Eyeglasses

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on types of
lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with bi-focal, photo
grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.


--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Long post, should be of interest in regards to optics for even
photographers who do not wear glasses (yet).

I got new eyeglasses today, progressive bifocals (no line) and the
auto-tint sunglasses thing this time (Reactint grey poly). Vision is very
important to me and I asked a lot of questions, so this is my summary to
share and I would like to know anything folks here have to add, confirm,
dispute, or comment on.

SNIP

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Welcome to middle age. :-) I've worn coke bottle bottom glasses since I was
in first grade. I am incredibly nearsighted and have a horrible astigmatism
in both eyes. I have, until 2006, always worn glass lenses, from about 14
up I have always gotten the photo gray lens. In 2006 I tried the plastic
lenses, mostly because the Dr. finally convinced me to try the new
hi-refractivity materials to make the lenses look thinner.

The plastic lenses were fine for about 6 months and then the fine scratches
became noticeable on inspection, but did not affect my vision noticeably. It
took 2 years before the plastic lenses were bad enough that I wanted to have
them replaced. The $20 "insurance" was well spent at the time of purchase,
but my vision of replacing the lenses every 3 months never happened.

I have never broken a glass lens. So unless someone is trying to plug your
eye socket with a .45, I think the concern from breakage is unrealistic.
Glass is more expensive than plastic, both in raw materials and
manufacturing the lens.

The anti-scratch coating typically includes an anti-reflective coating, if
you want anti-glare you need to polarize the light.

Eye dominance has nothing to do with handedness. I'm right hand, left eye.

Yes you should still probably have a correction for astigmatism. Take them
back and have them fixed.

-Jim

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on types
of lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with bi-focal,
photo grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.

Maybe in your hemisphere, but $600 is pretty steep in the US, especially for
a very minor correction. I just assumed it was a California Price Special.
Paid $425 for mine with all the goodies and titanium frames.
-Jim

"jimkramer" wrote in message
...
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on types
of lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with bi-focal,
photo grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.

Maybe in your hemisphere, but $600 is pretty steep in the US, especially
for a very minor correction. I just assumed it was a California Price
Special. Paid $425 for mine with all the goodies and titanium frames.
-Jim


well that's good to hear, something in the US medical system that is
actually cheaper than here (here being Australia)
though we get just about everything else free (or nominal cost)in the public
health system :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

jimkramer wrote:
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to
avoid doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on
types of lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with
bi-focal, photo grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.

Maybe in your hemisphere, but $600 is pretty steep in the US,
especially for a very minor correction. I just assumed it was a
California Price Special. Paid $425 for mine with all the goodies and
titanium frames. -Jim

I didn't pay that much for prescription goggles with two sets of lenses
(clear and polarized).

Now if you're talking prescription Serengetis . . .

On 2009-04-08 05:24:06 -0700, "jimkramer"
said:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Long post, should be of interest in regards to optics for even
photographers who do not wear glasses (yet).

I got new eyeglasses today, progressive bifocals (no line) and the
auto-tint sunglasses thing this time (Reactint grey poly). Vision is very
important to me and I asked a lot of questions, so this is my summary to
share and I would like to know anything folks here have to add, confirm,
dispute, or comment on.

SNIP

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Welcome to middle age. :-) I've worn coke bottle bottom glasses since I was
in first grade. I am incredibly nearsighted and have a horrible astigmatism
in both eyes. I have, until 2006, always worn glass lenses, from about 14
up I have always gotten the photo gray lens. In 2006 I tried the plastic
lenses, mostly because the Dr. finally convinced me to try the new
hi-refractivity materials to make the lenses look thinner.

The plastic lenses were fine for about 6 months and then the fine scratches
became noticeable on inspection, but did not affect my vision noticeably. It
took 2 years before the plastic lenses were bad enough that I wanted to have
them replaced. The $20 "insurance" was well spent at the time of purchase,
but my vision of replacing the lenses every 3 months never happened.

I have never broken a glass lens. So unless someone is trying to plug your
eye socket with a .45, I think the concern from breakage is unrealistic.
Glass is more expensive than plastic, both in raw materials and
manufacturing the lens.

The anti-scratch coating typically includes an anti-reflective coating, if
you want anti-glare you need to polarize the light.

Eye dominance has nothing to do with handedness. I'm right hand, left eye.

Yes you should still probably have a correction for astigmatism. Take them
back and have them fixed.

-Jim

Agreed.

As someone with severe astigmatism I found the weight of glass together
with extreme edge variation always made frame choice very narrow and
uncomfortable.
I moved to plastics as an early adopter some 25 years ago. At first
there were scratch and wear issues related to my poor lens cleaning
habits, using anything at hand (short of sandpaper that is!) to wipe
the lenses.
The continuing improvement in optical grade plastics and coatings, as
well as frame materials has resulted in some wonderfully light weight
and durable glasses. (My improved lens cleaning practices have also
helped.)
I use polycarb Transitions with progressive reading correction and
anti-reflective coating in Silhouette skeleton frames. These also have
a custom matched polarized clip-on. They are feather weight even with
the clip-on.

Back to Paul's problem. He needs to get a "real" eye exam and
refraction, not the overpriced store front eyeball test they used to
rob him.


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-04-07 19:59:30 -0700, Paul Furman said:

THE SNIP
Here's the (confusing) data:

2006
sph cyl axis prism add (add for distance)
+1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

2009
sph cyl axis prism add (add for reading)
+025 PS +1.50 (right)
+025 PS +1.50 (left)

Note the difference: (add for distance)/(add for reading)
-perhaps I wrote it down wrong in 2006?

Don't you actually get a prescription certificate of the test?
In the UK you can then take the prescription to any optician you like,
and not necessarily the one that did the test.

For this one I confirmed the math for reading glasses:
+025 distance plus +150 = +1.75 (in walgreens reading glasses
terminology).

Last time, I was told I had an astigmatism in one or more eyes, I
don't recall. That seems to be the cyl/axis data? My observations
above about tilting and asymmetry suggest an asymmetry for which I
don't have the knowledge to describe properly. Do the 2006 numbers
explain that or some other situation? Should I complain that this exam
was not accurate enough, or just pay more for a more custom service
next time? They said something about a free adjustment appointment in
a month or something like that...

You are correct the cyl/axis data is indicative of astigmatism in both
eyes. I think you were robbed.

Seems a bit steep for what are little more than a pair of overpriced
designer framed reading glasses (at least if the 2009 prescription is to
be believed). My own optician now has a direct laser speckle measurement
system that is surprisingly accurate and much quicker. He reckons it is
also more reliable since with the classical test methodology so few
people answer all his questions correctly.

Measured Sph +0.25 on its own would not normally be worth correcting
never mind having varifocal lenses. I didn't get reading glasses until
my arms were not long enough to obtain focus which was about Sph 0.5.

Incidentally I hope the US test includes a routine check for glaucoma if
you are over 40 (it wasn't mentioned).

You have been given a very poor refaction (optometrist speak for a
vision exam).

Your 2006 Rx is indicative of astigmatism which is corrected with a
sphero-cylindrical, or toroidal lens. The Rx shows the difference in
both eyes and the angle of astigmatism. The +1.25 add gives you the
reading correction. This seems to be an appropriate correction for most.

Now for 2009. You seem to have found a clown refractionist, trying to do
an eye-ball refraction without any concern for your vision issues.
Astigmatism is not going to vanish. It will change, but not magically
disappear.
You have been given a new Rx without astigmatism cylinder correction,
only a simple spherical lens + reading correction. They gave you a cheap
fix and hoped you would go away.
I am surprised you are not getting headaches, and possibly a little
nauseous.

If you look at the ball park numbers for the left eye, in 2006 in one
axis you had +0.50 -0.50 giving you an effective 0.00 correction in one
axis and +0.50 in the other. The effective reading correction would be
+1.25/1.75
In 2009 they have given you an averaged +0.25 with a reading correction
equaling +1.75, The same as in your major astigmatic axis in 2006.

There are similar issues with your right eye.
A competent optometist would also do a binocular balance between the two
eyes.

A photographer with a lens chart or similar test piece should be able to
tell if their sight is astigmatic in low light. Text will seem blurred
in one direction and sharp the other.

A quick and dirty test would be how well can you read fine print close
up and larger print at a distance with the old glasses and the new ones.
If the old ones give an obviously sharper focus then you have been had.

Regards,
Martin Brown

dadiOH wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$100 for the exam (could have been less without being dialated).
$200 for the designer frames
$310 lenses "Reactint Grey (Poly), Progressive - Illumina"
(includes $130 extra for auto-tint and $100 off for complete pair)
-progressive bifocal is more than straight scrip.


Here's the (confusing) data:

2006
sph cyl axis prism add (add for distance)
+1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

Astigmatism

2009
sph cyl axis prism add (add for reading)
+025 PS +1.50 (right)
+025 PS +1.50 (left)

No atigmatism and more far sighted
______________

Note the difference: (add for distance)/(add for reading)
-perhaps I wrote it down wrong in 2006?
For this one I confirmed the math for reading glasses:
+025 distance plus +150 = +1.75 (in walgreens reading glasses
terminology).
Last time, I was told I had an astigmatism in one or more eyes, I
don't recall. That seems to be the cyl/axis data? My observations
above about tilting and asymmetry suggest an asymmetry for which I
don't have the knowledge to describe properly. Do the 2006 numbers
explain that or some other situation? Should I complain that this
exam was not accurate

1. Draw three vertical line like this... |||
2. Now draw three horizontal lines next to them
3. Take off your glasses and look at the lines

Do either set of three look sharper than the other set? Yes = astigmatism

Right, we did that test & the horizontal lines were thicker. So, why
doesn't my scrip show that? There were a few switcharoos though & I
wasn't following what was going on, just yes/no, rush along...


They
said something about a free adjustment appointment in a month or
something like that...

To adjust the *frame* fit.

Could be a chance to complain about missing astigmatism though, and/or
asymmetry at computer distance. I didn't bring my old scrip because I
assumed they had it on file but they throw them out after 3 years (no
digital records). Also I was told during the exam that there was no
correction needed at a distance but the scrip shows otherwise. I was
never convinced that the old ones improved distance, maybe at 5 or 10 feet


I asked, "what about optimizing for photography and or computer work,
because that's super-important for me?" I edit photos on a 26-inch
monitor at 20 to 34 inches away, and it's my understanding that an SLR
camera simulates a focal distance of about 30 inches. And what about
closer viewing, like examining plant specimens for identification?

Computer: second pair of glasses or clip on "reading glasses"

Camera: clip on +1.5 eyepiece (on camera)

I think the best for camera use is the progressives because I can see
the world and the LCD and the focus screen though there is a diopter
adjustment on the viewfinder. I just checked that with the new glasses &
one notch plus improves things. Two notches plus without the glasses. If
I use the +1 closeup lens as eyeglasses: minus one or two notches (hard
to tell the difference because it's sharper so the astigmatism is more
apparent).


Plant specimens: Hastings triplet for 10X, regular magnifying glass for less
power.

Yeah, I've got a little 10x folding triplet hand lens but still miss
having the eyes of a child :-) The hand lens is a hassle to pull out &
remember to bring. Some maps have extremely small text, try reading
those at night in the car while driving!


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 00:42:50 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I can truly understand not wanting to wear glasses, however both of us
are of an age that even if we were corrected for normal distance vision
our old eyes would not permit the luxury of spectacle free reading.

In my case, I do read without my glasses. The eye changes shape as
you age, and it is that change in the curve of the eye that determines
if you need bifocals. My age-flattened eyes focus precisely at my
reading distance. It the slightly longer distance that gives me
problems. I can't, for example, see my car's dashboard instruments
clearly without bifocals.

At one of the national meetings for ophthalmologists where I was
working the Zeiss booth in the exhibition hall, I sat in on a meeting*
where the Russian doctor Svyatoslav N. Fyodorov was speaking. He was
the surgeon who did the first work in radial keratotomy**. In the RK
procedure, the cornea is cut with a knife so that the eye is re-shaped
in healing.

Fyodorov told the fascinating story of how he observed that a Russian
pilot's vision changed after corneal damage caused by a bird going
through his plane's windscreen. Fyodorov then developed the procedure
of deliberately changing the curvature of the cornea to change vision.

While the RK procedure is not the surgery of choice anymore, the LASIK
(laser) method is based on the same idea. Just the tool to make the
incisions has changed.

Fyodorov was very interested in aviation, and wanted to be a pilot.
But, he lost a foot in an aviation school accident and went on to
medical training. Ironically, he died in a helicopter crash.

* Vendors are not usually allowed in the medical meetings. However,
Fyodorov was closely associated with Zeiss, so they let some of us
with Zeiss badges into the hall.

** It had been observed much earlier by other doctors that the
curvature of the cornea determined vision, but Fyodorov was the first
doctor who determined how a specific pattern of cuts to the cornea
could result in predictable corrected vision.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

With progressive lenses, most rx's will add another 0.5 diopter (to the add)
to improve the correction for close vision. Otherwise, the progressives may
not give enough correction. A quarter diopter difference is minimal.

Progressives do take some adjustment- the transition from distance to near
in the middle of the lens is shaped like an hourglass, so off axis requires
more head turning.