which is better? w/crystalline lens or without they have both
1807751
With crystalline that is what a review said that also had a diabetic dog. My duke was diagnosed last April and his eyes are staying the same as then. Another Contributing factor is duke is on a raw diet
1807752
To tell you the truth I don't know if either is helping. My eyesight has not improved but I have an environmental illness so it may be taking longer for me to realize improvement. All I can say is try it for yourself.
879455
I also need reading glasses, but find I don't need to use them with this viewfinder, which is excellent btw.
1601291
It doesn't do either one. All it did for me was make both lenses blurry and I couldn't remove the cleaner. I had to buy a new pair of glasses. Don't buy it! That's my advice to you.
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
51542
This is a good question. You can use either. In tests that I've conducted using the Panasonic-100-300mm lens it seems that using the IS on the lens produces better results than using the camera's IS. It also seems that using both simultaneously produces bad results, worse than not using IS at all. Results may vary with other lenses, so it's worth testing each lens.
221466
I don't wear glasses, but without them the scope is amazing. I have try different scopes and this o e is provably the best yoi can get. Specially when you make the relation cost/benefit.
776494
Glass is sharper, and the sharpness is broader in the middle Vs. the plastic one only being very sharp almost completely in the center. The glass lens also has less of the barrel distortion. I'ts simply about preference, typically people purchase the holga cameras for the distortion ability...
919750
I don't find the speed a problem or much different from the other lenses, but without the VR, it makes a big difference in sharpness. The best use for this without the stabilization is with a tripod.
270528
No more then any other lens. I use a UV filter to protect the lens/glass but not required. If you choose to you can use other select filters.
349754
I am nearsighted too and yes, this monocular is quite good without glasses. Not only should you focus on the Moon you will find the Pleiades in Taurus, the Andromeda Galaxy, and the double cluster in Perseus outstanding objects to look at early in the morning. In another month, two at the latest, you can look for the Orion Nebula as it gets higher in the east. Day or night, this monocular is great when a telescope is too slow and cumbersome for the occasion.
1791911
Diopter. Most SLR camera viewfinders and binoculars offer some type of adjustment for focus. So you can use without your glasses.
350251
One more thing, unless you have excellent light collection, I'd be careful. Both of these lenses absorb some light, and at maximum magnification the image may be too dark.
1649059
I think there are 2 - with and without optical stabilization. I have the one without OS which works just fine on a tripod for wildflowers (you don't use OS with a tripod anyway). The 150 mm focal length is a little much to use for handheld macros anyways IMHO! A very sharp optic.
1970619
There are two types one without glass for use with macro setups and one with a corrective lens installed to correct for the new focal distance. In any case, the lens will only work on manual mode as the mechanical and electrical auto linkages are not maintained. I have read that the optical element can produce inferior images. I have the glassless type. However I got one with the corrective lens to mate older canon lenses to my digital nikon and it works well. Don't worry about different screw types..the newer pentax mounts are bayonet.
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
1149480
I bought mine without a lens and then purchased the Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM lens separantely
1299324
Yes - Review of the better lens and differences between the two can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0NQfWuKKE