"john james" wrote in message
...


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism)

I'm at -6 and -7, no astig.

but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

I just read stuff like without the glasses.

Taking them off for 5 seconds to read labels on Jars is one thing.

Taking them off for 3 hours at a time to work on your computer is a real
PITA. You put them down somewhere and then forget where that somewhere is.
And you know what, they can be a real bugger to find if the thing that you
put them on contrasts with them.

(yes I know, I need to be more organised about where I put them)

tim

On 16/04/2015 22:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 16/04/2015 21:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses
online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase
of.

I looked at a few online sites

You ****ed that up then.

and they are more expensive than using a normal shop.

The one I use is much cheaper.

go on then, which one.

http://www.zennioptical.com/

$25 for my last metal frame pair with all the available coatings.
$13 without the coatings
http://www.zennioptical.com/451321-m...h-spring-hinge


$105 and you can't get my prescription in that frame.
So where is the cheap site?

On 16/04/2015 18:17, Tim Watts wrote:

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

IMHO It depends what for. For a long time I would not drive with them on
because the distortion was very apparent if I drove my car through a
narrow gap.

I also noticed that my steel rule appeared to have a bend in it

Then we went on a driving holiday in the US, and I needed to be able to
look at my phone GPS and a map as well as see where the car was going.
The American roads are quite wide (unlike our local lanes) so there was
no narrow gap problem and I started to wear my varifocals for driving. I
have continued to do so ever since.

The lenses have got better over the years. The latest ones I got 18
months ago are not so 'pointy' but they were a ridiculous price. I now
wear them all the time.

My experience might reflect the fact that I originally had good vision,
my eyesight has just changed with age.


Anyone with experience - am I being impatient? For the cost (not cheap)
I'm not really prepared to put up with something highly suboptimal.


Cheers,

Tim


--
Michael Chare

On 4/16/2015 5:29 PM, Tim Watts wrote:

It seems mine are OK for distance "above the horizon" and that suits
driving. But I'm less keen on not seeing the floor clearly when I walk...

I had progressives lenses with the usual distance/middle/close
prescriptions, but also an additional section on the bottom with the
middle prescription, to make it easier when going down stairs.

In article , Tim Watts
writes
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

Snip
I broke the frame of my varifocals and took them to a local chap* who
specialises in dispensing lenses. He fitted them in a new frame. (the
old frame was titanium and it would have cost £45 for a soldered
repair).
He took a lot of trouble adjusting the frame and the result was a great
improvement on the original. Chatting with him he said that most of the
problems people have with varifocals are because high street opticians
don't take enough trouble to get the lenses aligned correctly with the
eyes. He reckons that most of his customers are happy wit them whereas a
fair proportion of people who get their glasses elsewhere give up on
them. After my next eye test I went to him to dispense my new
prescription (including prisms) and got top of the range varifocals with
all the coatings etc. in titanium frames for about £250 or half the
price of the equivalent from the usual places.

*The Fakenham Eye man in Norwich St, Fakenham
--
Chris Holford

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"john james" wrote in message
...


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism)

I'm at -6 and -7, no astig.

but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

I just read stuff like without the glasses.

Taking them off for 5 seconds to read labels on Jars is one thing.

Taking them off for 3 hours at a time to work on your computer is a real
PITA.

Sure, I fixed that by deliberately getting a single focus prescription
that works best for the computer screen that I keep as far away from
my face as the tips of my fingers with the arms outstretched to the screen
and accept the fact that the long distance vision is less than perfect.
That last really only affects how close you have to get to read signs
in the far distance.

You put them down somewhere and then forget where that somewhere is.

Yeah, I do get that problem when pulling something to bits, works
much better with no glasses on, but can be a real problem finding
the glasses if you aren't careful about where you put them down.

And you know what, they can be a real bugger to find if the thing that you
put them on contrasts with them.

(yes I know, I need to be more organised about where I put them)

That's fine when say reading a book but not so easy when pulling
something to bits when its an appliance etc. Even having them on
a thing around your neck doesnt work that well because it tends
to get in the way of what you are doing. The current ones dont stay
on top of my head for long. Some of the previous ones did that fine.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 22:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 16/04/2015 21:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses
online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase
of.

I looked at a few online sites

You ****ed that up then.

and they are more expensive than using a normal shop.

The one I use is much cheaper.

go on then, which one.

http://www.zennioptical.com/

$25 for my last metal frame pair with all the available coatings.
$13 without the coatings
http://www.zennioptical.com/451321-m...h-spring-hinge


$105

That isn't more expensive than the normal shop.

and you can't get my prescription in that frame.

That's only because the frame isn't deep enough, there are plenty for the
same price that are.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:29:48 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 16/04/15 20:33, Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase of.

I looked at a few online sites and they are more expensive than using a
normal shop. In one case they were double the price and you don't get a
fitting either. You need to make measurements yourself or take photos
and let them measure the photos.

That'll be for the pupil distance - I know mine because I hear her say
them (there are two, one for near and one for far).

I'd have no problems with online for single focus, because, apart from
fitting, there's not much can go wrong with a recent prescription. But
as progressives need various other measurements I reckon they just knock
out a generic template.

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 16/04/2015 22:48, tim..... wrote:

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 16/04/2015 18:17, Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them?

It varies for different people.
In my case it was minutes.
The wife took a day or so.
I know some that have never got used to them.

And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

I went to collect a pair and I couldn't see through them.
They had put the cylinder 90 degrees out.



Only had them for 2 days - but they are fine for driving and have
relatively little distortion and "swim" effect. The worst I've noticed
is my phone goes a bit "parallelogram" at certain angles.

That's the astigmatism.


But there is a limit to what can be done with passive optics.


My main concern is that I think she's set the progressive boundary too
high - more or less on the horizontal axis. I reckon it should be about
15-20 degrees below before it starts transitioning from far sight power
to mid sight and reading. If I drop them to the end on my nose, that
actually works quite well.

If I have a laptop on my knees on the train, it's in the near-sight zone
whilst being at a mid-sight distance.

Same with the TV - my TV is below horizontal and my sofa tends to lean
you back as they do.


Now, it's not a huge problem as the lens manufacturer offers a money
back satisfaction guarantee within the first month.

However, the dispensing optician is not raising my confidence levels
hugely. She says she can have a go at adjusting the frames in a couple
of weeks (to give it a fair chance) but I'm not sure how you could
adjust 15 degrees in. her answer to the TV is turn my head down. Well, I
do know varifocals need head movement - but I've tried it and I get a
crick in my neck because I have to look down so far.


Anyone with experience - am I being impatient? For the cost (not cheap)
I'm not really prepared to put up with something highly suboptimal.

Varifocals are cheap, you can get two pairs for less than £159
including fitting in a shop without going online.

most shops offer various "grades" of VF. You are right, the lowest
option is "cheap" at about 30 quid extra but an upgrade to the best
grade will cost you an extra 200 quid.

I have had expensive ones and cheap ones.

God know what you get for that money

I bought my last lot from asda, they were £170 for two.
They had similar free form multi-coated lenses as the expensive £340
pair I had before.
I can't see any difference in the vision they provide.

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:29:48 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 16/04/15 20:33, Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase of.

I looked at a few online sites and they are more expensive than using a
normal shop. In one case they were double the price and you don't get a
fitting either. You need to make measurements yourself or take photos
and let them measure the photos.

That'll be for the pupil distance - I know mine because I hear her say
them (there are two, one for near and one for far).

I'd have no problems with online for single focus, because, apart from
fitting, there's not much can go wrong with a recent prescription. But
as progressives need various other measurements I reckon they just knock
out a generic template.

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?

It's very easy to measure yourself.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim Watts wrote:

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

The normal problem with glasses is that the optical centre is not the
vision optical centre. My experience is that the optical centre is pitched
4 - 6mm too high if you are in a laid back position. It sounds like you
have the same problem. I find that two pairs of glasses worn at the same
time are best for close up work. I use off the shelf 1.5D glasses when
necessary. The main pair provide the astigmatism correction, the second
pair the magnification. A separate pair focussed at 30" is best for
computer work IME. I have doubts about some prescriptions. I suspect that
the lenses are grouped similarly to resistors, and if you need an odd
value, it doesn't exist within some dispensers stocks.

I doubt they have stocks myself given the combinations seen
with astigmatism correction involved.

On 16/04/15 22:45, tim..... wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which
is important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?



I couldn't get used to mine:

The transition from the short sight correction to normal was too high up
and made long distance vision too fuzzy unless I tried really hard to
look out of the top half, but when used with a computer screen (which is
why I really need them) the glasses suffered from glare from the screen,
so I found it much easier just to take them off.

Fortunately, I had got them on a 2 for 1 deal and I opted to have the
second pair as single vision, so I use them for long distance and take
them off for close up work. The Varifocals are kept in the drawer for
an emergency spare.

No-one ever mentioned a "satisfaction guarantee", but I will certainly
look out for that next time as it's becoming apparent that my close
vision is no longer 20/20 and I shall soon need that corrected as well
:-( (oh the horrors of old age!)

The satisfaction (or more precisely the "non adaptation") guarantee is
with Essilor. I am not sure on how much leverage one has with an
optician, but if the lens maker is sure enough to offer a no quibble
guarantee, it could make life easier.

How "no quibble" remains to be seen...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at that
power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to wonder
if my prescription is actually not correct?


Only had them for 2 days - but they are fine for driving and have
relatively little distortion and "swim" effect. The worst I've noticed is
my phone goes a bit "parallelogram" at certain angles.

But there is a limit to what can be done with passive optics.


My main concern is that I think she's set the progressive boundary too
high - more or less on the horizontal axis. I reckon it should be about
15-20 degrees below before it starts transitioning from far sight power to
mid sight and reading. If I drop them to the end on my nose, that actually
works quite well.

If I have a laptop on my knees on the train, it's in the near-sight zone
whilst being at a mid-sight distance.

Same with the TV - my TV is below horizontal and my sofa tends to lean you
back as they do.


Now, it's not a huge problem as the lens manufacturer offers a money back
satisfaction guarantee within the first month.

However, the dispensing optician is not raising my confidence levels
hugely. She says she can have a go at adjusting the frames in a couple of
weeks (to give it a fair chance) but I'm not sure how you could adjust 15
degrees in. her answer to the TV is turn my head down. Well, I do know
varifocals need head movement - but I've tried it and I get a crick in my
neck because I have to look down so far.


Anyone with experience - am I being impatient? For the cost (not cheap)
I'm not really prepared to put up with something highly suboptimal.

It takes weeks to get used to them.

The lenses are made as circular disks, the person that cuts the disk to fit
in the frame determines where the boundarys are. This can't be shifted
thereafter, the specs can be moved up and down your nose, that's all.
Varifocals don't work well in very narrow (vertically) frames.
If you have deepset eyes, that's a problem too.
Also position of ears relative to eyes affects the way they work.
As you get older they work less well too because the difference between
close and distant lenses increases. (ie, your eyes get worse.)

On 16/04/2015 23:27, john james wrote:

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?

It's very easy to measure yourself.

Not for varifocals, you need to mark the frame where the pupil is on
both eyes so the reference marks on the lens align so you can machine it
to fit in the correct place.
If you don't do that then someone is going to have to try and bend the
frame bits to get the alignment correct.

On 17/04/2015 00:07, john james wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim Watts wrote:

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

The normal problem with glasses is that the optical centre is not the
vision optical centre. My experience is that the optical centre is
pitched 4 - 6mm too high if you are in a laid back position. It sounds
like you have the same problem. I find that two pairs of glasses worn
at the same time are best for close up work. I use off the shelf 1.5D
glasses when necessary. The main pair provide the astigmatism
correction, the second pair the magnification. A separate pair
focussed at 30" is best for computer work IME. I have doubts about
some prescriptions. I suspect that the lenses are grouped similarly to
resistors, and if you need an odd value, it doesn't exist within some
dispensers stocks.

I doubt they have stocks myself given the combinations seen
with astigmatism correction involved.

They have extensive stocks at the distributers and can grind them to
order if needed. From what I was told you can get them from stock with
about +-10 sphere and +-5 cylinder.

On 16 Apr 2015, "john james" grunted:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism)

I'm at -6 and -7, no astig.

+1

but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which
is important if your kids have allergies).

I just read stuff like without the glasses.

+1
Actually in that respect I find myself at an advantage over my non-myopic
peers. When SWMBO is out and about withut her reading glasses and needs to
read something, she's completely screwed; I just remove my coke-bottle-
bottomed specs and can read anything provided I hold it a couple of inches
from my nose end. Have to say it does make me look a bit of a muppet when
reading a restaurant menu though.

It's also a bit of a bad habit to get into. The other day I was doing a
bit of soldering, and before I knew it, I caught myself using the soldering
iron 3" from my naked eyeball. What the **** are you doing??, I asked
myself.

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

I bought my first varifocals a couple of years ago from my local optician,
at enormous cost. I do use them all the time for every day use, but I find
them a huge compromise - basically I hate them but put up with them purely
for the convenience. I have since bought a dedicated pair of prescription
reading glasses, and more recently a pair of computer glasses as well -
when I'm working on something for a protracted length of time I find it
infinitely better to use those.

--
David

john james wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message

I'm going backwards - was -3.75

Yeah, I was told that would happen in old age
when I first started to wear glasses at about 13
or something but it hasn’t happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My prescription started to weaken slightly once I passed 60.

But I have just been told that I have cataracts
so its all academic now for me.

At my eye test four years ago I was told, much to my surprise,
that there were signs of cataracts, and put on yearly checks.
They then increased it to 18 months and this year said 2 years
was OK.

Apparently there are still detectable signs, though if I had to
choose my worst eye, it would not be the one they say looks
worst. I am still not aware of any actual vision problems.

I did ask a bit about what was happening and the view seemed to
be that, by their nature, these things do not change particularly
rapidly, so frequent precautionary checks are somewhat pointless,
especially since if I experience any difficulties, then I simply
pop in for an examination at that time.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

john james wrote:

Sure, I fixed that by deliberately getting a single focus prescription
that works best for the computer screen that I keep as far away from
my face as the tips of my fingers with the arms outstretched to the screen
and accept the fact that the long distance vision is less than perfect.

+1

For anybody still working, if screens are involved, you may well
be able to get an employer's contribution to such a pair, I had
one or two this way.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/04/15 22:10, eastender wrote:

I tried them and thought they were dangerous for driving so I took them
back and got a set made up for working at the computer so I don't have
to sit too close.

It seems mine are OK for distance "above the horizon" and that suits
driving. But I'm less keen on not seeing the floor clearly when I walk...

Mine are OK for driving, but for long periods, especially at
night where it is more critical, I find that it can be
uncomfortable having to bend my neck to ensure I peer through the
top section, and have a distance pair to hand.

I also use these to get a full field of view at the theatre, or
in a setting where I may need to lift my head to look over
people.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Mark Allread wrote:

Ive been wearing varifocals for a very long time now, longer than I care
to remember and have had no problems with them.
Apart from one occassion when I went for a cheaper lens rather than the
more expensive one, that made a real difference but the optician was
happy to upgrade them to either Nikon or Zeiss paying only the difference
in cost between the cheap and the more expensive. My advice would be to
go for a quality lens if you haven't already done so.

I have certainly been offered different lenses. It is hard to be
sure exactly what one is choosing between, but I agree that the
best is unlikely to be the cheapest. Has anybody ever actually
done any comparative testing?

As I favour fairly shallow frames, I need a compact lens, which
limits the options (and probably increases the cost). However, it
means that the head movement from top to bottom of the lens is
significantly less than if I had something in 70s style, the size
of a bay window.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Michael Chare wrote:

I also noticed that my steel rule appeared to have a bend in it

This is also apparent with single focus lenses - pincushion or
barrel distortion.

Years ago, when I found myself waiting for someone at Manchester
Piccadilly station, I tried to work out if the concourse roof
spans had some inbuilt curvature, and never came to a
satisfactory conclusion.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article , Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

People vary - some never get used to them. I find mine usable for
readable and computer use, but I also have a second pair just for
that.

On 17/04/15 10:37, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

People vary - some never get used to them. I find mine usable for
readable and computer use, but I also have a second pair just for
that.


That was one of my main specifications - so that would make them a bit
useless for me...

The only case I was prepared to accept would not work was DIY for all
the usual reasons including distortion and needing to see close up out
the top or far out the bottom. But my plan there was to buy an el-cheapo
single focus pair as they'd be subject to dust and grit anyway.

Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 16/04/2015 21:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses
online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase
of.

I looked at a few online sites

You ****ed that up then.

and they are more expensive than using a normal shop.

The one I use is much cheaper.

go on then, which one.

http://www.zennioptical.com/

$25 for my last metal frame pair with all the available coatings.
$13 without the coatings
http://www.zennioptical.com/451321-m...h-spring-hinge

And Omnioptics.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 23:27, john james wrote:

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?

It's very easy to measure yourself.

Not for varifocals, you need to mark the frame where the pupil is on both
eyes so the reference marks on the lens align so you can machine it to fit
in the correct place.

That's not the PD, that is where you want the transition to be.

If you don't do that then someone is going to have to try and bend the
frame bits to get the alignment correct.

Not even possible.

"Lobster" wrote in message
. 222...
On 16 Apr 2015, "john james" grunted:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism)

I'm at -6 and -7, no astig.

+1

but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which
is important if your kids have allergies).

I just read stuff like without the glasses.

+1
Actually in that respect I find myself at an advantage over my non-myopic
peers. When SWMBO is out and about withut her reading glasses and needs to
read something, she's completely screwed; I just remove my coke-bottle-
bottomed specs and can read anything provided I hold it a couple of inches
from my nose end. Have to say it does make me look a bit of a muppet
when
reading a restaurant menu though.

It's also a bit of a bad habit to get into. The other day I was doing a
bit of soldering, and before I knew it, I caught myself using the
soldering
iron 3" from my naked eyeball. What the **** are you doing??, I asked
myself.

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

I bought my first varifocals a couple of years ago from my local optician,
at enormous cost. I do use them all the time for every day use, but I
find
them a huge compromise - basically I hate them but put up with them purely
for the convenience. I have since bought a dedicated pair of
prescription
reading glasses, and more recently a pair of computer glasses as well -
when I'm working on something for a protracted length of time I find it
infinitely better to use those.

Yeah, that's what I do. I wear the prescription that works best for the
computer screens most of the time and accept the fact that they aren't
ideal for reading signs at a distance when out and about. The sunnies
have the prescription that allows me to read signs at a distance. I wear
nothing when pulling things to bits and reading physical books. I will
likely get some dedicated reading glasses just because the books are
getting a bit close to my face to be very convenient now.

I do find that I can read ebooks on the iphone fine with the computer
glasses in the waiting room etc and had the stupid optometrist
proclaim that that wasn’t possible even after he had got me from his
waiting room with me doing that in front of him.

And that approach allows me to have the 3 different glasses for
peanuts. Leaves the stupid price for varifocals for dead and no
farting around with getting the physical detail right either.

The only real time it's a bit less than idea is when I am putting
the serial numbers and stuff like that into the database, I do
swap between the computer glasses and nothing a bit.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
john james wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message

I'm going backwards - was -3.75

Yeah, I was told that would happen in old age
when I first started to wear glasses at about 13
or something but it hasn't happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My prescription started to weaken slightly once I passed 60.

I haven't seen that at all and didn't get a new prescription
due to the cataracts. I was quite clear why he couldn't work
out what the new prescription should be, the previous
problem with working out which was the best lens had got
quite dramatically worse the last time and he just gave up.

But I have just been told that I have cataracts
so its all academic now for me.

At my eye test four years ago I was told, much to my surprise,
that there were signs of cataracts, and put on yearly checks.
They then increased it to 18 months and this year said 2 years
was OK.

I've since had the GP made snide remarks about the entire
cataract 'industry' and since the only symptom I have actually
seen myself is the problem with actually saying which lens
works best, I have decided to see how it all pans out.

The optometrist was pretty aggressive about getting cataract
surgery done and that put me off for that reason alone.

I've since had a 3 people I know quite well tell me that they
have had no regrets about having theirs done, so it remains
to be seen what I will do myself. I've always been very
conservative about stuff like that that is irreversible.

Apparently there are still detectable signs, though if I had to
choose my worst eye, it would not be the one they say looks
worst. I am still not aware of any actual vision problems.

Yeah, me too, apart from actually getting a new prescription.

It is clear that I can't read street signs as well as I used to be
able to, but I always did get that effect when I needed an
updated prescription. I'll probably get another eye test
with the opposition and see what that produces.

I'm VERY sceptical about the one who proclaimed that I couldn't
possible read ebooks on my iphone with my current prescription
when that fool saw me doing that in his own waiting room.

I did ask a bit about what was happening and the view seemed to
be that, by their nature, these things do not change particularly
rapidly, so frequent precautionary checks are somewhat pointless,
especially since if I experience any difficulties, then I simply
pop in for an examination at that time.

Yeah, one of my mates that did get cataract surgery was
getting real problems that saw him borrow other people's
glasses to see if they helped. I don't get anything like that myself.

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:56:02 AM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/15 10:37, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

People vary - some never get used to them. I find mine usable for
readable and computer use, but I also have a second pair just for
that.


That was one of my main specifications - so that would make them a bit
useless for me...

The only case I was prepared to accept would not work was DIY for all
the usual reasons including distortion and needing to see close up out
the top or far out the bottom. But my plan there was to buy an el-cheapo
single focus pair as they'd be subject to dust and grit anyway.

Until I met my current optician I had two or three failures with vari-focals and insisted on having them corrected. Too much money involved to put up with something that doesn't work correctly. The problem I was experiencing was their unsuitability for use with a desk top computer. OK for reading and distance but no good for the computer.

I often wake during the night and read for 30 minutes. I was having great difficulty with both Kindle and printed material so I got a pair of reading only glasses which solved the problem

On 17/04/2015 12:15, john james wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 23:27, john james wrote:

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?

It's very easy to measure yourself.

Not for varifocals, you need to mark the frame where the pupil is on
both eyes so the reference marks on the lens align so you can machine
it to fit in the correct place.

That's not the PD, that is where you want the transition to be.

If you don't do that then someone is going to have to try and bend the
frame bits to get the alignment correct.

Not even possible.

It is if they have pads, you bend them in to raise the lenses.
YMMV depending on the shape of your nose.

On 17/04/2015 11:32, F Murtz wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 16/04/2015 21:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 19:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:48, Tim Watts wrote:

On a side note - I notice that you can even buy varifocal lenses
online
- I cannot think of anything less suitable to do an online purchase
of.

I looked at a few online sites

You ****ed that up then.

and they are more expensive than using a normal shop.

The one I use is much cheaper.

go on then, which one.

http://www.zennioptical.com/

$25 for my last metal frame pair with all the available coatings.
$13 without the coatings
http://www.zennioptical.com/451321-m...h-spring-hinge


And Omnioptics.


How can they be cheap? They want £130 extra just for having thin
varifocal lenses. That's twice the price for the same thing in asda.

I don't know where you get the idea they are cheap from you must have
been buying at the most expensive high street shop in britain to think
they are cheap.

In article ,
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?

People vary - some never get used to them. I find mine usable for
readable and computer use, but I also have a second pair just for
that.


whne I got my first pair (about 30 years ago), I had terrible difficulties
and kept being told that I just needed time to get used to them. I amaged
to make some measurements that showed that the optical centres were
different for each eye and complained to the company head office. I got a
pair that worked properly after and I think the branch manager got a severe
ticking off.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article . com,
Dennis@home wrote:
On 17/04/2015 12:15, john james wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/04/2015 23:27, john james wrote:

PD isn't part of the prescription they have to hand to you. Yet it's
an important parameter for varifocals. It's like they keep it a
secret. I wonder why?

It's very easy to measure yourself.

Not for varifocals, you need to mark the frame where the pupil is on
both eyes so the reference marks on the lens align so you can machine
it to fit in the correct place.

That's not the PD, that is where you want the transition to be.

If you don't do that then someone is going to have to try and bend the
frame bits to get the alignment correct.

Not even possible.

It is if they have pads, you bend them in to raise the lenses.
YMMV depending on the shape of your nose.

I prefer to have my glasses level.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Well, my late father had great problems with his, much as you describe. He
was told that his eyes muscles needed time to get used to using different
adjustments to those used before. However they also told him that it was the
reduced travel of the focussing arrangement in the eye that caused the lack
of focus that the glasses were supposed to fix.
I think he ended upwith three pairs of glasses instead.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at that
power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to wonder
if my prescription is actually not correct?


Only had them for 2 days - but they are fine for driving and have
relatively little distortion and "swim" effect. The worst I've noticed is
my phone goes a bit "parallelogram" at certain angles.

But there is a limit to what can be done with passive optics.


My main concern is that I think she's set the progressive boundary too
high - more or less on the horizontal axis. I reckon it should be about
15-20 degrees below before it starts transitioning from far sight power to
mid sight and reading. If I drop them to the end on my nose, that actually
works quite well.

If I have a laptop on my knees on the train, it's in the near-sight zone
whilst being at a mid-sight distance.

Same with the TV - my TV is below horizontal and my sofa tends to lean you
back as they do.


Now, it's not a huge problem as the lens manufacturer offers a money back
satisfaction guarantee within the first month.

However, the dispensing optician is not raising my confidence levels
hugely. She says she can have a go at adjusting the frames in a couple of
weeks (to give it a fair chance) but I'm not sure how you could adjust 15
degrees in. her answer to the TV is turn my head down. Well, I do know
varifocals need head movement - but I've tried it and I get a crick in my
neck because I have to look down so far.


Anyone with experience - am I being impatient? For the cost (not cheap)
I'm not really prepared to put up with something highly suboptimal.


Cheers,

Tim

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/15 22:45, tim..... wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which
is important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?



I couldn't get used to mine:

The transition from the short sight correction to normal was too high up
and made long distance vision too fuzzy unless I tried really hard to
look out of the top half, but when used with a computer screen (which is
why I really need them) the glasses suffered from glare from the screen,
so I found it much easier just to take them off.

Fortunately, I had got them on a 2 for 1 deal and I opted to have the
second pair as single vision, so I use them for long distance and take
them off for close up work. The Varifocals are kept in the drawer for
an emergency spare.

No-one ever mentioned a "satisfaction guarantee", but I will certainly
look out for that next time as it's becoming apparent that my close
vision is no longer 20/20 and I shall soon need that corrected as well
:-( (oh the horrors of old age!)

The satisfaction (or more precisely the "non adaptation") guarantee is
with Essilor. I am not sure on how much leverage one has with an optician,
but if the lens maker is sure enough to offer a no quibble guarantee, it
could make life easier.

At least one of the high street chains offers it


How "no quibble" remains to be seen...

true

On 16/04/15 22:29, Tim Watts wrote:
I tried them and thought they were dangerous for driving so I took them
back and got a set made up for working at the computer so I don't have
to sit too close.

E.

It seems mine are OK for distance "above the horizon" and that suits
driving. But I'm less keen on not seeing the floor clearly when I walk...

I tried varifocals once and just could not use them for driving because
I found there was no peripheral vision. In fact even as a pedestrian, I
felt vulnerable crossing the road. Having to turn one's head all the
time is just not good enough.


--
djc

Growing up I always associated bifocals with 'old people.' As a result, I
*refuse* point-blank to wear them. I have separate glasses for distance
(driving etc) and for intermediate distances (computer screen, basically).

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Growing up I always associated bifocals with 'old people.' As a result, I
*refuse* point-blank to wear them. I have separate glasses for distance
(driving etc)

[Snip]

How do you read the instrument panel eg speedometer?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 16/04/2015 18:17, Tim Watts wrote:
I expect there's a few people here with them...

I have been forced (well that or two pairs of glasses) down the
progressive lens route.

I'm short sighted (-3.50 dioptre with very minor astigmatism) but at
that power, I can no longer read the ingredients on food jars (which is
important if your kids have allergies).

My question is:

How long does it take to get used to them? And is it reasonable to
wonder if my prescription is actually not correct?


I've had them for a decade or so and I adapted instantly. As
accomodation fails further (I am now 66) the prescription becomes more
important. Some prescribers are better than others. I now use varifocals
for normal life, but single focus for the desktop computer (working
distance about 33 inches).

I find it helps to discuss requirements carefully. If anything, life is
getting more difficult because we now use smartphones, tablets, laptops,
and desktops all of which have different distances and viewing angles
(and default displays in tiny fonts). I usually take my glasses off for
the phone and tablet, but I find the laptop with its more downward
viewing angle is ok with my varifocals.

I usually look out for "second pair free" offers since I normally get
two pairs at a time.

On 16/04/2015 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/15 19:49, John Rumm wrote:


At the moment I feel bifocals would actually work better - at least the
reading portion would be small and well defined and I'd have long
distance everywhere else. I'd just totally look like a grandad.

They were forced on me once (safety glasses for work) and they were a
total disaster.

On 16/04/2015 22:48, tim..... wrote:

Varifocals are cheap, you can get two pairs for less than £159
including fitting in a shop without going online.

most shops offer various "grades" of VF. You are right, the lowest
option is "cheap" at about 30 quid extra but an upgrade to the best
grade will cost you an extra 200 quid.

God know what you get for that money

I'm generally very happy with Specsavers, but the "sales" girls don't
have a clue about this either.

The first increment or two is for higher index plastic, giving you
thinner and lighter lenses. Less important for the current fashion of
small lenses, though presumably big ones will be coming back some time soon.

The final one, I think, is for aspheric lenses which give less
distortion in peripheral vision. Personally I have never found this to
be a problem.