Progressives/bifocal/reading glasses questions

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Joe Negron - 15 Jun 2007 19:51 GMT

About three years ago I bought two pair of glasses from LensCrafters, a
pair of progressives and a pair of "distance" glasses.

I was ultimately unhappy with the progressives, not for the reasons that
I often see mentioned here (blurry peripheries, especially) but because
the reading area was pretty narrow which made it difficult to read with
them (I either had to constantly move my head or the reading material).

I ended up exchanging the progressives for bifocals. However, I'm not
entirely happy with them either because the reading area of the lens is
only 5/16" tall. So now, rather than having to move my head or the
reading material horizontally in order to align my eye with the narrow
reading portion of the progressive lens, it is instead necessary to move
my head or the reading material vertically in order to keep my line of
sight through the 5/16" tall reading glass portion of the bifocals.

It occurred to me recently that part of the problem with the
progressives was not necessarily their quality but the fact that the
frame I chose has rather small (approximately 1 1/8" x 1 7/8") openings
for the lenses. Is it true that larger frames would allow the reading
portion of the progressives to be wider? This certainly would seem to
be the case with bifocals, no? (i.e., the reading portion of the lens
could be taller)

My goal is to have a pair of reading glasses for prolonged reading, and
a pair of progressives for other use and light reading. If this is not
possible based on the answers to my questions, I guess I would have to
go with a pair of distance glasses and a pair of reading glasses.

Another potential solution: I've heard of the clip-on sunglasses which
convert prescription glasses to prescription sunglasses. Does such a
thing exist for reading glasses? (i.e., clip-ons which convert distance
glasses to reading glasses?)

BTW, if it matters, my last prescription (from three years ago) is:

SPHERICAL CYLINDRICAL AXIS
O.D. p1 -1.25 30
O.S. +0.50 -0.75 170

O.D.
O.S. add +1.50

Of course, I figure three years is long enough so that I'll get another
prescription before ordering a new pair of glasses. But, as far as I
can tell my current prescription is fine.

advTHANKSance

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people and
for the people.
--Oscar Wilde

War is good for business - invest your son.
--antiwar bumper sticker from the 1960s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Negron from Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY, USA

Reply to this Message

Victek - 16 Jun 2007 17:53 GMT

> It occurred to me recently that part of the problem with the
> progressives was not necessarily their quality but the fact that the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> be the case with bifocals, no? (i.e., the reading portion of the lens
> could be taller)

Common sense suggests and my Dr confirms that larger/taller lenses result in
larger zones in a progressive lens. I have progressive lenses that are two
inches wide and 1.75 inches tall, and the reading portion is large enough
for me (though they did take some getting used to). The current fashion of
very narrow frames does not make for the best experience with progressives
IMHO. Larger lenses/frames are still a compromise though, compared with
reading glasses.

Reply to this Message

Robert Martellaro - 19 Jun 2007 22:23 GMT

>About three years ago I bought two pair of glasses from LensCrafters, a
>pair of progressives and a pair of "distance" glasses.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>the reading area was pretty narrow which made it difficult to read with
>them (I either had to constantly move my head or the reading material).

The narrow reading zone should be noticeable initially, but should disappear
after two to four weeks, assuming the lens is positioned properly. Exceptions,
in my experience, are about one or two percent when fit properly.

>I ended up exchanging the progressives for bifocals. However, I'm not
>entirely happy with them either because the reading area of the lens is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>my head or the reading material vertically in order to keep my line of
>sight through the 5/16" tall reading glass portion of the bifocals.

5/16" is about 8mm, too narrow for a segmented multifocal unless they are for
special tasks like golf, or lower than average near tasks. So, it's either
measured too low, the frame is too narrow, the frame is positioned improperly
(to high), or a combination of the above.

>It occurred to me recently that part of the problem with the
>progressives was not necessarily their quality but the fact that the
>frame I chose has rather small (approximately 1 1/8" x 1 7/8") openings
>for the lenses.

My current frame is 1 3/16" (about 30mm) on the vertical. I'm very comfortable
reading for extended periods (+2.25 Add, PAL (Progressive addition lens)).

>Is it true that larger frames would allow the reading
>portion of the progressives to be wider? This certainly would seem to
>be the case with bifocals, no? (i.e., the reading portion of the lens
>could be taller)

Not necessarily. Depends on the reading depth, lens design, frame shape, shape
and size of the nose, etc.

>My goal is to have a pair of reading glasses for prolonged reading, and
>a pair of progressives for other use and light reading. If this is not
>possible based on the answers to my questions, I guess I would have to
>go with a pair of distance glasses and a pair of reading glasses.

In general, if everything is done right you should be able to get it all in one
pair of glasses.

>Another potential solution: I've heard of the clip-on sunglasses which
>convert prescription glasses to prescription sunglasses. Does such a
>thing exist for reading glasses? (i.e., clip-ons which convert distance
>glasses to reading glasses?)

They're available, but might scratch the lens and cause fatigue when used for
extended periods.

>BTW, if it matters, my last prescription (from three years ago) is:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> O.D.
> O.S. add +1.50

It matters. On the plus side it's a lower power add, resulting in less surface
astigmatism and softer, wider boundaries. On the minus side, you're not used to
wearing glasses or don't feel a need to wear them full time. In general, it's a
tough Rx to fit successfully with multifocals.

>Of course, I figure three years is long enough so that I'll get another
>prescription before ordering a new pair of glasses. But, as far as I
>can tell my current prescription is fine.
>
>advTHANKSance

I can't make specific recommendations unless I can see the glasses on your face
along with 15 to 30 minutes of Q&A pertaining to your visual needs.

You need discuss this with an experienced optician. The good ones will most
likely get it right the first time.

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman

Reply to this Message