it seems as if the choices were indeed only 0 and 90. EDIT: based upon consensus, I'm guessing that my previous comment is not correct!
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.
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
1818947
good question. the iris in this unit is theoretically F1.0 and should pass 100% of whatever the lens is giving you to begin with with w/o loss until you close it down.. just not something I ever worried about.
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.
1497574
Hi Sam, I owned the 58mm set of these filters and was not happy with them. They are listed as "Japan Optics" but are actually made in China. The warming filter is plastic, not glass. The CP has a minimal polarizing effect at best. And, from what I can tell compared to my Hoya filters, these are definitely not coated optics. I sent mine back yesterday. YMMV. Cheers, SB
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.
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.