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.
64369
Because of the difference I would suggest buying 1 pair in each of the diopters you need and swapping out the lenses. For me the difference was only 1 point so I went up a half. They've worked out great.
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!
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
1796673
I'd put it in the 1.4 group... I love this lens. Tact sharp and can focus up close to your subject.
1588421
I purchased the 1.4X, after doing research on the results of both products. From what I read, the images stay "sharper" at the edges, with the 1.4x. I have used the 1.4X, and have been very pleased with the results. I do intend to purchase the 2x, understanding that the clarity may not be as good.
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
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
187072
I was not sure when I first looked, then I realized the different models had different temperature capabilities, and if I recall some of them had different focus ratio as well.Keeping this in mind, Read descriptions carefully, the differences will be more apparent!
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.
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
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.
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
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!
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
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...
336773
Hi, I said I would check the use of the MaxTV glasses with my 4.25 Diopter contact lenses removed.I did, the focus adjustment did NOT go quite far enough to give a sharp focus. It was very close,but not quite there. If you used a two diopter, I don't think you would have a problem, even a 3 diopter would probably work. So for what it's worth. Ang, again, they work as I wanted them to.