 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2006Reasonable prices for great glasses
If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher. Just for lenses, what can we expect for single vision lenses, at high index (1.67) and high quality AR coatings (preferably the Alize's)? How about for bifocal/progressives with possibly even higher index (due to higher prescription)? For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for progressives? A local optometrist charged us that much for single vision, and I'm shopping around for progressives for my father and was wondering what we can expect to pay for high quality lenses for him. Given the price we paid, I imagine it would be much higher, and I just wanted to make sure we were prepared! Also, hope to stick with good optometrists with great service, so I understand the high premiums involved. Thanks very much! >If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality >local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher. Correct. Premium service and products demand a premium price. No different than buying clothes at WalMart vs Nordstrom's. >Just for lenses, what can we expect for single vision lenses, at high >index (1.67) and high quality AR coatings (preferably the Alize's)? It depends on the power and the area you live in, but in my area (Southern California), you are looking at over $300 for 1.67 single vision lenses with a high-quality A/R coat (e.g., Crizal Alize, Vivix Stainless), >How about for bifocal/progressives with possibly even higher index >(due to higher prescription)? 1.67 D-28 bifocals would add around $100 to the cost over single vision. Progressives would add about $200 to the cost over single vision. I haven't priced or prescribed 1.74 index lenses yet (SV and progressive only availabilty), but I suspect they would add around $100 more to the cost. They are the thinnest and most premium lenses available, and definitely for those who want the very best, but I would suspect little difference in appearance versus 1.67 lenses, except above +/-5.00D (this here is highly subjective -- some people think 1/2mm edge/center thickness is extremely obvious while others think 2mm edge/center thickness difference is no big deal). >For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just >for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for >progressives? That is certainly NOT unreasonable, especially if you add in other things like polishing the edges, rimlon/rimless mounting, 1.0mm center thickness, etc. or the power is higher (say <-4.00 D). >A local optometrist charged us that much for single vision, and I'm >shopping around for progressives for my father and was wondering what >we can expect to pay for high quality lenses for him. Again, that sounds reasonable. I'm sure you could find places perhaps a *little less* and I'm sure you cound find places quite a bit more costly. As I said earlier, I would expect for you to add around $200.00 more for progressives. >Given the price we paid, I imagine it would be much higher, and I just >wanted to make sure we were prepared! Also, hope to stick with good >optometrists with great service, so I understand the high premiums >involved. Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with the very best. This is especially true if they were their glasses all the time. I have some patients who will spend $400.00 on an outfit they might wear 4 times a year but balk at spending $200.00 on a pair of glasses they were 14 hours a day, every day, for a year. It's all about priorities. > [ ... ] > Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with > the very best. There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody needs aristocratic eye glasses. When it comes to "progressives", people smart enough to figure out how to use them are probably smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option. Those for whom "the best" is the categorical answer will probably need AR-coated, low-r.i. aspherics of the "progressive" variety, and spend quite a lot of time trying to find the right angle to cock their heads and balance their specs on their noses to get the best images on their retinas (retinae?). Another thing worth mentioning is that a lot of people needing eyeglasses are not possible to correct for absolutely perfect vision, and may not be appreciably better off in the best of all possible glasses than they would be in a cheaper pair. (And some, at least, people who could be corrected for pretty good vision, do not get corrected correctly, so the best of all possible eyeglasses would be relatively useless for them.) Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some strange situation where the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated. However, more than 90% of the light incident on the front of the eyeglasses passes even in uncoated eyeglasses, and that plenty, notwithstanding that lenticular flare in uncoated eyeglasses might be a slight problem for a bus driver or a pilot, for instance. -- Dicky >> [ ... ] > >> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up >> regretting going with the very best. I've found this to be generally true with most any durable goods and especially true for anything having to do with your person. Shoes are a glowing example. > There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. > Not everybody needs aristocratic eye glasses. Sure. Someone who may need glasses once a day for a few minutes and has a propensity to lose and or break them. I always get the feeling that you are not a man of means Dicky and that you are very resentful of those who are. Not only do you resent the supply and service industry that you feel, without exception, is ripping you off but you also resent the consumers of those products and services. It's just a feeling that I get as an undertone in all your posts. > When it comes to "progressives", people smart > enough to figure out how to use them are probably > smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option. The people who buy them are stupid. The smart people go better and, of course, cheaper. Out of your reach? You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice? I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that tone to it. > Those for whom "the best" is the categorical answer > will probably need AR-coated, low-r.i. aspherics of > the "progressive" variety, and spend quite a lot of time > trying to find the right angle to cock their heads and > balance their specs on their noses to get the best > images on their retinas (retinae?). Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through to satisify their vanity of knowing they have the "best". Why do you begrudge them that? Or is it just that they're stupid and *need* to be enlightened by smart people (like you). > Another thing worth mentioning is that a lot of > people needing eyeglasses are not possible to > correct for absolutely perfect vision, and may not be > appreciably better off in the best of all possible > glasses than they would be in a cheaper pair. Nice of you to make the judgement for them as to what is "appreciable". Or is it that their defect is not repairable so they should be discarded? > (And some, at least, people who could be corrected > for pretty good vision, do not get corrected correctly, > so the best of all possible eyeglasses would be > relatively useless for them.) Ahhh, another good reason not to go with the best. There is alway a chance you won't be treated correctly by the (rippoff) service industry so you should not even try and should go with the minimally (cheapest) passable solution and minimize your (possible) losses. E-yore from Pooh comes to mind... "o well, what's the use..." > Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some > strange situation Like being in sunlight? > where the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated. Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline jugs in the closet. -Quick > I always get the feeling that you are not a man of > means Dicky ... Well, I can usually pay off my wife's eyeglasses the same month that she get's 'em. That should count for something. > > When it comes to "progressives", people smart > > enough to figure out how to use them are probably > > smart enough to choose a better and cheaper option. > The people who buy them are stupid. The smart people > go better and, of course, cheaper. Out of your reach? I did not say or mean "stupid". But people who make choices based on such an abstract and ill-defined trait as "quality" are very likely ignorant of the parameters which would guide a more rational decision. > You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice? > I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that > tone to it. Well if you do your buying at the high end so as to be sure of getting "the best", you may not be able to afford "the best" of everything. Indeed, you my find yourself subject to foreclosure these days, particularly if you happen to have a variable-rate mortgage, for instance. > Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through > to satisfy their vanity of knowing they have the "best". > Why do you begrudge them that? Or is it just that > they're stupid and *need* to be enlightened by smart > people (like you). I don't begrudge them or wish to enlighten them, nor you. But maybe I'd speculate on their properties when they go up for auction. The OP mentioned buying eyeglasses for his father, but was talking about Crizal Alize and "progressive". I mean to convey that I don't think an old man needs, or will be benefited by, anti-reflection progressives. I know lots of people, and most of them are old. The only ones I know who are wearing anti- reflection progressives are the ladies. It is so they can find their salad fork and their salad, and recognize the speaker at the podium, and seem not to have lenses in their fancy frames. > Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline > jugs in the closet. Wait until you hear about the fossil water that is, as we speak, entering our water supply. -- Dicky >> I always get the feeling that you are not a man of >> means Dicky ... > > Well, I can usually pay off my wife's eyeglasses the > same month that she get's 'em. That should count for > something. Just because we can afford something doesn't mean we want to spend the money for it. I could afford a Jaguar, but I'm not going to buy one. >> > When it comes to "progressives", people smart >> > enough to figure out how to use them are probably [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very likely ignorant of the parameters which would guide a > more rational decision. Repeat: hear hear! >> You can placate yourself having made the "smart" choice? >> I'm not saying this is the case. Just that it sort of has that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > these days, particularly if you happen to have a variable-rate > mortgage, for instance. In many cases, the most expensive solution is NOT the best solution to a problem. You can lay out thousands of dollars for granite countertops only to find out that they stain easily and have to be babied to keep from looking crappy. Good old ceramic tile with black grout will look new for decades and comes in LOTS of colors and designs -- it just doesn't match the current definition of "quality". >> Yes, no end to what those silly nits will go through >> to satisfy their vanity of knowing they have the "best". [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline >> jugs in the closet. Ooh, was that you? That worried me a bit. I'm cheap, but not that cheap. Generic saline is dirt cheap anyway... > Wait until you hear about the fossil water that is, as we speak, > entering our water supply. Isn't that what the midwest is sucking out of the Oglala and which seems to be running dry?  SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================= You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape. >> I did not say or mean "stupid". But people who make >> choices based on such an abstract and ill-defined trait >> as "quality" are very likely ignorant of the parameters >> which would guide a more rational decision. > > Repeat: hear hear! But what did he say? Again the assumption is that anyone who buys "quality" can't define it (probably stupid)... and is making an irrational decision... and a more rational decision would not be based on "quality". >> Well if you do your buying at the high end so as to be >> sure of getting "the best", you may not be able to afford >> "the best" of everything. How more presumptious can you get? I generally do my buying of durable goods at the high end. I usually do a good bit of research on what I'm buying before doing so. If it's discretionary and I can't afford it now I often don't buy now and wait until I can. I find it's well worth it. And thank you for presuming that people who do buy top quality are too stupid to stay within their means. >> Indeed, you my find yourself subject to foreclosure >> these days, particularly if you happen to have a >> variable-rate mortgage, for instance. Thanks, I guess it was dumb luck that I got a fixed rate. Any other financial pitfalls I don't know I'm headed for due to my exorbitant, unbridled spending? > In many cases, the most expensive solution is NOT the > best solution to a problem. You can lay out thousands of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > designs -- it just doesn't match the current definition > of "quality". Well that was a stupid waste of money. Concrete will do the same for *far* less and there is no maintenance at all. You can paint it *any* color or not at all. >> I don't begrudge them or wish to enlighten them, nor you. >> But maybe I'd speculate on their properties when they go >> up for auction. Heh, you could make a fortune hanging out at the OD's. Just note the folks that buy those expensive progressives and wait for their homes to go on the forclosure block... >> I mean to convey that I don't think an old man needs, >> or will be benefited by, anti-reflection progressives. Well, I didn't think you could get more presumptious, but you did. >> I know lots of people, and most of them are old. >> The only ones I know who are wearing anti- >> reflection progressives are the ladies. It is so they >> can find their salad fork and their salad, and recognize >> the speaker at the podium, and seem not to have >> lenses in their fancy frames. And the cost wasn't worth it to them? Did you ask? You're starting to sound like Ace now. >>> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline >>> jugs in the closet. > Ooh, was that you? That worried me a bit. I'm cheap, > but not that cheap. Generic saline is dirt cheap anyway... I buy very high quality shoes now. It makes such a *huge* difference. The bad part is thinking about all those years I bought the $19 closeouts at SaveMart figuring how I could buy 5 or six pairs for the cost of the expensive ones and certainly it couldn't make much difference... I was stupid then. -Quick >>> I did not say or mean "stupid". But people who make >>> choices based on such an abstract and ill-defined trait [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > making an irrational decision... and a more rational decision > would not be based on "quality". I interpreted it to mean that people who equate "top dollar" and "top quality" with no further product information are, if not hopelessly stupid or ignorant (my words), less than sensible. >>> Well if you do your buying at the high end so as to be >>> sure of getting "the best", you may not be able to afford [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > buying of durable goods at the high end. I usually do a > good bit of research on what I'm buying before doing so. Then obviously he/we are not talking about you. You can afford it. You learn about what you're buying. Some go into debt to buy more quality than they need or can afford. > If it's discretionary and I can't afford it now I often don't > buy now and wait until I can. I find it's well worth it. > And thank you for presuming that people who do buy > top quality are too stupid to stay within their means. Who, me? That's not it at all. >>> Indeed, you my find yourself subject to foreclosure >>> these days, particularly if you happen to have a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Any other financial pitfalls I don't know I'm headed for > due to my exorbitant, unbridled spending? My MIL had the dumb luck to sign up for Blue Crass Medicare Plan F because she saw an ad on TV. The last 10 years of her life would easily have cost her $100K each without that, and her only income was her social security. Sometimes luck happens. Mostly not, though. >> In many cases, the most expensive solution is NOT the >> best solution to a problem. You can lay out thousands of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the same for *far* less and there is no maintenance at all. > You can paint it *any* color or not at all. No, concrete stains too. Anyone who has ever lived with a painted concrete porch knows the folly of painted concrete. >>> I don't begrudge them or wish to enlighten them, nor you. >>> But maybe I'd speculate on their properties when they go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just note the folks that buy those expensive progressives and > wait for their homes to go on the forclosure block... You're getting tiresome. The meaning is clearly that people who know nothing but the price and assume that highest price = best are at the very least wasting money. >>> I mean to convey that I don't think an old man needs, >>> or will be benefited by, anti-reflection progressives. > > Well, I didn't think you could get more presumptious, > but you did. I would figure that the old man in question could make up his own mind unless he was genuinely senile, in which case SOMEBODY has to make up his mind. >>> I know lots of people, and most of them are old. >>> The only ones I know who are wearing anti- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the cost wasn't worth it to them? Did you ask? > You're starting to sound like Ace now. I am beginning to find vanity in the elderly sillier than I did when I was a Young Person. The phrase "tits on a boar hog" comes to mind... >>>> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline >>>> jugs in the closet. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and certainly it couldn't make much difference... I was > stupid then. Shoes are different. My feet are weird. Duck-like. It's been almost impossible for me to find women's shoes that don't hurt. And I mean HURT, like even after I take them off. For my daughter's wedding in 1988 I threw caution to the winds and went to the special Wide Shoe Store in search of something to match my almost-Ginger-Rogers-like dress. I tried on every appropriate shoe in the store, settling on a pair of name-brand $70 sandals (the most expensive shoes I've ever bought in my entire life, including my Red Wing motorcycle boots). They felt OK, they looked OK, and I was assured they would be even more comfortable after then warmed up and stretched out a bit. Well, that was kind of true. They felt OK after half an hour. And then an hour later, at the reception, I took them off. I went through the whole reception barefoot. I tried them on again a few weeks ago. My feet are bigger. What a waste. BUT, when I worked half a block away from K-Mart I found that they had some low-heeled Chinese black simulated plastic pumps in E width that were really comfy. I bought four or five pair. One pair would last a year (worn 5 days/week) before the heel nub was so worn down that walking on slick surfaces was dangerous. Cheap = good, expensive = bad. YMMV. SignatureCheers, Bev ==================================== Start worrying -- details to follow. >> Sorry Dicky, I just never got over the home made saline >> jugs in the closet. > Ooh, was that you? That worried me a bit. I'm cheap, > but not that cheap. Generic saline is dirt cheap anyway... T'was I. Help me with this then. I contemplate major work on my water line, involving extended shut-off at the street. I have some bottles of tap water, for drinking, cooking, etc., I put away in a dark place over a year ago for a similar emergency. Do you think I should empty the bottles, wash, and refill them? Or maybe replace them with spring- or distilled- from the store? What if I needed to wash my eyes (as sometimes recommended for eye crud = "blepharitis"). Would I dare use any of the sorts of water mentioned above? -- Dicky [snip] >Just because we can afford something doesn't mean we want to spend the >money for it. I could afford a Jaguar, but I'm not going to buy one. That's not the point. The point is offering patients "the best" (not necessarily the same thing as the most expensive) when they ask for our recommendation. To not inform, offer or suggest to all patients all their options, including the best option, is doing them a disservice. [snip] >In many cases, the most expensive solution is NOT the best solution to a >problem. You can lay out thousands of dollars for granite countertops >only to find out that they stain easily and have to be babied to keep >from looking crappy. Good old ceramic tile with black grout will look >new for decades and comes in LOTS of colors and designs -- it just >doesn't match the current definition of "quality". We never wrote that we should suggest patients get the most *expensive* option, so I don't see your point here. The best is not necessarily the more expensive. And there is no problem with NOT getting the best option. The POINT is the best should be offered to a patient. I've had patients comment to me when they get there new glasses, "I love the anti-reflective coating and the transitions lenses. Why didn't my old doctor suggest these?" [snip] > I've had patients comment to me when they get there new glasses, "I > love the anti-reflective coating and the transitions lenses. Why > didn't my old doctor suggest these?" Maybe because those options tripled or quadrupled the consumer price of the already pricey eyglasses, and the the old doctor felt some compassion for the lady's husband. -- Dicky > > I've had patients comment to me when they get there new glasses, "I > > love the anti-reflective coating and the transitions lenses. Why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > price of the already pricey eyglasses, and the the old doctor felt some > compassion for the lady's husband. IMO, that really only supports the sort of bias that Quick ascribed to you. I would be HUGELY insulted if a doctor declined to offer me something that people *love* based on his/her assumption about my financial wherewithal, or where I was and was NOT willing to spend my money. >>> I've had patients comment to me when they get there new >>> glasses, "I love the anti-reflective coating and the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > assumption about my financial wherewithal, or where I was > and was NOT willing to spend my money. And the gender based slur would come in a close second?. Dicky, maybe it's a (young) trophy wife and money is no object when it comes to looks and image? Wouldn't that justify offering the unnecessary and exhorbitantly priced options? You have again assumed it was an old lady. Probably not worth wasting money on right? -Quick >>>> I've had patients comment to me when they get there new >>>> glasses, "I love the anti-reflective coating and the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And the gender based slur would come in a close second?. I assumed a woman too. I wouldn't expect a man to say "I love the anti-reflective coating and the transitions lenses. Why didn't my old doctor suggest these?" unless he used the effeminate speech used by many gay men (NTTAWWT). In any case, I made my previous comment gender-independent. > Dicky, maybe it's a (young) trophy wife and money is no object when > it comes to looks and image? Wouldn't that justify offering the > unnecessary and exhorbitantly priced options? Go for it. Push the diamond-encrusted frames too. The whole point of having a trophy wife is to show off and her benefactor would WANT to spend the extra bucks. > You have again assumed it was an old lady. Probably not worth wasting > money on right? I'm nearly 65. At this point, it's going to take lots more than expensive frames and coatings to make significant inroads on time. Anybody who tried to sell me on the beautifying characteristics of the expensive frame+lens combo would probably receive as painful a tongue-lashing as I could come up with on short notice. SignatureCheers, Bev ==================================== Start worrying -- details to follow. >> I've had patients comment to me when they get there new glasses, "I >> love the anti-reflective coating and the transitions lenses. Why >> didn't my old doctor suggest these?" Obviously they didn't use the transitions to drive. If they had they would have been really pissed. I sure was when I found out that they don't darken inside a car. > Maybe because those options tripled or quadrupled the consumer > price of the already pricey eyglasses, and the the old doctor felt some > compassion for the lady's husband. Sorry, that's kind of a stretch... :-) SignatureCheers, Bev ==================================== Start worrying -- details to follow. When people are unable to differentiate quality, they rely on price. We have become "Walmart-ized." Those of us in the business know better. Here are a couple of examples of how price and quality are related in the world of lenses. There are really big companies out there, i.e. Essilor and Hoya, who spend lots of money on R&D. For at least two decades, the industry has been pushing A/R coatings down our throats, and we have been pushing them on our patients. What is the function of an A/R coating? They simply increase the transmission of light through the lens by reducing the amount reflected off the surfaces. So, absent these spurious reflections, images seem a bit brighter, a bit more saturated. The problem has traditionally been that the coating technology has not kept up with the changes in lens materials, with the result that the coatings have tended to be too fragile. Well, as a result of efforts of the investment of companies like Essilor, coatings are now very durable, and are available for a wide variety of substrates. They can even make a coating that is basically colorless. The coating can be warranted for the life of the prescription. For years we have been offered polycarbonate as an economical, thin, and light weight lens material. However, the optics are inferior. They tend to cause spatial distortion, as well as color fringes around objects. The redeeming aspects are the relative shatter resistance, thinness, and they are available in stock lenses at a very low price. There is now something better, called Trivex, and it is better in every way, especially in optical quality. Unfortunately, we are unable to get them in stock lenses and still must pay the premium to the lab. My optician is a techno-geek. He loves trying different lenses, and he tries them on me - particularly progressive lenses. I use the same frame and the same prescription, and so I am able to judge the differences in progressive lens design, and there are indeed differences. Some brands have better optics than others, feel more "natural," and have fewer distortions related to the progressive design. They also come at a higher price tag. We also get feedback from our customers, and keep track of how many "wows" we get for one product vs. another, how many remakes, etc. As a business with a 20+ year history in a small to medium sized community, with my name on the shingle, I am going to make darn sure that my reputation isn't going to be tarnished like the finish on a cheap frame. Naturally, if my market did not support the selling of premium products, I might be singing a different tune. Whether people think I charge too much is another issue. I can always lower my prices within reason, but I will always offer every person the opportunity to have the best quality within their particular budget, and my prices are always a direct reflection of what I pay to provide it. I really believe that the "Walmart-ization" of America is really lowering people's expectations regarding quality, because the consumer really believes that they are being offered the same quality, and it is only the price that differentiates us. DrG >When people are unable to differentiate quality, they rely on price. >We have become "Walmart-ized." This is true of pretty much everything. I cannot tell you how many times I've had my quality handknits on display and labelled as "For Sale", only to be told "I can buy that at Walmart for only $30!" when potential buyers see the price tags. +++++++++++++ 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... Try this $100 Coupon for glasses from Lens Crafters http://glasses.june-promotion.com [snip] >Well, as a result of efforts of the investment of companies like >Essilor, coatings are now very durable, and are available for a wide >variety of substrates. They can even make a coating that is basically >colorless. I have heard that the only *true* colorless A/R is one for a glass lens and produced by Zeiss (?); I have not personally seen it. The best A/R I have seen is what they use on my condensing lenses -- and those have a light residual purple sheen. I personally have not seen any A/R on a non-glass lens that is colorless. They all have had some kind of residual colored sheen. Can you enlighten me? [snip] >For years we have been offered polycarbonate as an economical, thin, >and light weight lens material. However, the optics are inferior. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >way, especially in optical quality. Unfortunately, we are unable to >get them in stock lenses and still must pay the premium to the lab. I too am a *huge* fan of TRIVEX. I recommend it over polycarbonate in nearly every case. o I don't get the "chipping" at the top of a metal frame I sometimes get in other materials (even poly) with rimlon. o I don't get cracks that I sometimes get with poly in a drill-mounted rimless frame. o I haven't had *one* patient come back with a cracked TRIVEX lens who we have fit into a rimless frame -- and we have fit close to a hundred (Silhouette Titan Minimal Art). It has happened in the past with poly. o It tints far better than poly does. So why do we use polycarbonate at all anymore? o Patients who are extremely price conscious. o Greater lens design availability. I can't get TRIVEX in trifocal, D-35 bifocal, any polaroid, and premium progressives (although I have had really no problems switching people from, say, a Varilux Comfort in Poly to a Image in TRIVEX). o TRIVEX has a lower refractive index than poly, so it is noticably thicker in the higher prescriptions. Therefore, some young kids/monocular or safety RXes with high prescriptions are still fit in poly over TRIVEX. I still am kind of going back and forth on this. [snip] > I have heard that the only *true* colorless A/R is one for a glass > lens and produced by Zeiss (?); I have not personally seen it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can you enlighten me? This is what I was told by someone who works for Essilor, who is in charge of their coating lab here in Dallas. He said that the results of their marketing were that preference was shown for the colorized product, and so they never marketed the colorless version. Believe it, or not. DrG > of their marketing were that preference was shown for the colorized > product, and so they never marketed the colorless version. > > Believe it, or not. Not. -MT > > of their marketing were that preference was shown for the colorized > > product, and so they never marketed the colorless version. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT\ "Colorless" with respect to A/R is most likely a relative term. The fact is they can alter the color balance. DrG >"Colorless" with respect to A/R is most likely a relative term. The >fact is they can alter the color balance. > >DrG The residual reflection looks neutral gray, essentially colorless. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >-MT > I'm with mike on this one. There is no colorless AR coating, since they all have to select a wavelength or two to reflect, and the reflection will have the color(so) of the wavelength that is reflected. For the reflected light to be colorless (white), it would have to reflect all wavelenghts pretty much equally. The only lens that does that is an UNCOATED lens. w.stacy, o.d. > >>of their marketing were that preference was shown for the colorized > >>product, and so they never marketed the colorless version. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. I appears as though I have a choice to believe you or the guy whom I have known for many years and who has spent most of his professional career developing coatings. I'll have to give this some deep thought. DrG >> I'm with mike on this one. There is no colorless AR coating, since they >> all have to select a wavelength or two to reflect, and the reflection [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >have known for many years and who has spent most of his professional >career developing coatings. I'll have to give this some deep thought. No offense, but I believe the latter also as Dr. L does. IIRC, anti-reflective coatings work by producing waves that totally or partially cancel each other out. If they totally cancel each other out, the residual wavelength is "colorless". If they partially cancel each other out, then you get the typical residual color. The trick has been to be able to make the various layers of the coating in the proper manner (order, index of refraction, thickness, etc.) in oder to make the coating "colorless" -- when I was in school, I was told it was technologically unfeasable at the time. IOW, there was always some problem that got in the way each time this was attempted. I could be off a bit on the explanation here -- it's been years since I took the courses in Optometry school that discussed this. As I wrote earlier, I was told years ago that one of (I believe) Zeiss' A/R coatings was colorless, but it was only available for a glass lens (maybe even a special low-iron glass). I don't think I have ever seen it in person. I will have to ask the Zeiss rep at the Academy in Denver in 12/2006. Bausch & Lomb had a coating that was out years ago that was reported to be colorless -- it was called "Marathon". I don't recall if it was actually colorless (I think I have a sample in a drawer somewhere in my office), but it was a horrible product as far as its durability and was yanked off the market after about a year I'd guess. >>> (anti-reflective coatings) Reflections from the surfaces of my $29 Zenni's have got a green-looking dichroic sheen. Reminding very much of what one gets from an A-R coating. As these are rimless and inexpensive, they must be of polycarbonate. I did not request coating. Considering what has been said here, one must wonder how Zenni could provide A-R coatings in such inexpensive eye glasses. Well, one thing -- slight blemishes in the coating are beginning to show in the coatings around the bridge screws. Possibly the glasses will need to be replaced after a year or so. Since these are reading glasses, I don't know why they should be A-R coated. My question to Zenni would be: could the eyeglasses be supplied without the coating. Maybe I should ask for my money back on the first pair, since I did not want them coated. -- Dicky > >>> (anti-reflective coatings) > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > Dicky Stock lenses are available with coating. The better coatings don't chip, and will resist scratches. It's a different ball game when the lens has to be surfaced, as is the case for higher prescriptions and multifocals, and the coating has to be applied afterwards thereby diminishing the economy of scale. DrG OK it would be THEORETICALLY possible to construct a multi-layer of 3 coatings, one for each of the primary color wavelengths, each layer with appropriate indices of refractions and thickness appropriate for it's substrate (being the underlying lens or the next layer "down" in the stack. I do know that no such coatings are commerically available for glass or plastic, if they ever existed at all. w.stacy, o.d. >>>I'm with mike on this one. There is no colorless AR coating, since they >>>all have to select a wavelength or two to reflect, and the reflection [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > my office), but it was a horrible product as far as its durability and > was yanked off the market after about a year I'd guess. > OK it would be THEORETICALLY possible to construct a multi-layer of 3 > coatings, one for each of the primary color wavelengths, each layer with > appropriate indices of refractions and thickness appropriate for it's > substrate (being the underlying lens or the next layer "down" in the > stack. I do know that no such coatings are commerically available for > glass or plastic, if they ever existed at all. One more thought. Even if you got a perfect result with the above, most ambient light has many wavelengths in addition to those of the primary colors. Those wavelengths would be reflected much more strongly than those of the primaries, so the resultant reflections would necessarily have color. E.g. say at sunset, the orange sunlight would reflect orange off the "colorless" coating. Colorless under lab conditions only I'm afraid... w.stacy, o.d. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >w.stacy, o.d. For more info regarding residual (reflex) color go to page 26 . http://www.essilor.com.sg/Library/oof_coatings.pdf Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France >I can't get TRIVEX in trifocal, 7x28's are readily available in the US market. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France >>I can't get TRIVEX in trifocal, > >7x28's are readily available in the US market. I (obviously) was unaware of that. Thanks for the heads up! >>>I can't get TRIVEX in trifocal, >> >>7x28's are readily available in the US market. > >I (obviously) was unaware of that. Thanks for the heads up! You're welcome. I agree with your assessment of Polycarbonate- use it only when you have to. Genesis (Shamir) and ECP (Hoya) are two Trivex PALs that I use frequently, and would consider these to be premium lenses, unless by "premium" you mean free-form designs. FYI glass executives are now officially discontinued- what's on the shelve is all that's left (U.S. market). Robert > You're welcome. I agree with your assessment of Polycarbonate- use it only > when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would consider these to be premium lenses, unless by "premium" you mean > free-form designs. I'll join in here with a "ditto". Polycarb is best used as a packaging material or aircraft window (for which it was originally designed and intended), not for ophthalmic lenses except when there is no other alternative. I don't think I've dispensed but a handful of polys in the last 5 years since Trivex and other high-index, low specific gravity materials "matured" into use. Shamir's Genesis and Piccolo and Hoya's Trivex PALS are not just "premium" in my office, but the "standard of care". LB, O.D. >I'll join in here with a "ditto". Polycarb is best used as a packaging >material or aircraft window (for which it was originally designed and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OK I've been bashing poly for a long time, but I must say they occasionally have a place in addition to helmet visors and what not. For example, a +1.00 or -1.00 where safety and cost are prime factors. Esp. if they want dead white (no color) in the lens. The chromabbs will be pretty minimal in low Rxs. But I'm for Trivex in most Rxs under 4 D. C'mon Hoya, are you listening? Bring on a Trivex version of Tact! Please w.stacy, o.d. >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody >needs aristocratic eye glasses. When I discuss lens options, I go over all their options. For example, I tell complaining emmetropic presbyopes for whom spectacles are the treatment modality, the pros/cons of reading glasses, bifocals and progressives. Based on their history, occupation, lifestyle, I then make recommendations. If patients then ask my advice on frames/lenses/coatings, I then offer them the best options -- cost does not enter into it. Patients then decide and tell me what they can and can't afford. It is a disservice for me not to offer and suggest the very best for my patients. It's what they expect from me. It gives them the opportunity to obtain the highest quality/stylish frames, with the thinnest/lightest lenses, and the clearest/most comfortable vision, and it gives our office the biggest profit. It's a win:win situation for both our patient and our office. Now, I don't do things like recommend 1.67 lenses for -0.50 DS, photochromic lenses for reading glasses that are used exclusively inside, or otherwise pad the bill. But if I show a patient a pair of -3.00 in standard plastic lenses and then show them a pair of -1.67 with an A/R coat so they can see the thickness and glare difference, and they smile and say "Oh, those 1.67s look much nicer -- that's what I want for my glasses." then NOT giving them that option would be poor Optometry and poor business. >When it comes to "progressives", people smart enough to figure out how >to use them are probably smart enough to choose a better and cheaper >option. This occurs exceedingly rare in my experience. Progressives are the best choice for the majority of my patients. >Those for whom "the best" is the categorical answer will probably need >AR-coated, low-r.i. aspherics of the "progressive" variety, and spend >quite a lot of time trying to find the right angle to cock their heads >and balance their specs on their noses to get the best images on their > retinas (retinae?). Once again, patients like this exist, but they are far and away the exception rather than the rule. >Another thing worth mentioning is that a lot of people needing eyeglasses >are not possible to correct for absolutely perfect vision, and may not be >appreciably better off in the best of all possible glasses than they would >be in a cheaper pair. (And some, at least, people who could be corrected >for pretty good vision, do not get corrected correctly, so the best of all possible >eyeglasses would be relatively useless for them.) Defintely NOT the case for the vast majority of my patients. How long have you been prescribing or fitting glasses for patients? Where do you practice -- "The Twilight Zone"? ;) >Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some strange situation where >the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated. However, more than 90% of the >light incident on the front of the eyeglasses passes even in uncoated eyeglasses, >and that plenty, notwithstanding that lenticular flare in uncoated eyeglasses might >be a slight problem for a bus driver or a pilot, for instance. I almost always recommend A/R coatings. And the amount of light that passes varies depending on the index of the material. CR-39 passes more light than 1.67, so patients with 1.67 benefit from A/R more than CR-39 users. > > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody > needs aristocratic eye glasses. I used to get Pearl/Lenscrafter 2-for-1 specials. When I got a better job, I started going to local optometrists and gotten high quality glasses. I definitely feel like I get my money's worth. I doubt other people notice a big difference, but I've always had problems with heavy glasses and poor fit. I always thought regularly pushing glasses back up was an expected part of life. I do think the added value of high quality glasses is worth the price. However, I still would like to have a better grasp of whether we can be more price-conscious with eyewear, though, since the pricing method is certainly not simple! >> Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going >> with the very best. > > There is also the possibility of the most appropriate. Not everybody > needs aristocratic eye glasses. Hear hear! > When it comes to "progressives", > people smart enough to figure out how to use them are probably smart [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > balance their specs on their noses to get the best images on their > retinas (retinae?). I would find that intolerable. Bad enough to have to choose just two angles with bifocals. I have separate +2.25 reading glasses for reading/computer, the bifocal segment is just for emergency use. > Anti-reflection coatings are good if one is in some strange situation > where the backs of the eyeglasses are illuminated. Like night driving, for instance. I would find AR coatings extremely valuable providing I could clean them by breathing on them and wiping them on my t-shirt tail. I don't think I can have that, though :-) > However, more > than 90% of the light incident on the front of the eyeglasses passes > even in uncoated eyeglasses, and that plenty, notwithstanding that > lenticular flare in uncoated eyeglasses might be a slight problem for > a bus driver or a pilot, for instance. Some people feel that the very best is only just good enough for them just BECAUSE. They're the same people who buy L'Oreal because they're worth it. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================= You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape. > 1.67 D-28 bifocals would add around $100 to the cost over single > vision. Progressives would add about $200 to the cost over single [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > think 1/2mm edge/center thickness is extremely obvious while others > think 2mm edge/center thickness difference is no big deal). Hmm, that's good to know. I think my father is no greater than a 6.00, so 1.67's should be okay, I would think. He currently wears coke-bottle lenses and always adjusting his glasses. It's more of a weight issue than it is a "look" issue, for wanting to go with thin lenses. > >For the Crizal Alize's, is it generally going to cost over $400 just > >for the lenses for single vision high index and much more for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things like polishing the edges, rimlon/rimless mounting, 1.0mm center > thickness, etc. or the power is higher (say <-4.00 D). Ahh, i thought price only depended on the material. So higher prescriptions will cost more, all other things (material, index, coating) being equal? Would astigmatism and high prescriptions (<-6.00D) cause the price to go up a lot? Is there a way to get a general idea of how much price goes up with prescription, or does it always vary greatly from optometrist to optometrist? > Most people I prescribe glasses to don't end up regretting going with > the very best. This is especially true if they were their glasses all > the time. I have some patients who will spend $400.00 on an outfit > they might wear 4 times a year but balk at spending $200.00 on a pair > of glasses they were 14 hours a day, every day, for a year. It's all > about priorities. Absolutely agree. This is why I refuse to let my father go budget on his glasses this time and want to buy him a great pair. However, as a normally informed consumer, I find myself a bit uncomfortable with shopping for glasses because it's hard to understand the pricing. Once the optometrist gets out his calculator and starts hitting buttons, i'm always a bit nervous! I appreciate your responses. Thanks! >> I haven't priced or prescribed 1.74 index lenses yet (SV and >> progressive only availabilty), but I suspect they would add around [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Hmm, that's good to know. I think my father is no greater than a 6.00, >so 1.67's should be okay, I would think. IMHO, the difference between 1.67 and 1.74 lenses in someone who is <= -6.00D in an average sized frame is not significant for the vast majority of patients. Where I think it makes a difference is in (1) the person that demands the very best regardless of the cost and (2) the person with really high prescriptions, say -11.00D. >He currently wears coke-bottle lenses and always adjusting his >glasses. It's more of a weight issue than it is a "look" issue, for >wanting to go with thin lenses. If he is using standard CR-39 lenses (or standard glass lenses), then going to 1.67s will be a vast improvement both cosmetically and weight-wise. Other good pointers are to keep the frames as small/round as possible with the eyes centered in the lenses. Also, metal or plastic frames keep the lenses looking nicer than rimlon or rimless designs. >>especially if you add in other things like polishing the edges, >>rimlon/rimless mounting, 1.0mm center thickness, etc. or the power is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >prescriptions will cost more, all other things (material, index, >coating) being equal? You would think so, but most labs charge a certain amount per diopter over a certain power. For example, say $10 a diopter over a -4.00D, so a pair of -8.00Ds would be $40 more than a pair of -4.00s. (I'm not sure of the exact numbers because I don't, off of the top of my head, recall what the lab charges -- these numbers are for example purpose only). I think the rationale is there is more spoilage when the labs grind higher prescriptions. Labs charge us and therefore we pass that on to patients. >Would astigmatism and high prescriptions (<-6.00D) cause the price to >go up a lot? Not relative to everything else. And typically with the labs I deal with, how much it goes up depends solely on the power and not the material. So that $40 more example I wrote earlier is the same whether the lenses were made of glass, CR-39 or 1.74 aspheric plastic. >Is there a way to get a general idea of how much price goes up with >prescription, or does it always vary greatly from optometrist to >optometrist? I think it probably varies, but it typically such a small amount compared to everything else that the difference between different places will not be a lot. Do I make sense here? Where it costs a lot is when people are like -12.00D versus -4.00D, not like -4.00D versus a -6.00D. >I appreciate your responses. Thanks! You're welcome. > If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality > local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks very much! Actually, both Wal-Mart and Costco carry many premium brand lenses, and the quality of the staff that I found (sampled over 10 Wal-marts) is higher than other chain stores and many independents. The Wal-Marts that I visited usually had at least one very experienced optician (more than 20 years) on duty. If you are getting progressives, this is very important (you should always ask for the most experienced person in the store if you are getting progressives). Most of the other chain stores only carry mediocre quality lenses (but you may get your glasses in an hour), and their staff is often incompetent.. It isn't fair to group the quality of eyeglasses by the vendor that they are purchased from. Here in Illinois, for example, the person who manufactures your eyeglasses has never had to meet any type of standards to do their job. In Illinois your hair stylist is a licensed professional, the person who puts chemicals on your lawn is a licensed professional...but the person who made your eyeglasses is not required to graduate from high school or pass a math test or take any apprenticeship. Therefore, the kid who made your eyeglasses might have been selling tires the day before. This problem is not unique to Costco, WalMart or even private doctors' offices. When you get really poor eyeglasses, don't complain to the chain that paid the employee a sales clerk salary...blame your state legislator that lets the profession of opticianry go unregulated! > > If one were to avoid the Costcos/Walmart's, and go with high-quality > > local optometrists, I understand prices are going to be much higher. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Most of the other chain stores only carry mediocre quality lenses (but you > may get your glasses in an hour), and their staff is often incompetent.. > When you get really poor eyeglasses, don't complain to the chain that > paid the employee a sales clerk salary...blame your state legislator > that lets the profession of opticianry go unregulated! OTOH, when was the last time you heard about a medical doctor being drummed out of the business for killing too many patients? Regulation ain't all it's cracked up to be. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================= You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape. |
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.