Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur fast
at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm (22-24").
So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate correction
is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and Near, given that
the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1 dioptre is 1/metre - so
I would have guessed the harmonic mean would be a better mean, but that's
another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!

Mary

In article ,
Mary Crewkerne wrote:
Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur fast
at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm (22-24").
So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate correction
is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and Near, given that
the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1 dioptre is 1/metre - so
I would have guessed the harmonic mean would be a better mean, but
that's another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!

Since you have astigmatism, ready made reading glasses won't be suitable.
So as they'll have to be made up by an optician, get a test at the
distance you're concerned with?

I wear contact lenses which correct my eyes for distance, and find +1
ready made ideal for the computer.

--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

In article ,
Mary Crewkerne wrote:
Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur
fast at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm
(22-24"). So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance
lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate
correction is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and
Near, given that the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1
dioptre is 1/metre - so I would have guessed the harmonic mean would
be a better mean, but that's another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!

Since you have astigmatism, ready made reading glasses won't be
suitable. So as they'll have to be made up by an optician, get a test
at the distance you're concerned with?

They won't be ready-made; I'm too lop-sided! I'm planning to get the
lenses mail order from Glasses Direct, who can put new lenses into old
frames for £25 - you just tell them the figures you need.

Usually apparently the Intermediate addition is half the Near addition. but
that's very rough, given that some people need intermediate glasses for
seeing e.g. people's faces etc. at say 3ft, whereas others need them for
computer screens etc..

I wear contact lenses which correct my eyes for distance, and find +1
ready made ideal for the computer.

Any idea what % of your "near" Addition that corresponds to?

You probably already know this, but:

Distance: Sph x
Near addition: y

-

Reading: Sph x+y
"Standard" intermediate: Sph x + (y/2)

Mary

"Mary Crewkerne" wrote in message
...
Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur fast
at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm (22-24").
So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate correction
is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and Near, given that
the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1 dioptre is 1/metre - so
I would have guessed the harmonic mean would be a better mean, but that's
another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!

Mary

Have you tried varifocals yet?
they have a zone for intermediate as well as for reading.
just make sure the optician knows that the intermediate is for a screen and
not for TV viewing.
Of course some people can still focus over a good range but it gets less as
you get older.

"dennis@home" wrote in
:



"Mary Crewkerne" wrote in
message ...
Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur
fast at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm
(22-24"). So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance
lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate
correction is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and
Near, given that the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1
dioptre is 1/metre - so I would have guessed the harmonic mean would
be a better mean, but that's another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!

Mary

Have you tried varifocals yet?
they have a zone for intermediate as well as for reading.

No but I've tried bifocals and prefer to have the whole lens available. I
don't mind switching glasses all the time. Had a test in Tesco and the
optician handed me over to a salesman who made a hard sell effort to sell
me varifocals, not on the basis of any specific need (other than I've got
eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient". I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them, at
which point he said if I paid £50 extra I could get higher-range
varifocals in which the often blurred areas at the sides would be
smaller!

just make sure the optician knows that the intermediate is for a
screen and not for TV viewing.
Of course some people can still focus over a good range but it gets
less as you get older.

Huge wrote in
:

On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient".
I said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with
them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are those who complained about them.

Not so - three family members and three friends of 30 years. All apart from
two hadn't told me anything about them until I asked. I also asked five
other people whether they'd ever used varifocals, who said no.

I have nothing against varifocals and am sure they work very well for some
people, and are what some people prefer.

But even if they worked fine for everyone, I'd still prefer separate pairs
of glasses - that's just me :-)

Mary

Mary Crewkerne was thinking very hard :
Not so - three family members and three friends of 30 years. All apart from
two hadn't told me anything about them until I asked. I also asked five
other people whether they'd ever used varifocals, who said no.

You can add me to the list too, I found them useless for the purpose
and down right dangerous to walk about wearing.

I can walk about fine in any of the pairs I wear for reading, TV and
driving, but I struggled in the varifocals - constantly bumping into
things below eye level. The close focus bit at the bottom was also
useless for reading, involving head movement rather than eye movement
along a line of text.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient". I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them are
those who complained about them.


Indeed.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all. When I first put them on there was a bit of a 'Oooo, that a
bit odd' moment, but my eyes adjusted in a couple of minutes (I get the
same sort of thing if I put my single vision specs on for a bit - but it
goes after about a minute) I did get the more expensive lenses, rather
than the bog standard ones, but there are no 'blurred' areas etc. as
such. The only time I notice that they are varifocals is in the odd
occasion I look through the 'wrong' bit of the lense.

Typically working close over head through the distance bit, or watching
the TV lying down through the near vision bit.

Certainly much more convenient than having to swap glasses around though

--
Chris French

On 06/08/2011 14:36, chris French wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient". I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are
those who complained about them.


Indeed.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all. When I first put them on there was a bit of a 'Oooo, that a
bit odd' moment, but my eyes adjusted in a couple of minutes (I get the
same sort of thing if I put my single vision specs on for a bit - but it
goes after about a minute) I did get the more expensive lenses, rather
than the bog standard ones, but there are no 'blurred' areas etc. as
such. The only time I notice that they are varifocals is in the odd
occasion I look through the 'wrong' bit of the lense.

Typically working close over head through the distance bit, or watching
the TV lying down through the near vision bit.

Certainly much more convenient than having to swap glasses around though

I'm on my second set (standard, not "expensive") and find them
excellent. I was given a set of bifocal safety glasses which I found
hopeless. But I have a single prescription set for computer work: I find
the "computer distance" zone in varifocals is too small and in the wrong
place. I find I can work with paper and on a screen at the same time.

So, what Chris says. Not having to swap for everyday life (driving, TV,
close up work) but switching to the computer glasses for computers works
for me. Never tried Tescos; used to use one of the big "old" chains, but
found their hard sell of "specials" a bit much on top of their prices.
Went to Vision Express once (OK) and SpecSavers twice. If anything,
SpecSavers are a bit too ready *not* to suggest the extras (hard
coatings, etc).

On 06/08/2011 14:36, chris French wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient". I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are
those who complained about them.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all.

I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed
in the direction of varifocals by the optician. Certainly sounds an
attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of carrying round
different specs all the time; however when I saw the price (many
hundreds of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home and try for
the safety of glassesdirect.com etc.

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

The other thing was that the optician's fitter presented a lot of
options for different varifocal lenses at massively different prices,
but didn't seem to have a particularly clear idea of what you got for
your money, which were to me reinforced by the leaflets she gave me
(anyone for snake oil?) eg:

http://tinyurl.com/43mdowj (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/default.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/3j3k5kf (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/EyecodeLenses.aspx

The varifocals from selectspecs.com and glassesdirect.com are massively
cheaper than the hight street - you don't get any option for different
flavours of varifocals. I've used these outlets before and found them
fine except for some difficulties with correct frame fitting: anyone
tried them for varifocals?

David

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:16:16 +0100, Lobster
wrote:

On 06/08/2011 14:36, chris French wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient".
I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are
those who complained about them.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all.

I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed
in the direction of varifocals by the optician. Certainly sounds an
attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of carrying round
different specs all the time; however when I saw the price (many
hundreds of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home and try for
the safety of glassesdirect.com etc.

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

The other thing was that the optician's fitter presented a lot of
options for different varifocal lenses at massively different prices,
but didn't seem to have a particularly clear idea of what you got for
your money, which were to me reinforced by the leaflets she gave me
(anyone for snake oil?) eg:

http://tinyurl.com/43mdowj (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/default.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/3j3k5kf (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/EyecodeLenses.aspx

The varifocals from selectspecs.com and glassesdirect.com are massively
cheaper than the hight street - you don't get any option for different
flavours of varifocals. I've used these outlets before and found them
fine except for some difficulties with correct frame fitting: anyone
tried them for varifocals?

David

My experiences of http://onestopglasses.co.uk/ have been excellent - but,
unfortunately for you, not tried them for varifocals. But they do list
them and have been very helpful in terms of advice and email "discussion".

As usual, no relationship except as a satisfied customer...

--
Rod

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:16:16 +0100, Lobster
wrote:

On 06/08/2011 14:36, chris French wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient".
I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are
those who complained about them.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all.

I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed
in the direction of varifocals by the optician. Certainly sounds an
attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of carrying round
different specs all the time; however when I saw the price (many
hundreds of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home and try for
the safety of glassesdirect.com etc.

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

The other thing was that the optician's fitter presented a lot of
options for different varifocal lenses at massively different prices,
but didn't seem to have a particularly clear idea of what you got for
your money, which were to me reinforced by the leaflets she gave me
(anyone for snake oil?) eg:

http://tinyurl.com/43mdowj (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/default.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/3j3k5kf (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/EyecodeLenses.aspx

The varifocals from selectspecs.com and glassesdirect.com are massively
cheaper than the hight street - you don't get any option for different
flavours of varifocals. I've used these outlets before and found them
fine except for some difficulties with correct frame fitting: anyone
tried them for varifocals?

David

My experiences of http://onestopglasses.co.uk/ have been excellent - but,
unfortunately for you, not tried them for varifocals. But they do list
them and have been very helpful in terms of advice and email "discussion".

As usual, no relationship except as a satisfied customer...

--
Rod

"Lobster" wrote in message
...


I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed in
the direction of varifocals by the optician. Certainly sounds an
attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of carrying round
different specs all the time; however when I saw the price (many hundreds
of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home and try for the safety
of glassesdirect.com etc.

How bad is your prescription?
Asda do varifocals for about £80 with 1.7 index lenses if you have high
powers..


Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

The other thing was that the optician's fitter presented a lot of options
for different varifocal lenses at massively different prices, but didn't
seem to have a particularly clear idea of what you got for your money,
which were to me reinforced by the leaflets she gave me (anyone for snake
oil?) eg:

http://tinyurl.com/43mdowj (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/default.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/3j3k5kf (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/personalised-lenses/Pages/EyecodeLenses.aspx

The varifocals from selectspecs.com and glassesdirect.com are massively
cheaper than the hight street - you don't get any option for different
flavours of varifocals. I've used these outlets before and found them
fine except for some difficulties with correct frame fitting: anyone tried
them for varifocals?

Bloody hell, glassesdirect are more expensive than the optician I use and
way more expensive than Asda where I have just been.
Why would you use them rather than someone you can talk to in a shop?


David

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:16:16 +0100, Lobster wrote:

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

Got varifocals a couple of years back, like Mr French a few "ooo
that's weird" moments when I first got 'em but that stopped after a
hour or so. It is rather disconcerting, the world in the lower
section of your field of vision "moves" differently to the rest of
the world. I can well see people not liking it but at -5 my brain is
well used to a world that changes shape as my head moves. Things are
decidedly barrel shaped in the extremes of my vision field but
straight in the middle.

The only thing that I find annoying is reading small print on shelf
edge labels, get close enough for the print to be big enough and I
have put my head back to look through the bottom section to bring the
print to focus. Normal reading is fine as the natural position for
reading material is below your eye line.

I'm not sure I would buy varifocals online, the position of the lens
in relation to your eye is much more important with varifocals than
with single vision lenses. I sometimes wonder if those that "don't
get on" with varifocals simply have an incorrect fit/alignment.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , Lobster
writes
On 06/08/2011 14:36, chris French wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-08-06, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

eyesight typical for my age) but just because they were "convenient". I
said most people I've known who've had them haven't got on with them,

Selection error. The only people you know not to have got on with them
are
those who complained about them.

Certainly, some people don't seem to get on with them, but I think it's
something you have to try yourself really. most people wouldn't know I
had varifocals, as I've no reason to mention it, they just work.

I got my first varifocals about a year ago, and I've had no problem with
them at all.

I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed
in the direction of varifocals by the optician.

Yup. I put up with finding it gradually more difficult reading smaller
print, and in poorer light, but eventually you have to bite the bullet.

Certainly sounds an attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of
carrying round different specs all the time; however when I saw the
price (many hundreds of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home
and try for the safety of glassesdirect.com etc.

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

it seems you can split it into those of us who like them, and those who
don't :-)

I think the only way is to try them out for yourself.

Specsavers (and presumably some other places) will replace your
varifocals with bifocals or 2 pairs of single vision glasses (and
refund the difference in price) within 30 days if you don't get on with
them.

The other thing was that the optician's fitter presented a lot of
options for different varifocal lenses at massively different prices,
but didn't seem to have a particularly clear idea of what you got for
your money, which were to me reinforced by the leaflets she gave me
(anyone for snake oil?) eg:

http://tinyurl.com/43mdowj (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/pe...es/default.asp
x
http://tinyurl.com/3j3k5kf (or
http://www.varilux.co.uk/products/pe...es/EyecodeLens
es.aspx

I'd not say it was snake oil, but as with most things, there is a law of
diminishing returns.

AIUI basically, the more expensive lenses manage the transitions between
the prescriptions more smoothly, have a wider area of clear vision, and
less soft focus areas around the edge of the vision.

Like most things, as you go up the price range I think the extra
benefits get less as you go up. But of course if you are seeling a brand
like Varilux, you need to keep finding things to encourage people to
pay more for yours :-)

FWIW I had the 'tailor made' lenses from Specsavers - currently £159
(eeek!) for the lenses. The optician suggested that with my prescription
I would find them better, and I also wanted to give myself the chance to
have the best experience with them. Have to say I'm very happy with
them. I don't notice any soft focus areas, or have any weird affects
from the transition

http://www.specsavers.co.uk/glasses/varifocals/varifocal-range/


The varifocals from selectspecs.com and glassesdirect.com are massively
cheaper than the hight street - you don't get any option for different
flavours of varifocals. I've used these outlets before and found them
fine except for some difficulties with correct frame fitting: anyone
tried them for varifocals?

I felt much happier getting them from an opticians. The lense position
etc. is important, and if I had any issues it gave me somewhere to go
back too. I'm considering though getting a cheaper lenses online for a
spare apir and to see how it compares to my existing lenses
--
Chris French

On 06/08/11 18:16, Lobster wrote:

I've just been to get my eyes tested again (I'm very shortsighted)
particularly as I'm now having difficulty reading and have been pointed
in the direction of varifocals by the optician. Certainly sounds an
attractive option as I can't abide the prospect of carrying round
different specs all the time; however when I saw the price (many
hundreds of £) I panicked and fled the opticians to go home and try for
the safety of glassesdirect.com etc.

Would be good to hear more opinions on whether they are worth getting?

I tried varifocals once. Very expensive (~£400) and I've never been able
to wear them comfortably. I have reading glasses and computer glasses.


My eyes have changed over the years so these days I no longer need them
for distance. And the long term effects of a detached retina means
glasses make little difference to the blur I see through my left eye. So
the varifocals never added much to my distance vision and for close work
the need to keep moving my head when reading etc made them
uncomfortable. I was persuaded to try the continuous type with no line
between the lenses, which I thought would provide an intermediate range
for computer work, but it was impossible to hold my eyes/head in such a
restricted position.
I only tried them for driving once -I thought it would be useful to be
able to read a map etc without having to swap, I found them downright
dagerous; no peripheral vision so constantly having to turn my head.
Even walking down the street and crossing the road felt uncomfortable.





--
djc

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:01:19 +0100, Mary Crewkerne
wrote:

Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur fast
at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm (22-24").
So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

(I also have to say - I'm not sure why the usual Intermediate correction
is the arithmetic mean of the values for Distance and Near, given that
the Sph and Cyl figures are in dioptres, where 1 dioptre is 1/metre - so
I would have guessed the harmonic mean would be a better mean, but that's
another discussion!)

Thanks for any help with this!


Mary,

I have astigmatism combined with short sightedness. About a year or so ago
I found my work was getting very much more difficult simply due to
inability to focus so well on the computer monitors. My company sent me
for a sight test and I got a pair of special glasses. The company paid and
the glasses helped.

And then I was diagnosed hypothyroid. More importantly I starting taking
thyroxine. Since then I have stopped using the special glasses and am able
to wear my normal distance glasses almost all the time. Occasionally I
work for a while without any glasses.

I find my focussing has very significantly improved. Although I could wear
the special glasses, I never did like the fact that when wearing them,
simply looking up (out of the window or at a colleague a few metres away)
was unpleasant.

Having just had another test I find that the measurements have only
changed a tiny bit - but my ability to see have improved considerably.

Other improvements in sight have included far better tolerance of bright
lights (e.g. oncoming headlamps), better low light vision, fewer
'floaters', and greater eye comfort.

This probably will not apply to you, but thought it worth mentioning.

--
Rod

On 6 Aug,
Mary Crewkerne wrote:

Hi - a quick question about intermediate-distance eyeglass lenses.

My prescription for distance lenses is
(R) Sph -1.75, Cyl -1.25 Axis 165,
(L) Sph -2.00, Cyl -0.75 Axis 035,
and my near Add is +1.25 for both eyes.

I have bought distance glasses and reading glasses.
My usual distance for reading books is ~ 35-40cm (14-16").
The reading glasses are fine for reading, but things start to blur fast
at greater distances than 18 inches.
My usual distance for reading a computer screen is ~ 55-60cm (22-24").
So I'm thinking of getting some intermediate-distance lenses.

The 'usual' intermediate Add is half the near Add.
But is it possible to be more accurate than this, given the actual
distances involved?

I just gave my optician the distance I wanted them for and she gave the
appropriate addition (checking it with me on her machine), which happens to
be +1.25, ie a focal length of 80 cm. My reading addition is +2.25.


--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply