The argument that you always have to look perfectly straight on sounds
to me perfectly ridiculous.
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Culberson wrote:
>
>> It's been a great solution for me. First pair lasted about 6 years
>> before I needed a correction change, and I used perfectly good old
>> frames for them, so they cost me less than $50 per year. I did buy new
>> frames for the new ones, so the oldies could be emergency backup.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>
>
> Wish I could buy glasses for $50. I just bought a new pair that cost me
> almost $400, which were supposedly going to be a bit better than the old
> ones that I've had for 6 years. However, the new ones are worse, as anything
> outside of almost perfectly straight on is blurry. The optical store I
> bought them from is arguing that that is normal, as they are aspherical
> lenses, whereas my older ones are spherical. Their argument is that
> aspherical lenses are better when you look perfectly straight on, and can be
> made thinner and lighter, but the trade-off is that when you cast your eyes
> to the side without turning your head, they are more blurry. Is that true?
> So do aspherical camera lenses give pics only sharp in the center? I'm not
> buying it yet and am arguing for replacement lenses. They are arguing that I
> have to learn to always turn my head, rather than my eyes. Well, I'm too old
> to turn my head far enough to do a shoulder check, for instance.
>
> As to losing my glasses, they are either beside my bed at arms length, or on
> my face. And I always travel, even short distances in the car, with a spare
> pair. I'm pretty well usless without them.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|