Re: polycarb vs 1.67 for weak prescription

You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: polycarb vs 1.67 for weak prescription

Quick	23 Jun 2006 20:25
> The OP said "Yea, I know, I don't need the 360" so I > assume he was advised on this by his OD and/or optician. > I took him at this word on that. oops, sorry for that. By "I don't need the 360" I meant that I don't need the Physio 360 over the plain Physio. -Quick

Mark A

23 Jun 2006 13:44

> Buddy, you are an idiot.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> dr grant

The OP said "Yea, I know, I don't need the 360" so I assume he was advised
on this by his OD and/or optician. I took him at this word on that.

The OP also said that he was "very sensitive" to chromatic aberration. I
don't consider an add of +2.25 with a sphere of +1.25 to be a "lower
script". I would consider it to be moderate plus and somewhat susceptible to
chromatic aberration with polycarb.

CatmanX

23 Jun 2006 12:08

Buddy, you are an idiot.

Physio 360m is a much better lens. Pay the $20.00 and be happy it was
well invested.

Airwear is fine for lower scripts. Chromatic aberration is
inconsequential at these scripts. The benefit of 1.67 is it is
virtually unbreakable - more so than airwear. Airwear is cheaper and
great for rimless fits.

Quick, stick with the physio 360, multicoated and choose the material
you are happy with.\

dr grant

Mark A

23 Jun 2006 09:08

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:q5Omg.49044

> I don't think that's an option. I think the Physio 360 is only
> offered in polycarb, 1.67, and they just added CR-30 which
> has been recommended against due to the drill mounts.
>
> thanks,
> -Quick

You are correct that 1.60 is not available for Varilux Physio 360. Therefore
I would strongly consider the Varilux Panamic which is available in 1.60.

Quick

23 Jun 2006 09:01

>> Ok, Doc is really advising against CR-30 and recommends
>> polycarb, or as an alternative 1.67, 'cause I'm getting
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> chromatic aberration. 1.67 is overkill for you. I would
> go with 1.60 at the most.

I don't think that's an option. I think the Physio 360 is only
offered in polycarb, 1.67, and they just added CR-30 which
has been recommended against due to the drill mounts.

thanks,
-Quick

Mark A

23 Jun 2006 08:28

> Ok, Doc is really advising against CR-30 and recommends
> polycarb, or as an alternative 1.67, 'cause I'm getting drill
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> -Quick

Polycarb has the worst chromatic aberration of any commercially available
lens material (measured by abbe value) regardless of index. Avoid it like
the plague.

Except for polycarb, the higher the index, the worse the chromatic
aberration. 1.67 is overkill for you. I would go with 1.60 at the most.

Quick

23 Jun 2006 05:28

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.

O.D. +1.25 sph add +2.25
O.S. +0.75 -0.25 add +2.25

Physio 360
Crizal Alize with Clear Guard (gold)
Transitions (grey)

Yea, I know, I don't need the 360... it's only $20 more.
I don't play Jai Lai

So...
I don't expect the difference in thinness to be measurable.
I don't expect the difference in weight to be noticeable.

Is there any possibility I could see any material caused
abberations with either (I'm very sensitive to that sort of
thing)?
Would there be any difference with the transitions
performance?

Price difference is about 10% of total so not a factor
if there is any advantage to the 1.67

-Quick

Quick links: