What is difference between the 6-base and 8-base lenses? Price is much higher for the 8, but what is advantage?
1254903
diff between them is curvature of it.... base 6 is for normal sun glasses and base 8 base are for extra curve sun glasses frame.... for medical they may be good but for colorblindness, dont buy any of them. waste of money
1254904
They state that it's the curvature of the lens. The 8 seems to have a sharper curve. The 6 is what I used to have cut and installed in my Oakley Five series sunglasses.
1254905
8-base is more curved than 6-base, and it just depends on your frame choice. Talk to your optician. (Price difference due to availability.)
2252858
It's probably a matter of personal preference, however, it was my preference not to change lenses while 'out and about' and I could avoid carry a second lens. The 18-200 lens is obviously heavier that either of the smaller lenses, but it works so beautifully that after I got it, I seldom used the other 2.
666201
The difference is larger than "adding an image stabilizer" to the IS model. In other words, the internal lens elements are not identical (in design or in quantity) between the f/4L and f/4L IS. Perhaps some of the glass elements are shared between the models, but the addition of IS technology requires the addition of more lens elements. Look at the Canon site and compare the number of "elements" and "groups" internal to each lens to see what I am talking about. If you poke around the internet you should find a graphic demonstrating the optical arrangement internal to each lens. I have owned the f/4L, the f/4L IS, and the f/2.8L IS II. If I had to rate these lenses on a scale from 1-100 for image quality: I'd rate the f/4L at 85 because it lacks a little sharpness and has a small amount of chromatic aberration. I'd rate the f/4L IS at 95 because it has a small amount of chromatic aberration toward the corners. I'd rate the f/2.8L IS II at 98 because it is almost perfect with no real flaws to speak of. The f/4L IS is noticeably better than the standard f/4L (but doesn't "blow away" the f/4L model). If you can afford the f/4L IS model it is definitely worth the price premium. If you can only afford the f/4L you won't find a better lens at the price point.
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
1114914
You can compare features at the Nikon lens website: nikonusa.com. It's got a ton of information and you can do side-by-side comparisons. The more expensive one is older and heavier, but also a shorter minimum focal distance and more diaphragm blades (9 vs 7). Ken Rockwell has reviewed both of these lenses - check that out, too, before buying.
678611
It depends of the use of the lenses, the 2.8 is much better and for small quantities of pictures you can handle the lenses, but for a continuos use the best option for this lenses is a monopod.
1853587
If I remember the specs of both cameras, I got the D6 because it has a wider lens, 24mm. Aside from that I cannot speak to the pricing.
382301
This is the bane of all photographers. Low light action is very difficult. Large aperture rules. However, increasing the ISO on your camera can buy you some pictures without a new lens. If you can afford it, get the 2.8 VR2 lens. The f4 lens will just put you farther behind the 8 ball.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
1856381
Its decent, but with the 20mm 1.8G or 24mm 1.8G, both of those lenses are much better for landscapes than the 18-35mm. The 24mm 1.8G is hands down sharper than both the 20mm 1.8G and 18-35mm. At 24mm's, its the typical landscape lens and it costs the same as this lens. Cons, its a prime and this is a zoom. But, I'd rather scoop a 24mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G because primes will always be sharper.
713052
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
1154796
The L and B refer to lens and base. You can buy just the base and a custom lens or the base and lens together. I bought both the base and the 18-55 lens that comes with it and a separate 10mm ultra wide angle lens. Both work very well.
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.
467108
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that.The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.