Human vision, Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision

Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision

Author	Message
Father Time #1 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision based on the information provided below. I took the information provided by this group and shopped three places with mixed results. I am trying to get the best glasses for my wife and myself. However, none of the four optical-sales-techs that I spoke to had all the facts especially the abbe value. My prescription is . . . O.D. +0.50 -0.75 X 090 O.S. +0.50 -1.00 X 094 Add +1.50 Since I have a weak prescription I wanted to get a mid-index lens with better optics. I could be mistaken, but I believe that my stigmatism needs to be corrected even for mid and distant vision to eliminate the blurring. My wife's prescription is . . . O.D. +1.50 SPH O.S. +1.25 SPH Add +2.25 we do not have a clue what would be best for my wife. Sam's Club: I have considered both trifocals and PAL. Sam's plastic trifocals are 28mmX7mm or 35mmX8. They claim their reading portion was focused at 12" and its middle area was focused at 18". I do not know if these focal ranges make sense. They say that polycarbonate has better optics than plastic or CR39. Also, that plastic and CR39 are easier to scratch. Has Zeiss Told me that it was a hi-index polycarbonate. Said that polycarbonate had better optics than plastic or CR39 Has Rodenstock Told me they only came in polycarbonate with a 1.58 mid index value. Has Solamax Told me they only came with a 1.537 mid index value but they did not know the material. Costco: Seems to be limited to their lens brand. Their license optician did not know the abbe value of their plastic lenses. Their license optician did not know the index value of their plastic lenses. Could not give a description of the prescription area of their PAL lenses. Has plastic trifocal lenses for $80. Has Natural lenses Walmart. More expensive than Sams for the better lenses. More optical support techs with varied experience (from zero to some fundamentals). Kind Regards and Thanks in Advance, Father Times
Tue, 15 May 2007 02:03:12 GMT

Mike Tyne #2 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: > I have considered both trifocals and PAL. Sam's plastic trifocals are > 28mmX7mm or 35mmX8. They claim their reading portion was focused at 12" > and > its middle area was focused at 18". I do not know if these focal ranges > make sense. They don't. The reading portion is set by your doctor's prescription ("Add") and not the brand of lenses. Considering your degree of presbyopia, most doctors will set these at somewhere from 16" to 20". The intermediate is normally half as strong as the near portion, so you simply double the reading distance to predict the center of the intermediate focus: if a +1.50 add makes your near vision clearest at 20", expect the intermediate to be clearest around 40". It's notable that with many brands of trifocal, +1.50 adds are special-order or even unavailable. Trifocals generally aren't necessary until you reach +1.75 add powers. Quote: > They say that polycarbonate has better optics than plastic or CR39. Also, > that plastic and CR39 are easier to scratch. Polycarbonate isn't better than CR39. It isn't much worse, with your prescription, but saying it's "better" is a pretty blatant indicator that they don't know what's going on. All plastics are prone to scratching, so factory scratch-coatings are a good value. Perhaps the worst for scratching are lenses with antireflective coatings -notoriously easy to scratch, except for premium brands like Essilor Crizal. Quote: > Has Zeiss > Told me that it was a hi-index polycarbonate. Excellent brand, but poly isn't "high-index" and Zeiss certainly uses more materials than polycarbonate. Quote: > Has Rodenstock > Told me they only came in polycarbonate with a 1.58 mid index value. Again, Rodenstock certainly isn't limited to polycarbonate. That would be the retailer's decision to carry poly because a) it's cheap and b) it's more impact-resistant and liability-resistant. -MT
Tue, 15 May 2007 03:17:37 GMT

Dr Jud #3 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: > Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best > vision based on the information provided below. > I took the information provided by this group and shopped three places > with > mixed results. I am trying to get the best glasses for my wife and > myself. > However, none of the four optical-sales-techs that I spoke to had all the > facts especially the abbe value. > My prescription is . . . > O.D. +0.50 -0.75 X 090 > O.S. +0.50 -1.00 X 094 > Add +1.50 Since I have a weak prescription I wanted to get a mid-index > lens > with better optics. I could be mistaken, but I believe that my stigmatism > needs to be corrected even for mid and distant vision to eliminate the > blurring. > My wife's prescription is . . . > O.D. +1.50 SPH > O.S. +1.25 SPH > Add +2.25 we do not have a clue what would be best for my wife. > Sam's Club: > I have considered both trifocals and PAL. Sam's plastic trifocals are > 28mmX7mm or 35mmX8. They claim their reading portion was focused at 12" > and > its middle area was focused at 18". I do not know if these focal ranges > make sense. Focal ranges in lined trifocals depend upon the power of the add, not the brand of the lens, ie the range is set by the prescription. The lens will not be focused at only one distance but will have a range of clear vision depending upon how much accommodation you have left and your pupil size. Your prescriber can tell you want range was intended by the add, but 12" sounds closer than what a +2.25 add would deliver. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Quote: > They say that polycarbonate has better optics than plastic or CR39. Also, > that plastic and CR39 are easier to scratch. > Has Zeiss > Told me that it was a hi-index polycarbonate. > Said that polycarbonate had better optics than plastic or CR39 > Has Rodenstock > Told me they only came in polycarbonate with a 1.58 mid index value. > Has Solamax > Told me they only came with a 1.537 mid index value but they did not know > the material. > Costco: > Seems to be limited to their lens brand. > Their license optician did not know the abbe value of their plastic > lenses. > Their license optician did not know the index value of their plastic > lenses. > Could not give a description of the prescription area of their PAL lenses. > Has plastic trifocal lenses for $80. > Has Natural lenses > Walmart. > More expensive than Sams for the better lenses. > More optical support techs with varied experience (from zero to some > fundamentals). > Kind Regards and Thanks in Advance, Instead of shopping a low service/low price opticals in discount stores, try an optical only store, an independent optician or an optometrist. Dr Judy
Tue, 15 May 2007 03:20:43 GMT

Mark #4 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: > Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best > vision based on the information provided below. > I took the information provided by this group and shopped three places with > mixed results. I am trying to get the best glasses for my wife and myself. > However, none of the four optical-sales-techs that I spoke to had all the > facts especially the abbe value. > My prescription is . . . > O.D. +0.50 -0.75 X 090 > O.S. +0.50 -1.00 X 094 > Add +1.50 Since I have a weak prescription I wanted to get a mid-index lens > with better optics. I could be mistaken, but I believe that my stigmatism > needs to be corrected even for mid and distant vision to eliminate the > blurring. > My wife's prescription is . . . > O.D. +1.50 SPH > O.S. +1.25 SPH > Add +2.25 we do not have a clue what would be best for my wife. > Sam's Club: > I have considered both trifocals and PAL. Sam's plastic trifocals are > 28mmX7mm or 35mmX8. They claim their reading portion was focused at 12" and > its middle area was focused at 18". I do not know if these focal ranges > make sense. > They say that polycarbonate has better optics than plastic or CR39. Also, > that plastic and CR39 are easier to scratch. Wrong, polycarbonate has the worst optics of any widely used material. CR39 (also known as "hard resin" or "regular plastic") has about the best optics, but is thicker and heavier (1.50 index). Polycarbonate is also just about the easiest lens to scratch, even with a anti-scratch coating applied. CR-39 are much harder than polycarbonate. Quote: > Has Zeiss > Told me that it was a hi-index polycarbonate. All polycarbonate has about the same index (about 1.586). You don't need this high of an index for your Rx, and you don't need polycarb unless you need safety glasses. If you do need safety glasses try Hoya Phoenix (Trivex) lenses which have much better optics than polycarb. But I suspect that you are not involved in dangerous contact sports activities while wearing your glasses, nor do you work in a factory or laboratory where an explosion might occur, so you probably don't need to worry about safety glasses. Quote: > Said that polycarbonate had better optics than plastic or CR39 Wrong, see above. Quote: > Has Rodenstock > Told me they only came in polycarbonate with a 1.58 mid index value. He got the index right for polycarbonate, but the Rodenstocks come in several materials. But some retailers like Sam's may chose to only carry certain materials. That is their right to do so. Do not get polycarbonate. Quote: > Has Solamax > Told me they only came with a 1.537 mid index value but they did not know > the material. The material is Spectralite, one of the best materials on the market. This would probably be an excellent choice for your moderate Rx (and for your wife). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Quote: > Costco: > Seems to be limited to their lens brand. > Their license optician did not know the abbe value of their plastic lenses. > Their license optician did not know the index value of their plastic lenses. > Could not give a description of the prescription area of their PAL lenses. > Has plastic trifocal lenses for $80. > Has Natural lenses These may be Essilor Naturals, which are not the premium PAL designs from Essilor (which is their Varilux line). However, you may not need a premium lens for your Rx (but it certainly won't hurt). Quote: > Walmart. > More expensive than Sams for the better lenses. > More optical support techs with varied experience (from zero to some > fundamentals). Try different stores and ask for the lead optician if you want more help. Most Wal-Marts that I have visited have a least one decent optician. Quote: > Kind Regards and Thanks in Advance, > Father Times I think your best choice would probably be the Solamax in Spectralite material . This particular lens design is best for reading and far distance, but maybe not the best for middle distance (such as using a computer). However, if you have never worn PAL's before, be aware that they take some time to adjust, and the entire lens is usable for clear and sharp vision (the visible part is like an hour glass shape). The intermediate vision is often very narrow and you will need to get used to moving your head to see clearly from the correct portion of the lens. But if your are committed to getting PAL's, you will adjust, and their are many advantages, such as the ability see clearly at any distance (if you use the proper part of the lens). But make sure that the Solamax is Spectralite and not polycarb. Ask them to check on the material if they are unsure. CR-39 would also be a good material. The only drawback is the weight and thickness, but your Rx is relatively mild. Most independent optical shops can order just about any brand in any material you want. This is because they use one or more independent labs according to the product you need. But obviously the prices may be somewhat higher. However, even with independents, they tend to steer customers to one particular brand because the sales people often times get awards from the manufacturers when they sell a certain number of that brand.
Tue, 15 May 2007 05:15:15 GMT

Mark #5 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: > Instead of shopping a low service/low price opticals in discount stores, try > an optical only store, an independent optician or an optometrist. > Dr Judy I suggested that he at least try Wal-Mart. In my experience, the Wal-Mart opticians (or at least the lead Wal-Mart optician) is more knowledgeable and gives better service than the average independent optician, including those located in an OD office. I know there are always exceptions, but that has been my experience after talking to 8 different Wal-Mart opticians (8 stores), and about a 12 independent opticians (included at the OD office) and about 10 chain store opticians. True, that the OD is usually very knowledgeable, but they usually hire the same cheap and unskilled labor to run the optical shops as the chain stores. The OD thinks they can handle any situations that the opticians cannot, but they rarely have time. The trick is, no matter where you get your glasses, to talk to the LEAD optician in the store. Don't be afraid to offend the inexperienced sales clerk, and be prepared to come back later if the lead person is not available. To get the best service (especially with PAL's) you have to be persistent.
Tue, 15 May 2007 06:03:12 GMT

Mark #6 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: > However, if you have never worn PAL's before, be aware that they take some > time to adjust, and the entire lens is usable for clear and sharp vision > (the visible part is like an hour glass shape). The intermediate vision is > often very narrow and you will need to get used to moving your head to see > clearly from the correct portion of the lens. But if your are committed to > getting PAL's, you will adjust, and their are many advantages, such as the > ability see clearly at any distance (if you use the proper part of the > lens). Correction: and the entire lens is NOT usable for clear and sharp vision (the visible part is like an hour glass shape)
Tue, 15 May 2007 07:59:49 GMT

Robert Martellar #7 / 7	Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best vision Quote: >Please help us again with your thoughts on what would provide us the best >vision based on the information provided below. >I took the information provided by this group and shopped three places with >mixed results. I am trying to get the best glasses for my wife and myself. >However, none of the four optical-sales-techs that I spoke to had all the >facts especially the abbe value. That's par for the course. It doesn't matter anyway since the abbe number is not a concern with this type of Rx. The accuracy of the frame and lens positioning is fundamental. Quote: >My prescription is . . . >O.D. +0.50 -0.75 X 090 >O.S. +0.50 -1.00 X 094 >Add +1.50 Since I have a weak prescription I wanted to get a mid-index lens >with better optics. I could be mistaken, but I believe that my stigmatism >needs to be corrected even for mid and distant vision to eliminate the >blurring. An atoric PAL (progressive addition lens) will provide a "slight" increase in the quality of vision across the entire surface of the lens. I would consider this lens if you were a pilot, but with this Rx I would probably use a standard spherical PAL. Quote: >My wife's prescription is . . . >O.D. +1.50 SPH >O.S. +1.25 SPH >Add +2.25 we do not have a clue what would be best for my wife. Depends on her recent eyeglass designs and Rx, along with details of how she uses her eyes i.e. avid reader, work distance and height, hobbies etc. The lens design and frame size is more of a concern due to the higher add power. Quote: >Sam's Club: >I have considered both trifocals and PAL. Sam's plastic trifocals are >28mmX7mm or 35mmX8. They claim their reading portion was focused at 12" and >its middle area was focused at 18". I do not know if these focal ranges >make sense. Most add powers are referenced to 16 inches or about 40cm. the intermediate power is almost always half the power resulting in twice the focal length. It's unlikely that trifocals, or PALs for that matter, are required with this Rx. You should have sufficient accommodation to resolve, with comfort, work distances at 25" out to infinity. Some folks might not be able to sustain accommodation if they look at a monitor eight hours/day, but most will be non-symptomatic. This will change as the eyes ability to accommodate continues to diminish with age. Quote: >They say that polycarbonate has better optics than plastic or CR39. Also, >that plastic and CR39 are easier to scratch. No on the first and depends for the second. Poly must have a scratch resistant coating on both sides, CR39 might or might not be coated on either side. Quote: >Has Zeiss >Told me that it was a hi-index polycarbonate. >Said that polycarbonate had better optics than plastic or CR39 Never. Quote: >Has Rodenstock >Told me they only came in polycarbonate with a 1.58 mid index value. >Has Solamax >Told me they only came with a 1.537 mid index value but they did not know >the material. Spectralite. Also comes in poly. Quote: >Costco: >Seems to be limited to their lens brand. >Their license optician did not know the abbe value of their plastic lenses. >Their license optician did not know the index value of their plastic lenses. >Could not give a description of the prescription area of their PAL lenses. >Has plastic trifocal lenses for $80. >Has Natural lenses >Walmart. >More expensive than Sams for the better lenses. >More optical support techs with varied experience (from zero to some >fundamentals). I might buy a toaster at Costco/Walmart/Sams but not a medical device. Look for an optician with lots of experience, let's say about 25 years minimum. If they understand convergence and parallax I might overlook their inability to quote abbe numbers. But I would expect some effort to get that information. Quote: >Kind Regards and Thanks in Advance, >Father Times Hope this helps Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman
Mon, 21 May 2007 04:44:04 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 7 post ]