 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005About to get progressives
At present I use standard lenses that are 2 1/2 years old and they are still quite OK except for closer distances. I will be 50 in a couple of months and it's getting harder to read at shorter distances. Fortunately I can take the glasses off if I need to check something in detail. 2 1/2 years ago I was: R -4.25 -1.75 85 L -3.50 -1.25 110 with a +1.50 add at 40 cm for both eyes. Now when I move the glasses a bit further away (appr 15 mm) from my pupils viewing an object at 5 m I get a slightly sharper image. I suppose this means my present lenses now are a bit on the too strong side. Despite this I can still get a reasonble view at 75 cm without progressive lenses. It's not perfect but I can sit in front of the computer for several hours or read music without problems. I work as a teacher in music and spend the day in front of a music stand. Newspapers at the breakfast table however has become harder but is still posible with glasses on. I went over to my optician the other day to book an exam and probably get progressive lenses. I also showed him my present single plastic Rodenstock ColorMatic as the AR coating has started to come off at the edges. To my surprise he just had a visit from a Rodenstock representative in his shop who right away said they would exchange the lenses for free because of fabrication error! As an alternative I can keep my old glasses and get a rebate if I buy new glasses. I'm leaning towards getting a pair of Rodenstock Multigressiv ColorMatic and keep my old ones as a backup. Three questions: Will I be able to read music and use a computer at least as good with these new ones compared to my old lenses? Present visual height is 30 mm and they still have the very same frames in stock so I can get equal new ones if i want to... The idea is to be able to see the whole (15" LCD) through the distant side area of the lenses or will there be distorsion there as well? Was there something wrong with the AR coating on just my lenses or is this a known problem?  SignatureKenneth Medin <kennethm@tripnet.se> http://kennethm.webhop.org/ <<Produced with 100% pure Atari equipment>> <snip> > Three questions: > > Will I be able to read music and use a computer at least as good with > these new ones compared to my old lenses? You'd need to post your new prescription details, and the distance from your eyes to your music and PC, to be certain, but chances are it should be a lot clearer than with your old (single focus) lenses. The closer it is to you, the more advantage you gain from progressives. > Present visual height is 30 mm and they still have the very same frames > in stock so I can get equal new ones if i want to... The idea is to be > able to see the whole (15" LCD) through the distant side area of the > lenses or will there be distorsion there as well? Not sure what you mean by "distant side area" but you should be able to see a 15" monitor with your progressives with no problems, assuming your monitor is in a fairly conventional position for a monitor (i.e. roughly arm's length away, roughly straight ahead, and set just below your eye level). > Was there something wrong with the AR coating on just my lenses or is > this a known problem? Both. These coatings unfortunately are known to degrade with time or with exposure to heat. Normally you wouldn't get a warranty replacement after 2.5 years, lucky for you the rep was there!! Dom ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >be a lot clearer than with your old (single focus) lenses. The closer it >is to you, the more advantage you gain from progressives. Thanks, I will get an exam on Thursday and probably decide what to get at the same time. >> Present visual height is 30 mm and they still have the very same frames >> in stock so I can get equal new ones if i want to... The idea is to be >> able to see the whole (15" LCD) through the distant side area of the >> lenses or will there be distorsion there as well? > >Not sure what you mean by "distant side area" but you should be able to Upper left and right areas of the lens. >see a 15" monitor with your progressives with no problems, assuming your >monitor is in a fairly conventional position for a monitor (i.e. roughly >arm's length away, roughly straight ahead, and set just below your eye >level). Seems right. I did notice however that when driving my car the side mirrors tend to be seen through the middle outer parts of the lenses. Just where there is supposed to be most distorsion. Guess I will have to learn to move my head more when driving (which generally is not a good habit). >> Was there something wrong with the AR coating on just my lenses or is >> this a known problem? > >Both. These coatings unfortunately are known to degrade with time or >with exposure to heat. Normally you wouldn't get a warranty replacement >after 2.5 years, lucky for you the rep was there!! I think the coating began to come loose last summer when I was out on vacation by bicycle for a couple of weeks. Lots of sun, heat and salt all day long might have started it. SignatureKenneth Medin <kennethm@tripnet.se> http://kennethm.webhop.org/ <<Produced with 100% pure Atari equipment>> > In sci.med.vision <36ou03F564l67U1@individual.net> > I did notice however that when driving my car the side > mirrors tend to be seen through the middle outer parts of the lenses. > Just where there is supposed to be most distorsion. Guess I will have to > learn to move my head more when driving (which generally is not a good > habit). Yes but when you're looking in your mirror all you need to know is if there's car there, not what its number plate says... so even if you look through the (blurry) edge of your lens you'll see the car in your mirror. Sometimes new progressive wearers think about it too much and move their head more than is necessary, which only makes it harder to get used to. Dom >> In sci.med.vision <36ou03F564l67U1@individual.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Sometimes new progressive wearers think about it too much and move their >head more than is necessary, which only makes it harder to get used to. After over 40 years of eyeglasses, 6 of them in bifocals, I got my first pair of PALs. I HATED THEM. The problem was 80% mine (I picked a frame that wasn't "tall" enough), 10% my optician (she didn't note how I hold my head and that I move my eyes often to view tot he side rather than my head, and I'll blame 10% on the lens selection ... we went with the top of the Essilor line, the Panamic. (Age 55, all accomodation substantially gone, roughly -3.00, 2.25 add) I sat in a (live) theater, normal 2/3 back, and if three people were side by side, I could not get all 3 in focus at the same time. I shifted my eyes left and right to check the rearview, and culdn't tell if there was a CAR there, much less its plate. A column of newsprint was not simultaneously in focus; I had to move my head to read. We talked several times. I wanted to give these lenses a "fair shake" and wore them for 2 months. Then I couldn't do it any longer. She remade them. I wore my old specs for 2 days and was amazed how well I could see ... but I really missed the PAL and intermediate range. We went with 2 changes; she offered a no-charge exchange to a slsightly taller frame, too, but I decided to live with what I had. We used Essilor's new PAL designed for "existing bifocal users", the Liberty. We mounted it 1mm lower than "approved" which was 3 mm lower than the Panamics were made. I'm still not totally satisfied, but can use the rearviews, watch TV and movies "ok", and see a line of newsprint, although not a line in a novel. Bottom line ... fitting height is VERY important to some people, and when you have been used to good vision (I have 20-15 in one eye, about 20-20 in the other), the required ANSI lens this time (dratted polycarbonate) vs GLASS is a small factor, I think. I did my own research (anal engineer), and will say that I'd not select another frame with a "B" of under 36mm, preferably 38mm. Mine are 34. I wish they were 2mm lower and and had a wider "in-focus" section ... I could easily sacrifice the near vision; next exam, I'll ask for 2.00 add and sacrifice the sharper near vision; I remove the glasses to read anyway. As I understand it, unlike bifocals, the add affects "corridor width". George >After over 40 years of eyeglasses, 6 of them in bifocals, I got my >first pair of PALs. I HATED THEM. The problem was 80% mine (I picked >a frame that wasn't "tall" enough), The optician is at fault if you were not warned that the glasses would perform poorly with that particular frame. >10% my optician (she didn't note how I hold my head Well, that explains a lot. You were fit by someone who does not know how to properly position the lens in front of the eyes. >and that I move my eyes often to view tot he side rather than my head, >and I'll blame 10% on the lens selection ... we >went with the top of the Essilor line, the Panamic. One of the best general purpose PALs that I have worn and fit. Absolutely worthless if improperly fit. >(Age 55, all accomodation substantially gone, roughly -3.00, 2.25 add) >I sat in a (live) theater, normal 2/3 back, and if three people were >side by side, I could not get all 3 in focus at the same time. I >shifted my eyes left and right to check the rearview, and culdn't tell >if there was a CAR there, much less its plate. Unless you are reclined these symptoms describe a lens that is improperly fit. >A column of newsprint was not simultaneously in focus; I had to move >my head to read. You will never get the vertical and horizontal field of vision at the near point compared to ST bifocals, but after two months of continuous wear I would expect that your awareness of this narrower field would have disappeared. There are exceptions of course but it is much more likely that the lens is improperly fit, probably due to the too narrow vertical dimension of the frame, aggravated by other fitting factors. >We talked several times. I wanted to give these lenses a "fair shake" >and wore them for 2 months. Then I couldn't do it any longer. > >She remade them. I wore my old specs for 2 days and was amazed how >well I could see ... but I really missed the PAL and intermediate >range. It certainly sounds like there is sufficient motivation and cause to justify the extra expense and time required to adapt with a ST to PAL conversion. >We went with 2 changes; she offered a no-charge exchange to a >slsightly taller frame, too, but I decided to live with what I had. >We used Essilor's new PAL designed for "existing bifocal users", the >Liberty. We mounted it 1mm lower than "approved" which was 3 mm lower >than the Panamics were made. There is only one correct position for the fitting cross (seg height) and that's bisecting the pupil when standing and looking at a distance object. If the lenses were fitted 3mm too high, all of the problems you've described above will occur. If near tasks are frequent, the "seg height" should be minimum of 20mm with the Panamic design, if the add is over +1.75. >I'm still not totally satisfied, but can use the rearviews, watch TV >and movies "ok", and see a line of newsprint, although not a line in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >20-20 in the other), the required ANSI lens this time (dratted >polycarbonate) vs GLASS is a small factor, I think. I would put it this way...the fitting height needs to be dead on (along with the horizontal position) but if you miss, don't miss high. even by 1mm, when fitting myopes. >I did my own research (anal engineer), and will say that I'd not >select another frame with a "B" of under 36mm, preferably 38mm. Mine >are 34. Especially myopic engineers. :) 34mm should be fine if the frame is adjusted properly (in and down) before the measurements are performed. The only exception would be if you have an extremely wide upper bridge. >I wish they were 2mm lower and and had a wider "in-focus" section ... >I could easily sacrifice the near vision; next exam, I'll ask for 2.00 >add and sacrifice the sharper near vision; I remove the glasses to >read anyway. As I understand it, unlike bifocals, the add affects >"corridor width". >>George You will not notice an increase in field with a 2.00 add. It's not as much due to the design being affected by the add power as much as the fact the when the add power is about +1.75 on up, our eyes rely on the glasses to give us clear vision at this intermediated distance, highlighting a problem that is consistent with all PALs. When the add is at or less than about +1.75, our eyes our able to focus at 25" to 30", obviating the need for a lens with this capability. You will be able to see at these distances through the distance portion of the lens.The advantage of PALs at these at these lower add powers is strictly cosmetic, along with a more gentle transition from the far to near gaze. In my opinion, after trying numerous PAL designs, I've come to the conclusion that the corridor width varies very little between PAL brands (opposed to the length, which varies substantially and can have a profound affect on visual function in higher add powers). If you need to see frequently between 22" and 32" most folks won't be comfortable looking through this area of the lens due to the narrow field and variable clarity from vertical head movements. Very good for glancing at the speedometer, ironing, recipes on the counter, and other less visually demanding tasks. If you are working frequently at these distances and have a add above +1.75, I would strongly recommend a separate pair of glasses designed specifically for these tasks, using your general purpose glasses for everything else. George, I hope your new lenses perform well for you. If not, have an experienced optician look at them to determine if they are fit properly. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France >>10% my optician (she didn't note how I hold my head > >Well, that explains a lot. You were fit by someone who does not know how to >properly position the lens in front of the eyes. Not fair ... the whole time I was with her, and I'veknown her for 20 years, I was concentrating on what was asked. It is when I relax that my head tips back. I lied ... she asked me to do half a dozen things in the way I normally owuld. >> we went with the top of the Essilor line, the Panamic. > >One of the best general purpose PALs that I have worn and fit. Absolutely >worthless if improperly fit. as I understand from her and many others. Yes, the fit was high ... yes, she should have suggested taller frames (my wife liked these ... need I say more?). Much of it was that I expected as good a "peripheral" vision as with my glass bifocals ... and it just ain't gonna be there, as I have come to understand. >>(Age 55, all accomodation substantially gone, roughly -3.00, 2.25 add) >>I sat in a (live) theater, normal 2/3 back, and if three people were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Unless you are reclined these symptoms describe a lens that is improperly fit. My normal "relaxed" situation, not concentrating on something, is indeed that ... a major part of the fitting problem. i "lied" to her. >>A column of newsprint was not simultaneously in focus; I had to move >>my head to read. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >probably due to the too narrow vertical dimension of the frame, aggravated by >other fitting factors. I agree ... define "near point" for me, though. What I insist on is GREAT vision in the upper part of the lens over the width of the lens. With the Panamics, all the way to the top was still blurred beyone perhaps 30 degrees off axis. With the Liberty, I can go about 50 degrees off axis and still have reasonable vision. I can dip my head and extend that to about 60 degrees. With my segmented lens, I can go to 70 degrees. >It certainly sounds like there is sufficient motivation and cause to justify the >extra expense and time required to adapt with a ST to PAL conversion. hey, I wanna join the 19th century <g> >There is only one correct position for the fitting cross (seg height) and that's >bisecting the pupil when standing and looking at a distance object. If the >lenses were fitted 3mm too high, all of the problems you've described above will >occur. What she missed is that I look at distance objects differently in different situations; as examined, the 22mm was correct ... as I SHOULD HAVE done, it would have been at 18mm. From what I read now, the Ellipse should have been our choice in these frames ... > If near tasks are frequent, the "seg height" should be minimum of 20mm with >the Panamic design, if the add is over +1.75. as she said >Especially myopic engineers. :) 34mm should be fine if the frame is adjusted >properly (in and down) before the measurements are performed. The only exception >would be if you have an extremely wide upper bridge. It's not ... Titmus EXT9 ... and myopia fits in all aspects <g>. The adjustment, and pan...ic ... something tilt was addressed, and she used that to measure and more to try to help. >>I wish they were 2mm lower and and had a wider "in-focus" section ... >>I could easily sacrifice the near vision; next exam, I'll ask for 2.00 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lens.The advantage of PALs at these at these lower add powers is strictly >cosmetic, along with a more gentle transition from the far to near gaze. I understand ... DARN. >In my opinion, after trying numerous PAL designs, I've come to the conclusion >that the corridor width varies very little between PAL brands (opposed to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >designed specifically for these tasks, using your general purpose glasses for >everything else. My opthamologist told me that I would not need a separate pair for that ... I agree with you. I do lots of computer work witha large monitor, and WILL get a pair of single vision between "none" and the infinite ... probably 1.25 diopter add to the infintie >I hope your new lenses perform well for you. If not, have an experienced >optician look at them to determine if they are fit properly. She has only been fitting Essilor for about 20 years ... the problem is ME. I'm not at all sure that any PAL will give what _I_ want. THANKS! >Robert Martellaro George >>>10% my optician (she didn't note how I hold my head >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that my head tips back. I lied ... she asked me to do half a dozen >things in the way I normally owuld. Ok. But I tell my clients to relax and give me a typical posture. Still, I had a client I fit too high about a year ago. I told him to have a couple glasses of wine before he sees me next time just to be sure he's relaxed! >>> we went with the top of the Essilor line, the Panamic. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >yes, she should have suggested taller frames (my wife liked these ... >need I say more?). I wear about the same script as you and my frame is 28mm on the vertical. >Much of it was that I expected as good a >"peripheral" vision as with my glass bifocals ... and it just ain't >gonna be there, as I have come to understand. True. >>>(Age 55, all accomodation substantially gone, roughly -3.00, 2.25 add) >>>I sat in a (live) theater, normal 2/3 back, and if three people were [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >and extend that to about 60 degrees. With my segmented lens, I can go >to 70 degrees. Near is 16" on the downgaze. Your brain will start to ignore the peripheral blur. It will still be there but it won't jump out at you. The brain will see more signal and less noise so to speak. Still, there are PAL brands that offer much better peripheral performance than the Panamic and maybe the Liberty, which I have not worn yet. >>It certainly sounds like there is sufficient motivation and cause to justify the >>extra expense and time required to adapt with a ST to PAL conversion. > >hey, I wanna join the 19th century <g> I hear you. >>There is only one correct position for the fitting cross (seg height) and that's >>bisecting the pupil when standing and looking at a distance object. If the [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >monitor, and WILL get a pair of single vision between "none" and the >infinite ... probably 1.25 diopter add to the infintie Here's how it's done. If the monitor is about 25" away, take +1.25 of the add power and combine it with the distance Rx. In other words what was the distance part of the glasses is now for 25". The remainder of the add power (+1.00) becomes the "new add power". That way you can see the desktop clearly and read comfortably. Can be bifocals or PALs. >>I hope your new lenses perform well for you. If not, have an experienced >>optician look at them to determine if they are fit properly. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >George George, Your welcome. Sorry I came down kinda hard on your optician. I see so many poorly fit glasses I assumed you were the recipient of novice opticianry. Lenses are a lot like life, full of compromises. The trick is knowing when and how much to compromise when designing eyewear. In your situation I would have probably put you into a lens that compromised a bit more on the reading depth, knowing that you could read pretty well without glasses, with computer glasses being a good possibility which would be excellent for extended periods of close tasks, and concentrate on a lens that had a clearer distance peripheral component. Regards Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France : Near is 16" on the downgaze. Your brain will start to ignore the peripheral : blur. It will still be there but it won't jump out at you. The brain will see : more signal and less noise so to speak. Still, there are PAL brands that offer : much better peripheral performance than the Panamic and maybe the Liberty, which : I have not worn yet. Robert, in terms of peripheral performance, what brands would you say offer better results than the Panamic (or Liberty)? -- Greg Beaulieu ab348@chebucto.ns.ca Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada >: Near is 16" on the downgaze. Your brain will start to ignore the peripheral >: blur. It will still be there but it won't jump out at you. The brain will see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Robert, in terms of peripheral performance, what brands would you say >offer better results than the Panamic (or Liberty)? Greg, Life 2, Vip Gold, Gradal Top. If there are frequent close tasks with higher add powers I generally ignore the distance peripheral performance and concentrate on the PALs near point performance. But for folks who take off their glasses to read or perform infrequent close tasks, I would strongly consider one of the above designs instead of the Panamic, or worse yet one of the short corridor designs. Keep in mind that if fit improperly, it won't matter what brand is used because all distances on all parts of the lens will perform poorly. Hope this helps Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France "Robert Martellaro" <robopt@nospam.com> wrote in message > Life 2, Vip Gold, Gradal Top. I believe that is Rodenstock Progressiv Life 2 , Sola VIP Gold, and Zeiss Gradal Top. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.