>Ok, Doc is really advising against CR-30 and recommends >polycarb, or as an alternative 1.67, 'cause I'm getting drill >mounts. Air Titanium rimless. For drill-mounted frames, my preference for materials is this, from best to worst: TRIVEX, 1.67, polycarb, CR-39, other mid-index plastic.
>O.D. +1.25 sph add +2.25 >O.S. +0.75 -0.25 add +2.25 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >So... >I don't expect the difference in thinness to be measurable. It isn't in that prescription.
>I don't expect the difference in weight to be noticeable. It won't.
>Is there any possibility I could see any material caused abberations >with either (I'm very sensitive to that sort ofthing)? Yes, but that possibility is low with that small of a precription.
I second Dr. Leukoma's opinion. For a rimless frame, I would ask if you could be prescribed a progressive you can get in TRANSITIONS V TRIVEX such as Hoya's Summit ECP. Essilor will not/cannot apply Crizal Alize to a TRIVEX lens, but I-Coat's Vivix Stainless and Hoya's high-end A/R coat (Super HiVision?) are just as good IMHO.
I would be surprised if you are one of the rare birds that find a noticable negative difference being prescribed a Hoya Summit ECP versus a Varilux Physio 360.
>Would there be any difference with the transitions performance? I have found all of the TRANSITIONS V materials to perform about the same. Make sure you are aware of the pros/cons of TRANSITIONS lenses.
>Price difference is about 10% of total so not a factor if there is any >advantage to the 1.67 That is a low price difference.
I have found that 1.67 performs better in a rimless frame, however the lower abbe value of 1.67 versus poly may be an issue. 1.67 performs better as in less risk of the spider cracks at the drill points that is not uncommon after time with polycarbonate.
However, both poly and 1.67 have lower abbe values than TRIVEX or CR-39.
|