Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2005
Lens thickness question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
cutiepieusa@gmail.com - 01 Nov 2005 06:05 GMT Hi, I'm getting ready to buy a backup pair of glasses, and they'll be the first pair of glasses I'll have been able to really research, since I've finally learned my lesson (+my prescription is settling down... only changing by a decrease of -0.25 spherical power diopter every 2 years, and an increase of -0.25 cylinder power in one eye (OD) over the last 4 years.
Anyways, I'm curious both about lens thickness and optics. I know that the frame matters a lot to thickness - and my current frames are the tiniest ones I've had yet (I'm 21, on my 6th pair of glasses, and I've noticed every pair I get gets smaller). I also got my first contact lenses this time! But I don't really like wearing them (Ciba O2Optix)... My eyes get tired more easily, I get more headaches (partly since unlike glasses I can't just take them off to read and use the computer), etc... Anyways, my current frames are these: http://framesdirect.com/framesfp/Candies-tapfm/r.html (size 46-18-130). They were bought at Pearle Vision and I have Seiko 1.60 index aspheric lenses that were stock and stock AR coated. I'm very satisfied with the thickness and optics - though I don't care for the greenish AR (before I had Zeiss Gold ET on a non-aspheric, unnamed, 1.60 index). Pearle Vision did have to redo them *three* times until I got a pair of lenses that didn't have tiny scratches in the coating!!!
I LOVED the Zeiss Gold ET but needed glasses-in-an-hour (and that meant stock lenses) this time (my old ones literally fell apart when cleaning them one day - they were a cheap plastic frame with tons of tiny cracks in it)
Historically, before my last pair I had always had what my parents bought for me - uncoated polycarbonate. The stuff gave me terrible headaches from glare and the chromatic aberration really bothered me. But I was a kid and teenager - I didn't know there WERE any other type of glasses, and the possibility of different lens materials being optically better (I was TOLD as a kid by opticians that polycarbonate was "far better than plastic") and coatings was never presented to me. I was told by a good friend of mine when complaining about how I hated glasses that I needed AR coating and better lenses - both he and his (then ten, now twelve year old) daughter had high-index AR coated lenses for the same problems I had and both said they made all the difference in the world - and they do!
Anyways, sorry for all that but hopefully it helps you provide me recommendations for the best cost for money for me in a backup pair of glasses. Are Costco's glasses decent? Anywhere else cheap? In a frame the size of the one I'm wearing now - what will the edge thickness of the different materials on the market? How would CR-39 look in my prescription with my frame size - these 1.60's are SO thin in this frame, I'm thinking CR-39 might not be TOO bad for backup glasses. How would they compare optically? What are the best (non-glass) optics I can get? What is cheap and still great for backup glasses (which I'll probably be wearing quite often - they won't be sit-in-a-drawer backup, they'll probably be a slightly different style and color so I can match outfits better than being stuck with one pair)
Thanks for any recommendations you can make - I've learned my lesson that lens and coating choices can change how I see my world - literally. Headaches as a kid are gone. Hate for wearing my glasses - 70% gone. (Of course, part of that is finally getting some nice tiny frames vs. the huge things I used to wear (at the encouragement of the optician!) But the AR, in addition to getting rid of glare also makes me feel better about wearing them). That's why I want to get some professional (and experienced amateur :) :) :) ) opinions before I go shopping for this pair!
Thanks so much in advance,
Mark
cutiepieusa@gmail.com - 01 Nov 2005 06:15 GMT OOPS, I forgot my prescription *blushes*
It's:
OD -3.00 -0.50 170 OS -3.00 -0.75 011
Thanks again in advance!
Mark
Mark A - 01 Nov 2005 08:15 GMT > OOPS, I forgot my prescription *blushes* > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mark Stores like Costco and Wal-Mart/Sams carry a large variety of lenses, some very good and some mediocre. Unlike chains such as Lenscrafters and Pearle, you can find out exactly what brand and model of lens you are getting from Costco and Wal-Mart/Sams.
For your Rx, I would recommend that you consider Sola lenses made from Spectralite material. This is a light weight and very high quality (high abbe value) lens that is about 1.53 index, which should be fine for your Rx and small frame. I believe that Wal-Mart sold these at one time, but not sure if they still do.
You are correct to stay away from polycarbonate, unless you need safety glasses, in which case Trivex would be better (Hoya Phoenix or Younger Image).
cutiepieusa@gmail.com - 01 Nov 2005 21:35 GMT I don't need safety glasses and I know from past experience that I can't stand polycarbonate and non-AR lenses. I'm curious how CR-39 would be - is my prescription too strong to get reasonable thin CR-39 lenses. My current Seiko's are quite nice - what would I be looking at for CR-39 thickness compared to these? Twice?
Thanks,
Mark
Mark A - 02 Nov 2005 00:45 GMT >I don't need safety glasses and I know from past experience that I > can't stand polycarbonate and non-AR lenses. I'm curious how CR-39 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mark CR-39 (1.50 index) would definitely be thicker and heaver than a higher index lens. Sola Spectralite (1.53) would be a definite improvement in thickness and weight, with almost no loss in quality.
The edge thickness is what would be noticeable in a minus lens like yours. How much it would be noticeable depends on the frame size and configuration. Most people with your Rx would probably use something a little thinner and lighter than CR-39.
cutiepieusa@gmail.com - 02 Nov 2005 04:51 GMT Thanks! That's what I was wondering as CR-39 is so much cheaper and said to be good.
I'm very happy with the 1.60 aspheric Seiko lenses - there's zero noticeable edge thickness (the lens is at most a mm thicker than the frame at the sides and since it's balanced half to the front, half to the back, you can't tell from any distance over a few inches that the lens is thicker than the frame). I like that. It's not really worth giving that up to save a few dollars. Though is CR-39 really any HEAVIER? I've been under the impression that the low specific gravity made the product sill LIGHTER. My current glasses are essentially weightless (I can't feel the weight), the first pair (including ones with another 1.60 material) I can say that about.
Isn't Spectralite MORE expensive than 1.60? If I'm optically happy with the 1.60's (which I very much am especially these new tiny aspheric ones- it's just the polycarbonate I couldn't stand) what would be the reason to spend more on Spectralite? I'm kinda looking CHEAPER suggestions that still meet my needs :) But thanks very much for your info!
Sincerely,
Mark
Robert Martellaro - 03 Nov 2005 00:14 GMT >Thanks! That's what I was wondering as CR-39 is so much cheaper and >said to be good. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >giving that up to save a few dollars. Though is CR-39 really any >HEAVIER? In your Rx in a small frame about twice as heavy and thick, due mostly to the CR39's 2mm center thickness. Most higher index lenses have a 1mm CT.
>I've been under the impression that the low specific gravity >made the product sill LIGHTER. My current glasses are essentially >weightless (I can't feel the weight), the first pair (including ones >with another 1.60 material) I can say that about. > >Isn't Spectralite MORE expensive than 1.60? Less expensive. About 5% thicker and heavier.
>If I'm optically happy with >the 1.60's (which I very much am especially these new tiny aspheric [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Mark 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
cutiepieusa@gmail.com - 03 Nov 2005 00:30 GMT Thank you VERY much :) That's exactly what I needed to hear! Yeah, twice as thick and I'd actually see the lenses and all, no thanks! Question - why then would anyone buy CR-39 compared to at the least, materials like Trivex? I mean other than cost, why would someone put up with such thick lenses?
Are there any really great materials I should be looking at? And any suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it)
Sibirer - 03 Nov 2005 09:25 GMT Hi there,
People choose CR-39 mostly because they are pinching pennies or they had a clueless optician or salesperson. The other reason a person would choose CR-39 is if they are in environments that expose them to organic solvents. CR-39 was originally created to make B-17 fuel tanks, and later used for the fuel lines in the engineers section so it is resistant to most organic solvents. It is also very resistant to welders slag, (more so than glass which pits every time slag hits it.)
Considering the number of people who come into my store in Alaska wearing bedroom slippers and worn out Carharts overalls, I don't need to get into the fashion issue.
Great materials? Well, there is a slew of polyurethanes out there. Essilor's Ormex, Sola's Spectralite, Seiko's 1.6 are spendid; Rodenstock and Zeiss also put out great polymers. It depends on availability in your area and pricing.
Most ARs have a green reflection. That is the mid wavelength that humans can percieve and means that the standard coating is clean. I believe Sola's Teflon coating is blueish, Essilor's Crizal Alize is yellowish (This is what I have and it is barely noticable to most people, ) the Zeiss coating can be ordered in a few different colors.
Carl
> Thank you VERY much :) That's exactly what I needed to hear! Yeah, > twice as thick and I'd actually see the lenses and all, no thanks! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was > Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it) nicoleh76@gmail.com - 03 Nov 2005 16:34 GMT To be honest, I just choose the cheapest lenses possible. The most important thing is that you are able to see. Minus three is not thick at all, so just go for normal lenses, whatever the cheapest is. What did glasses wearers do before all of these types of lenses? Well, that's a European standpoint. You in the States are so capitalistic.
> Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was > > Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it) Quick - 03 Nov 2005 18:51 GMT > To be honest, I just choose the cheapest lenses possible. > The most important thing is that you are able to see. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that's a European standpoint. You in the States are so > capitalistic. That's why most Europeans sound sort of nasal. Those heavy glasses have squashed their noses... -:)
-Quick
Mark A - 03 Nov 2005 20:13 GMT > To be honest, I just choose the cheapest lenses possible. The most > important thing is that you are able to see. Minus three is not thick > at all, so just go for normal lenses, whatever the cheapest is. What > did glasses wearers do before all of these types of lenses? Well, > that's a European standpoint. You in the States are so capitalistic. CR-39 is probably more expensive in Europe than Spectralite is in the US (especially at Wal-Mart).
Robert Martellaro - 04 Nov 2005 18:48 GMT >Are there any really great materials I should be looking at? Spectralite and Seiko 1.6 are both very good choices for your stated preferences and Rx.
>And any >suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was >Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it) Zeiss Advantage is available in the Gold ET hue. The Advantage AR is one of the best and is available on both lenses discussed above.
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
|
|
|