Hi Moose!
I agree with all you've said, except...
I don't know what to expect when I get out of cataract surgery!
I should have almost perfect eyesight, but who knows?
In addition to the cataract, I had mirror image astigmatism in each eye.
Will that be fixed, in the corrected eye, with the new lens?
I would certainly think so...
Crossin' my fingers!
Operation about the end of this month.
I'm hoping for x-ray vision! ;-)
keith
Moose wrote:
> 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
==============================================
|