Wayne Culberson wrote:
>
>
> Wish I could buy glasses for $50. I just bought a new pair that cost me
> almost $400,
Whoa, hold up there. I said $300 over 6 years meant a yearly cost of
$50. And I didn't buy new frames that time, which would have brought me
about up to $400. The new pair I bought last year cost about $500 with
new super light, flexible frames and photochromic tint added to the
double aspheric lenses and AR and hard coatings. I guess they have to
last 10 years now? :-)
> 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.
a. That's bull. Proper high end aspherics should have a wider sweet spot
at middle distances than before. At least mine do.
b. Make them really check that they got the prescription right. My new
ones were just not right. so I took them back. They checked them and
said they were right. I insisted. Since they had also done the eye exam,
I got them (gentle persuasion and persistence, not explosion) to redo
the eye test, then one lens. Now the prescription was fine, but the
photochromic effect was almost nil. Back again, make 'em again, and all
is well.
Ya gotta be your own advocate.
> 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?
>
Need more definition of the situation here. Are the prior set
progressives? If not, then yes the sweet spot will be relatively
narrower. With progressives, you do focus on things with head movement,
both up and down for focal distance and back and forth to get the object
in the focal sweet spot.
I was given some spherical progressives some years ago when I ordered
bifocals. They said I'd love them and there would be no additional
charge.I was back the next day to get the bifocals. I could not stand
them. The more expensive aspherics I got a few years later were
completely different, and completely converted me.
> So do aspherical camera lenses give pics only sharp in the center?
No, the optical problems are completely different. The subject and
film/sensor are always square to the optical center line (except in tilt
lenses), not the case with our eyes and retinas.
> 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.
>
Well, they may not be for you. Although the sweet spot on newer, high
end ones is larger than before, it still requires head movement, I just
don't notice except when the subject comes up like now.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|