On 16/04/2015 22:25, john james wrote:




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

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

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 hasnt happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My father's short sight improved in his 60's, as has mine.

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

Don't panic, cataract treatment is normally quick, safe, and effective.

On 17/04/2015 08:36, Chris J Dixon wrote:
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


I have had exactly the same experience, although the initial diagnosis
was more like 10 years ago and I was signed off by the hospital again
after ~ 2 years. The opticians don't volunteer any info, if I ask they
say they can see signs but not enough to worry about provided I have no
problems.

On 16/04/2015 22:12, Bob Eager wrote:
My solution is to carry a monocle everywhere. Small, easy to carry....

I'd do that - but I failed to find a stockist of anything but theatre props.

Andy

On 17/04/15 18:06, DJC wrote:
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.



I just noticed tonight that I could not read the dash instruments. They
were manageable in the day, but the blue lit gauges were totally out of
focus. The red ones not so bad. I know why that is, but I am not
actually sure if my observation is "the right way around" according to
physics.

On 17/04/15 20:55, newshound wrote:
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.


Thanks.

The more I hear here, the more I think the dispensing was wrong (not the
original prescription - the power levels in themselves seem just right).

I'm actually getting eyestrain now and riding the train this morning
made me feel a little sick. These are definitely not right.

At the last minute of ordering my varifocals I changed from the stylish ones to the ones with the biggest lenses, got used to them in less than an hour.
great
[g]

Tim Streater wrote:
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) and for intermediate distances (computer
screen, basically).

So you're one of these people who can never find their glasses because
you have several pairs and you take them off and dob them down
anywhere. Just like any ordinary doddering old fossil, then.


Some of us have developed the ability to use pockets, try it, it works!

On 17/04/15 21:51, DICEGEORGE wrote:
At the last minute of ordering my varifocals I changed from the stylish ones to the ones with the biggest lenses, got used to them in less than an hour.
great
[g]


I went for the biggest frames I could find that matched other criteria
and didn't make me look that that snooker bloke or Dierdre Barlow.

I never understood what use those tiny strip glasses could be, even with
single focus lenses.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:27:18 +0000, 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) and for intermediate distances (computer screen,
basically).

Same here. I keep one pair of bifocals at home, by my armchair. Great for
looking at TV listings, working the remote control...and watching TV.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £3 0a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:55:35 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
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) and for intermediate distances (computer
screen, basically).

So you're one of these people who can never find their glasses because
you have several pairs and you take them off and dob them down
anywhere. Just like any ordinary doddering old fossil, then.


Some of us have developed the ability to use pockets, try it, it
works!

Glasses, in cases, are just too bulky if you are not in the habit of
wearing a jacket.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £3 0a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:55:35 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In , 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) and for intermediate distances (computer
screen, basically).

So you're one of these people who can never find their glasses because
you have several pairs and you take them off and dob them down
anywhere. Just like any ordinary doddering old fossil, then.


Some of us have developed the ability to use pockets, try it, it
works!

Glasses, in cases, are just too bulky if you are not in the habit of
wearing a jacket.




Cases? Just use the glasses and throw them when they get a bit
scratched. 80p for a reading pair is all I pay. The main pair are a bit
more expensive at £47 for high index plastic, or £27 for the cheap ones.

"F Murtz" wrote in message
web.com...
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.

Very few of theirs are very cheap and no free postage either on the cheap
ones.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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.

That doesn’t raise the lenses enough to make any difference.

YMMV depending on the shape of your nose.

Its got nothing to do with the shape of your nose.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:08:24 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:55:35 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In , 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) and for intermediate distances (computer
screen, basically).

So you're one of these people who can never find their glasses
because you have several pairs and you take them off and dob them
down anywhere. Just like any ordinary doddering old fossil, then.


Some of us have developed the ability to use pockets, try it, it
works!

Glasses, in cases, are just too bulky if you are not in the habit of
wearing a jacket.




Cases? Just use the glasses and throw them when they get a bit
scratched. 80p for a reading pair is all I pay. The main pair are a bit
more expensive at £47 for high index plastic, or £27 for the cheap ones.

Yes, but keeping them in a trouser pocket means they'll last about five
minutes.

That's why I'm sticking to having a pair of cheap specs everywhere I go
in the house, two pairs (distance and near) in the car (for driving/
shopping respectively), and the monocle in the pocket.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £3 0a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/04/2015 22:25, john james wrote:




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

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

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 hasnt happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My father's short sight improved in his 60's, as has mine.

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

Don't panic, cataract treatment is normally quick, safe, and effective.

I'm not panicking, just mentioned it because it means
that what happens with age prescription wise is irrelevant
after cataract surgery. Everyone I know that has had it,
and that is most of those I know now, haven't had any
problem with it.

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/04/2015 22:12, Bob Eager wrote:
My solution is to carry a monocle everywhere. Small, easy to carry....

I'd do that - but I failed to find a stockist of anything but theatre
props.

I did notice one of the online optometrists offered them, forget which.

Certainly no problem with fitting and dirt cheap.

Tim Watts wrote:

I just noticed tonight that I could not read the dash instruments. They
were manageable in the day,

Obviously on a nice bright day, your pupils are constricted and give you
a bit of extra power like a pin-hole lens, at night they're dilated and
you don't get the "boost". Reading the actual dash is fine with my VFs,
but the screen for the radio/aircon/settings is in the centre of the car
rather than centred in front of the driver and I have to rotate my head
to read it clearly, rather than just glance at it with my eyes which
gives a slight double image.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:38:26 +1000, john james wrote:

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/04/2015 22:12, Bob Eager wrote:
My solution is to carry a monocle everywhere. Small, easy to carry....

I'd do that - but I failed to find a stockist of anything but theatre
props.

I did notice one of the online optometrists offered them, forget which.

Certainly no problem with fitting and dirt cheap.

Mine's a 3 dioptre and was about 45 quid (38mm, with gallery).



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £3 0a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 18/04/15 01:12, john james wrote:

That doesn’t raise the lenses enough to make any difference.

I was wondering what difference the "adjustments" she was offering to
make would make. Bugger all by the sound of it.

I just put on my old glasses - what a relief.

In article , Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:

Obviously on a nice bright day, your pupils are constricted and give you
a bit of extra power like a pin-hole lens,

Yes - of course. That'll explain it I think.

To use my 'glasses' of last resort, form a triangular pinhole between
thumb and forefinger of one hand, and forefinger of the other hand, hold
in front of eye - not so good for driving though.

I used to do that to be able to read the clock in the local swimming pool,
which was about 3 feet in diameter (but quite a long way away, high on a
wall behind rows of spectator seats).

In article , Chris French wrote:
In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 18/04/2015 13:03, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/04/15 12:27, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2015 11:25, Tim Watts wrote:

Because I'd look daft with upside down glasses!

I assume the lenses are not upside down as the distant object is still
the one at the top. They are just varifocals with the transitions set
very high. I have no idea why the glasses need to be upside down to do
it.

I assumed they were not varifocals - it's Dennis Taylor - rememeber him?

I do now you have posted the picture, I don't remember seeing him
cueing so I don't see why they would be better than normal specs.

Because it avoids the problem of you peering over the top of your specs
and everything being blurry

Before I got varifocals, and sometimes even now, I found it very handy
being able to peer over the top of my specs to read small print close to.

Not while playing snooker though, obviously.

En el artículo . com,
Dennis@home escribió:

If you can't understand something so simple you must be harry or rod speed.

"john james" /is/ Rod Speed, using a sockpuppet. Just killfile.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

En el artículo , Chris J
Dixon escribió:

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.

Same here, with a 50 quid voucher for Specsavers from my employer.

But I resented the hard sell they tried on following the free eye test
and instead do fine with several pairs of pound shop +1 glasses dotted
about the house and car. If I sit on a pair, it's no big deal.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

Just like any ordinary doddering old fossil, then.

For additional doddering old fossil effect, use a neck strap.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

In article , Chris J Dixon
writes
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 hasnt happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My prescription started to weaken slightly once I passed 60.

You tend to get more long-sighted as you get older
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.

Cataracts can develop at very different rates. In your case it would
seem to be very slowly.
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.

Sound as though yours are not developing very quickly at all
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.

Good news. The point to take action is usually when you can't meet the
driving licence standard.
Chris

--
bert

In article ,
newshound writes
On 16/04/2015 22:25, john james wrote:




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

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

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 hasnt happened yet and
I'm heading into the 70s now, still getting worse.

My father's short sight improved in his 60's, as has mine.

That's because generally you get more long sighted as you age due to
hardening of the lens so short sightedness improves.
But I have just been told that I have cataracts
so its all academic now for me.

Don't panic, cataract treatment is normally quick, safe, and effective.

--
bert

In article , tim.....
writes

"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

Hang them round your neck
--
bert

On 18/04/2015 11:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/04/15 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
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?

make sure that you buy a car with big numbers

(and no I'm not joking)

tim


Ironically, I'd probably get on better with bifocals - at least ones
that had a soft but localised transition (so no hard line) - all I
really wanted was a small reading area at the bottom and possibly
centred - not half the lens!

Reading through this thread, I am coming to a similar conclusion.

Being long sighted with astigmatism, I find my normal glasses are fine
for most things down to about computer monitor distance. Its just
reading small print etc, or retouching surface mount boards and other
really close work where its much better with my reading specs.

I can see the attraction of having mostly "normal" glasses with a small
zone that can be used to read small stuff without needing to carry my
reading specs about.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 18/04/2015 13:21, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2015 13:03, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/04/15 12:27, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/04/2015 11:25, Tim Watts wrote:

Because I'd look daft with upside down glasses!


I assume the lenses are not upside down as the distant object is still
the one at the top. They are just varifocals with the transitions set
very high. I have no idea why the glasses need to be upside down to do
it.

I assumed they were not varifocals - it's Dennis Taylor - rememeber him?

I do now you have posted the picture, I don't remember seeing him cueing
so I don't see why they would be better than normal specs.

Because once you are into cueing position, you find yourself looking
over the top of normal specs. Apparently green bowlers also have the
same issue (I was told when I got my snooker glasses1)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:41:35 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/04/2015 11:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/04/15 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
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?

make sure that you buy a car with big numbers

(and no I'm not joking)

tim


Ironically, I'd probably get on better with bifocals - at least ones
that had a soft but localised transition (so no hard line) - all I
really wanted was a small reading area at the bottom and possibly
centred - not half the lens!

Reading through this thread, I am coming to a similar conclusion.

Being long sighted with astigmatism, I find my normal glasses are fine
for most things down to about computer monitor distance. Its just
reading small print etc, or retouching surface mount boards and other
really close work where its much better with my reading specs.

I can see the attraction of having mostly "normal" glasses with a small
zone that can be used to read small stuff without needing to carry my
reading specs about.

Coming late to the thread. I have astigmatism and have worn specs since
adolescence and until Ie got the reading thing at 47 (almost always 47 my
optician friends tell me). Imoved from bifocals to varifocals virtually
since they came down to a 'reasonable' price and would have nothing else.
The first pair took about two weeks to get used to, but only because
vertical lines appeared 'bowed'. My eyes are still changing, but I do not
have difficulty adjusting to a new prescription any more. Once used to them
you cannot tell, neither can anyone else!
I also had both my cataracts done (wonderful), but still need varifocals,
although some (younger) people don't, I'm told.
Thoroughly recommend them.
--
Jim S

On 24/04/2015 15:23, Jim S wrote:
Coming late to the thread. I have astigmatism and have worn specs since
adolescence and until Ie got the reading thing at 47 (almost always 47 my
optician friends tell me). Imoved from bifocals to varifocals virtually
since they came down to a 'reasonable' price and would have nothing else.
The first pair took about two weeks to get used to, but only because
vertical lines appeared 'bowed'. My eyes are still changing, but I do not
have difficulty adjusting to a new prescription any more. Once used to them
you cannot tell, neither can anyone else!
I also had both my cataracts done (wonderful), but still need varifocals,
although some (younger) people don't, I'm told.
Thoroughly recommend them.

Jim,

When you look through the sides of your glasses are things in focus?

The pair I tried were useless for anything except straight ahead. Which
sort do you get?

Andy

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:47:22 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 24/04/2015 15:23, Jim S wrote:
Coming late to the thread. I have astigmatism and have worn specs since
adolescence and until Ie got the reading thing at 47 (almost always 47
my
optician friends tell me). Imoved from bifocals to varifocals
virtually
since they came down to a 'reasonable' price and would have nothing
else.
The first pair took about two weeks to get used to, but only because
vertical lines appeared 'bowed'. My eyes are still changing, but I do
not
have difficulty adjusting to a new prescription any more. Once used to
them
you cannot tell, neither can anyone else!
I also had both my cataracts done (wonderful), but still need
varifocals,
although some (younger) people don't, I'm told.
Thoroughly recommend them.

Jim,

When you look through the sides of your glasses are things in focus?

The pair I tried were useless for anything except straight ahead. Which
sort do you get?

Andy

The early ones apparently did that as I explained and they took a bit of
getting used to. Now it's like looking through plain glass. I'm barely
aware that I have them on. Even stairs are no bother although why people
look at their feet going downstairs I cannot think.
I take advice from Specsavers and don't actually know who supplies them at
the moment as it did change a while back - as I recall it's someone like
Canon or Pentax.
The measurement by the assistant is CRITICAL to within the millimetre of
where you look through, which results in lots of line drawing on the blank
lens of your chosen pair before they go away to be made. It is also
dependent on the final fitting to your nose. You can go back to have them
'tweaked' until you are happy. I only did this a couple of times over the
years.
If you cannot get used to them then they will replace them with bifocals
for no extra charge.
I have been satisfied with Specsavers ever since changing from Dolland and
Aitchison many moons ago. However since they are a sort of franchise it
might depend on the branch you go to.
--
Jim S

Jim S wrote:

why people look at their feet going downstairs I cannot think.

Because half my tools seem to end up perched on the stairs!

In message , Jim S
writes
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:47:22 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 24/04/2015 15:23, Jim S wrote:
Coming late to the thread. I have astigmatism and have worn specs since
adolescence and until Ie got the reading thing at 47 (almost always 47
my
optician friends tell me). Imoved from bifocals to varifocals
virtually
since they came down to a 'reasonable' price and would have nothing
else.
The first pair took about two weeks to get used to, but only because
vertical lines appeared 'bowed'. My eyes are still changing, but I do
not
have difficulty adjusting to a new prescription any more. Once used to
them
you cannot tell, neither can anyone else!
I also had both my cataracts done (wonderful), but still need
varifocals,
although some (younger) people don't, I'm told.
Thoroughly recommend them.

Jim,

When you look through the sides of your glasses are things in focus?

The pair I tried were useless for anything except straight ahead. Which
sort do you get?

Andy

The early ones apparently did that as I explained and they took a bit of
getting used to. Now it's like looking through plain glass. I'm barely
aware that I have them on. Even stairs are no bother although why people
look at their feet going downstairs I cannot think.
I take advice from Specsavers and don't actually know who supplies them at
the moment as it did change a while back - as I recall it's someone like
Canon or Pentax.
The measurement by the assistant is CRITICAL to within the millimetre of
where you look through, which results in lots of line drawing on the blank
lens of your chosen pair before they go away to be made. It is also
dependent on the final fitting to your nose. You can go back to have them
'tweaked' until you are happy. I only did this a couple of times over the
years.
If you cannot get used to them then they will replace them with bifocals
for no extra charge.
I have been satisfied with Specsavers ever since changing from Dolland and
Aitchison many moons ago. However since they are a sort of franchise it
might depend on the branch you go to.

Yup, I have Specsavers varifocals (IIRC mid-high range own brand lenses
- elite I think they call them). I guess if I look through the very side
of the lenses things aren't quite as in focus as the main part of the
lense. But it's marginal and in normal use I don't notice it.
--
Chris French

On 16/04/15 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?

Well, 2 weeks later - eyestrain and headaches and nausea on the train.

Went in, and surprisingly, no quibbles. As there were no quibbles, I let
them have the reglazing to single focus though next time I will find a
cheaper optician (that's Tunbridge Wells for you...) Will get a refund
on the difference.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/15 18:17, Tim Watts wrote:
Went in, and surprisingly, no quibbles. As there were no quibbles, I let
them have the reglazing to single focus though next time I will find a
cheaper optician

not used them myself yet, but you could try

http://www.lgoptical.co.uk/products.php

they had an advert recently in the Friday Ad



-

On 30/04/15 17:08, Mark wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/15 18:17, Tim Watts wrote:
Went in, and surprisingly, no quibbles. As there were no quibbles, I let
them have the reglazing to single focus though next time I will find a
cheaper optician

not used them myself yet, but you could try

http://www.lgoptical.co.uk/products.php

they had an advert recently in the Friday Ad

St Leonards - handy... Thanks