best eyeglass lenses for extreme myopia?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

camelid - 30 Oct 2005 04:57 GMT

Hi there,

Here's my prescription:

OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172

PD is 63. Also I have quite large eyes, if that makes any difference.

In the past I have tried a variety of lenses:

- Zeiss Lantals (pretty heavy).
- Seiko 1.67 Super SV (probably the best lens I've tried so far).
- Nikon 4 1.67 (too much minification of objects -- everything looks about
30% smaller). Also quite a bit of chromatic abberation.

I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some good
ones? I've heard good things about Optima HyperIndex 1.66. What exactly do
they mean by "back aspheric?" Does this mean the back of the lens is flat?
I'm currently in Nikon 4 lenses which I think are "front aspheric," (the
front of the lens is flat).

thanks so much,

CA

Reply to this Message

Dan Abel - 30 Oct 2005 21:17 GMT

> Here's my prescription:
>
> OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
> OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172

> I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some good
> ones?

I don't know that much about lenses, despite having worn glasses for 45
years. I tend to think that they are all the same. I do know that
wearing them with a prescription like yours isn't wonderful. I was -12D
at the worst.

It was suggested several times that I try soft contacts. I was adamant
in refusing. My sister got contacts, and it just wasn't something I was
going to deal with.

Later I developed cataract. There were a number of options, but if I
got what I wanted, glasses would cause double vision. I could eliminate
that by wearing a patch over one eye. Neither the double vision nor the
patch sounded like a way to go. It would be a while before surgery was
justified, so the doctor suggested trying contacts in the meantime.
They wouldn't cause double vision.

I tried them and they were so much better than glasses.

They don't work for everybody, and they are a major hassle, first to
learn how to use, and then the maintenance (putting them in, taking them
out and cleaning them). I would highly recommend giving them a try. I
got some glasses as a backup, and the glare and reflections were so
horrible that I only wore them a few times. They were really heavy and
expensive (the high index lenses).

Signature

Dan Abel
dabel@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Reply to this Message

camelid - 31 Oct 2005 22:49 GMT

> > Here's my prescription:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> dabel@sonic.net
> Petaluma, California, USA

Yes, contacts certainly are a vast improvement over glasses. I've worn them
for over 20 years, but I can no longer tolerate them due to dry eyes. LASIK
is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm not
willing to risk the surgery yet), and glasses. I've had my fair share of
improperly fitted lenses and want to get it done right this time. Hence my
post to this group . . .

Thanks for replying . . .

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 31 Oct 2005 22:57 GMT

>> > Here's my prescription:
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>Yes, contacts certainly are a vast improvement over glasses. I've worn them
>for over 20 years, but I can no longer tolerate them due to dry eyes.

Lemme' jump in here: I have severe dry eyes (Schirmer's <5mm at 5
minutes OU; Tear Breakup Times <5s OU) with all four puncta
cauterized, but I wear soft contact lenses. I use (Soothe) drops
regularly throughout the day, avoid all the usual things that bother
us dry eye people, wear Panoptx sunglasses when needed for harsh
environments, and use Genteal gel at night.

Are you in worse shape than me, dry eye wise? If not, perhaps there
are other lenses, or other procedures (punctal plugs/Restasis/??),
that would allow you to continue to wear the contact lenses.

I have to imagine that this would still be your preference, no?

Best of luck. I understand the difficulties you're facing.

>LASIK
>is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Thanks for replying . . .

Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

Reply to this Message

camelid - 31 Oct 2005 23:43 GMT

> >> > Here's my prescription:
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Best of luck. I understand the difficulties you're facing.

Well, I think I've got you beat :-) My Schirmer's is <1mm at 5 minutes,
although I couldn't tell you what my Tear Breakup Time is. I have had one
(lower) puncta plugged, to see if it made a difference; it didn't. I
suppose I could look into getting upper and lower puncta plugged or
cauterized, though . . .

I occasionally wear my contacts (Proclear Biocompatables, is there something
better?) and marvel at the crystal clear vision, with none of the distortion
that comes with glasses (also I look a helluva lot better) :-) But then the
cloudiness and irritation set in, and back to the coke-bottles I go.
Although I shouldn't complain TOO much, what with high-index lenses\\ and
small frame-sizes, I can get a fairly acceptible pair of glasses.

thanks,

CA

> >LASIK
> >is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> Live simply so that others may simply live

Reply to this Message

Robert Martellaro - 31 Oct 2005 21:07 GMT

>Hi there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>- Zeiss Lantals (pretty heavy).

The 1.9 index of refraction Lantal is the thinnest. 1.74 is the thinnest
plastic. Both are unavailable in the US due to our FDA's impact resistant
requirements.

>- Seiko 1.67 Super SV (probably the best lens I've tried so far).
>- Nikon 4 1.67 (too much minification of objects -- everything looks about
>30% smaller). Also quite a bit of chromatic abberation.

The Nikon lens was improperly fit.

>I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some good
>ones? I've heard good things about Optima HyperIndex 1.66. What exactly do
>they mean by "back aspheric?" Does this mean the back of the lens is flat?

Not flat, but flatter. Single vision lenses have to be "cast" if back aspheric
or atoric. They are not available in your Rx.

>I'm currently in Nikon 4 lenses which I think are "front aspheric," (the
>front of the lens is flat).

Front aspheric designs have little to offer in your Rx because the "best form"
base curve is already nearly plano (like plate glass). Can't get much flatter
than that!

One lens that should be on the table is the Hoya 1.7. Best Abbe number
(measurement of dispersion-higher is better) of all the extra high index lenses
at 36.

Small changes in lens positioning will make significant changes in visual
comfort. Find someone who knows how to fit this lens power, then talk lens
designs.

>thanks so much,
>
>CA

Your welcome.

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
robopt@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
- Niels Bohr

Reply to this Message

camelid - 31 Oct 2005 23:05 GMT

> >Hi there,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> plastic. Both are unavailable in the US due to our FDA's impact resistant
> requirements.

I'm in Canada, so these are available here. Most dispensers have
recommended the Nikon 5 1.74 lenses to me, but I am leery of them for the
reasons I listed below. But if you think they were just improperly fit,
then perhaps I will go with them again. I don't understand why it is so
difficult to get it right . . . Would you happen to know the abbe value of
the nikon 5 lens?

> >- Seiko 1.67 Super SV (probably the best lens I've tried so far).
> >- Nikon 4 1.67 (too much minification of objects -- everything looks about
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> (measurement of dispersion-higher is better) of all the extra high index lenses
> at 36.

I will check if the Hoya is available here, although I have never heard it
mentioned, so I have my doubts.

> Small changes in lens positioning will make significant changes in visual
> comfort. Find someone who knows how to fit this lens power, then talk lens
> designs.

I will do that, although I find it difficult to find opticians experienced
with fitting high myopes. It is especially disheartening when you hand them
your prescription and they say, "Wow!" Sigh . . .

> >thanks so much,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
> - Niels Bohr

thanks again,

CA

Reply to this Message

Robert Martellaro - 01 Nov 2005 01:19 GMT

>I'm in Canada, so these are available here. Most dispensers have
>recommended the Nikon 5 1.74 lenses to me, but I am leery of them for the
>reasons I listed below. But if you think they were just improperly fit,
>then perhaps I will go with them again. I don't understand why it is so
>difficult to get it right . . . Would you happen to know the abbe value of
>the nikon 5 lens?

1.74 is 33, 1.67 is 32, and 1.9 is 30. If the lenses are positioned properly
dispersion shouldn't be an issue with single vision lenses.

>I will check if the Hoya is available here, although I have never heard it
>mentioned, so I have my doubts.

They make a 1.74 also. Decrease in edge thickness over 1.7 is about 5%. 1.7 is
less expensive. 1.70 is available world wide.

>I will do that, although I find it difficult to find opticians experienced
>with fitting high myopes. It is especially disheartening when you hand them
>your prescription and they say, "Wow!" Sigh . . .

They should be saying "you've come to the right place, I have a lot of
experience filling this type of Rx." The only person saying "wow" should be the
client when they see how good the glasses look.

Here's how to minimize the lens thickness. With a PD of 63 (make sure to get a
monocular PD measurement-each eye separately) pick a lightweight full metal
frame with a dark color and a 42 or 43mm eye size and a 21 to 22mm DBL (distance
between lenses). A rounder frame will increase the vertical field of vision. Use
the highest index that satisfies your pocketbook and the desired weight of the
glasses. Don't polish or roll the edges but consider a light tint on the edge.
Use an anti-reflection coating. 1.67 index will be about 5.5mm thick at the
temporal edge, 1.74 about 5mm thick and 1.9 about 4mm. Ask for the thinnest
center thickness possible (about .8 to 1.2mm).

Hope this helps

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
robopt@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
- Niels Bohr

Reply to this Message

camelid - 01 Nov 2005 05:20 GMT

> >I'm in Canada, so these are available here. Most dispensers have
> >recommended the Nikon 5 1.74 lenses to me, but I am leery of them for the
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Hope this helps

Yes, that helps a lot. I will print this off and take it with me when I
shop for new glasses. Thanks!

> Robert Martellaro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
> - Niels Bohr

Reply to this Message