 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005Are high-index 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?
I'm trying to decide if getting $70 high-index 1.67 lenses are worth the extra money. My prescription: Right: sphere: -3.250 cylinder: -0.750 axis: 172 Left: sphere: -1.500 cylinder: -0.250 axis: 180 I went to Costco today to get some eyeglasses. The guy selling the glasses was pushing for the $70 1.67 lenses. He said that the right lens will look REALLY thick if I get the $20 regular plastic lenses. He said that since the frames I brought in were kind of big lengthwise, the thickness of the right lens would really stand out. Going on his advice, I got the 1.67 lenses. After a couple of hours, I started having second thoughts about getting the more expensive lens. I wasn't too sure if the 1.67 lenses were worth the extra $50. I postponed my order for now on the phone so that I could make a more intelligent decision. Now I'm trying to decide between regular plastic lenses (CR-39, I think) and high-index 1.67 lenses. I was doing some searches on Google Groups, and I read that CR-39 lenses have better visual clarity than the thinner lenses. If that's true, then CR-39 lenses seem like the better option. I plan on getting lenses for the following glasses. The size of the frame is 50-18-140 http://tinyurl.com/b3dyo I don't know how thick the right lens will look. I plan on getting the lenses rolled & polished, so that should reduce the thickness a bit. Based on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a coke bottle in the frame I brought in? I wore glass lenses until I hit about a -400 in my worse eye, at which point I switched to CR39 plastic. That was good to about -500 when I switched to the 1.67 high index lenses. If you're purchasing a rather thick-rimmed frame the difference in lens thickness won't really be noticeable - anyone who can detect it is probably too far into your personal space, eh? I'm guessing the geek at Costco sees a bigger commission from the upsell... >I'm trying to decide if getting $70 high-index 1.67 lenses are worth >the extra money. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Based on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a coke >bottle in the frame I brought in? +++++++++++++ Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account... > If you're purchasing a rather > thick-rimmed frame the difference in lens thickness won't really be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm guessing the geek at Costco sees a bigger commission from the > upsell... If the Costco people get a bigger commission from selling higher-priced options, that would explain a lot. When I postponed the order, the guy was really urging me to stick with the thinner 1.67 lenses before he gave in. As for the frames I brought in, they're rather thin-rimmed, so I don't know if the thicker lens would go by unnoticed. > I'm trying to decide if getting $70 high-index 1.67 lenses are worth > the extra money. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Based on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a coke > bottle in the frame I brought in? The higher the index, the worse the optical quality of the lens. CR-39 is 1.50 index. The only exception is polycarb 1.59 which is worse than even 1.67 index. For your Rx, you definitely do not need, and do not want, 1.67 index lenses. You could use 1.60 but no higher than that, and a mid-index like 1.54 Spectralite (only on Sola lenses) would be fine. CR-39 would be acceptable, but would be a bit heavier and thicker. If Costco does not have what you need, try Wal-Mart Optical. I believe they carry Sola Spectralite. To review, here most of your options: 1.50 regular plastic CR-39 1.53 Trivex (safety lenses, excellent optics) from Hoya or Younger 1.54 Sola Spectralite (excellent choice) from Sola only 1.56 mid index from certain other companies 1.59 polycarb (safety lenses - crappy optical quality) 1.60 Sola Finalite (better than most other 1.60 lenses) from Sola only 1.60 High index lenses from many companies 1.66/1.67 Very high index from many companies. > For your Rx, you definitely do not need, and do not want, 1.67 index lenses. > You could use 1.60 but no higher than that, and a mid-index like 1.54 > Spectralite (only on Sola lenses) would be fine. I tend to agree. I think for his Rx a Trivex or 1.56 would be about right, and anything over 1.6 is ridiculous. w.stacy, o.d. > I tend to agree. I think for his Rx a Trivex or 1.56 would be about > right, and anything over 1.6 is ridiculous. > > w.stacy, o.d. Is the reduction in thickness compared to CR-39 significant enough to justify the extra cost of Trivex or Spectralite lenses? Would the difference be like night & day for my prescription? I never knew there were so many lens options. Before today, I only thought there was thick plastic, thin, and extra thin. :) > Is the reduction in thickness compared to CR-39 significant enough to > justify the extra cost of Trivex or Spectralite lenses? Would the > difference be like night & day for my prescription? > > I never knew there were so many lens options. Before today, I only thought > there was thick plastic, thin, and extra thin. :) Trivex is fairly expensive since it is a relatively new proprietary safety lens, and is only available from Hoya and Younger (and one other new vendor who I don't recall). So let's rule that one out since price seems to be a big factor for you. Spectralite would be thinner than CR-39, but also much lighter. It is not that expensive and worth the extra cost. But again, it is not available everywhere since it is only available with Sola lenses, but I know Wal-Mart carried it the last time I was there. There are also other mid-index lenses (1.54 -1.56) from other manufactures. The weight of the lens is not only a matter of comfort, but can also affect vision since it keeps the lens from sliding off your nose, away from the optimum lens position. > The weight of the lens is not only a matter of comfort, but can also > affect vision since it keeps the lens from sliding off your nose, away > from the optimum lens position. I didn't think about the weight of the lens that way before. It should've been obvious to me. I'll ask Wal-Mart if they carry Spectralite lenses. I don't think Costco had Spectralite as an option. If Wal-Mart doesn't have it, I'll have to go with CR-39 lenses from Costco. From what I've learned so far, CR-39 and Spectralite seem like the two best options when considering optical quality and price. > I didn't think about the weight of the lens that way before. It should've > been obvious to me. I'll ask Wal-Mart if they carry Spectralite lenses. I > don't think Costco had Spectralite as an option. If Wal-Mart doesn't have > it, I'll have to go with CR-39 lenses from Costco. From what I've > learned so far, CR-39 and Spectralite seem like the two best options when > considering optical quality and price. Just so that you ask for the right thing, the lens manufacturer is Sola, and the lens material is Spectralite 1.54 index. > Just so that you ask for the right thing, the lens manufacturer is > Sola, and the lens material is Spectralite 1.54 index. Got it, thanks. > Just so that you ask for the right thing, the lens manufacturer is > Sola, and the lens material is Spectralite 1.54 index. I called Wal-Mart today, and the Spectralite lenses were somewhere around $115. I just went with the $20 CR-39 at Costco. If I don't like the way the lenses look, the salesperson said that I could have them replaced with their thinner $70 1.67 lenses. Of course, I'd have to pay the difference in price between both lenses. Hopefully, my lenses won't look too thick. > I called Wal-Mart today, and the Spectralite lenses were somewhere around > $115. I just went with the $20 CR-39 at Costco. If I don't like the way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in > price between both lenses. Hopefully, my lenses won't look too thick. I wonder if those are the Sola UTMC (Ultra Tough Multi-Coated) finished lenses (with a very good Sola anti-reflective coating). They might have also thought you had progressive lenses when they quoted you that price (instead of SV lenses). I know they charge about $10 more if you bring in your own frame. > I wonder if those are the Sola UTMC (Ultra Tough Multi-Coated) > finished lenses (with a very good Sola anti-reflective coating). They > might have also thought you had progressive lenses when they quoted > you that price (instead of SV lenses). I know they charge about $10 > more if you bring in your own frame. I told them that I was looking for Spectralite lenses made by Sola. They asked me if it was single vision; I said it was. They said it was $115 (somewhere in that neighborhood; don't remember the exact price.) I don't know if they were UTMC lenses. They also said it would cost around $20 (again, don't remember exactly) to bring in your own frame. I guess prices vary from store to store. > I told them that I was looking for Spectralite lenses made by Sola. They > asked me if it was single vision; I said it was. They said it was $115 > (somewhere in that neighborhood; don't remember the exact price.) I don't > know if they were UTMC lenses. They also said it would cost around $20 > (again, don't remember exactly) to bring in your own frame. I guess prices > vary from store to store. You quote was probably correct. Prices may have gone up since I last checked. Too bad you don't have a Sam's membership, because I suspect that they have lower prices like Costco, and they use the same lab as Wal-Mart (obviously). Dave, Costco does not carry Trivex any longer, and while Spectralite is an excellent choice they don't carry that either. The Seiko 1.67 may be overkill, but at 74.99 it's priced less than most opticians charge for mid index lenses. Costco does offer an aspheric poly-c lens for 49.99, but I would avoid that material. Your optician offered you the best product he had to offer. I can guarantee you that he receives NO incentives for up-selling products. I wear the Seiko 1.67, I don't notice any loss of clarity or chromatic abberation. My Rx is only a -2.75, I like the way the aspheric lenses mesh with the eyewire of my very thin frames. >> I tend to agree. I think for his Rx a Trivex or 1.56 would be about >> right, and anything over 1.6 is ridiculous. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I never knew there were so many lens options. Before today, I only thought >there was thick plastic, thin, and extra thin. :) > I wear the Seiko 1.67, I don't > notice any loss of clarity or chromatic abberation. Yeah, I was concerned about the optical quality and price of the high index lenses, so I ended up going with CR-39. True, the 1.67 lenses are a bargain at $70, but I was looking to save as much money as possible, and 1.67 seemed like overkill for my Rx. If the $20 CR-39 lenses end up looking too thick, I guess I can justify spending the extra $50 for the thinner lenses as long as the optical quality is as you said. > Brian <drums@optonline.net> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thick, I guess I can justify spending the extra $50 for the thinner lenses > as long as the optical quality is as you said. Just curious -- appearance seems almost more important to you than improved vision and I wonder why. I find I look lots better in glasses, but contacts offer a lot of convenience that glasses lack, even if the vision is better. They also provide protection against flying objects, tree branches, etc. Us clumsies appreciate things like that :-)  SignatureCheers, Bev *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* It is just a bicycle. It is not dedication and bugs in your teeth and dust and rain and mud. It is not madness and harmony and glory and rhythm. It is not muscle and flesh and sweat and lycra and wind. It is just a bicycle. -- Bianchi *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* > Just curious -- appearance seems almost more important to you than > improved vision and I wonder why. I find I look lots better in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They also provide protection against flying objects, tree branches, > etc. Us clumsies appreciate things like that :-) For me, optical quality is #1, cost is #2, and appearance is #3. CR-39 seems to have the best optical quality from what I've read, and it's the cheapest, so that's what I ended up purchasing. However, they're thicker than all the other options available. Yeah, I guess I'm a bit preoccupied with how thick my right lens will look. I didn't think much of it at first, but those salespeople at Costco kept saying that the plastic lenses, particularly the right lens, won't look good in the frame I brought in. I think I look good in those frames, and I'm hoping that the plastic lenses will look decent enough in those frames. There I go again rambling on about lens thickness. Maybe you have a point about the importance I'm placing on appearance. :-) > > Just curious -- appearance seems almost more important to you than > > improved vision and I wonder why. I find I look lots better in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > saying that the plastic lenses, particularly the right lens, won't look > good in the frame I brought in. AH-HAH! I don't care if they don't get a commission, they still get brownie points! > I think I look good in those frames, and > I'm hoping that the plastic lenses will look decent enough in those frames. > > There I go again rambling on about lens thickness. Maybe you have a point > about the importance I'm placing on appearance. :-) I worry most about weight and comfort, which is difficult to achieve. When I find three cheap frames that don't pinch my nose, then I check the mirror! If the frames are small enough, the difference in weight between CR39 and the expensive stuff seems unimportant. Have you thought about contacts? SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================================== There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.' > Have you thought about contacts? I did consider contacts, but I was concerned that they might fall out, then they'd be difficult to find on the ground. I thought placing a contact in each eye would be more of a chore. I don't know much about contacts, so this isn't an expert opinion; it's just a guess. Glasses seem more convenient because I can take them off & put them on in seconds. > > Have you thought about contacts? > > I did consider contacts, but I was concerned that they might fall out, then > they'd be difficult to find on the ground. Try "impossible unless you're really lucky!" If they fall out, they don't fit properly. That doesn't help much if a failed trial lens that you're required to return falls out, though. You just have to be really careful and not do eye- or eyelid-manipulations unless you're in a place where you'll find it if it falls. The damn things generally fall on your cheek :-( > I thought placing a contact in > each eye would be more of a chore. Takes a couple of minutes each morning and evening. Then I just have to take sunglasses and reading glasses off and on during the day, but at least I can see normal stuff at normal distances. > I don't know much about contacts, so > this isn't an expert opinion; it's just a guess. Glasses seem more > convenient because I can take them off & put them on in seconds. The vision is also better. Still, overall I find them much nicer than glasses. If the vision were better I'd be happier, but I'd be happier if I were 20 pounds thinner too! SignatureCheers, Bev ************************************************ Horn broken. Watch for finger. > > > Have you thought about contacts? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try "impossible unless you're really lucky!" If they fall out, they don't fit > properly. That's true for soft contacts. It's very rare to have a lens fall out. > > I thought placing a contact in > > each eye would be more of a chore. > > Takes a couple of minutes each morning and evening. Although there is a learning curve to get used to them. It takes more than a couple of minutes (and often more than one try) at first. It's also sex-related, which Bev may not realize. When I was first shown how to insert contacts, it went well. The woman assisting me said that I did really well "for a man". I was pretty confused about that, until I remembered that she was very heavily made up. It probably took her quite a while in front of a mirror, moving her fingers around various parts of her face, including her eyes, to get her makeup just right. Men generally have very little practice looking at a mirror and doing stuff with their face, especially their eyes. > > I don't know much about contacts, so > > this isn't an expert opinion; it's just a guess. Glasses seem more > > convenient because I can take them off & put them on in seconds. > > The vision is also better. Still, overall I find them much nicer than > glasses. I found the vision to be better with contacts. I also looked better with them. Note that I was very myopic and Bev is very hyperopic. Since you are also myopic, your experience may better match mine than Bev's. There's a saying in real estate, "location, location, location". With contacts, it is mostly motivation. People who are motivated will make them work. However, they work better for some than others. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> Try "impossible unless you're really lucky!" If they >> fall out, they don't fit properly. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > mirror and doing stuff with their face, especially their > eyes. I'm looking forward to trying rigid contacts pretty soon and have some basic info questions. Thought you might enjoy reading my fledgling morning routine first. (I am male) I'm new to contacts (actually I'm new to everything except store bought readers). It's been almost 3 weeks now with trials. I put them in and take them out at least once a day and maybe twice on occassion. It's still taking me up to a half hour in the mornings... Acuvue bifocals. I understand they are on the thinner and floppier side as far as soft contacts go. I'm not squeemish and I'm pretty coordinated. I do have fat fingers. The skin around my eyes is not real tight (52 years old) but I seem to have some pretty powerful muscles in my eye lids. I destroyed a few pairs (contacts) in short order -- it's like pushing slime around on your hand to get them to unfold. [side note: Are there "bad batches" of these things? I do not think I was rough or mishandled them. 1 tore from the edge towards the center about half way. 1 ended up with a small square shaped chunk out of the edge. 1 looked like it had developed a crack running straight (no curvature) across the lens above the center (1/3 down from the top) but not reaching the edges. Not more than 3 days with each. back to the doc and get another.] They seem to unfold fine in the solution but pick them out of the case and they fold up like a taco. Put them on the palm and push gently to unroll/unfold. Then there is the trick of seeing the inside out mark... I figured there was a certain angle or background, light source behind or in front, where this would consistently jump out at you. not. I guess the amount or absence of fluid on the lense effects this. fully wet straight out of the case or starting to firm up after fiddling with it for some time. Lens adheres to the tip of my finger great. Often it's like placing a small octupus on there. Gently pry off and start over. Finger tip always makes a small reverse indentation on the bottom of the lens. No problem but it takes a while of holding it on the eye before the lens decides it would rather adhere to my eye ball more than my finger tip. I'm using AMO complete moisture plus which does seem a bit viscous but I have nothing to compare with. Yes, finger tip is completely dry before starting. I bought an assortment of lens inserters and removers including those silicon tipped plastic tweezers in large and small sizes. This helps a *lot*. Gently pluck lens from case (still immediately tacos), place on palm, delicately push with tweezer tip to unfold, tweeze onto Lobob inserter, check for inside out (invert with tweezers if necessary) tweeze from Lobob inserter onto Softsert inserter (the Lobob one is great but the Softsert cradles it in an oblong shape which reduces the vertical clearance needed between eyelids on the way in. But the softsert one doesn't let you see the inside out mark... softsert 2 is on backorder) -- more on my eyelids in a second) Try to spread eyelids -- doable but not easy. often have to regrip. insert lens no problem... Release eye lids and 4 out of 5 times my bottom eye lid pops it out. Doc did make mention once when inserting lens in the office "oh, you have very tight bottom eyelids. You should release the top first and then the bottom". This is pretty much a problem with my right eye and not so much the left. I suppose things will get better with practice and experience... I'm looking forward to try RGPs and am wondering if this is going to be a problem. My "tight" bottom eyelids. Will this cause a higher probability of popping them out with some inadvertent eye contortions or a casual eye rub? or sneeze? Is this potentially going to limit the possibility of translating bi/multifocal RGPs? Or is this simply a matter of fitting? Are there thinner and thicker ones? I'm under the impression that rigid lenses are much smaller in diameter than the comparable soft lens. Seems like my soft lenses are pretty much under my eyelids top and bottom all the time. This is not the case with rigid lenses, right? Wavefront lenses? This sounds like a great idea. Lenses made using the digital output of a corneal topography fed directly into the lens making machine? How are rigid lenses made anyway? Are there different manufacturers who manufacture blanks and then they or others make the blanks into a prescription? or are they made all in one shot like soft ones? Can I pick a lens and have the Wavefront people customize it? I was unclear on this one. thanks, -Quick > I'm looking forward to trying rigid contacts pretty soon and > have some basic info questions. Thought you might enjoy [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > [side note: Are there "bad batches" of these things? I do not > think I was rough or mishandled them. No idea. The lenses in the 6-pack I ordered were all subtly different, but none was actually torn or broken. > 1 tore from the edge > towards the center about half way. 1 ended up with a small [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the case and they fold up like a taco. Put them on the > palm and push gently to unroll/unfold. I was taught to just sort of dump them out of the case into the palm of my hand. Then I squirt them off with either saline or cleaning solution. > Then there is the trick of seeing the inside out mark... I figured > there was a certain angle or background, light source behind or > in front, where this would consistently jump out at you. not. I > guess the amount or absence of fluid on the lense effects this. > fully wet straight out of the case or starting to firm up after fiddling > with it for some time. Yeah, like hyperopes could ever see ANY mark on the damn things! If they're right side out they look like a cup. If they're inside-out they look like a soup plate with a rim. Try flipping one back and forth (carefully, of course) and you'll see the difference. > Lens adheres to the tip of my finger great. Often it's like placing > a small octupus on there. Gently pry off and start over. Finger tip > always makes a small reverse indentation on the bottom of the lens. > No problem but it takes a while of holding it on the eye before the > lens decides it would rather adhere to my eye ball more than my > finger tip. Try putting a drop of saline or cleaning solution in the cup. Helps a lot. Sometimes putting wetting drops in your eyes before you start helps too. > I'm using AMO complete moisture plus which does seem > a bit viscous but I have nothing to compare with. Yes, finger tip is > completely dry before starting. I just started using the Renu Multi-Plus with some new nominal moisture-retaining ingredient. It feels sticky, which is annoying. I'm sorry I bought a quart of the stuff at Costco. > I bought an assortment of lens inserters and removers including > those silicon tipped plastic tweezers in large and small sizes. This [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Try to spread eyelids -- doable but not easy. often have to regrip. > insert lens no problem... 1. Put lens on tip of right index finger. Drop in a drop of wet stuff. 2. Use the fingers of my left hand to hold the upper lid open by squeezing the lashes upward. Have to reach around over the top of my head. Easier to do than describe. 3. Bend over. (I can't imagine how people do this standing straight up without having the lens fall off the finger.) 4. Use middle finger to pull lower lid down. Gently move lens to eye while looking directly at the lens. > Release eye lids and 4 out of 5 times my bottom eye lid pops > it out. Doc did make mention once when inserting lens in the > office "oh, you have very tight bottom eyelids. You should release > the top first and then the bottom". This is pretty much a problem > with my right eye and not so much the left. Whatever works best. Sometimes I kind of roll my eye around before I release the lids. > I suppose things will get better with practice and experience... Definitely. > I'm looking forward to try RGPs and am wondering if this is going > to be a problem. My "tight" bottom eyelids. When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my eyelids that I couldn't stand to wear them for more than 4 hours, all of which were sheer hell. A friend got them from the same optician and everything worked right on the first shot and she loved them. Luck of the draw. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================================== "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." > When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my eyelids that I couldn't > stand to wear them for more than 4 hours, all of which were sheer hell. A > friend got them from the same optician and everything worked right on the > first shot and she loved them. Luck of the draw. Ugh, I'm on my second day of wearing RGPs ... they're driving me crazy! After five hours, I was ready to either gouge my eyes out or throw the damn lenses in the toilet. :S On top of that, my vision isn't the best right now ... I feel like there are smudges all over the lenses (that's what it looks like). Right now I'm not sure which is worse. I hope it gets better soon! >> [side note: Are there "bad batches" of these things? I >> do not think I was rough or mishandled them. > > No idea. The lenses in the 6-pack I ordered were all > subtly different, but none was actually torn or broken. They weren't bad "out of the box". It just seemed that they self destructed with a little bit of handling. Current pair is going on more than a week with no problem. > I was taught to just sort of dump them out of the case > into the palm of my hand. Then I squirt them off with > either saline or cleaning solution. Yea, I was doing that. Squirting them didn't unfold them. and if they came out flat they most often folded up when I did squirt them. I have the impression (from trying a pair of CIBAs) that the Acuvues are exceptionally thin. > Yeah, like hyperopes could ever see ANY mark on > the damn things! If they're right side out they look > like a cup. If they're inside-out they look like a soup > plate with a rim. Try flipping one back and forth > (carefully, of course) and you'll see the difference. Yea... right... I read that. I looked at the pictures. Didn't happen. Maybe it's just the Acuvues being so thin again. Yes, there does seem to be a very slight difference to the curve of the "cup". No, the "rim" part of the "soup plate" isn't really there. If you had 2 of them side by side and one of them inside out it would be easy to see the difference in curvature but with one, straight out of the case, I was just guessing. I think that's what makes the special mark neccessary with these. Confirmation came when the doc put one in inside out on a visit to his office. I figured "can't be, this guy has put in thousands of these". The irritation was a clue. Especially when it didn't subside driving home. and definitely when it popped out by itself at the gas station... > Try putting a drop of saline or cleaning solution in the > cup. Helps a lot. That does seem to work when I use the inserter. The inserter keeps it cup shaped without dimpling the bottom. When I was using my finger tip (which did dimple the bottom) and put in a drop it had a tendency to just invert onto my finger. doh. start over. > Sometimes putting wetting drops in > your eyes before you start helps too. I do that too. but I have to dry what runs out to get enough traction to pry my eye lids open. > 1. Put lens on tip of right index finger. Drop in a drop > of wet stuff. lens inverts and suctions to finger tip. start over. repeat. :) > 3. Bend over. (I can't imagine how people do this > standing straight up without having the lens fall off the > finger.) No problem. Acuvue soaked in AMO adheres to finger tip quite well :) > When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my > eyelids that I couldn't stand to wear them for more than > 4 hours, all of which were sheer hell. A friend got them > from the same optician and everything worked right on the > first shot and she loved them. Luck of the draw. That's where the Wavefront lenses looked intriguing. Perfect fit perfectly edged? I am actually enjoying myself with all the newness and experimentation and the relief from hassling with readers. Just looking forward to finding bifocal/multifocal solution that lets me see at a distance as well. I do appreciate all the tips, help, etc. Especially since I have the impression this group isn't really intended for that. The spectacle lens materials thread was great. I'm trying to learn all the terms as they come up. I even learned a bunch from the Otis thread and checked out some of the reference summaries. One thing... I'm assuming that "plus" lenses are for far sightedness and "minus" lenses for near sightedness? The distance part of my contacts is +1.00 and +1.50. I'm assuming that I'm a bit far sighted? Anecdotal data point: I have 3 boys. 7yr old and 2-5yr olds. All bottle fed and none of them looked at the bottle. They *very* quickly learned to handle a bottle and just do it without looking. They all stared/looked at while feeding whatever they stare/look at while not feeding. From what I could tell it was always something relatively far away. (It was when they started walking and selecting their own bottles from the fridge that the markings were noticed). -Quick > >> [side note: Are there "bad batches" of these things? I > >> do not think I was rough or mishandled them. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I did squirt them. I have the impression (from trying a pair > of CIBAs) that the Acuvues are exceptionally thin. I've worn <something> that was quite thick and was supposed to last at least a year. They were OK for a few hours, but after that they clouded up something fierce. Most recent ones (Cooper Frequency 55, nominally 1-month lenses) were much thinner and worked better -- when they worked at all. Most recent trial lenses are Ocular Science <something> 2-week lenses and are much thinner. The first three trial lenses moved around a whole lot and weren't at all comfortable, but the most recent left one is OK -- now the guy is trying to find the right size for my right eye. I'm not happy with half the life for the same price, but I wasn't happy with having to throw away half of the Coopers, either. And then I find out that Cooper just bought Ocular Science :-( > > Yeah, like hyperopes could ever see ANY mark on > > the damn things! If they're right side out they look [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > driving home. and definitely when it popped out by itself > at the gas station... The few times mine went inside out I knew it immediately -- they just felt wrong and I couldn't get them out fast enough. > > Try putting a drop of saline or cleaning solution in the > > cup. Helps a lot. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in a drop it had a tendency to just invert onto my finger. doh. > start over. I didn't know there was an inserter for softies. > > Sometimes putting wetting drops in > > your eyes before you start helps too. > > I do that too. but I have to dry what runs out to get enough > traction to pry my eye lids open. Ultimately what works will become a ritual and you won't have to think about it any more. > > 1. Put lens on tip of right index finger. Drop in a drop > > of wet stuff. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No problem. Acuvue soaked in AMO adheres to finger tip > quite well :) Maybe because they're way thinner. > > When I tried RGPs they were always so irritating to my > > eyelids that I couldn't stand to wear them for more than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's where the Wavefront lenses looked intriguing. Perfect > fit perfectly edged? No idea who made them, when the guy noticed that I was writing down the info on the package he stopped giving me the packages. > I am actually enjoying myself with all the newness and > experimentation and the relief from hassling with readers. > Just looking forward to finding bifocal/multifocal solution > that lets me see at a distance as well. The multifocal RGPs that I tried provided wonderful vision -- everything clear and sharp no matter how close or far. Unfortunately, they moved whenever I blinked or shifted my gaze and took a long time to find the sweet spot again. Impractical as well as painful, but damn! the vision was good! > I do appreciate all the tips, help, etc. Especially since > I have the impression this group isn't really intended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The distance part of my contacts is +1.00 and +1.50. I'm > assuming that I'm a bit far sighted? Yes. > Anecdotal data point: I have 3 boys. 7yr old and 2-5yr olds. > All bottle fed and none of them looked at the bottle. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > walking and selecting their own bottles from the fridge that > the markings were noticed). When my kids were old enough to get bottles from the fridge I was just mixing up water, dry milk and ovaltine (sometimes) on demand. I envy my spawn who never had to sterilize bottles at 3:00 am so there'd be something for their kids to eat in the morning. In general I disapprove of disposable stuff, but those bottle liners are something else! SignatureCheers, Bev ***************************************************************** "Why does everybody always forget the eigthth dwarf? Just because poor old Lumpy died of cancer doesn't mean he should be written out of history." -- RMassey This is 4-eyes thread. If you want to talk about contacts, please start a new thread. > > I'm not squeemish and I'm pretty coordinated. I do have > > fat fingers. The skin around my eyes is not real tight (52 > > years old) but I seem to have some pretty powerful muscles > > in my eye lids. I destroyed a few pairs (contacts) in short > > order -- it's like pushing slime around on your hand to get > > them to unfƒ‚¥Æ > > 1 tore from the edge > > towards the center about half way. 1 ended up with a small [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the edges. Not more than 3 days with each. back to the doc > > and get another.] I had this problem a few years back. I lost a few. I asked a nurse at the eye doctor's office, and she suggested that soft contacts are like springy metal or plastic. You bend them over and over, and they just keep coming back to shape. However, if you bend them too far, they get fatigued. For metal and plastic, you can often see the marks where it happened. I haven't seen them on soft contacts. Anyway, they don't split right away, but with a small amount of normal use they split where they were bent too far. This is easy to do when you are rubbing them to clean them, especially when they are flimsy. They get bent over, and you put a "crease" in them. I have been very careful not to do this anymore, and haven't lost one since. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > > > Have you thought about contacts? > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's true for soft contacts. It's very rare to have a lens fall out. When I was trying RGPs two of them fell out, once when I was just sitting at the computer. Just last Saturday the trial soft lens I was wearing fell out while I was sitting in the back seat of a moving car. Landed on my chest and I put a drop of setting solution into it and put it back in. I figured my hands couldn't have gotten very dirty in only half an hour, but that was probably stupid. > > > I thought placing a contact in > > > each eye would be more of a chore. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Although there is a learning curve to get used to them. It takes more > than a couple of minutes (and often more than one try) at first. Definitely, and getting them out is harder than getting them in. Can you use those little rubber thingies with softies as well as RGPs? > It's > also sex-related, which Bev may not realize. When I was first shown how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have very little practice looking at a mirror and doing stuff with their > face, especially their eyes. I don't wear makeup any more (since they don't make skin spackle, there's no point in using any of it except the occasional swipe with a lipstick tube), so I guess I fit the male pattern more than the female. > > > I don't know much about contacts, so > > > this isn't an expert opinion; it's just a guess. Glasses seem more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > contacts, it is mostly motivation. People who are motivated will make > them work. However, they work better for some than others. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================================== "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." > > It's > > also sex-related, which Bev may not realize. When I was first shown how > I don't wear makeup any more (since they don't make skin spackle, there's no > point in using any of it except the occasional swipe with a lipstick tube), so > I guess I fit the male pattern more than the female. I realize that I'm being a little argumentative here, but I think that this is an acquired skill that isn't lost, although it may get rusty. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I realize that I'm being a little argumentative here, but I think that > this is an acquired skill that isn't lost, although it may get rusty. Har. I was NEVER good at hair or makeup. How about you? SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================================== "The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide before executing them." -Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections > For your Rx, you definitely do not need, and do not want, 1.67 index > lenses. You could use 1.60 but no higher than that, and a mid-index [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If Costco does not have what you need, try Wal-Mart Optical. I believe > they carry Sola Spectralite. Sola Spectralite seems like a good compromise between optical quality and thickness. I'll call my nearest Wal-Mart tomorrow and check if they carry them and how much they cost. Hopefully, they're not too expensive. Otherwise, I'd have to go with the plastic lenses. I can handle a little thickness, as long as it isn't very noticable from a distance. I have another question; this one concerns polished edges. Will polished edges affect optical quality in any way? I read in another newsgroup that this isn't recommended sometimes, but no specific reason was given. >I have another question; this one concerns polished edges. Will polished > edges affect optical quality in any way? I read in another newsgroup that > this isn't recommended sometimes, but no specific reason was given. If you have rimless frames, polished edges can sometimes allow light to enter the edge of the lens, which can be a distraction. I guess the same thing could happen to a lesser degree on frames with very thin edges, but I am not an expert on this subject. Mark A put fingers to keyboard and typed... > If you have rimless frames, polished edges can sometimes allow light > to enter the edge of the lens, which can be a distraction. I guess the > same thing could happen to a lesser degree on frames with very thin > edges, but I am not an expert on this subject. If the 'white ring effect' is not desired, polishing edges can improve the look of the lenses, but ONLY if the anti-reflection coating is applied AFTER polishing. SignatureShabs. >>I have another question; this one concerns polished edges. Will polished >> edges affect optical quality in any way? I read in another newsgroup that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >thing could happen to a lesser degree on frames with very thin edges, but I >am not an expert on this subject. I got glasses with polished edged lenses once. They were dreadful. The sun shone off the edges and was sooo distracting. It made me feel sick to wear them. I took them back and they remade them for me. As I hadn't asked for polished edges they redid them for free. Tom > I have another question; this one concerns polished edges. Will > polished edges affect optical quality in any way? I read in another > newsgroup that this isn't recommended sometimes, but no specific > reason was given. I had polished edges once and never again! Of course, I have a very high minus (-9.5 and -10.5) and with the polished edges there was so much light bouncing around and it looked like a deep tunnel in my lenses! With my Rx before the high-index lenses came out, the bottom edge of the lens was always resting on my cheek. My son, who has a high minus also (but not as high as mine - I think he's about a -6) was told he didn't want a high-index lens because the quality wasn't as good, so he got the one with the lower index and was *not* happy since he couldn't keep his lenses on his face. My husband, who's a -1 and -2, doesn't have a high-index lens and is quite happy (it was a struggle to get him to switch from glass to plastic, though, and he's really pleased with the lighter weight of the plastic over the glass) Sherry Actually the optician at Costco gave you excellent advice. The regular plastic (CR-39) is 28.00, and the High Index 1.67 is the Seiko lens at 74.95. Costco opticians are among the most experienced and dedicated in the industry. Costco is one of the few companies that DO NOT pay any incentives or commissions to their employees. Although your RX is not abnormally thick, a frame with a large effective diameter will yield a thicker edge, and further pronounce the thickness difference between your 2 lenses, however a 50 eyesize frame doesn't seem very large. The Seiko 1.67 is also an aspheric designed lens. >I'm trying to decide if getting $70 high-index 1.67 lenses are worth >the extra money. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Based on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a coke >bottle in the frame I brought in? > Actually the optician at Costco gave you excellent advice. The > regular plastic (CR-39) is 28.00, and the High Index 1.67 is the Seiko [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frame doesn't seem very large. The Seiko 1.67 is also an aspheric > designed lens. You forgot to mention that the abbe value (and hence optical quality) of 1.67 is much lower than mid-index or CR-39 lenses. |
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.