Bev is correct.  Farsighted people require accommodation to see at
every distance.  True, they require accommodation MORE for close
vision, but accommodation is still required for DISTANCE vision.  When
accommodation begins to fail, then the image becomes a blur -- first at
near, then also at far.  AT SOME POINT, a farsighted individual cannot
see clearly at any distance.

To make the situation worse, the natural tendency to see something is
to get closer to it.  For a farsighted person, this increases the blur.
A nearsighted person at least can see to insert their contact lenses.
In my experience, farsighted people tend to be more unhappy than
nearsighted people with their visual situation on a diopter equivalent
basis.

DrG

It really means that they can see thing better, or easier at distance
than at near.  And how well they see at far depends on age and amount of
hyperopia (far sightedness).  If the amount is over 3 D. or so, they
can't see very well at any distance and are likely to have crossed eyes
without their glasses.  The only people who see very clearly at far when
they are over the age of 50 are emmetropes, not hyperopes.

w.stacy, o.d.

I've got to disagree with Bev and agree with Rod here.  I define normal
vision as being able to see both near and far without correction.

My son is myopic, but only wears his glasses for driving.  He can see at a
distance well enough for most things, even though he is technically
myopic.  I used to be severely myopic.  Did that mean that I could see
things up close just fine?  No!  I could not read without my glasses.  The
farthest I could focus without correction was one inch.  The nearest I
could focus was one inch.  My depth of field (range of distances I could
see without significant blur) was about 1/4 of an inch.  It is very
difficult to read a book with that kind of vision.  You have to close one
eye and move the book back and forth in front of the other eye, because
you can't focus both on the middle of the line and the ends of the line at
the same time (moving your eye, obviously).

At least I could focus and see sharply at *some* distance.  About .01% of
the time, it was useful to be able to see really tiny things clearly by
taking off my glasses and holding them an inch from one eye (had to close
the other eye, because obviously it wasn't possible to hold something
within one inch of both eyes, not to mention the mucle strain of crossing
the eyes so severely.  It was like I had a built in high power magnifying
system!  My wife is not so lucky.  She is hyperopic, but cannot focus at
any distance.  It's true that things are blurrier the closer they are, but
things are still blurry at infinity, and her drivers license shows the
restriction that she cannot drive without corrective lenses.  It's true
that milder hyperopes can see at infinity without correction, and really
mild hyperopes can see middle distances without correction.

If you can see both far and near you are an emmetrope.  If you can see near,
but not far, you are a myope.  If you can see far, but not near, you are a
hyperope.    Carry myopia far enough and you can still focus on stuff an inch
from your nose.  Carry hyperopia far enough and infinity isn't far enough away
for you to focus.

The word 'hyperopia' is ambiguous. Can we leave it at that?

No, I don't.  If I did, I'd need simple +3D and +5D lenses in order to see
street signs at useful distances (like across the street).  To read at normal
distances, I need to add 2.25D to those numbers.  

Indeed.  The stars that I can see without glasses are roughly equivalent to
fuzzy full moons.  Actually, more like comets with two short stubby tails,
each about 10 degrees off plumb.  

Definitely kill fill time, troll.............

And your also an idiot.

move leverage has been banned.

That's Lesson 2!

So these people have nothing you would find acceptable?

http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
http://www.optical4less.com/index.cgi?mode=pnormal
http://www.39dollarglasses.com/product_info/about_our_lenses.html