Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Are high-index aspheric 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17

    Question Are high-index aspheric 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?

    I'm trying to decide whether or not $70 high-index aspheric 1.67 lenses are worth
    the extra money.

    My prescription:

    Right:
    sphere: -3.250
    cylinder: -0.750
    axis: 172

    Left:
    sphere: -1.500
    cylinder: -0.250
    axis: 180

    I went to Costco today to get some eyeglasses. The guy selling the glasses
    was pushing for the $70 1.67 lenses. He said that the right lens will look
    REALLY thick if I get the $20 regular plastic lenses. He said that since
    the frames I brought in were kind of big lengthwise, the thickness of the
    right lens would really stand out. Going on his advice, I got the 1.67
    lenses.

    After a couple of hours, I started having second thoughts about getting the
    more expensive lens. I wasn't too sure if the 1.67 lenses were worth the
    extra $50. I postponed my order for now on the phone so that I could make a
    more intelligent decision. Now I'm trying to decide between regular plastic
    lenses (CR-39, I think) and high-index 1.67 lenses.

    I plan on getting lenses for the following glasses. The size of the frame
    is 50-18-140

    http://tinyurl.com/b3dyo

    I don't know how thick the right lens will end up looking. I plan on getting the
    lenses rolled & polished, so that should reduce the thickness a bit. Based
    on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a Coke bottle in
    the frame I brought in? $50 is a big chunk of change for me, and I need to
    decide if that money should be used for the thinner, more expensive lenses.

  2. #2
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    206
    I would go with polycarbonate or 1.6 high index.... 1.67 is overkill

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    Will the high index affect optical quality?

    I was thinking of going with one of the following options:

    1.50 CR-39
    1.53 Trivex
    1.54 Sola Spectralite

    If the difference in thickness isn't significant & the prices are high, I'll probably go with the cheaper option (CR-39.)

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    1,509
    One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.
    "It's not impossible. I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home."


  5. #5
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    I'm curious as to how much wear time you anticipate?

    If they are going to be "backup to contacts" ... I'd say that a 1.67 in a 50 eye size frame in that Rx is not warrented.

    If you are wearing them full time, I'd recommend poly or spectralite.

    I personally don't recommend 1.67 until the Rx reaches 5 diopters.

    Karen

  6. #6
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    759
    On the 3 that you've mentioned, Trivex would be my choice. Also Polycarbonate and 1.60 high Index would be fine also.


    Also, I agree with the post about having them surfaced, less noticable difference between the 2 than if they are a stock lens.

  7. #7
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi
    One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.
    Now I'm going astray...

    Jedi, by optimizing the cosmetics of aniso prescriptions by adding CT to less minus lenses, do you know that you are increasing the difference in image size between the two eyes? Do you find that an acceptable trade-off (in the real world, not ivory-tower world)?

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    Now I'm going astray...

    Jedi, by optimizing the cosmetics of aniso prescriptions by adding CT to less minus lenses, do you know that you are increasing the difference in image size between the two eyes? Do you find that an acceptable trade-off (in the real world, not ivory-tower world)?
    Drk,
    I can't really say without knowing the actual difference in image size between a surfaced and stock lens. If someone could provide me with a way to determine this differnce I would be very interested.
    "It's not impossible. I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home."


  9. #9
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,387
    I meant by varying CT you vary "Spectacle Magnfication" via the "shape factor". Formulas are a pain to type out, and this is a long one.

    I don't think it's a big deal, if you add 1 mm or so.

  10. #10
    One of the worst people here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    8,331
    Interesting to see a Cosco Optician jump right into the 1.67.

  11. #11
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    I changed my Costco order to CR-39 lenses with polished edges. They said they used to offer roll & polish, but now they only polish the edges. Hopefully, the lenses won't look too thick. I'm okay with them being a little thick, as long as it isn't too noticable.

  12. #12
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen
    I'm curious as to how much wear time you anticipate?
    Karen
    I wear my glasses primarily when driving and using my computer (I don't do both at the same time, of course ;).) I wear them a lot when going out, but rarely wear them at home.

  13. #13
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by For-Life
    Interesting to see a Cosco Optician jump right into the 1.67.
    Yeah, the salesperson always suggested the 1.67 first. When I changed my order to CR-39 plastic, he tried to persuade me to stay with the 1.67 lenses. After that, I said I just wanted regular plastic, and the order was changed; no problem at all. Nice guy; I guess it's just his job to push for the 1.67 lenses first.

  14. #14
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    759
    I wonder why they don't roll and polish and just polish. What did they say was their reasoning?

  15. #15
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Did the right thing.....................

    Quote Originally Posted by dave191
    I changed my Costco order to CR-39 lenses with polished edges. They said they used to offer roll & polish, but now they only polish the edges. Hopefully, the lenses won't look too thick. I'm okay with them being a little thick, as long as it isn't too noticable.
    You did the right thing. CR39 is the closest plastic to glass lenses. High index are pushed by opticians because they are more expensive and more profitable.

  16. #16
    Optician Extraordinaire
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere warm
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,130
    I agree that 1.67 is probably overkill for a -3.25, but that price is REALLY cheap. Does the $70.00 include the non glare coat? I don't recommend 1.67 without it, the higher index lenses have more glare without it then cr-39.

    I think that Costo keeps their prices down by not using lots of different lenses. I think they use plastic, poly, and 1.67 and the only progressive my local Costco uses is Ovation.

    For $70.00 I don't think you can go wrong with 1.67(with a anti reflective) but I agree that poly or 1.6 would also be fine. Regular plastic is fine, but it just won't be as thin. For me, I like thin lenses, they go on the face after all.

  17. #17
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi
    One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.
    Jedi,


    Using 1.67 index, +5BC and 1.0CT the magnification is -.3%. Increasing the thickness to 2mm gives -.6%.

    Regards
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  18. #18
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by shellrob
    I wonder why they don't roll and polish and just polish. What did they say was their reasoning?
    I didn't ask why they don't roll the lenses anymore. The salesperson just said they don't do that anymore, and I just left it at that. Roll & polish was $18 when it was offered. The current polish only option costs $9.99.

  19. #19
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Happylady
    I agree that 1.67 is probably overkill for a -3.25, but that price is REALLY cheap. Does the $70.00 include the non glare coat? I don't recommend 1.67 without it, the higher index lenses have more glare without it then cr-39.

    I think that Costo keeps their prices down by not using lots of different lenses. I think they use plastic, poly, and 1.67 and the only progressive my local Costco uses is Ovation.

    For $70.00 I don't think you can go wrong with 1.67(with a anti reflective) but I agree that poly or 1.6 would also be fine. Regular plastic is fine, but it just won't be as thin. For me, I like thin lenses, they go on the face after all.
    No, the $70 doesn't include the non-glare coat. That costs an additional $29.99. Yeah, I read somewhere that non-glare coating can improve optical quality on higher index lenses.

    The 1.67 lenses are definitely cheaper compared to what's available elsewhere, but I was worried about the optical quality, which is one of the reasons I went with the $20 CR-39 plastic. Also, they cost $50 less than the 1.67 lenses.

  20. #20
    Optician Extraordinaire
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere warm
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,130
    I don't like roll and polishes nearly as much as just a polish. The reason is the roll shows when you look at the lens from the front. The roll is just flattening the back edge of the lens and it makes it look thick from the front. A polish is much more attractive.

  21. #21
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2

    Lens Lady

    I would recommend the Phoenix Trivex material. It will give you the best abbe value at 43. Poly will only allow 30 abbe. The higher index materials will sacrifice your optics as well. The human eye abbe value is 45 so you will get the best with this material. The cost is about what poly would be. The higher index will be more expensive and not warranted.

  22. #22
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2

    Lens Lady

    ditto

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Man if he is selling 167 for only $50 extra. You should have bought it while you could, my wholesale costs are higher than this. But since you asked the question you cannot afford anyway.

    "If you have to ask, you cannot afford."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What makes a safety frame safe?
    By Jedi in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 09:39 AM
  2. Review: Seiko 1.67 High Index (MR-10 Resin)
    By johnnyoptical in forum Optical Product Review Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-12-2005, 08:06 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2005, 06:56 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2002, 12:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •